2009-04-29
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Wanguri, Mr Henderson, be granted leave of absence for Wednesday, 29 April and Thursday, 30 April to attend COAG.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Araluen, Ms Carney, be granted leave of absence for this day and tomorrow on account of ill health.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for Wednesday, 29 April 2009, for the member for Wanguri and the pair is with the member for Araluen; and for Thursday, 30 April 2009, for the member for Wanguri and the pair is the member for Sanderson. It has been signed by both the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Orders of the Day, Government Business relating to the following business items be discharged from the Notice Paper: Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Draft Bill; Ministerial Statement titled Economic Direction of the Third Labor Government; and Ministerial Statement titled Increasing Police Presence.
Madam Speaker, the bill relates to a draft exposure that was put before the public, the other two items have been superseded by budget announcements.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Speaking to the motion, Madam Speaker. This is a demonstration of how this government operates. It comes into this place and loads up the Notice Paper with business and matters that are important to them and then withdraws those matters from the Notice Paper before every member of this Chamber has had an opportunity to speak.
Some of the items have been sitting on the Notice Paper since last year. We have had members complain and I know, particularly, that the member for Nelson wished to speak on these issues. To have the government waltz in, without notice, I add, and withdraw these matters and important discussions from the Notice Paper is nothing shy of politically disgusting.
This is an outrage to the people of the Northern Territory. The people who sit in this Chamber have the voice of the people of the Northern Territory. For the government to waltz in and introduce items it considers to be so important that it has ministerial statements on them, such as Increasing Police Presence which has been sitting on the Notice Paper since 18 September 2008, a grandstanding statement by the Chief Minister which has not been adequately replied to, to have it now withdrawn from the Notice Paper so Territorians are deprived of their voice is typical of how this government has come to operate in this House.
Mr Mills: Arrogance, arrogance!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the arrogance that is being displayed by this government mounts every day. As a member of this Chamber, I am ropable that other people in this House - on both sides of the House - have been deprived of their voices and of the opportunity to speak on important issues that matter to us.
We were quite happy to spend hours yesterday debating whether the legislation in relation to the declaration of plagiarism in the legal profession should be passed into law. The government was quite happy to do that for hours. However, should we want to come into this place and speak about the economic direction of the Labor government – no, you are not going to talk about the economic direction of the Labor government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We are not going to talk about that; it does not want to talk about itself. When would it be a more important time to be speaking about the economic direction of the Labor government than now - today?
You have no decency, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: You have no decency. Madam Speaker, what is being perpetrated today is an outrage, and the dead hand of this government, yet again, falls upon the mouths and noses of the people in this place so that we suffocate under the weight of their political arrogance ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have received no notice of this and I will be voting against this motion. These matters need to be discussed. If the government thinks it is so important to bring these issues into this House, then the government should be prepared to debate them out. If it was not for its astonishing laziness, its astonishing ineptitude, or that it is not even able to govern itself, let alone the rest of the Northern Territory, it would not have to do these sorts of things. The fact is it does.
I and members on this side of the House are outraged, as well as Territorians who will be deprived of their voice, as a result of this disgusting political charade.
As far as government members are concerned, they think that this House is a vehicle by which they can grandstand and cover themselves in laurels and triumph. All they do by coming into this House and treating it in such a contemptible fashion is to cover themselves in …
Mr Mills: In shame.
Mr ELFERINK: … in shame. Thank you. It was not the word that I had in mind and I am grateful that you have given me a better one.
I am furious about this for many reasons. One of the courtesies in this House is that when the government is going to pull a stunt like this it gives some notice. Let us keep this real. Let us talk about how we deal with each other in this House. The government has waltzed in, without telling us, and said: ‘These items will be taken off the Notice Paper. Hopefully they will not notice what the government is up to’. What was wrong with picking up the phone last night and saying: ‘The government is going to pull this off the Notice Paper?’ This is an absolute outrage. Some members have not had an opportunity to speak on these items. This government stands condemned, buried in its own arrogance and hypocrisy.
I will be standing up for the people of Port Darwin and voting against this dreadful, awful, despicable, and arrogant motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will also vote against this motion. One of the reasons the government changed the way we operate our parliament by increasing the number of days was so that we could get through more work. There were complaints that we were not getting through enough work so they decided to change the standing orders.
These bills were adjourned on 16 and 18 September 2008. Why have they not been debated since then? The previous sittings had an extra sitting day. Those bills could have been brought on then.
It highlights to me that in previous sittings we had an approach to these particular issues that if it went past a certain time we would adjourn and go to the adjournment debate and go home. This proves the point that this is a poor way of debating these statements. For instance, some members would have debated these bills on 18 September. The members who did not debate those items would then wait until the government brought them back for further debate. Two things would have happened. If you were really interested in these debates, you would be waiting to give your response, or by the time they came back to parliament, you would have forgotten them, or they would have become nearly irrelevant.
Unfortunately, what we have is a classic example of these important issues being put forward to parliament and left on the paper for sitting after sitting. Members hoping that there would be an opportunity to debate them, now find they are going to be totally wiped.
Two approaches are needed when the government brings forward a statement for debate. It should allow that debate to be finished during the sittings and it should not be allowed to take items off the paper without full consultation with the people in this parliament.
From a practical point of view, I might have spent some time researching one of these items, put together a speech and kept it in a file waiting for the day when it would be debated, only to find that today it has been scrapped. There is much hard work for nothing.
There are some practical reasons why we should finish the debate on these matters. Instead of dropping those items let us bring items 9, 10, and 11 on and debate them when we finish GBD today, or bring them on tomorrow, debate them and get rid of them.
Do not bring on any new statements. We still have the statement on 2030. Do not bring any new statements on until we have cleared some of the statements on the paper. This would ensure that everyone who wanted to have a say had the opportunity. I might not have wanted to say something on all these issues. They are so long ago I cannot remember if I have spoken on them.
There are many reasons why the system of making ministerial statements needs to be sorted out to ensure that issues are debated at the time. This would ensure that issues remain relevant. It would also allow every member to have a say at the time, and not waste their time preparing for something that may never happen. In this case, if you have been preparing to debate these issues, they are not going to happen.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government to change its mind on this issue and leave them on the Notice Paper. We have tomorrow. If there are members who would like to complete the debate on these issues that would give them an opportunity. That is a far better way to run the system, rather than take them off. I would prefer for the debate on ministerial statements to be completed on the day or in those same sittings, so that they remain relevant and everyone has a chance to debate the issue.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, this is a serious outrage. As the member for Nelson said, not more than a couple of months ago, we sat in this room working out ways we could reduce our sitting hours. We now start at 10 am, have a two hour lunch break, or an hour lunch break, and then knock off at 9 pm.
Ms Lawrie: 10 o’clock.
Mr TOLLNER: At that time, I was arguing about what if there are items still to be discussed. Surely we can sit later; surely we can add extra days. Sure enough, we walk in today and the Leader of Government Business sweeps in like a fox, stands up at the first opportunity and tries to remove items from the Notice Paper; items that some of us want to discuss.
I am fortunate to have spoken on one of those items. There were another two I wanted to speak on; one which I particularly wanted to speak on – and I hope every member wanted to speak on it – which is Increasing Police Presence, Making Communities Safer.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is a major failure of your government. That is what this is about. You know it is a failure. You know the government has failed in that area – now you are trying to hide it. You have taken it off the Notice Paper. You curs! This is disgusting – arrogant curs. Leave it on the Notice Paper – let us discuss it. This is the biggest issue for any government - keeping its citizens safe.
‘On our GBD’, says the Leader of Government Business. It is only on our day that we have the opportunity - once every three months – to talk about law and order and crime in the community. Today is the only day. That is the only day you blokes want to discuss it.
It is absolutely appalling. You sneak away from this issue every time it is raised. Yesterday I made a point about it – four interjections from you, Leader of Government Business – standing up and saying, ‘oh no, you are not relevant, you cannot talk about this now. You cannot talk about this now.’ You did not let me talk; you took every opportunity you could to try to shut me down. You know, I know, and the member for Karama knows, because she has described her own electorate as a war zone. She knows it is …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is misleading parliament. I have never described my electorate as a war zone. A residents’ meeting many years ago did. It is a beautiful place …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I invite you to come out and visit. Come and visit the water park.
Mr TOLLNER: My kids went out to the opening of the water …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I am speaking, thank you. While there is no point of order, Deputy Chief Minister, you may approach me about making a personal explanation about the matter if you wish to.
Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair. Remember that we speak in the third person and not directly to members opposite.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I apologise. The member for Karama knows that her electorate is a war zone. My children went to the opening of the water park in Leanyer, somewhere near her electorate. Guess what? There was a riot. There was a riot in my electorate only a couple of days ago. Every time you open the newspaper there are stories of crime, antisocial behaviour, and drunkenness, yet you people do not want to discuss it. You do not think it is important – you drag it off the Notice Paper. Get real.
First, you have to be in bed by 9 pm because, in the words of, I believe, the member for Karama, if she does not get enough sleep she cannot function properly. We sit for 35 days a year and she cannot get past 9 pm without dozing off; she cannot function after 9 pm.
Ms Lawrie: You are bizarre.
Mr TOLLNER: They are your words.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim knows that he needs to direct his comments through the Chair.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. Can you please ask the government to stop interjecting while the member for Fong Lim is talking?
Madam SPEAKER: I have called order a number of times. Government members and opposition members, please cease interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I apologise. I should direct my comments through you. I am very worked up about the issue of increasing the police presence and making our community safer. These issues are very dear to my heart. They are issues that every member on this side of the Chamber is very interested in. I am amazed that the government is not interested in them.
Every time you turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, go to the markets at Rapid Creek, or talk to anyone in your electorates, they are really only talking about one thing: the lawlessness in our society and the way things are getting out of hand.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go again, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business interjects, saying that he wants to talk about 340 extra police. Bring it on, buddy. I want to talk about the 340 extra police too, so why are you dragging it off the Notice Paper? How appalling are these people, Madam Speaker? I am sure you have crime problems in Nightcliff, Madam Speaker. I am sure the member for Johnston has crime problems in Jingili. I am sure that everywhere we look around the Northern Territory, from Darwin to Alice Springs and beyond, there are crime problems and issues with safety in our community. That is what we want to discuss.
I am absolutely disgusted that this government has, one, cut the hours that this parliament can sit, and two, that they want to drag important items off the Notice Paper. I register my absolute outrage, Madam Speaker. I intend to vote against the motion of the Leader of Government Business. There will be a division if he continues to pursue this matter further.
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, we know that the opposition is simply about grandstanding …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: He cannot help himself. At the core of the matters before us, which are being removed from the Notice Paper, are three items.
The first is the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment draft bill. Since that was introduced we have introduced the domestic violence mandatory reporting bill into the Chamber. We introduced it, debated it at length, and we are the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to have mandatory domestic violence reporting. We are withdrawing it now because it was superseded by the actual legislation, which is world first legislation that was debated at length in this Chamber and in the community, and still continues to be debated, as it should be, as an issue of significant importance to the Territory. Why? Because, sadly, domestic violence makes up more than 50% of assault cases across the Territory, and we must change that. We have had fulsome debate in this Chamber on domestic violence. It was a draft bill that was followed up and superseded by the actual legislation that came before this House, went through rigorous debate, has been enacted, and is world first. We have gone where no other parliament and legislation has gone in the mandatory reporting of domestic violence and that is the universal mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
Regarding the Economic Direction of the Third Labor Government statement, there was debate at the time on that statement; it is not a bill, member for Nelson, it is a statement. What has occurred since then? You have to be living in a burrow somewhere not to have noticed the global financial crisis.
Since then we have debated the mid-year report by the government that I, as Treasurer, hand down, which talks about the financial and economic circumstances of the Territory. We have had fulsome debate on that. I invite the opposition to ask questions about the economic situation in the Territory and they avoid them.
Next week, as Treasurer, I will be handing down the budget, which is at the core of delivering the economic picture of what the Territory is like now and also going forward. Very genuine debate occurs on the economic situation in the Territory, led by the government because the opposition is missing in that space. That statement has been superseded by the global financial crisis and has changed circumstances dramatically. Those circumstances have been debated through the mid-year report debates we have had in this parliament. They will be debated in detail when I deliver the budget next week and the opposition replies. I invite the shadow ministers to participate fulsomely in the budget debate, for a change, because you normally sit there and wait.
In terms of police, Madam Speaker, the opposition would have Territorians believe that there is not a debate almost every day in this parliament on police and law and order. It is very hard to recall a day in this parliament when, at some time during the sitting, we do not debate police or law and order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: It occurs all the time and both sides of this parliament raise it. The government talks about the increase in police numbers - the 340 extra police. The government talks about how that has led to more arrests, how it is impacting on the court system, how it has led to more prisoners in our gaols, how it is resourcing, and about the Police Beats that the government is establishing that the opposition do not want. The government is talking about the Police Beats that it is putting into shopping centres to help improve community safety.
There is not a day that goes by in this parliament, that I can recall, when we are not in some way debating police and the issue of law and order. We are all genuinely concerned about improving community safety across the Territory - not just the urban centres, but the regional and remote centres …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: It is this Labor government, working with the federal Labor government, that is delivering more police across the Territory, particularly in the regions where they have not existed previously due to the decades of neglect from the CLP because they did not want to service the bush. We are now reaping the results in the area of antisocial behaviour of those decades of neglect in the Territory. If you ignore and deny that, then you are a fool. You do not understand the causes that lead to the symptoms that we are now recognising across the Territory. We have this debate all the time and we will continue to have this debate, as we should, because these issues are of great importance to the Territory. We welcome it.
The content of the two statements has been superseded by significant changes since then, both in economics and the police. The DV was a draft bill that has since been introduced as legislation, debated in full and passed. We are world first – the only place in the world with universal mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
They can grandstand all they like but all of these matters have been superseded. I have explained how and in what way. The Leader of Government Business is ensuring that the Notice Paper remains contemporary.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I, and anyone who has a place in this parliament to represent the good people of the Northern Territory, will strongly oppose this motion on these grounds.
This is a parliament to express the will of the people of the Northern Territory. It is not a vehicle to advance the interests of the elected government. When you have a look at the dates of these statements and when they were put on the Table, we see the true nature of this beast: its interest is self. This is simply for self-promotion. It was to create an impression. We want to know that the people of the Territory are cared more about than the capacity of this government to invest all its energy into a media release, a statement, a gesture, that is to elevate its own perception and profile in the Northern Territory community.
I oppose it on these grounds. It demonstrates that the actions of this government show a complete disregard for the interests of Territorians. One way the government can redeem itself is to make an admission that, from this point on, any time a statement is brought before this parliament it will go on and off in that session. That would demonstrate whether you are genuine, or whether it is the ‘hollowmen’ upstairs breathing life into some strategy that will create some kind of impression, with yourself at the centre of it.
Let us recognise what this parliament is about and bring back some dignity. Do not put things on the Table that you have no intention of putting your heart into, to address issues that are of concern to the people who made the decision to vote for us and put us in this Chamber so that we can represent them.
On this basis, I want to hear an admission that you are never again going to put anything on this Notice Paper that you will not take off at the end of the session. Show us you are genuine. Show us by your actions - by which we have seen that you are not genuine - to invest good taxpayers’ money into promoting yourselves across the community. You are happy to give those who were unsuccessful in the last Territory election some money, to put them out there to promote the government through glossy brochures. You even use the parliament; this attitude affects the parliament. You put things on the Notice Paper for presentation purposes only, with no interest whatsoever in advancing the true interests of Territorians but only your own political interests. I strongly oppose this motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, if there are no more speakers, I will conclude this debate. I have listened carefully to what the opposition has said, and I believe it is a little showy of them to do this, when a couple of their number - including the member for Port Darwin - have taken items off the Notice Paper in recent times. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
Moreover, the Deputy Chief Minister articulated that these items have been superseded, starting with the exposure Bill, the draft bill for Domestic and Family Violence. That was done as an exposure draft so it could go out for public comment and input, and that is exactly what happened. The government listened to that input and we amended the act to take into account some of the concerns that were raised with us, particularly by groups involved in escape planning for people who are affected by domestic violence and giving them some flexibility around trying to support those people, particularly women, who are trying to get out of very abusive circumstances without putting a number of people in danger. I believe it was quite appropriate that the draft bill was put out for comment, and it is quite appropriate that it be taken off the Notice Paper now.
Regarding the other matters that have been removed, as the Treasurer pointed out, there has been a profound change in the economic world, in the world at large, with the global financial crisis. It is time that we had a contemporary debate about the economic situation of the Northern Territory. We will be doing that. Each one of us will be doing that about the budget, and that is crucial to Territorians. That is a contemporary debate.
In terms of police and police matters, as the Deputy Chief Minister outlined, there have been changes there also. There have been budget announcements. This government is willing to debate police matters at any time. We are debating them today. They have been raised by the opposition and we have taken up about 20 minutes debating this particular issue, when we could be debating the same issues that the member for Fong Lim has raised. It will be a little repetitive.
Let us get on to the General Business Day and go through the business of this parliament. That is what this government is all about. We have flexibly addressed issues on the Notice Paper, to clean it up, unlike the opposition which every General Business Day clogs the Notice Paper with things they take off, then put on, which are incredibly repetitive. This government is interested in business, not show.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Mr Elferink
Dr Burns Mr Giles
Mr Gunner Mr Mills
Mr Hampton Ms Purick
Mr Knight Mr Styles
Ms Lawrie Mr Tollner
Mr McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms McCarthy Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Asian Relations): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory’s engagement with the Asian region in order to advance Territory interests is a priority for this government.
The Asian region includes the Northern Territory’s key trade and investment partners and there are links to many other fields including tourism, education, sport, and culture. The government maintains its engagement with the Asian region by such means as ministerial and official missions focused on specific interests and opportunities. These include outward business missions and encouraging inward visits by buyers and investors; select cooperative projects with regional neighbours for mutual benefit; targeted funding support for trade development activities by Territory businesses; contributions to offshore and onshore conferences; and sporting and cultural events.
Over the last eight years, this government has had significant engagement with the countries in our region including China, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
China is the Territory’s second largest trading partner with almost $1.5bn dollars in 2007-08. Chinese-based companies continue to invest significantly in the Territory creating new job opportunities, stimulating economic growth and sustaining our lifestyle. The government and the business community attach high priority to the trade and investment relationship with China. Exports of minerals and services including tourism, education and training, and investment attraction activity in the mining sector are the main focus of interest.
A key element underpinning our growing relationship will be the Territory’s participation in the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. On 23 April 2009, I attended the signing ceremony in Darwin with the Commonwealth government establishing the Northern Territory as a silver sponsor of the Australian Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo. It is projected that during the six month period, seven million people will visit the Australian Pavilion. This event will become a showpiece for the Territory to demonstrate its many capabilities and advantages to China, but also, importantly, bring the world to our doors to open new trade and investment opportunities.
Ministerial travel into Asia is undertaken where necessary to advance the Northern Territory’s interests. In May, immediately after these sittings, I plan to visit Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan to advance Northern Territory interests in various portfolio areas including Asian Relations, Defence Support, Business, Trade, and Tourism.
In Indonesia, as I outlined yesterday, I plan to meet with government ministers and senior executives of Garuda to further consolidate our bilateral relationship and to discuss the temporary cessation of air services between Darwin and Bali.
In Singapore, I intend to call on the Minister for Defence and the head of the Singapore Air Force to strengthen our bilateral ties in relation to Darwin as a military training and exercise venue.
In Vietnam, I propose to continue to foster strong relationships with the central government of Vietnam which will underpin current and future trade opportunities in live cattle and international student enrolments in the Territory. A further objective of the visit will be to continue to position the Northern Territory as a modern and sophisticated travel and trade destination with direct air links to Vietnam via Ho Chi Minh City.
The visit to Japan is aimed at continuing to strengthen the close ties between the government and key investors such as INPEX. Informally, with INPEX FEED contractors, the visit is aimed at directly demonstrating the local Territory-based industry capability which is available during the construction and operation phases of the project. I will also be participating in an Austrade sponsored mineral seminar to promote the Territory as ready for further mineral and energy exploration and production investment.
As part of the China Investment Attraction Strategy, the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources will lead the Territory delegation in May 2009 to run NT investment seminars in Shanghai.
In late May, the Chief Minister will be travelling to Timor-Leste, accompanied by myself and minister Knight, to attend an inaugural meeting of the NT Timor-Leste Ministerial Forum, a very important forum. We will be accompanied by a delegation of Territory business and community leaders to further develop our people-to-people contact and commercial links with Timor-Leste.
Under the Henderson government, the Territory-Asian engagement and trade strategies will continue to receive priority focus. I will work hard to see export revenues grow for Territory-based businesses.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a reactive move on behalf of the government. Anyone who has familiarity with the proud history of the Northern Territory and its proactive engagement with the region, with a clear vision that was well coordinated and led by the government of the past, would know that it has dropped, decayed, and fallen away.
All those words mean nothing. If you cannot give us an account of what you mean by your vision, how can you measure that vision? For example, tell us how many kids in our schools learn Mandarin or Indonesian? I came here in 1989. Many of us across the country were looking at Darwin because it was punching well above weight and recognised the need to strategically engage our near neighbour, in this case Indonesia. How many kids learn Indonesian? How many of our teachers are equipped to teach Indonesian? What cultural programs are run in the public sector? How many are held today?
You talk about relations and trade, but you cannot promote the great possibilities of trade without first building relations. Those relationships begin with people-to-people exchanges; kids being able to speak the language. How many exchanges have been conducted and sponsored to support this great vision? The public sector programs that were once run, and the art and cultural exchanges - how many are there now? What sort of funding is going into this specific aspect of this great strategy? What about the sport exchanges? The Arafura School Games was once a very innovative vehicle for engagement of our students and our community into the eastern provinces, which has now disappeared. We still have the Arafura Games, but is that actually connected to this vision? Let us hear about it. We will hear reference to that, but that was put in place to advance this vision. You have lost the way and, under Labor, Indonesia has disappeared from the map.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I take up from the Leader of the Opposition’s statement about people-to-people contact.
I remind the House that schools like Taminmin High School have an exchange program each year with a school in Japan. One year, Taminmin High School students go to Japan and the next year the Japanese high school students come to Taminmin High. It is a very worthwhile exchange.
That raises the point of how much contact the Territory government has with Japan. Unfortunately, we export all of our LNG to Japan, and we look like we are going to establish a much bigger LNG plant, through INPEX, which will also export all its gas to Japan. I am interested to know what contacts we have with Japan, as they would be a major trading partner with the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Asian Relations): Madam Speaker, in answer to the member for Nelson, there are very regular contacts with Japan. They are a very important business and tourism relation and we are always looking to build those relationships.
In answer to the member for Blain, Bahasa Indonesia is taught in a number of schools across the Territory, and, increasingly, Mandarin. My wife is learning Mandarin at Casuarina Senior College and she is very enthusiastic about that.
We are a government with a trade strategy. You ask how we measure it. The Territory trade goods surplus increased by $793m in the year to February 2009; a $793m increase to a surplus of $2.9m. We are focused on getting results and I believe we are achieving results. I am looking forward to my first trip in this portfolio area to a range of countries where we are building trade and relationships.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the Henderson government’s plans for investment in essential services in remote Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
The Territory government will invest $67m in Budget 2009-10 to improve power, water, and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities. This investment includes $18.9m for the Indigenous Essential Services Program, a boost of $3.95m. We are committed to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage and a part of that is improving essential services in the bush.
This work is not just about improving essential services. It is also about regional development and creating jobs. The increasing age of some of our essential service infrastructure in communities has contributed to the need for upgrading and replacement. We will fast-track these upgrades.
This government knows that the demand for power and water will continue to grow as the population in remote areas increases, and more homes, schools and health facilities are built and upgraded. Furthermore, this investment links with, and builds upon, our continued focus on remote communities through initiatives such as the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, the record $672m joint housing investment by the Northern Territory and Australian governments. Improving essential services, along with housing upgrades, will improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians. We look forward to inspecting the SIHIP project works under way on the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt, and in Tennant Creek over the next few weeks.
Increasing Indigenous essential services funding will help us plan for the future. It builds upon, and improves and delivers new infrastructure for electricity, water, and sewerage services.
The Indigenous Essential Services Program for the Territory in Budget 2009-10 will deliver real benefits to regions, which include:
in the Barkly region: $1.6m for a new power station at Alpurrurulam; and $450 000 for water source development
and production bore drilling at Alpurrurulam;
and $420 000 to replace the ground-level storage tank at Wilora;
equipping of new production bores at Rittarangu; $450 000 for upgrade work at Beswick; and $450 000 for upgrade
works at Barunga; and
repairs to existing elevated water storage and to provide additional storage capacity at Warruwi; and $600 000 has been
allocated for extending the power station and upgrading the fuel bunding in Warruwi. This is significant.
The Henderson government recognises the need to improve essential services for Territorians in remote communities. It is about growing the Territory’s services, investing in our regions, and delivering real results for Territorians. This funding will be delivered through partnerships with shire councils, pastoralists, and private contractors which employ essential services officers based in communities to undertake the day-to-day operational responsibilities.
Budget 2009-10 will focus on building the Territory and protecting Territory jobs. This funding delivers on that commitment.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): You have to be joking! Honestly, you waltz into this place and start banging on about the great work that you are doing in the bush keeping our essential services up to speed because there has been decay in those essential services. No, pooh-pooh, Sherlock, really. You do not have to travel that far to realise how poorly our essential services have been maintained. A trip to the Casuarina Zone Substation or transformer last week, which shut down 3000 households, should give you an indication of the quality and condition of our essential services.
The budget will also announce huge borrowings because this government has failed to squirrel away the $1.2bn of extra unexpected income they received over the last few years to invest that in essential services. They have failed miserably.
Up comes the borrowing, and who is paying? The taxpayers of the Northern Territory are paying, because they happen to use power. And guess what? They are also paying through the bills they have to pay now. A 25% increase – the government likes to say 23% - but if you work out the compounding factor of 18% and 5%, it is closer to a 25% increase in power and water fees in the next two years, and this government is banging on about what a great job it is doing in essential services. They should hang their heads in shame.
How can we tell when this government is not being honest? It is when their lips are moving. This was demonstrated so ably last night by the member for Braitling who pointed out that they claim $2.6m for the Tennant Creek and Katherine sobering-up shelters. But oops, they are not happening now. It is in your budget from last year and I urge you to look at your regional and remote infrastructure, page 10 on Closing the Gap and you will discover how deceitful you really are. You are a disgrace and I am gobsmacked at the audacity of the people opposite.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Having listened to the report, I understand where the government is spending its money, but I would like to know what its real vision is for remote communities when it comes to energy and how energy is sourced.
There is much talk from this government about how environmentally friendly it is, yet, where is it going with some of these very isolated communities in relation to solar and wind?
If you go to Epenarra you will see a huge wind tower that has broken down and is standing idle, for whatever reason. It seems to be symbolic of where we have gone with using renewable energy sources in areas where they should be used, that is in the remote areas, where there is very little manufacturing industry required. Why are we not pushing that type of energy source in those areas? Also, what are we doing to extend the gas that we are getting from Blacktip out to some of these communities so we have less reliance on diesel? I would like to see the government’s vision in that area.
I ask if the government could give us some more debate and discussion about its position for the supply of energy. If I stood up to discuss whether we, as one of the biggest uranium exporters in Australia, could talk about the possibilities of nuclear power, I would be pooh-poohed. But I expect the government to give me an alternative to power in the Northern Territory. That is the use of renewable resources or the use of gas throughout the Northern Territory. We need to debate about energy. We need to be doing the upgrades that the minister is talking about. I have no problem with that. But I would like to see the government’s vision and where it intends to go in relation to long-term energy demands, especially for remote areas of the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. The opposition team is a little confused where the services are being delivered in the bush. The Indigenous Essential Services program operates under the Local Government portfolio, for which the member for Katherine is the shadow. They are a little confused on the other side and they did not mention the Territorians that these services will be delivered to. The poor maintenance comes back to the CLP’s legacy in this area – it is a dangerous area.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Can you stop the clock, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am not stopping the clock. Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Nelson raised a few points. There is the outstation policy being developed, member for Nelson, and that will inform many of the decisions in the future. There are solar farm projects operating at the moment and there are some considerations about the Blacktip gas and utilisation from that for those communities. There is work being done but it needs to be finalised.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I report on my decision to close Fog Bay to commercial barramundi fishing.
We recognise that fishing is a way of life for many Territorians. Per capita we have the highest recreational fishing participation rates in the nation. Territorians also own more boats than any other Australian jurisdiction and the chance of catching a prized barra lures many visitors to the Territory. Our fish stocks support the viable fishing industry, which supplies to those who are unable to catch their own.
We know how important it is to protect our fishery resources and to act immediately when threat arises. Globally, all sawfish species have been listed as critically endangered. Photos and video have emerged revealing that large numbers of sawfish have been killed as a result of commercial barramundi netting in Fog Bay. These sawfish deaths occurred over a number of days.
I have now used my emergency powers to close Fog Bay to commercial barramundi fishing. This will remain in force for 90 days while permanent arrangements are implemented.
Commercial fishers have a voluntary Code of Practice to minimise impacts on non-target species. The code requires that:
However, the voluntary code did not prevent a large number of sawfish from being killed. Obviously the code has not been followed. I will now legislate these codes to make them enforceable.
We understand how important fishing is and we are undertaking a range of initiatives to ensure that it remains sustainable into the future. We are prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure our fishery resources are not pushed beyond their limits. Prominent among these decisions is our election promise to buy back commercial fishing licences. We have already bought back one barramundi licence and are currently negotiating the purchase of another two, as part of the commitment to buy back six barramundi licences during this term.
Given the considerable concern about the impact of barramundi fishing on sawfish for bait and this government’s election commitment to buy back commercial fishing licences, I have advised commercial fishers that I will be seeking a permanent closure to barramundi fishing in Fog Bay. This decision has been made and it has been widely welcomed. In the words of AFANT: ‘We congratulate government on jumping right in to fix this problem’.
A consultative process will commence shortly in seeking the permanent closure of Fog Bay to commercial barramundi fishers. I move that the Assembly take note of this report.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. The sudden closure of Fog Bay is this government’s knee-jerk reaction to what it saw as an aberration, something that was unusual in the fishing industry, with the well publicised catch of the sawfish in Fog Bay.
I advise the House that, sad as it is, there are a number of species that are caught quite frequently as by-catch, not only in the barramundi fishery but also in other fisheries in the Northern Territory.
This matter has been made more public because one fisherman was caught on film with sawfish in the nets. As a result of a neap tide the fish, which would normally have been washed back into the ocean, settled on the mud bank to be exposed …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The issue is that the minister has chosen to punish the whole of the commercial fishery that use the area of Fog Bay, rather than deal specifically with one operator who may have been in breach of the voluntary guidelines which they are supposed to follow.
I raised this as an issue with the minister a little while ago, who was quite stern about continuing with the course of action. I advised him that it was incorrect and I still believe it to be incorrect. I believe that the use of his emergency powers under the Fisheries Act is quite misplaced. It is not what they were designed to do ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I believe there are two issues here. There is the issue of what happened at Fog Bay and how the fish ended up there. If someone did the wrong thing, the government should act on that. But to bring in this other debate about closing fisheries, reducing licences, quoting AFANT, a lobby group for the amateur fishermen - I have no problem with that, I get on very well with Chris Makepeace. We also have the Barramundi Fishing Association and I am interested to know whether the minister has had discussions with them.
I believe we need a barramundi eating association. There are people in the Northern Territory who do not own a boat, who are not able to go fishing. I am not knocking the people who do go fishing - good luck to them - I wish I had the time to do many of those things. I believe many Territorians would like to eat Territory wild catch barramundi at a reasonable price.
The more we reduce our licences, the dearer the barramundi will get. If you go to Fisherman’s Wharf and have a look at the price of wild catch Territory barramundi, it is extremely high - it is $24 per kilogram. It is expensive enough as it is. If we keep closing our fishing areas to commercial fishermen we are going to be eating either very expensive wild catch fish or imported fish. We have a government that is pushing us to buy Territory products, but we are making it harder for people to buy Territory products.
We need to get some balance in this debate. It is not all about amateur fishing. It is about the community being able to access fish, our wonderful Territory barramundi, and I will throw in thread-fin salmon, because I prefer that, but it is normally caught at the same time. We need to balance the argument about how much we are going to close to commercial and how much we are going to allow for the use of amateurs, because they take a lot of fish as well. You see the pictures in the paper every day. There are many barramundi and other fish being caught. We need to balance the argument.
By all means, punish the people who have done the wrong thing, but do not let us forget those people who like barramundi ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired. Minister in reply.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, there are two issues. The first is – and I challenge the member for Katherine - that was not an accidental catch and release of fish that died because of a neap tide. It was a deliberate killing of the fish and there is evidence. There are YouTube films and photographs that show the fisherman breaking the backs of the fish.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: In addition to that, the current arrangement with the Code of Practice does not allow me to penalise one particular fisherman and does away with the operation of the Fisheries Act. I need to make legislation to target the fishermen who break the law.
We will also be removing six barramundi licences in order to give better opportunities to the remaining barramundi fishermen to catch more fish.
As for barramundi products, there are many barramundi produced in the Territory in aquaculture. You must have some difficulty finding barramundi, but Ziko Ilic, Director, Darwin Fish Market says there is not much difficulty getting fresh barramundi:
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
1. Establishes a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee;
(i) to review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices
and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government; and
nominated by the Manager of Opposition Business; two members nominated by business associations (made up of a representative from the Business
Council, REINT, Chamber of Commerce, Cattlemen’s Association, Trucking Association, Construction Association, the MTAA, the HIA and any other organisation
agreed to by the chair and deputy chair) of the Northern Territory; a consumer advocate agreed to by the chair and deputy chair of the committee; and the
Northern Territory Ombudsman;
structure levels and terms and conditions of payment of meeting/sitting fees, travel allowances paid to Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee members
in similar terms to that of the Statehood Steering Committee; and
recommendations of the Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee.
Various jurisdictions across the world have established similar committees to review regulations and legislation that governments have enacted. The purpose of this Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee is that business should be relieved of the shackles of over-regulation by government.
It is my long held view that one of the best things that government can do for business is to get out of the way. Business is very good at doing business and, in most cases, do not need to be overregulated and overburdened by needless government laws and regulations. The committee we are proposing will be about reviewing legislative interest instruments to make the process of doing business in the Territory easier and simpler.
Access Economics released a report yesterday which suggests that in 12 months time there may be a doubling of unemployment in the Northern Territory. We also know that the world is going through some fairly tough financial times and that is going to impact heavily on the Australian economy and the Northern Territory economy. The last thing that businesses need in this environment is regulations and laws that restrict them doing business.
As legislators, we have an obligation to business to streamline our practices and ensure that doing business in the Northern Territory is one of the best - if not the best - places in the world to do business. One way of doing that is making sure that the laws and regulations we have do not impede business.
The member for Araluen articulated a number of scenarios in a similar motion that related to redundant or irrelevant legislation in a debate in this House on 10 October 2007, including comment on archaic laws of the operation of a horse and wagon and recognition of the modern methods available for information management. In the debate at the time, the Treasurer, minister Stirling, made the comment:
Prior to articulating the need for the Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee, the following questions need to be asked. Since 10 October 2007 what reviews have been done by the government? What has been undertaken? What restrictions to business have been removed, if any at all?
I have had personal experience in dealing with the government over the last few months since I was elected to this position. The government has had to supply the elected member for Fong Lim with an electorate office. The election was on 9 August last year, it is now the end of April, and we moved into our office this week. It is nine months since the election. It has taken government nine months to get a process under way so that an elected member of parliament can operate from an office.
I will not to go through all of the detail, but it has been one shemozzle after another trying to get into this office. We have operated from a temporary office since the end of last year. The temporary office would breach almost all work health requirements that are set down by this government. The ceiling leaked; there were wires hanging out of the ceiling. For the last three or four weeks, the air conditioners were not working. Why is that a problem? I have had to pardon my electorate officer from her work duties at 11 am or 12 o’clock every day because the temperature in the office reaches about 40C. It gets just too hot to work. Despite the fact that we have fans working, people cannot work in 40C or 45C heat.
The government’s regulation in that regard was ignored but simple things in relation to the fit-out of this office seemed to become extraordinarily difficult. For instance, I noticed on a wall where I wanted to put a TV mount that there was a little hole for a power point and an aerial about 60 cm from the ground. I said to the contractor: ‘That is in the wrong spot. It has to be higher; it has to be at the centre of the room’. He said: ‘Do not talk to me about it. You need to go back to the person in the department, talk to them and they will alter the plans’. Rather than simply move it - do something quite easy - it was not. This is one example of a number of issues.
We are dealing with a large array of different departments in the fit-out of an office. I am advised that the cost of this fit-out will be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can see that when I move in and the bills are made public, yours truly will feature again in the newspaper informing Territorians that I have cost them huge amounts of money, when yours truly has very little say in the whole process and cannot even talk to the contractor to ask them to move a power point. All these things add up and cost money.
That is a personal experience I had, but I am finding more and more that this is emblematic of processes that apply across government. I talked to a public servant in relation to my office. I did not realise who he was. I asked him how his day was going and he said: ‘Not too bad’. I said: ‘What are doing around here?’ He said: ‘I am looking at this office’. I said: ‘Mate, this has to be the greatest joke under the sun’. Only to find out that he is one of the people who are actually involved with it. He said to me: ‘Mate, you do not know half of what has gone on here’. I said: ‘How about we sit down one day and you can give me a quiet briefing about what you know about it’, and he said: ‘Mate, I have been pulling my hair out’.
I am not going to name that public servant because I realise that this government has a penchant for penalising and prosecuting public servants, and contractors who contract to government, whenever they speak out. I have spoken to a number of business people around the Territory who all have complaints, and I ask: ‘Why haven’t you put these complaints in writing? Why haven’t you made an issue of it?’ They say: ‘If we do that we get no more work. This government is quite keen and ruthless in making sure that we do not get our complaints aired in a public forum.’ That is a concern as well.
This mish-mash and mismanagement of the government spreads across a range of areas. For instance, the demands of the government in relation to the Bellamack development are causing many potential developers great anger. We hear so much about Bellamack because this is one of the great things that the government is doing. But it seems to be a process that drags on and on, seemingly without end.
The government is demanding that it receives a slice of the profits of Bellamack rather than simply selling the land at unimproved capital value to the approved developer. This places the government in a very odd position and gives it a vested interest in making sure that prices are high so that it can capitalise on that and receive more revenue. We have heard that on several occasions from people who have come to us. The authorisation for the minister to demand such contractual arrangements can be found in the Contracts Act. Perhaps business may, in this forum that we are proposing, recommend changes to that act which have remained unchanged since self-government. This may the prevent the government from engaging in commercial arrangements that place it in a position of being in conflict with its own social responsibilities, such as ensuring that there is affordable land.
We know that Bellamack is still a long way away from having a single house ready for sale. The government put out a release or information about how many houses it requires in the future. The government is falling behind its own targets because of its own regulation and legislation. This is another shameful area, where the government’s regulation is stifling growth and it is stifling housing for those people who require it.
I also know that the requirements of the government regarding compliance costs are a huge problem. There are many legislative instruments, such as tax regulations, that incur compliance costs for businesses. The most obvious is payroll tax. Payroll tax is a great example because the time it takes in meeting compliance issues cost businesses money. I am sure there is a range of ways that the compliance costs, in relation to payroll tax, can be removed. We know that 80% of payroll taxes come from 20% of the businesses that are required to pay it. I suggest that raising the threshold may exempt a range of smaller businesses in the Territory, and not impact greatly on the revenue that the government receives.
Another of the most contentious areas, probably the most contentious area of government in the business community, is that of the procurement. I understand that procurement is always going to be contentious, because every tender you put out only one business will win it and others will fail. Most business people believe they offer a superior service, that they deliver good value for money and when they are rejected from a particular tender, they often have their noses out of joint.
The area of procurement rankles people in many ways. It is very heavily regulated through subordinate legislation and one would hope that the process is fair and reasonable, but it remains a source of unending irritation for many. I know that the government will say that it has fixed some of these problems by increasing the procurement thresholds, making it easier for businesses to access tenders. However, there is a level of transparency required if government is going to do that.
One of the big concerns I have is that this level of transparency does not exist; it is very difficult to make the process completely transparent because of commercial sensitivities and the like. One way that it can be done is ensuring that there is a system of probity audits in place. Several years ago, for all contracts in excess of $1m there was an automatic probity audit carried out. That ceiling has been removed. I do not know, and I cannot ascertain, what the requirements now are for probity audits. Someone said to me they are going to be contentious but, I put it to the government, almost all tenders are contentious simply because you have a range of businesses applying for them. But there is a requirement to step up the number of probity audits that occur with tenders.
Probity audits give business the confidence that matters are being dealt with fairly. Providing there is a good, robust probity auditor doing their job properly, business will generally feel satisfied that they competed on a level playing field.
We heard the member for Daly banging on this morning about some of the infrastructure spending that the government is engaging in. Good on it. It is not before time; eight years of sitting around on your hands, still blaming the old government, and finally the penny has dropped. The system has rundown to the extent that you have to do something because the lights are going out and you have to spend some money on infrastructure. Well, beauty! Not before time.
The amount of paperwork that stands in the way of businesses applying for these contracts is a source of complaint and businesses complain bitterly about this. I have spoken to a number of business people who are complaining loudly about the cost of putting in tenders. I spoke to a business person the other day who was a failed bidder for quite a large contract, about $60m. It cost them in the vicinity of $0.75m to get that tender process put in place. $0.75m is a lot of money in anyone’s language, and that has to be an inhibiting factor in businesses wanting to apply for government work. I know that particular company is now seriously considering upping stumps and leaving the Territory because they have major problems in these areas.
Almost universally, across the business community, it is recognised that the government is a customer of last resort. It is only when things get really tight and bad that businesses will actively pursue government work. That is a sad indictment on the government. That tells you that the government is getting things wrong. There is too much paperwork and process, and too much of a mind screw to go through in order to win work, complete work, and report that the work has been done. This cannot continue the way it is. The government really needs to look at that.
There is a range of areas where the government is failing. However, we will not know exactly what those areas are until a complete study has been done. The suggestion that this Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee contains people from business associations is very important. It is those people who represent people at the coalface; the people who have to deal with the government. It is their views that are most important, and their views that need to be heard.
Organisations like the Chamber of Commerce can sit on that committee, can talk to their membership base and to other people in business and get real feedback. There is that real view out there - and I look at the minister and he is shaking his head wondering where I am going with this. Minister, you have to understand that there is the real view that this government has a penchant for penalising and punishing businesses and public servants who have the gall to criticise some of the processes of government. For the minister, or a politician from the government, to say: ‘We are constantly talking to business and we are hearing what they say’, business is only telling you what they think you want to hear. They are not telling you the real facts. The reason they are telling you what they think you want to hear is because they are scared of giving you the facts.
When we were in government and you guys were in opposition, maybe the same thing occurred. Maybe you were hearing stories from within the community that were negative about the government; that people were not game to say it because of some perceived view that they may be prosecuted or life would be made tough for them by the government of the day. That is a real issue in the business world at the moment: people are reluctant to say anything at all about you guys because they fear prosecution.
One way of making sure there is a flow of information to the government and to this parliament is to ensure we have a conduit for business to talk to. Business can go to its local representatives, its industry bodies – I recommended a number of them in this motion that should be included on this advisory committee - businesses should be able to go to those organisations and tell them legitimately, sincerely and honestly what their gripes are and have confidence that those organisations will report to the committee in an honest way and make some real change.
This is so important at this point in time. When Access Economics is predicting a doubling of the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory, from 4% to somewhere around 8%, we have to ensure that every job is important and that we maintain every job in our community. The best way of doing that is to ensure the government is streamlined and is not inhibiting business growth, development, or business people getting out there and making a buck. If businesses cannot make a buck, they cannot employ people. That is very important, and that is one of the fundamentals of running a strong economy.
This is an innovative proposal. The motion proposes that a number of experts, heads of peak bodies, and politicians work in a bipartisan way. This is not meant to be an attack on the government. It is meant to be a real effort at finding bipartisan solutions to problems that exist in the community. I know they exist. I have been going through it for the last nine months with the construction of my electorate office - there are real problems. I probably have 80% of the Northern Territory’s business in my electorate. When you take into account the port, Berrimah, Winnellie and the Coconut Grove Industrial Village there is a large business community within my electorate. I make every effort to talk to those people as often as I can and I hear horror stories.
Another example is tourism. The government is competing with business. We have an organisation called Territory Discoveries, an arm of Tourism NT, which is actively competing with every tourism agency in Darwin, and around the world.
Dr Burns: Not so.
Mr TOLLNER: The minister says ‘not so’. It just ran a campaign called Tell 20 - tell 20 of your mates to come to the Territory and you get $1000 towards a Territory holiday. Who was that available to then? Was that available to Jetset, Flight Centre, or the countless travel agents around the Territory? No, it only happened if you booked through Territory Discoveries. You find yourselves in direct competition with businesses all the time, in a whole range of different areas.
Dr Burns: You go out to the tourism industry and tell them you are going to take away Territory Discoveries. You do that. You do not understand.
Mr TOLLNER: I outlined Bellamack. ‘I do not understand’, is what the minister tells me. I look around on this side of the House and I see a whole whack of people who have been in business, people who know business, and people who talk to business. I look over there, and where are they? The minister has the gall to say that we do not understand. Minister, I do not want to get partisan about this. I am calling for a bipartisan effort because this is something that we should be working on.
I am glad to hear that the Chief Minister has trotted off to COAG. Maybe someone will get into his ear and talk about his National Competition Policy Commitments, because I cannot remember the last time that this government reviewed legislation and regulations in the Northern Territory.
When the global financial crisis is starting to bite and we are seeing unemployment numbers rising across the Territory, and there are early predictions of almost a doubling of unemployment in 12 months, I believe it is time to start streamlining some of our processes and making sure that business is not restricted in any way. Government has to get out of the way, and let business get on and do business. That is what we should be about: reducing regulations, red tape, and compliance costs. Compliance costs are a dreadful burden. Every time the government requires businesses to do paperwork is an employee that they might not be able to employ. We need to stop that.
Madam Speaker, I recommend this motion to the House most seriously.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to this motion. The member for Fong Lim has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the procurement processes, for a start, and the input that business can have through the government procurement council.
I will detail that soon, but there are already representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and other people from the Top End and Central Australia. What he is proposing to do, through this red tape committee - as I will call it - he calls it the Regulation Review Advisory Committee, there is some red tape at the start from the member’s proposal. Not only is it longer than it should be, but he is seeking to duplicate something that is already in existence.
He talked about over-regulation by the government. I believe it is a little rich of the member for Fong Lim to talk about that. He was the member for Solomon and part of the Howard government that oversaw the intervention and enshrined in legislation the $100 alcohol fee which no one in the liquor industry wanted. Everyone, including the general public, thought it was absolutely stupid. We are still trying to wind that back.
The other thing he did, being one of Mal Brough’s mates, is the income management stuff that went on. It excluded a whole range of Territory businesses from custom that they had for decades with Indigenous people up and down the Territory. The Mayor of Alice Springs is one of those. He told a story of his photographic business, which was excluded for some reason from this system. People could go to K-Mart and purchase their photos. He lost long-standing customers. He told me that it was possible for him to get on a list to allow people to purchase from him but it was a long and convoluted bureaucratic process. That was instituted by your government, the government you were a part of, enshrined in legislation, and people are still trying to wind that back. Yet you have the cheek and the gall to talk about red tape and over-regulation.
I will have a very measured response to everything you have said. However, I will remark on your electorate office. I believe that is very unfortunate, member for Fong Lim, and I do sympathise with you on that in a genuine way. I would not support anyone criticising you for the re-fit of your electorate office in Winnellie, within reasonable boundaries - which is in the middle of Fong Lim - because you have gone to the right place, and obviously it has taken some time and that is very unfortunate. I sympathise with you on that. I had a few refurbishments to do when I moved into the Millner electorate office, which are complete now. I am still settling in. There is a broom cupboard here and there that I would like, but they are fairly minor compared to the issues that you have had to deal with. I am sympathetic at that level, member for Fong Lim.
We are a pro-growth and pro-jobs government, and the fundamental priority of this government has been the creation of a competitive business environment for Northern Territory enterprises. Since coming to office, successive Labor governments have implemented reforms to support private sector growth and job creation, including red tape reduction.
It is very important to reflect on the Sensis forecast and the Sensis data that comes out on business confidence. Business confidence in the Northern Territory is the highest in the nation, by far. To some degree the Leader, no, not the Leader of the Opposition, sorry, I am getting ahead of myself …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The member for Fong Lim has probably become a bit of a lightning rod for negativity. You have to get out more, member for Fong Lim, and meet positive influences, rather than being a negative lightning rod, because they are there and Sensis shows that. It is important to come back to reality about business confidence in the Northern Territory, in spite of the global economic situation.
Mr Tollner: In spite of the government.
Dr BURNS: No, not in spite of the government, because I will demonstrate for you, member for Fong Lim, exactly what this government has done in this regard, and it is very impressive.
There has been continued reduction of business burdens through the progressive reduction on business taxation, especially for small and medium firms, and this is a key focus for the government. This covers, for example, as you raised, payroll tax reduction and stamp duty cuts. We keep on saying – you do not seem to listen, but I know business knows it – that this government is the smallest taxing jurisdiction on small business in Australia by a country mile, because we have progressively reformed payroll tax, and a whole range of other things, to the point that there are now literally hundreds of businesses that do not payroll tax that were paying payroll tax under the CLP government.
I know businesses appreciate it. They are always on our back to reduce it more, but I will leave announcements like that for the Treasurer, with the upcoming budget. This is a government that has shown over successive budgets - and we did make an overall commitment some years ago to progressively reduce payroll tax and we are abiding by that commitment, member for Fong Lim - there have been significant reductions.
The 2008-09 budget provided further tax savings for Territorians, including significant reductions to conveyancing stamp duty, saving Territory homebuyers and property investors a total of $12m per year; an increase in the stamp duty concession threshold for first homebuyers to $385 000. Further reduction in the payroll tax to 5.9% down from 6.2%, and the Northern Territory has the lowest recurrent taxes for small and medium businesses in Australia.
To support a competitive environment for Territory businesses, red tape and regulatory reduction has also been a continuing priority of the government. Whilst not exhaustive, there are a few examples I would like to give. The red tape review that you mentioned, regulation making policy and framework procurement reforms - which I have been part of - Northern Territory contribution to national reforms, a comprehensive review of business and legislation in the Northern Territory was completed in May 2004. The review was chaired by the then Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory, with committee members drawn from business and the government.
That particular review, in May 2004, examined current red tape; the impact of legislation and regulation on Northern Territory businesses; how red tape issues have been effectively addressed in other jurisdictions; and whether, in relation to Northern Territory processes for new amending legislation and regulation, the interaction with business is appropriately managed; options to improve current legislative and regulatory processes and/or licence packages, including hot spots in business sectors where pilots could be developed of alternative ways to achieve regulatory objectives and how they might be achieved.
The recommendations from the review aim to develop legislation and regulations through a process that is transparent, accountable, just, fair, democratic, participatory, and responsive to people’s needs.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned about people being scared and afraid to talk. I remember when we came to power in 2001, and subsequent to that until now, people say we have a level playing field now - no more silver circle - and we have an open and transparent tender process which is currently being reviewed. We have a proud record in tendering and process.
It was also to minimise the direct and indirect burden of compliance on business, government and agencies, improve the management of information and the coordination of its delivery across the whole of the Northern Territory government. The key recommendations have been implemented and they have contributed to reducing the burden on business and, most importantly, substantially reducing the development of unnecessary new regulatory burdens on business, industry and the wider community in the Northern Territory.
As a result of the red tape review, policies on the assessment of business and competition impacts of regulatory proposals and the current stock of NT regulation were developed. The role, function and operational arrangements for an effective regulation impact assessment process were approved and introduced in 2007. Compliance with these processes is a prerequisite for consideration of all new Territory regulatory and legislative proposals by government. Under the Northern Territory regulation and policy making framework regulation and competition impact statements are required for all proposals unless specifically examined.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned the issue of Territory Discoveries. Territory Discoveries has been around for a long while; it preceded this government. The role of Territory Discoveries is to sell travel and tourism products to people who are inbound into the Territory. In contrast, the majority of work that is carried out by travel agents you mentioned is mainly outbound. I did challenge - I was interjecting, maybe Hansard did not pick it up, but I will lay it on the record now. I challenge the member for Fong Lim to go out to the tourism industry and tell them that he was doing away with Territory Discoveries. That is a challenge for you, member for Fong Lim, because tourism operators, particularly the very small operators, are very supportive of Territory Discoveries and the way in which it sells and markets their products in a very successful way.
The government acknowledges that there are potential conflicts with Territory Discoveries. It is a tightrope, but the government - not only this government, but the CLP government that preceded us - very wisely decided that it was going to keep Territory Discoveries. It has a very important role. We need to clarify that role in its funding, its business activities, and that has occurred over the years. The Auditor-General looked at that particular issue. The member for Fong Lim might want to review some of the findings of the Auditor-General. It is a tickly issue; there is no doubt about that, member for Fong Lim, but if you got out and about with the tourism industry, particularly the smaller operators all around the Territory, you would find much support for Territory Discoveries.
I understand that there are some segments of the travel industry that would have a problem with Territory Discoveries but, overall, on balance, we need to keep Territory Discoveries and I believe the tourism industry wants us to keep Territory Discoveries.
As Minister for Tourism, I extend an invitation to you: the next time you are in Alice Springs if you want to have a tour and receive a briefing on Territory Discoveries, I am very happy to extend that to you, member for Fong Lim. They are very hard-working people there. There is at least 20 to 30 staff working in Alice Springs. It is an important employer in Alice Springs. They are very keen and it is great to see them selling the Territory to people inbound. That is its focus.
I mentioned the Government Procurement Council before; the member for Fong Lim’s motion seeks to replicate the Government Procurement Council. In a way, his committee is entirely redundant. The Government Procurement Council, established in 2003, advises the minister responsible for procurement - that is me - and comprises a very similar establishment that is proposed in the motion before this House today. The current membership includes the Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce, the Executive Officer of the Motor Trades Association, the General Manager of the Territory Construction Association, the Branch Secretary of Unions NT, three prominent industry representatives from private sector services, engineering and consulting disciplines.
I attended those meetings when I was procurement minister previously, and I have attended a meeting since. I know the people who are involved on that committee and they are not backward in coming forward. If businesses were to tell them of some anomaly or some injustice, they would not be backward in bringing that before the procurement council. The procurement council is very keen at the strategic level, to fix anything that is broken. I am very keen to work with them. I have told them that when they identify problems the government will work very hard to resolve those issues to the satisfaction of business. There are good people on that council. There are also public servants, including the Chief Executives of the Department of Business and Employment and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
There is much understanding around that table, which has grown with the years. In the beginning there might have been the Berlin Wall down the middle of the table with a few groups, but each group has communicated their needs and aspirations and their requirements. There is understanding and pretty frank talk around that table.
The council has provided considerable input into procurement reforms and improvements which is evidenced by the replacement of the traditional procurement guidelines with the new procurement directions in 2006. I was involved with those reforms in 2006, and it has simplified the procurement process by collapsing 37 procurement guidelines down to 13. Approximately two-thirds reduction in red tape in one fell swoop, member for Fong Lim, and that is very significant.
Later the same year, the Government Procurement Council instigated additional changes increasing the public tendering threshold from $10 000 to $50 000. In 2007, disclosure of tender assessment criteria weightings for tenders valued at over $1m was introduced. This was the first step. There have been further progressions in that area to try to clarify the process, and make it more transparent for businesses, which complain, quite reasonably, that with these large tenders you have these criteria but they do not know whether that criteria is 25%, 10%, or 5%. In all fairness, and on the instigation of the procurement council, the government acted to clarify this particular issue.
More recently, the tender thresholds were reviewed, again in concert with a benchmarking exercise with the assistance of the Assistant Director for the State Supply Commission of the government of Western Australia - the tender area - and it was identified that approximately 40% of tenders, in terms of annual volume, represented only 8% of the total value of tenders awarded, and were typically for purchases valued between $50 000 and $200 000. In response to this information and the Chief Minister’s desire to cut red tape, the public tender threshold has been increased from $50 000 to $200 000 effective from 30 March 2009.
I know there are some concerns by business about transparency, and ensuring everyone gets a shot at this particular change. Generally, business welcomes the fact that these tender thresholds have changed and things have been opened up, but they want to be assured that there are things in place to assure quality. The government, and I, as the minister, is very intent on doing that. We are out-posting procurement experts into the major departments - there are a few major departments involved in these tenders - and having a process of reporting back so that people can see how many people have tendered and who the successful tenderer was in a more open and transparent way, and also in terms of inviting businesses to tender for work in this particular band.
The government is aware and it is working closely with business in general, the procurement council in particular, and, individual organisations like the Chamber of Commerce, the TCA and other housing bodies.
We are also working at a national level to achieve substantial reductions in regulatory burdens and red tape. The Territory is chairing the Small Business Ministerial Council in 2008-09, and contributing to the broad range of national small business initiatives and reforms being guided by this council. These include: registration of business names; recognition of business licences; retail tenancy arrangements; franchising improvement options; further Trade Practices Act reforms; small business banking; and market transparency.
The Territory is also a strong contributor to relevant national business regulations and competition reforms being developed through the COAG’s Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, which is a very important group. These are also coordinated by other relevant ministerial councils.
All of these reforms are aimed to lower the burden on business and improve government efficiency while achieving the levels of service and protection that the community, business and organisations expect. Some of the reforms have already been the subject of COAG decisions and announcements and others are the subject of continuing development.
A key focus at present is on capturing the benefits for the Territory as a result of the national action to achieve a more seamless, integrated Australian economy. This is especially important as the Territory economy plays a larger role in the national economy and becomes even more strongly linked to the world economy through major new export developments like INPEX. The Northern Territory business regulation and red tape reforms have been progressing satisfactorily.
If the member for Fong Lim and his colleagues opposite were genuinely interested in supporting Territory business, they would have supported the Prime Minister’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan initiative. The federal stimulus package is providing a $400m investment to the Territory and will create or save 2000 jobs. We had the spectre of Malcolm Turnbull dancing around, I believe it was the Warringah oval, like a cheerleader trying to claim some benefit or ownership over something that was funded by the stimulus package that he opposed. Where is this bloke coming from?
It would be like going out to Tiger Brennan Drive when the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer and the minister for roads will be opening that wonderful overpass, the road separation, the extension to Tiger Brennan Drive, and the member for Fong Lim will be there saying: ‘Me too, me too’. The poor old member for Fong Lim, when he was member for Solomon, could not squeeze out the extra money. This is at the basis of it all. The Commonwealth had $13.5m, the Territory had $13.5m, and the project, at that stage, when I was roads minister, was much more than $27.5m. We continually said to the federal government: ‘We will stump up half if you stump up half’ …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister knows that when the idea first came to the federal government it was a $27m project. The minister might care to tell us what it is worth now.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, there is no point of order.
Dr BURNS: It is worth much more, because of the road separation …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I repeat: it was a $27m project: $13.5m from the Territory and $13.5m from the Commonwealth. I remember wrestling with the likes of Warren Truss, Jim Lloyd, and others. I remember Warren Truss saying to all the states and territories: ‘Do not bother asking for any extra money for any of these projects because the Commonwealth will not be putting in any extra money’. It was at a time when costs were escalating, the price of steel and labour was going through the roof, and they steadfastly refused. They were just hoarding their money. They were not really interested in nation building; they are still not interested in nation building. We will see whether you turn up at the opening of Tiger Brennan Drive, member for Fong Lim. I believe you probably will.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I digress, Madam Speaker. Let us return to this motion. Let us look at the operating costs of such a committee. We already have the Government Procurement Council operating, but here is another committee the member for Fong Lim and the opposition are proposing - they are proposing all sorts of committees through their general business and their …
Ms Lawrie: They want government by committee.
Dr BURNS: Yes, government by committee. Based on the operating costs of existing committees, the proposed new committees would generate additional costs calculated conservatively in the order of $360 000. This particular committee would cost about $120 000 to $130 000. When the proposal for a health committee came up last year, I mentioned a figure of around $1m based on what had happened in New South Wales. This was a more complicated committee where people had a lot of legal representation. The average cost of a committee running within this parliament, without much travel, is around $120 000. It would be a profligate waste of money, when a very engaged group is already undertaking this work, which has been working for some time to the satisfaction of business and the peak bodies. The member for Fong Lim wants to create a whole new entity when it is unnecessary.
Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion. We believe it is a redundant motion, and we also believe that we have an opposition which wants to govern by committee.
We are a government that gets in there and supports business, which is evidenced by the level of business confidence, our economy, by businesses confidence in our future, in projects like INPEX which this government fought so hard to secure despite some of the antics opposite - the member for Brennan, and we have had Senator Nigel Scullion doing his part as well. We are a government that moves on, does business, brings home the bacon to the Territory, not creating endless committees.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will begin with the Treasurer’s and the Minister for Business’ performance that we have just seen, because it goes to the issue that we are debating in the House at the moment.
We have seen a minister table a document that says $200m when it only adds up to $126m. We have seen the Treasurer so asleep at the wheel that she forgot to give notice of fairly important legislation. It shows how much these guys on the other side of the House have been dropping the ball on the governance of the Northern Territory. They are now flat out running a calculator over a sheet of paper and remembering to jump when there is a request for notices from your good self, Madam Speaker.
We see, exemplified in this government at the tail end of Question Time today, one of the problems that have become apparent, that this motion seeks to address. We know that this government is bereft of ideas, because we spent last night discussing the 2030 slogan which is being pushed out. It is a document that I believe has some substance and some worthwhile elements. After all, it is an aspirational statement for what is going to happen in 21 years time. The government, which, by the way, is the vehicle elected to govern the Northern Territory on behalf of Territorians and to have in its own possession good ideas and a vision for the future, in the meantime has now abrogated that responsibility to a degree by sending it out to a third party consultant. What exactly is government doing if it is not setting a direction for the Northern Territory itself?
This mish-mash approach is reflected in the Chief Minister’s own assertions, in more recent times, that the procurement process is too difficult to manage for many of the people who seek to procure government contracts. We know this by virtue of the fact that he changed the rules to accommodate the expenditure of Commonwealth monies passed recently by the federal parliament.
It was not that long ago that we suggested a committee like this. The response of the Chief Minister on that occasion was to simply say: ‘Oh, piffle, and bah humbug, we do not need such things. We already have a vehicle by which we address such issues’. There is an inconsistency which is: if it was unnecessary a few months ago or late last year when this idea was first mooted, why was it necessary to change the system to accommodate this federal expenditure which is going to find its way to the Northern Territory? You cannot have and hold those two positions simultaneously and then try to reject an idea of this particular flavour.
The member for Fong Lim is postulating, and I thoroughly agree with him, that there needs to be a review to determine how the regulatory instruments that govern the Northern Territory affect the Northern Territory. This has been done in one fashion in the past. It was done by necessity in the late 1990s and the early part of this decade as a result of the agreement by Australian governments to the National Competition Policy. I heard the member for Fong Lim discuss the National Competition Policy briefly, I am not going back there, but it did require a review of all Northern Territory legislation and as time passed regulatory instruments were changed to get rid of the anti-competitive elements in those regulatory instruments.
In the National Competition Policy, there are numerous exceptions to why you would still allow a non-competitive regulation to exist. One of those exceptions is when there is a social matter which exceeds in its importance the need for a competitive environment. Prior to the lunchtime break, I heard the member opposite discuss some regulations. If I heard it correctly – I was distracted at the time, I am afraid, so I can be corrected - but if I understood what was said, the member basically intimated that regulations exist in some instances to protect social outcomes. I am not suggesting, and nor is this side of the House suggesting, that we will abandon all regulation for the sake of business. What we are counselling is that there is an environment out there where people do resent the imposts of government upon them.
I will give you an example. I know one that really annoys some of the larger businesses around town, and that is payroll tax. I understand why payroll tax exists. I understand the necessity for payroll tax. I also understand that payroll tax is probably the largest single earner in own source revenue. It might be a little different this year with royalty payments, depending on how the Australian dollar goes, but cutting a long story short, payroll tax is a very important source of own source revenue. When you come from such a narrow own source base that the Territory relies on, and when you consider that 69%, not 67% as the Treasurer asserts, of the Territory’s income is derived from the Goods and Services Tax; when you also consider that a further 11% is derived from SPPs, or NPs as they are now called, you can understand why the Northern Territory government, particularly in this financial year, would be careful to protect its payroll tax environment.
However, does that prevent us looking at payroll tax? Does it prevent us looking at any particular tax that we simply need to protect the income? There may be a more equitable way to do taxation in this jurisdiction. Let us have a look at it. That is what this committee is about. Let us have a look at regulatory instruments that stand in the way of the growth of business. Do I know that this minister asserts care for the business community in the Northern Territory? My goodness, we have just seen him table a paper trying to demonstrate the level of the care that he has for business in this part of the community, in spite of a minor overstatement as to what was actually on the page.
I also heard the comments that the Procurement Review Board exists. Yes, it does, but the Procurement Review Board only deals with procurement. We are talking about casting a wider net than just procurement. Frankly, the procurement system is one that is oft criticised for a whole raft of reasons, some justified and some not. If you look at the case in point a couple of years ago now, I believe it was the February 2007 Report by the Auditor-General, whilst he found no wrongdoing, he points to a procurement environment where a single panel contractor was getting 85% of the work. If you talk to the industry, they believe that the Auditor-General was generous in his favour in relation to making that determination. I trust the Auditor-General’s judgment in this instance and make no more reference to it.
The process of going through our regulatory instruments and finding out what is a bar is also a reflection of how a bureaucracy works. We have a government which has sought fit to increase the size of the public service, and there are, from time to time, elements in the public service that will seek to justify their position. That will occasionally cause a regulatory element to be designed, built, shaped up and put in front of the minister and the minister will be told that it is a good idea and, particularly in the environment of uncritical ministers, will sometimes find its way into regulation and law.
On the occasions that this occurs, it is up to the ministers to prevent unnecessary regulation to exist. However, that is unfortunately not the case in this jurisdiction. I will give you a case in point. Whilst I appreciate the importance of a safe working environment, more recently we had changes to our work safety regulations in the Northern Territory which manifested themselves in a cost impost on the construction of a house, according to the industry, of up to $40 000 for the construction of a ground level house, when there was very little substance - no that is incorrect. Strike those words …
Dr Burns: Much of what you are saying is incorrect.
Mr ELFERINK: I am giving you an example where the industry thinks otherwise.
Dr Burns: I know what industry thinks.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. I am reflecting what the industry thinks in this instance. There is no statistic available that says there is a high rate of injury and death as a result of falls on single level dwelling constructions. Yet we see an instance where anyone working over 1.5 m, I believe - I could be corrected on that - needs to put on a full scaffold, and it adds $40 000 to the cost of a house. Based on what record of workplace injury? I would like to know. None was made available to the industry, and I have yet to see any evidence to demonstrate that there was such a high accident rate in existence in Territory construction for dwelling houses that warranted such a cost impost on the construction of a ground level dwelling. Yet there it is. That is the sort of regulation that this organisation would seek to visit.
Dr Burns: No Territory law. No Territory regulation. Get your facts right.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that. This is the standard gumph that this government comes up with. It is a national scheme which we have adopted? Yes?
Dr Burns: No.
Mr ELFERINK: Then stand up and correct me. Because the industry is not happy about what is going on.
Dr Burns: You are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: These are the sorts of the legislative instruments - I am going to pick up on that interjection as well. If I am wrong, why is the industry taking out newspaper ads saying that the cost impost is $40 000 a year?
Dr Burns: These issues have been worked through with industry.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not the one taking out the newspaper ads, they are.
Returning to the subject at hand, that is an impost on business. We also saw the introduction of legislation in this jurisdiction in relation to the Workplace Health and Safety Act, which was far more aggressive than any other jurisdiction in this country, enabling union right of access to the workplace. Whilst we will always have an ideological difference on the rights of unions to enter the workplace and do whatever it is they choose to do in those workplaces, you have instruments down south which have some safeguards built into them. No such safeguards occur in this jurisdiction. I imagine that industry would like an opportunity to respond to these legislative instruments which were jammed down their throats. A consultative process? Nonsense. They were simply informed what was going to happen and then it was jammed down their throats, and that was because this government had an ideological axe to grind.
It is small wonder that the business community has lost so much faith in this government and its capacity to govern for all Territorians equally. There is a bias in this government’s world view, and this bias is demonstrated in the legislative instruments this government passes. It is not beyond the capacity or the realm of this government to look for ideas from other places. It was banging on about it yesterday, so why should it not turn to industry and players, such as the ones prescribed by the member for Fong Lim in his motion, to give them some comfort that the government cares enough to look at this stuff? The answer will be no. The answer will be no because this government thinks it knows what it is doing. But it does not.
If the government did know what it was doing it would not need the independent body it put together on the 2030 report to give it ideas. You cannot claim on one hand that we need ideas from people because we have run out of ideas and then stand up in this place and say we do not need your ideas from across the other side. That is just part of the typical ‘we know better than you’ entrenched warfare this government engages in. It engages in it at every level and it will not brook criticism or give anyone the enjoyment of any sort of free speech or comfort against the things it wants to do. We saw an example of that this morning.
It is almost like from the black heart of the Chief Minister, sitting up on the fifth floor, the tar trickles down this building and starts to fill up the pit, which is this Chamber, and at some point in the future, an anthropologist or archaeologist trying to determine whatever happened to the democracy in the Northern Territory will find the petrified body of the woolly mammoth, which is democracy in this place.
I am mystified at this government’s approach in dealing with people on this side of the House, despite the fact we represent half of the Northern Territory, and the way they deal with other Territorians. They switch it on and off as they see fit.
I am keen to support this particular motion because it reflects the motion that I sought to withdraw from the Notice Paper and informed the other side, in good notice, that the withdrawal was going to occur. It went through the Whips, so I presumed it was all done. They could have raised a query some time ago when we decided to withdraw that material. If they wanted to debate this issue twice, I am happy to accommodate that. In fact, I am happy to put it back on the Notice Paper if you bring the stuff you withdrew from the Notice Paper back on.
Whilst he likes to pretend he is a caring minister who talks to businesses and gets feedback from businesses and represents business in the community, I am hard pressed to believe it. Whilst the government likes to reflect on the period of governance of the former CLP government, here is a bit of reflection.
There was a time when Shane Leslie Stone, MLA, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, almost had walk-in access to the then President of Indonesia; that was the level of penetration we had into Indonesia. Not only occasionally, but often, Shane Stone and other Chief Ministers and ministers met with people like Suharto, who was then the President of Indonesia. We had huge penetration, particularly through Mick Palmer, into the Philippines and Vietnam, as I understand it. I suspect that we had a larger influence in south-east Asia and a more intimate level of penetration into that area than the Australian government at one point. All of that has been lost.
That was reflected by the words from the Business Minister in relation to the Garuda thing. I have politely written to the minister in Indonesia in the hope that we can engage in a face saving exercise so we can get Garuda running here. That is good, but why do we not have a pick-up-the-phone level of communication? This government dropped the ball. Whilst I am now digressing, we have to re-engage with south-east Asia on behalf of business; but we also have to engage with business on behalf of the Northern Territory.
That is what this motion is about. There is no real engagement between the government and business. The walls that exist between government and business are getting taller every day. The tender process is just one example of it. The cost of constructing dwellings is another example. The imposts of the portable long service scheme, which is proving to be a nightmare, and difficult to administer, is criticised and qualified by the Auditor-General. These are all examples of this government creating a business and legislative environment which confronts business and is not good for business. I believe it is about time we had a look at all of these legislative instruments. I fully support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the motion with a few changes. Perhaps it should have been called Regulation Review Advisory Committee instead of Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee. I say that because regulations are there for a purpose.
I believe there needs to be a review of regulations to see if they are worthwhile regulations or if they are regulations we can live without. Regulations are not necessarily there to inhibit businesses. They are there for other reasons; for instance, protection of taxpayers’ money, protection of an employee who works for a company, and protection of the employer. We also need regulations for the health and wellbeing of people and for good planning.
It is interesting to look at planning because it affects businesses. There should be a review of planning. We have the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, which has been out for three years. A number of issues have been raised with me about some of the anomalies in planning that cost money because you have to go through the planning process. It is nothing to do with whether someone’s life is at risk.
The example I will give – and while the minister is here, I thank the minister for her response – is a case in relation to industrial containers. It does not apply to changes everywhere but, for instance, under the existing laws a container is regarded as a demountable. Under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, a demountable requires planning approval under all zones. The interesting thing is that Royal Wolf, in theory, should have to get planning approval for every demountable it has on its site. That would be very costly and also impractical.
In the rural area, you require permission for a container which is regarded as a demountable. You need building board approval if you want to have a container as a house, so there are already regulations there. If you want to use a container as a storage shed you need building approval as well. There are already regulations covering that. The government is looking at changing that so that you do not have to go through two processes. At the moment you would have to get planning approval to have a container and then you would need to have building approval.
It is good that the government has changed a regulation that was putting a cost onto consumers and businesses. I have not seen the final draft of what the government is putting forward, but it shows that there is a need, at times, to review legislation to see what legislation is duplicated, is unnecessary, or, if it has a cost to it, whether that cost is really a burden on business simply because the government puts an artificial fee on that regulation. If you want to apply to the Planning Authority there is a certain amount charged that will apply to your application. If you want to have a rezoning application, there is a certain charge for that. That is one example where a review of regulations would be worth looking at. Most businesses, at some stage, have to deal with planning applications and planning issues.
Another area that could be looked at is in relation to the cost of providing services. We have a monopoly that controls development - Power and Water. I have a case at the moment of a childcare centre which is struggling to get off the ground for a number of reasons. First, it was going to be an ABC childcare centre in Howard Springs. It had the pegs in the ground and, about one week later, ABC went into receivership. Another company was asked to take over the project. One of the issues the owner of the land had in developing this site was that Power and Water wanted a considerable amount of money for this particular building. This building is not by itself; there are many other buildings around it. At the present price, I believe they are talking about $170 000 to connect water to the childcare centre. Part of the reason is that they needed to come up to a standard required for firefighting. The amount of money is not only for the childcare centre. It is a sum of money Power and Water believe will serve that area. As happens in a few cases in the rural area, the first person to develop something has to pay the up-front costs for that area.
I will give you another example. Some people subdivide land and they are required to put transformers in. The transformer is a very expensive item. It will also help other people who subdivide in the area have adequate electricity. However, the first person to subdivide cops the full amount of money to do that. Some people say that Power and Water’s charging is exorbitant when it comes to infrastructure.
I am interested to know if the review the member for Fong Lim is talking about would look at some of those costs that have been put on to business to develop are reasonable and fair. Those issues can affect whether business can operate.
I also had a request - I believe it was to government and probably would have gone to Power and Water - about extending water along Whitewood Road. The answer was that it would only be extended if there was $0.75m to upgrade the water line along Whitewood Road. Placing a large impost on people who would like to upgrade or develop, and making those businesses or residences take up the full amount of money without any government responsibility for providing some of the services, is an impost on how we develop.
I once believed that what we used to call Power and Water, before it became semi-privatised, had a role in developing the Territory. Some of the government money went into infrastructure to promote development. Nowadays, it seems that developers have to pick up nearly all the outside costs.
Another example is the Girraween District Centre, which includes the Girraween Primary School. The rest of the land in that area should be owned by the Churcher Estate or the government. The Churcher Estate people have been looking at applications to put in a childcare centre. I believe it is also interested in a small district centre. It has basically been told that it has to put in the sewerage system. The people who live at Humpty Doo do not build the sewerage ponds. They were built in the days before Power and Water became a so-called private company. Now the burden is totally on the developer to build a sewerage system for the whole district centre.
Surely the developer has to put in the basic infrastructure for the site and maybe some pipe to the sewerage system, but I do not believe that the developer should have to build the entire sewerage system. That is another impost on businesses. I do not know where the regulations say that it is the developer’s job but someone in Power and Water has a rule that says that is not its job; that is the responsibility of the business. I believe that is holding up some of the businesses in the rural area because it is too expensive to put in the infrastructure that is required.
The other area that concerns me is the idea of a five-star energy house - I know the government has not said it has adopted it - a house that is perfectly nice for people who have air conditioning or if you live down south. But in relation to costs and being environmentally friendly, are we going to put regulations on people who want to build a house that will make that house over-the-top for what we need in the tropics? Are we going to have a layer of regulation that says you have to build a house with only 15% window because someone down south decided that we would become part of this five-star energy rating system? This is totally unsuitable for people who believe that you can live in the tropics with natural airflow and who believe that we should be trying to reduce our energy consumption. Someone has made a decision that we may be regulated by a national system and that is going to cost the average person quite a lot of money.
I take the point that the member for Port Darwin made, and maybe the member for Johnston can explain more at another time, but we have this issue that was raised last year about the extra cost of safety requirements for single dwelling houses - one storey housing - and how the industry regarded that as an impost that would cost the builder or the purchaser of a house an extra $40 000.
You see changes in many things, for instance in road works today. Once, if you wanted to patch a piece of road you could put up a few signs and take people round it. Nowadays, you have 40, 60, and 80 zones, lollipop men, and reflective signs everywhere. I am not saying safety is not important – do not get me wrong - but we seem to have gone from a system which I thought was working to a system where you have to employ a company - I do not know if you have to - but there is a company that just does traffic control.
At Freds Pass Show there could be parking problems, I understand that; there was not enough room for parking. All of a sudden there was a regulation that said you have to construct a parking management plan - you have to get a company to write a parking management plan. Then there has to be someone to carry out that parking management plan. All you wanted to say is that you cannot park on the highway; you need to find a place down the back and that is it. No, it had to have a parking management plan. It seems that areas that only needed good old common sense are turned into regulations that make life awfully complicated and at a cost. It would have cost something to write up a car park management plan for Freds Pass Show. That would not have been cheap, unless someone volunteered to write that plan.
Regulations are important and there is no doubt that we need regulations. But what the review should do is look at the regulations that are superfluous. What are the regulations that we could take away and streamline the process without the consumer being unduly affected or the health and safety of workers being unduly affected? Let us see if some of our regulations are over-the-top.
We have had the discussion before about whether you can live in a shed. You can obtain an occupancy certificate to have a shed but you cannot occupy it if you have a kitchen in it. I say that if the shed gets passed to code, I am not sure it is the end of the world if someone lives in it, as long as they know that shed is not classified as a dwelling. It is like nearly getting into bed with someone - are you going to go around to a property and see whether they are sleeping in their shed or cooking their breakfast in the shed, because that is really the difference. In many cases, once you put a kitchen in a shed, you are saying it is a house for occupancy. To find out whether people are doing that, someone has to come around and walk on the property and check that out.
I am not talking about people living in a building that is not up to code or an old chook shed someone is living in. I am talking about a building that has been built as a shed and sometimes people cannot live in anything else. There are times when regulations, whilst they are necessary, need to be looked at from a commonsense point of view in how they are applied. That is not saying you should only apply it to certain people and not to others. You should apply it according to each particular case. If a shed is all they can afford to live in, then I am not sure we should condemn them to live outside because that shed does not quite come up to the nth degree of regulation.
The other thing I did not mention to the member for Fong Lim is that there could be a little more weighting to consumers. It is fairly heavily weighted to industry. Industry cannot survive without the consumer, so the consumer should have a little more weight in this committee. It is also a biased committee, because it has no Independents on it, but I have enough work to do so I put my full faith in the people on this committee. In summary, it would be better to talk about regulations in general, rather than regulation relief, and there should be a few more people on there who deal with the consumer side of it, to give it more balance.
Member for Fong Lim, I believe it is an important area. The government might say it has certain bodies already established to do it, but I am not sure that is always the case. I have pointed out the issues of regulations in planning. I do not know who would review that under the present system of government, only the government, or if someone saw an issue which needed to be fixed. An overall review would take a fair while to review all the regulations in the government, but I do not believe an ongoing review committee would do any harm.
If we can make things simpler, cheaper, and at the same time keep the basics of what we are after, the safety, health, and protection of consumers, then that would be good. I support the motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members who contributed to this discussion. I appreciate the interest you have shown in my motion. I believe it is a good motion. It is required and I appreciate that the members who spoke took the time to think about it.
Member for Nelson, I take it that you are supportive of the motion. I take on board your comments. I probably did not highlight enough in my presentation that I agree that some regulations are good. We have to have an eye on community health and safety and welfare. We need to have an eye on a whole range of other areas. I also note you acknowledge that there are at times bad laws and regulations, areas where there is duplication and needless costs to business. I hear your calls about the costs developers in your area are facing in relation to sewerage, water and other things. I agree that those types of issues are a handbrake on progress. We may not have such a housing crisis if some of those regulations were relaxed and if the government stepped up to the plate a little more.
I made the observation earlier regarding the development of Bellamack and how the government is involving themselves in that development to the point where it is looking to make a profit, and how that profit, at times, can force up the price of housing and, at the same time, scare off potential developers. We come into this place and time and time again we hear about the government’s wonderful plans for developing and releasing land and seeing more houses built. We note there has not been one single house built in Bellamack, despite the fact that it has been talked about for several years now.
The government is also way behind in its own forecast on the number of houses that are needed in the Territory to meet demand. A colleague was telling me today that it is somewhere around 800 houses behind the eight-ball already, just in this part of the year, based on their own figures. That is sad.
The member for Port Darwin contributed well. I have no comment on woolly mammoths. He does have a penchant to wax lyrical at times, but I agree with him that some of the regulations involved in building a house add costs to the house. He mentioned a figure of an average of $40 000 dollars. That is an impost.
Payroll tax can be looked at and reviewed again. I heard what the minister said in his speech, but I cannot understand why these things cannot be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
Union rights of access under the guise of work health laws, portable long service leave - whilst I am not opposed to it in principle - does create problems for business. The Housing Industry Association is taking out large ads in the newspaper to protest some of those provisions.
The member for Nelson is not around at the moment, but he did mention aspects of the five-star ratings on houses and the like, and the requirement for safety measures. I understand where he is coming from; he makes a very valid point. We always need to have an eye on safety but it can go too far at times. A fellow I quite often read is a writer called P J O’Rourke. He has made …
Dr Burns: Why does that not surprise me?
Mr TOLLNER: You are not surprised, minister?
Dr Burns: No, I am not surprised.
Mr TOLLNER: PJ O’Rourke wrote a book called Republican Party Reptile. I am sure the minister has read it as well. I will quote one little paragraph from it. I do not mean to be offensive, member for Karama, I am quoting from a book:
I wonder whether that is the case with this government and the way it operates at times. It has a well-known penchant for penalising and prosecuting public servants, contractors or anyone else who might decide to speak out against it ...
Dr Burns: Will you be marching this May Day? Come down to May Day.
Mr TOLLNER: I have been to several May Days, minister, you know that. I have marched. I am for the worker.
Minister, I appreciated your contribution. I was disappointed that you pre-empted the debate and signalled that you are not going to support this very important motion. I thought you may have listened and made a judgment based on the debate but you signalled early. That is your right and your prerogative, and goodness help us if the government starts supporting opposition motions. It is not something that you would want to encourage, minister.
I thank you for acknowledging that the electorate office that is being fitted out for me has been a complete disaster. One thing I did not say about the electorate office was that I was informed early on in the piece that this was a priority project; that it would be given the highest priority. I note, minister, that your office has been fitted out. You are having some problems with cupboards and all of that. It needs to be understood that these things can happen, but for many months yet I will be ironing the bugs out of the problems at the electorate office where I am to be stationed. Minister, I thank you for conceding that there have been problems.
The minister described me as a lightning rod for negativity, if I got that right. He said he does not hear these negative comments around the place. He referred to the Bureau of Statistics Index of Business Confidence, and how the Northern Territory leads Australia in business confidence. It is there for everyone to see that the Northern Territory does lead the country in the area of business confidence. But I put it to the minister that this is in spite of the government, not because of the government. There are some fantastic businesses in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory, as most people acknowledge, is a pioneering part of the country and it is still very much a frontier. As developed as it is and as beautiful as it is, the Northern Territory is still considered a frontier and people with a pioneering spirit come and set up business. I believe that the business people in the Northern Territory are second-to-none, anywhere in the country, or in the world, for that matter, and they soldier on despite the blockages that the government puts in their way.
To say that the government has it all right, that there is nothing in its way, and that things cannot be improved, I believe is a wrong assumption. That would be proven if an advisory committee of the nature that I am proposing in this motion were established. There is a real feeling in the community that this government has a penchant for penalising and prosecuting people who speak out against it. I believe there is great merit in an advisory committee of this nature being set up to be a conduit to the government to provide free and frank advice.
It is disappointing that the minister has indicated that the government will not be supporting the motion. This idea precedes my election to this place by quite some time. The opposition has been wedded to the idea of consulting with industry and the community to relieve bureaucratic red tape and silly regulations and laws from our books for quite some time.
I am glad to find myself in the position where I have some sort of carriage of it, and I assure the government this is not going to be the last that you hear of it. The opposition is very keen to do everything it can to ensure that the blocks to business, business progress and commercial activity are removed in the most sensitive way, but in a way that allows business to get on with business.
Our view is that the best thing the government can do for business is to get out of the way. They do not need the shackles of over-regulation by the government, and we are committed in that area. We want to get out of the way; we want to make sure that business can get on with business.
It is crucially important at this time with rising unemployment. We have been informed that unemployment will double in the Northern Territory in the next 12 months. We know, courtesy of the member for Daly, that there is going to be a 25% price hike in the cost of electricity. Goodness knows, probably more for those uncontested customers in the business world. There is going to be a 70% increase in water charges. It does not bode well. We are also in the middle of a global financial crisis. This is the time to throw off those shackles, get rid of needless regulation, duplication and costs that we put onto business.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is a worthwhile motion. I encourage members on the other side to have a serious think about this and consider supporting this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The intent of this bill is to assist the government, or governments, at a time when cynicism - just in case members opposite think I am having a shot at them, this would apply on either side; in fact any government would be well-served to consider what is being proposed here – cynicism is mounting in the community regarding the capacity of a government that can divert its energies and resources into self-promotion. We want to preserve the integrity of the government to govern in the best interest of the community. It is nothing more and nothing less.
The issue is the use of taxpayer funded advertising to push party political points, in this case the 2007 federal election. This came to light and it was blatant, make no mistake. However, there is the capacity to turn a blind eye when political interest or self-interest is at the helm. That has to be dealt with. Our community is desperate for good leadership. Here is a good opportunity to restore at least some confidence in the instrument of the government.
In one Northern Territory government department, over $4m in taxpayers’ money is dedicated to marketing and promotion. That does not include recruitment, consultants, and document production. The problem is there is no transparent accountability for this expenditure. There is not. It is shameful and rather embarrassing to have a government that becomes, after eight years or less, so accustomed to the trappings of office and desirous of maintaining power that they find ways to work within the regulations to make use of the resources they have been entrusted with, to work around the regulations and still maintain the capacity to make plain use of taxpayers’ funds for political advantage.
We need to find better systems if we are going to have that kind of operation at play; if we have regulations and we have a government that is still finding its way through those regulations to use taxpayers’ funds for self-promotion. Make no mistake. I am not saying that all promotion that comes from government is bad. The problem is large amounts of money are spent and have been spent that are plainly in breach of regulations. The government has breached its own regulations and, if there is a breach in the existing act, there is no sufficient sting to deter that kind of behaviour.
The sad thing is we often talk about young people and how we want to provide a better future for young people - how many times has that been said, with hand on heart, in this place? Yet, in full view of the community, those who expect good leadership will find the government has the capacity to perform these tricks before the whole community.
Massive amounts of taxpayer-funded advertising promoting the budget finds its way into mailboxes, promoting things that really do not need promoting. Let us be honest: there is much that is promoted that does not need promotion. I find this astonishing and I suggest that the government have another look at this strategy. I do not know whether it is working for you, but perhaps, if you push on, it might bear some results. You are still promoting yourselves in quite extraordinary ways with things that often do not need that level of promotion.
There have been some health issues of recent times yet the government has not found the heart, mind, or the will to put a public education campaign, a promotional exercise, or a glossy brochure on health issues into the letterbox. Instead, we find the Chief Minister’s face promoting one thing or another.
I fully expected that when they noticed the Dry Season was coming it would be a great Labor initiative and we would have a glossy brochure in the letterbox. It was becoming that ridiculous. If you read the Letters to the Editor and comments in the marketplace, people are wondering what the heck is going on.
There needs to be a stop to this, and this bill will assist in bringing some sense to this area. Being in this parliament since 1999 - I sat over there, I remember the gentleman from the Barkly Times, good to see you, I believe I saw you there in 1999 - I observed the end of an era, the end of a Country Liberal government that had been there for 27 years. I was only there for 18 months and then there was a change of government. I remember the members who were in opposition then, who are now the government, were so appalled by what they saw in promotional exercises conducted by the government. I thought at the time that they were genuinely outraged.
How things have changed since 2001. In opposition, Labor railed against it and was absolutely horrified. It looked like we were going to have a war crimes tribunal if there was ever a change of government. Then there was a change of government and, lo and behold, those who expressed outrage became far more adept at doing the things that once offended them. They outstripped the criticism that they had of a former government; they have surpassed that in so many ways. The things that they criticised, they have now become expert at and even more so. I find that part of the government, the effect of power on people and the blatant hypocrisy, disturbing and it keeps me here to try to find ways to at least keep an even keel.
This bill is not dissimilar to the guidelines available on the Department of the Chief Minister’s Intranet site. That is interesting. That means there are guidelines. However, the problem is that they do not have any sting, they are just guidelines. The government can do what it wishes. I make it clear that I am not saying or suggesting that the government or the departments breached caretaker conventions. That is not being said here, make no mistake. But it is hard not to notice Sprout Creative burning the midnight oil, pushing out glossy brochures, waxing lyrical about how wonderful the Labor government is.
It is extraordinary and I found it embarrassing, as a citizen within our democracy, to see how frequently these glossy brochures were clogging up the letterboxes in the lead-up to the election. You had predetermined this date, and you organised your advertising strategy to advance your interests at taxpayers’ expense in the lead-up to the election campaign, fully justified with some clever arguments, but you had guidelines and you challenged those guidelines quite significantly. Territorians saw this, and they made their judgment. I believe we need to live within the bounds of that which is decent. If we cannot understand what is right and wrong in this, there needs to be a sting in the tail, some kind of process that is a little more open so that we can be held accountable. If you do cross the line, there is a consequence. If we do not have that kind of order in this place and in the operation of the government, what hope do we have that we are going to get some order on the streets?
In recent times, there has been a spate of glossy brochures. I find that odd. You seem to be so desperate to pump yourself up that you are putting out glossy brochures and even negative attack ads so early on - it is only eight months since the election. They seem to be fading out a bit now.
The problem is that you are pushing the capacity to push party political points. The Territory government bombarded Territorians with a mail-out campaign criticising the Howard government’s introduction of the $100 limit on alcohol sales. This was astonishing. It was so plain: a big, bold ad, providing information to the community, which was clearly politically motivated. This was an ad paid for by Territorians that carried a political message - no one could miss it. It was not in the public interest; it was in political interests. And it was paid for by Territorians. It clearly named the government that it was referring to - the Howard government. That is a breach of your own guidelines. But there is no sting in the tail, and if you can get around it and you have sufficient power to fluff it, you can get away with it. That is not good enough.
If we are going to maintain some kind of decency and expect some kind of order within the community, it has to start here; it has to start with government.
The guidelines recommend that to avoid the perception of misusing public funds, Territory government advertising should avoid mentioning the party in government or opposition by name, for example, the Labor government. In relation to political messages in advertising, the guidelines state that to avoid the misuse of public funds, agencies should avoid outlining the policies of political parties. This is to keep it honest. That is the guideline.
The purpose of the guideline is to make sure that the money which is earned by the sweat of the brow – I do not know whether Labor understands that - money is earned by people who take risks, work very hard and sweat and then pay their taxes. It is then given to agencies to provide community services and so on to help run the society in which we live. Money comes through sweat and so it has a certain value. That is the bottom line. You have to make sure that the trust that has been placed in you, and the monies you have responsibility for acquitting, are used in the public interest, not in political interest. That is what the guidelines are talking about.
We need to tighten these guidelines up. Surely taxpayers have a right to be assured that advertising funds are spent as they are supposed to be and not to further political gain.
I am not going to say that the opposition is completely clean in this area, but anything that has occurred, or if any criticism be played to the opposition, misses the point. The point is that the government has been prodigious in its capacity to promote and we need to reinforce those guidelines so that we all adhere to those guidelines - not to say something and do something quite different. If the guidelines that are being proposed in this bill are in place, then we all need to adhere to them, make sure that we reinforce that which is good and right, and use that money to promote things that are clearly and plainly to the benefit of the community.
The figure I mentioned earlier does not include recruitment advertising costs. The $4.092m total marketing, promotion and advertising expenditure for 2007-08 for the Department of the Chief Minister does not include recruitment advertising costs. That is just advertising. Let us compare this with other departments’ advertising, marketing and promotion expenses from the respective 2007-08 annual budgets: DEET - $1.863m; DPIFM - $114 000; and OCPE - $48 000. Other departments could not be included as their annual reports have yet to be tabled.
Even with such a small sample group, the total advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure for these four departments totals over $6.8m. The total spent on marketing, promotion and advertising came to over $15m in 2006-07, this does not include document production, recruitment advertising and consultants. There are no standard output criteria to measure the outcomes of any government advertising.
During the election, the opposition proposed an initiative for every Year 1 student to be sight and sound tested, providing support to families, and providing teachers with the resources and qualifications to develop those children identified as needing extra help. That was an important package and one we should still consider.
When you see what has been rolled out in Katherine, where these dear little children are sitting in a classroom and they are having difficulty hearing what the teacher is saying. If you are going to try to teach a language and the children cannot hear all the sounds, it will be incredibly difficult. You need to make sure that you have checked the hearing of those who are learning to read and write. During the campaign we outlined that initiative, and it will stay there, because we are serious about putting those sorts of measures in. It made me quite sad and I am sure anyone else who saw on television the other night, where you have a teacher with a microphone around her neck and kids contributing in the classroom are passing a microphone around so that the others could hear. This is in Katherine. It has been recognised as such a need that it is being taken up by other schools. That is good, but would it not be better if we checked the hearing earlier and we could intervene at an earlier stage? It is going to be hard running that kind of equipment in a Year 4, 5 or 6 class. If we get in there earlier and we start to focus our efforts we could address that when the kids are in early childhood.
The package we described was $4.9m in the first year with recurrent costs of $1.6m. In my view, that would be a better spend than what the government spent on advertising. Weigh it up and ask what would you prefer to do: promote the initiatives of government or to take on an initiative like that? $4.9m would have bought you that. It would have won greater respect from the community, to make a gutsy decision and said no, we are going to spend it on a program like that, instead of glossy brochures. It is a decision that government makes. That was $4.9m in the first year with recurrent costs of $1.6m; a much better way of spending money.
On the surface it looks like a saving from the $4.99m spend in 2006-07, but if you read page 96 of this year’s DCM Annual Report, it states that this reduction was in part due to the costs of a road safety campaign not re-occurring. To compare with previous years’ marketing expenses: $4.11m in 2005-06 and $4.07m in 2004-05.
The point is that when decisions are made of this nature, granted they can be justified because the guidelines are a little loose, and there is some disorder in the whole area, so if there is a gap we can go through it. It is time to tighten it up because money is taken away from other ventures that could be for the public good.
How much better would it be for a kid to be intervened at an early stage and feel that they are a part of the show, they can sit in the classroom? Many of them are boys; you see many of these kids, and I talk to them when I see them around Palmerston. When they reached Year 7 or Year 8, definitely Year 9, if they had missed out on many of these sounds and could not quite grasp what was going on, and felt that they were slipping so far behind, it becomes a matter of pride. They would prefer not to be seen as an abject failure in the classroom so they will start to muck up and can find themselves wandering around the shopping centres. I often speak to them, saying: ‘What the heck are you doing? Is school not on?’ They will say: ‘No, I am suspended’. They are proud of that. They are a little relieved but a little embarrassed. They are relieved of the embarrassment of being in class and failing and being shown that they are just not up to the mark. It is much better to be a clown or a goose and get kicked out and have some sort of street cred, than to be embarrassed because you missed out on getting a handle on reading.
These are the sorts of things that are at stake and that could be attended to. The community would appreciate that kind of approach, more than the glossy brochures. Even if you put a sieve through it and sieved out the things that are assessed as being genuinely in the public interest and chucked the others to the side, I am sure you could find much better use for that money; even if it is less than the $4.9m that we are describing in this case.
These are some comparisons with other output groups: 2007-08 estimated expenditure on interpreter and translator services was $3.274m compared to the advertising spend; 2007-08 estimated expenditure on early childhood education was $4.621m - to put it into perspective, less money was spent on early childhood education than advertising; and 2007-08 estimated expenditure for emergency services was $2.817m, significantly less than what was spent on advertising and promotion.
It is important to draw these comparisons to get some sort of order to this, because $4m from one department and over $15m across the government is an obscene amount of taxpayers’ money to devote purely to self-promotion. It is wrong and we need to have those guidelines drawn, take a deep breath and start to recognise what those guidelines represent, and the consequences for breaching those guidelines.
The government is more concerned about getting its mug shots into our mailboxes than it is in providing interpreter and translation services to our community. That is what it says when you distil it. The government is more interested in promoting its Convention Centre through glossy brochure handouts than providing our emergency services. That is effectively what it means.
This is a very interesting one. We had a sense, in about February, that you guys were going to go to the election as early as you possibly could. As we started to think about how a little outfit against a colossal government could be prepared, we had to start thinking ahead as best we could about advertising. Lo and behold, when we started to drill down, we discovered that there was a $40 000 dollar block of advertising booked for the July/August period of the year. It was blocked out - well ahead - and it was locked away. I asked a couple of questions about it. It could all be explained ...
A member: Pigs might fly!
Mr MILLS: You knew. It was like playing with a sinister poker player; you knew that it was explainable, but there was something else going on. The idea was to spend it on advertising the results of the Blue Mud Bay decision. That was the explanation. However, that decision was handed down during the election. Remember that at least four weeks of that period were devoted to the election, and departments were in caretaker mode - Estimates 2008. We are not saying that the government or the departments breached caretaker conventions and we are aware that the government pulled any planned ads during the caretaker period. However, in hindsight, it was just as well they planned to promote the Blue Mud Bay decision so heavily. What an extraordinary coincidence that there was all that space blocked out in the lead-up to an election. That is probably one of the best government plans I have seen.
Considering the loose adherence to the Chief Minister’s own guidelines, this bill will provide a much-needed protection of millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars the government spends on self-promotion every year. That is the purpose of the bill. I guess the temptations are huge when you are in power - not that I have been in that position. I can only assume that they are of sufficient magnitude that we can play with the guidelines to trespass, from time to time, quite significantly.
That is why we need to have a bill such as this: to ensure that you have the capacity for proper scrutiny, a mechanism for the assessment of decisions for promotion and whether they are genuinely in the public interest. We do not have that mechanism.
It is the same sort of thing that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, referred to when he was in opposition. To his great credit, he not only said something in opposition but he implemented it when he came to government. However, I find it genuinely disappointing that the Prime Minister, when in opposition, recognised this as a problem. But now that they are in government, and the argument is still strong, they resisted; they said the guidelines are sufficient.
The community thought differently, and I believe they made many of their decisions based on the attitude they had seen develop around the beast of government. They started to see the character and the nature, and they made their decisions.
However, it is most disappointing that after the 9 August election, when there was an opportunity to have a little humility and accept - forget the opposition, it would be too great a step to say we now adopt that which was proposed by the Country Liberals. But, at least you had your Prime Minister. You could have adopted his proposal which was similar to our own, to provide greater security over these matters. Issues that feed cynicism could be reduced to some degree, things could be genuinely open and transparent, and there could be a means to assess whether something is in the public interest. At least we would have that mechanism. That is what this bill describes.
I find it most disappointing that you did not take that next step after 9 August. I still hear the Chief Minister saying that he was astonished by the response of the electorate - taken aback - and he said: ‘I am now going to listen to Territorians’. I reckon Territorians were saying something like: ‘Make a quantum shift like this’. You did not have to take our lead on it. You could have told us that our proposal was rubbish, which you probably would anyway, but at least adopt the Prime Minister’s, because it was a new direction.
Fresh Ideas, Real Results is a nice slogan, but in the absence of the action to back it up it is empty words. There are no fresh ideas really. It is just a fresh slogan and people are a little tired of that.
This is an opportunity, but I doubt that there will be any sort of support for this, but it will stay. If a change does come, it will be implemented. I will do my darnedest, with our team, to make sure we can restore some confidence in the instrument of the government, and have a guideline that is understood and respected and mechanisms in place to provide consequences if those lines are stepped over. However, we do not have that at the moment. We have a government that has made its decisions and will live with those decisions. There are consequences to those decisions. This behaviour and attitude is being lived out in the presence of the whole community.
I have been in this Chamber for a long time - it is great to have a bit of company now - but often we had the then Leader of Government Business, the member for Wanguri, saying: ‘Member for Blain, you have to get out there, you have to listen to people. You are talking the Territory down. You have to get out there’. I am out there, but apparently you guys are not.
You have people around you who are saying the sorts of things to you that you like to hear. You probably hear other bits and pieces. However, they are saying a fair amount about this glossy brochure business at the moment. Here is an opportunity - I know you are not going to take it, I have lost my confidence in that area - nonetheless, could you just give it a shot and live within the guidelines you have, if you are not going to support this?
I wonder whether you guys actually make the decisions or if it is someone else who makes the decision and you just go along. That is probably the point, which must be pretty dispiriting. The test will be, next time advertising is commissioned that you are responsible for, can you, as a minister, let it pass that test, so you know it really is in the public interest? There is a little coming out, particularly around the Chief Minister, that I would not mind testing. We have an instrument described in the bill to test it. It might be fine. You might have some clever lawyers to argue it, but just test it. If we can reduce waste on this you will reduce cynicism but, more importantly, you will save some money that could be used for something better than self-promotion.
There is nothing more boring than a person who goes to a party and talks about themselves and is obsessed with themselves. They are not very interesting people at a barbecue. For a government to go around talking about itself all the time and promoting itself – watch out, the same sort of thing might happen.
I urge careful consideration of this bill. Members on the other side might want to have a look at it, because they have probably been given their marching orders, so they will go down that track. I am going to stick with this because I believe it is the right thing to do, even Kevin reckons that. I urge honourable members to support this and I look forward to the debate which will flow.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
overtime worked by Territory Police) and the number of police needed to improve law and order in the
Territory;
average time, and assessed against procedures in other jurisdictions;
(c) the level of resources provided to police and whether it is impacting on the capacity of police to fulfil
their duties as required under the law;
(d) the numbers, impact and interrelation of Federal Police with the Territory Police in the Northern Territory;
(e) a management plan in respect to all areas of inquiry above, informed by what is occurring in other jurisdictions; and
(f) other matters relevant to the performance of the Territory Police Force.
4. The inquiry report to the Assembly by 31 October 2009.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important motion. If this motion is to be supported, we need to understand the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem is that we have rising crime and we have a community which feels increasingly unsafe.
At the first step the government is able to explain that away again and again. But you cannot honestly explain that away. The old call to get out there, have a listen and get in tune - not on the defensive but the offensive - listening carefully, engaging directly, so that you know how your community is feeling. It is not centred on a political issue; it is about providing leadership and a response to the community. There is clearly a problem.
Having recognised and accepted that there is a problem - if the government can accept that there is a problem - then the solution that is provided by the society is the police force. You need to have some deeper level of thinking to make sure that the application of that resource, the police force, is going to reduce the problem. It is clear to me that we are up against it; we are not fighting that battle, and we are not increasing the levels of safety within the community. It is delusional to point to the prison which is bursting at the seams with prisoners in shipping containers and say that is an example of a system that is working.
That is an example of a community that is straining and has some problems that need to be addressed. We need a strong police force. We have dedicated officers but we need to take it to the next step and do some deeper assessment and analysis to ensure that the resource is being applied in a way that reduces the problem.
A scientific approach is required. How many times have I stood in front of the cameras and been asked how many more police are needed? Playing the political game, I will say a few more than the government and that will sound stronger. I believe our communities are getting past that. If you go around the countryside at any election, you will have one side out-bidding the other on the number of police. The deeper question is not really asked: how many police do you need to get on top of the problem? The question is always based on the tougher party has more coppers. We have to go further than that.
The construction of this committee is to take it to a new level, so that we can start to marry it up with the effort applied to the problem. If this approach is made in good faith we could make some real progress. I am not going to accept any opposition to this proposal being unnecessary, because we are already doing that. Once again it is going back to the issue that you are not recognising there is a problem. You need to have a tighter fix on this. Is there a problem? You cannot ignore this. I was dismayed - I am getting into a new realm with this - to hear the responses at Question Time explaining away crime as though we are on top of it and everything is all right. We cannot even get to first base if you think that is the case.
A member: That really washes out there, too.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it would fail the pub test. That is for sure. I would love to give you a microphone and stand up in some of the pubs and run that speech. That would be a hoot. Stand up and explain away that the prisons are full because we are really on top of crime.
The Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics, December Quarter 2008 show 1586 assault offences recorded. That is a 25% increase from the previous quarter, up by 316 assaults, a 12% increase in the same quarter 2007, up another 168. The report stated:
What is driving this trend and are we understanding the trend and matching it? We would be able to answer that question through this process if it was supported. If we only look at these problems as political, we will always pose political solutions. We have to get past that, because the community is begging for something different.
There is a problem in Darwin. In the December quarter there were 430 assault offences recorded in Darwin, an 18% increase from the previous quarter, and a 6% increase in the same quarter 2007. I dare you to go to Shenannigans with a microphone and say: ‘Just a bit of order please, I want to explain the crime problem. It is not as bad as you think’. Then explain it away like you did at Question Time. They would not be shouting you drinks.
In Palmerston, there were 113 assault offences recorded for the December quarter. That is a 12% increase from the previous quarter, and a 31% increase in the same quarter 2007. In Alice Springs, 345 assault offences were recorded for the December quarter. A 34% increase from the previous quarter, and a 13% increase for the same quarter 2007. Houston, we have a problem. Oh no, no. It is just that we have more reporting. Oh, my god. There were 143 assault offences recorded in Katherine for the December quarter. That is a 32% increase from the previous quarter, and a 5% decrease from the same quarter 2007. Based on that, you will probably claim it is all working. If the argument applies against all the increases, obviously the people in Katherine are not reporting, because it has gone down. We might learn something from that. How did that occur?
I go back and, sadly, restate from the report:
You cannot keep talking about - none of us can keep talking about – an increase in police numbers and record spending in police and expect the public to believe that they are going to be safer in their homes. That is the problem. You cannot keep speaking about this, saying: ‘Do not worry, we have more coppers, we are spending more money than those blokes ever did’. People want to feel safer in their homes. They are getting tired of hearing the same talk. If you are viewing it as a political problem, then you will pose political answers. Increasingly, people have a filter up and the doors are closing on receiving any of these messages.
The police budget has risen by 30% between 2005 and 2008, yet property crime has risen by 30% - the same amount. Violent crime has risen by 55% and Territorians are feeling less safe in their homes now than in the entire time that the Labor government has been in office. Surely, Territorians are entitled to be told why the extra $46m dedicated to the police budget since 2005 has failed to improve their security and peace of mind in their homes.
If you see this as political, you are probably thinking: ‘He is having a go at us. We have tried really hard. We have spent heaps of money’. That is what this motion is about. We might need another instrument to help us find a better way to try to break the circle. That is what this is about. However, some of you are so indoctrinated with this political paradigm that you think this is a political battle. We have a social problem and we need to have – hang on, I have a good slogan - we need to have fresh ideas and real results, something that adds real life to that slogan.
Mr Elferink: We have the slogan sorted out.
Mr MILLS: We have the slogan. Let us come up with a fresh approach.
A member: Yes, we might use that.
Mr MILLS: Yes, you could use that. Here is an opportunity to breathe some life into that slogan, because it is a bit of an empty shell at the moment, I tell you.
We heard at Question Time about some poor bloke sleeping in his premises in Winnellie. Do not tell me that this is the first time you have heard anything like that. It is often referred to. I have visited Durban and I am starting to see the similarities. I was there in 2000 and people were barricading themselves in. They had nice houses but they were barricaded - really nice security fences and security systems. I noticed what they had in place and that society was changing. I was meeting with a couple of politicians and spent some time with them trying to get an understanding of that community. They said: ‘Things have changed quite significantly’. As politicians of many years, they said it was now very difficult to go doorknocking because they could not get to the front door.
I find the same in Palmerston. You cannot get to the front door easily. They say once bitten, twice shy. I have been bitten about four times and I do not know how shy you can get when you see some big dog bowl and great big footprints in the dirt. I think: ‘I am not sure, once bitten by a ridgeback, a chihuahua or a red heeler’. It is hard to get to the front doors in my own suburb; it has changed. Why would people do that? Is it like a competition to have the best fence? It makes them feel more secure. Why do they want this level of protection? Because they feel insecure, they feel unsafe.
A member was saying that his house was broken into. My house has been broken into. That still sends shock waves through our family; it is our family home that has been intruded in. Big deal, I am just another citizen. There are so many citizens who have experienced this. This bloke sleeps in his workplace to defend it. He has been broken into – how many times was it?
Mr Tollner: Fifteen times.
Mr MILLS: Fifteen times. We have had one and it feels as if you have been violated. It is twice for the member for Sanderson. I really feel for Linda at this time, because it does have a particular effect on the ladies. It erodes their sense of integrity around the home.
That whole thing has been intruded upon in our community. Do not tell me there is not a problem. Do not try to explain it away. I know the police are working hard. I know you think it appears to be genuine. ‘Do not worry, we spent more money’. You can quote the numbers of police but we need to go to a new level, and this will provide you that vehicle.
No, this is Darwin. This is the Northern Territory. This is Katherine. This is Alice Springs. This is our community. This is Nhulunbuy. Surely, we could do it better. I believe this is a step in the right direction. The Chief Minister boasted 60 police officers last budget, and yet Alice Springs, a town that has undergone more than its fair share of violence and antisocial behaviour over the past few years, received a grand total of none, that is zip. I note there have been a few deployed with the last wheel out. I believe it is particularly important for those who do not live in Alice Springs, who visit from time to time, to see that that community is changing. Once again, we have a problem.
The Police Association’s repeated call for a scientific resource allocation model has been ignored. The government has continually shown a reluctance to allow considered dissection and examination of its spending and process. It will not even allow the continuation of debate into its own statement on policing; it was taken off the paper. That was breathtaking. You put it on the paper, and I believe you reinforce the notion that it is there only for the effect, so you can put out a press release, make a grand statement, speak about the issue in the community, and say you are really worried about this. Then you say we are going to issue a statement in parliament and once you have had a few talking heads on it, you leave it on the paper, because you do not really care, it is all about how you are responding to a problem so people think you have done something. You have to get past that, for goodness sake. There are some serious problems out there. The government did not allow any further discussion on that statement; it was taken off the paper.
First, the government refuses calls for a transparent method of police resource distribution. Then it refuses to continue debate on how the Chief Minister intends to use these increasing resources – budget increases of 30% - and the government does not want to continue to discuss how it intends to spend the money – it is very defensive about it.
Once again, it is seen as a political problem and therefore it is a political solution. The government has to guard the way it looks and the way the community thinks about it as the most important thing to protect. No, that is not the most important thing to protect. We need to protect our community and make sure that the money is well spent.
I spent 10 years as a school principal and I had the responsibility for a budget. The school was becoming increasingly violent, with more bullies in the playground. The parents were becoming more concerned and kids were becoming frightened and crying and not wanting to go to school. If I kept saying no, do not worry, we have an excellent policy that we have costed, and we have spent more money than the former principal ever spent on this school in this area, people would say: ‘That is fine, but we have a problem in the playground. My kid does not want to go to school, and that has never happened before’. I could say: ‘Rest assured, here is a copy – I will be sending out another copy of our policy in this area – but rest assured, we have spent a lot of money on this. We have thought deeply about it and we are going to engage the community in little groups to talk about it’. But the kid still does not want to go to school.
You have to connect in a different way, recognise that there is a problem and ensure the money is spent to fix the problem, which is a community problem, not a political problem. This committee could achieve that.
The Chief Minister announced in his ministerial statement, the one that the government will not allow any further debate on, that the government has been responsible for putting an extra 255 uniformed police officers on the streets of the Northern Territory since 2003. When you go into your Caucus meetings you must have chanting or something like that so you can remember all these lines and you punch out those numbers, just speak into it, say the magic line, and we will finally turn this around. The pollsters will give us a report later that we have managed to claw back. No, you are not going to get much hope if you are going to continue this way.
The Chief Minister failed to mention that, of those 255 extra uniforms, only about 140 were sworn, fully-fledged officers who were out on the street. That is a different message, and it is a clear indicator that it is for presentation purposes. Why would you want to present it in such a way? It is to create the impression that you have many police. The people want to hear that you have responded to their problem. The problem is law and order, the answer is police. Do not worry everyone, we have 255, but they failed to tell them that only 140 of those were sworn, fully-fledged officers on the street. That is the impression that people have. It creates an impression and that is more important than the reality. Once again, it is a political problem that is solved politically, and the political problem is not the greatest one. It is the problem that people are feeling in their homes and in their streets. The decisions that they make about who is going to go down to the shop and buy something.
It is this convenient massaging of the figures that makes the establishment of a Territory Police Review Committee essential. If the Henderson government is as committed as it says to an open and accountable government, then there should be nothing to fear by taking part in a committee to ease public concerns. There would be nothing to fear if it says it is committed. If it is committed and wants to advance towards a solution, here is a shot.
I know it is going to be very difficult because it is coming from the opposition. It is going to be mocked and ridiculed, I expect, because it is a committee; you want a committee to solve a problem. We have spent this; we have done this, that and the other. I say again, go out there, have a listen to what is going on out there, and how people are really feeling.
If you were doing all the good things that you have been boasting about there would be no reason to hold a public review into the distribution of police resources. But the government will answer the same as when there have been calls for similar reviews of committees, that there is nothing really wrong, it is all fine, and we are looking after our business well. Your business is not a political business. Your business is to discharge services in the best interests of the Territory community. That is the business. If the government cannot accept that we have a problem then we do not have much chance of getting any further in this discussion.
I hope that we can reach a place where we recognise that there is a social problem, which the police are resourced to address, but at the moment, with the way in which it works, we are not keeping up; the effort is not matching the demand. That is not because of insufficient effort, it is the way in which it is applied. We need to assess that. We need to make some proper analysis so that we can then be sure that the coordination between different programs, projects, agencies, and the work of the police is all going to work together to produce a result.
I would like to be able to stand up one time - even if it is in opposition, I do not care – and make a comment that there has been a change. Not the little ups and downs that we see in the crime statistics, but that there is a real change. It would be good to be able to report in this Chamber that there has been a statistically significant downward trend, year after year. That is what we aspire to. But we do not have that. I have been here 10 years, and a significantly upward trend identified is not a good signal. It is even worse to explain it away and to look at it in a different way - this, that or the other - and try to reduce the pain you may feel politically. Put that aside; that is not the point. The point is that something is not right. We have significant effort, dedicated officers applied to that problem and we still have a statistically significant upward trend identified.
I urge members to consider and support this motion. We need to find a new way through this, and we need to find at least a toe hold, so that we can fight back and provide a better solution to the problems that are compounding across the community. Make no mistake. It is not a problem that can be explained away. I will leave you with the pub test. I challenge you to take the things that are said in here to Mitchell Street, say to Shenannigans, I can organise it for you …
A member: You go down yourself and explain it. You explain some of your policies down there.
Mr MILLS: … you can get up and explain how we do not have a crime problem. Go to Alice Springs and we will say: ‘Right, the member for Karama will explain how everything is now fine. Everything is just in order’. We could look at it this way or that; and we will see if it passes the pub test. I may be wrong. I may find that people think that I was looking at it the wrong way.
We had parliament down there a little while back and I remember the feeling in the street. Much of the strong feeling expressed by the community was as a result of seeing their community change and threatened by declining law and order. There is strong feeling out there and we need more than glossy brochures and breathy explanations to the problem. I urge members to support the formation of a select committee.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward.
It is important for us to look soberly and objectively at this problem. There is no one on this side of the House, Leader of the Opposition, saying that everything is hunky-dory, that we do not have a problem in the Northern Territory or we do not have significant problems with crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory …
Mr Bohlin: Were you listening at Question Time?
A member: That is not what the member for Karama says.
Dr BURNS: … the government acknowledges that …
Mr Bohlin: What was Question Time then?
Dr BURNS: Give me the courtesy of being able to give my views and my offering, member …
A member: Drysdale
Dr BURNS: Wherever. It is hard to grasp onto a presence in your particular corner of the equation.
I have been here long enough to know what I am saying. As I said in Question Time earlier, until we came to government there were no published crime statistics, they were not out in the open. The previous government never did that. We have done that and we said right from the outset we were prepared to have the debate on this very important issue. That is what we are doing today. That should be recognised.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about, and I will quote him:
He talked about statistical significance and downward trends and upward trends and all the rest of it. If you look at the crime figures since 2001, since this government came to power, there are a few key statistics: murders, homicides and related offences have dropped 19% since 2001; there has been a 58% drop in house break-ins; 26% drop in motor vehicle theft and related offences; and total property offences have dropped 29% since 2001. That is approximately 9300 fewer property offences then when we came to power.
As I acknowledged in Question Time, any property offence is one too many. I sympathise with the member for Sanderson with what has been happening at his house. I also acknowledge that there has been an increase, a statistical increase, in the number of property crimes and property break-ins in commercial properties. Police have advised that this often relates to people trying to search out alcohol. There is a whole history and cause of events behind that.
We have acknowledged that violent crime has increased with time. There are many reasons for that increase, which have been debated in this parliament. There has been an increase but I believe we have turned the corner. The number of offences committed against the person decreased by 4% during the 2008 year. Alcohol is still driving that and one only has to look at the reports coming from Nhulunbuy, and also Groote Eylandt, that if you can turn the tap down, you will turn down the offences, you will get people back to work and engaged in productive activity.
It is alcohol that is a major driver of the violent crime in the Northern Territory. The government acknowledges that. We have been criticised by the opposition, particularly in Alice Springs and other places, where we have brought in a whole range of measures. We have said that we are prepared to have them objectively evaluated and we will go with that ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I distinctly recall the minister talking about rap music being the major driver.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, thank you. Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: I have consistently said, on the public record in this House, that alcohol is the major driver of crime and violent crime in the Northern Territory. There has been a decline in domestic violence-related assaults. However, they are still too high; they are way out of proportion. We can see from the experience in places that have turned the tap down, that there can be a significant decrease.
Let us put these statistics in perspective. I just attempted to do that, while still acknowledging, on behalf of government, that we have a long way to go. The government is not saying everything is hunky-dory. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that the government is in denial; we are saying everything is hunky-dory. We are not. We are looking objectively at figures supplied quite independently, and are on the public record, unlike the way it was before under the previous CLP government. The government has brought about transparency in this whole debate.
I will provide more important history, if we are talking about the police force and police numbers. Let us go back to the O’Sullivan report of 2003 - I am not sure how many on the other side have read the O’Sullivan report. Jim O’Sullivan, a former Police Commissioner in Queensland, a very experienced police officer, came here and travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory to try to ascertain the detailed needs of the Northern Territory Police Force. I will read from his report on page 24, where he talked about recent history, and said:
The figures he referred to showed police members and length of service which clearly showed the gaps in experience. He said:
He was saying that this not only impacted on numbers in toto of the police force, it also meant that officers in senior ranks were depleted because of that, and had a progressive effect through the Northern Territory Police Force, particularly in the ranks of Sergeant and above. That is very important. That is the first thing to talk about. The second one …
Mr Bohlin: How many of those recommendations have you completed?
Dr BURNS: All of them. All of them have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.
It talks about the lack of supervision on page vii, and I quote:
That is an indictment of the Northern Territory Police Force under the CLP. As Jim O’Sullivan outlined, this has long-term ramifications on our police force. On page v he talked about police establishments:
the approved establishments was available for more than 50% of the 28-day rosters to perform policing tasks.
For example, at Casuarina police station for the January-February 2003 roster only 25 of the established 58 police
personnel were available for more than half of the rostered period.
There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker, a reputable person, Jim O’Sullivan, reporting and giving a plan to the government in 2003 about what should be done. What did the government do? We said we would immediately invest $75m in the report handed down by Jim O’Sullivan. We have been proactive with this, and we have not stopped there.
On 28 April 2009, the Police minister made certain announcements. In addition to the approximately 340 extra police as a result of the O’Sullivan review, which includes police constables and above - ACPOs mainly - the Police minister says Budget 2009-10 will provide $6.5m to deliver an extra 54 police positions. The 54 extra police will complete our Safer Streets initiative, with 11 police at Palmerston, 10 in Alice Springs, and four in Katherine.
We will also continue to roll-out the Police Beats next financial year, with 12 constables and six auxiliaries; a Police Beat will be established in Alice Springs, and another two in Darwin. We are also improving the performance of our police call centre at Berrimah with an extra 10 auxiliaries. A superintendent position will also be established in the Alice Springs youth hub.
This government has invested resources into our police. I will demonstrate by this prepared speech I have that there have been quite a number of reviews into various aspects of the police force. I believe it is a bit cheeky of the opposition to come in with this motion, for a number of reasons not least of all its history in what was identified through O’Sullivan, but also because the committee the opposition is recommending and putting forward is usurping the role of the Commissioner of Police.
If you look at the Police Administration Act, section 14, Control and management of the Police Force:
Those of us who have been here long enough know that when Paul White was named Commissioner of Police, early on, I remember the then member for Brennan, standing up in Question Time and assailing him. What was the reason? The CLP favourite, Mr John Valentin, did not get the job, and it was vicious. It was vicious in the Chamber and in Estimates, and they did everything they could. I remember the offhand, brutish, rude, arrogant attitude of Denis Burke towards the Police Commissioner. That made me very angry because, above all, the Commissioner is a very decent man, an honest man, and a man who has the interests of the Northern Territory at heart. Not political interests. One thing you can say about Paul White is that he is not really interested in politics, he is not partisan in any way; he is interested in his job. He is interested in the benefits and the welfare of the Northern Territory; to serve and protect Territorians.
What have we found with this new crop of CLP members who have come in, like the member for Drysdale? First, he started to attack the Commissioner, an attack over police numbers, trying to erode the confidence and the good name of the Police Commissioner. The Police Commissioner came out publicly and put him in his place and challenged him to put up or shut up. We have the commissioners-in-exile and we have this motion today which is a thinly veiled attempt - a futile attempt, because government will not be supporting it - to erode the power of the Commissioner of Police, who we believe is doing a good job.
I now turn to my prepared speech on this issue. This particular committee would establish another layer of bureaucracy and cause the taxpayer to incur avoidable and unnecessary costs, so we do not support it. I have already mentioned the duplication of roles with the Police Commissioner and the 340 extra police that have come into the force.
I was at a graduation ceremony, I believe it was last week - the member for Sanderson was there – for 25 fine young men and one woman - although the next squad will have more women - graduating and taking their oaths as police officers. It was a very solemn event. I have personally attended a number of graduations and I am thrilled to bits every time I am invited to a graduation to see the pride and the steadfast attitude on the faces of those police, knowing that they will benefit the Northern Territory.
I sat here the other day and someone from the opposition – I forget who it was now, it could have been one of the ex-policemen – said: ‘Just getting extra police, what does that do?’ How does that denigrate police officers? Every police officer who graduates, every police officer who takes up a place in the Northern Territory is an asset, will reduce crime, and will do the job to serve and protect. That is the job they are asked to do, that is the job they are trained to do.
To say that just getting more police is not going to do anything is very short sighted. Sure, you need to have the right structure within the police force and I have every confidence in the Police Commissioner, and that his organisation of the police force is along modern lines and intelligence-led policing. I know the Police Association has a contrary view, and they are quite at liberty to put that view. But the Police Commissioner is the Police Commissioner. The government has confidence in him and we believe he is doing the best he can and the government is very prepared to give him more resources to do that.
The performance of the Northern Territory Police Force in nearly every way is subject to the public record. There was the introduction of the Northern Territory Police Continuous Improvement Program in 2002 and the Northern Territory Police Force has reviewed its frontline police service delivery, both internal and external, through the conduct of a major core structures review and the frontline policing review including triage response. Reviews have also been undertaken in respect of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services Training College, the Territory Intelligence Division, the Joint Emergency Services Communications Centre and Alice Springs Police Communications Centre, police prosecution, violent crime and major crash and accident investigation capacity. Specific work groups have also been the subject of reviews including a review of the Aboriginal Community Police Officer and Police Auxiliary Scheme.
Previous reviews have addressed internal police processes surrounding merit-based promotion and selection, mainstream and Indigenous recruitment, customer service, police discipline, welfare and chaplaincy services, and equity and diversity. Reviews have also addressed police policy and procedures and include reviews into operational safety tactics training.
Each review engages a process of examining current practices against known best practice models from both within Australia and overseas. Many reviews are undertaken with the assistance of knowledge experts from other Australian police jurisdictions. All review outcomes and recommendations are made the subject of a full report to the Commissioner of Police through the Executive Leadership Group.
In addition to these formal review processes, Operational Performance Reviews are conducted biannually into every service delivery area of the police force. The OPR process examines in detail performance against the outcomes contained in the NT Police Force Business Plan. The OPR process provides yet another avenue for continuous improvement surrounding service delivery effectiveness and efficiency and provides an opportunity for success to be recognised and barriers to peak performance to be removed.
In addition to the foregoing, the Northern Territory Police Force is the only jurisdiction that undertakes police activity surveying as a basis for assessing resources dedicated to frontline policing, both in staff numbers and hours of service delivery and the ratios of activity dedicated to both core and non-core policing including overtime.
Data collated from the police activity survey is providing a platform for the development of a resource allocation model, which is currently being developed by the NT Police Force, and will be finalised following consultation with the Northern Territory Police Association. Performance outcomes and measures are defined in the Northern Territory Police Business Plan and are made the subject of publication through the annual report.
The motion suggested that the committee should also inquire into and report on the numbers, impact and interrelation of the Federal Police with the NT Police. This is managed through the auspices of Taskforce Themis and is the subject of performance reporting through the Australian government intervention.
We do not support this motion. I will come back to what I talked about in the Police Administration Act, section 14(1). Why is the Police Commissioner independent? It is very important that the Police Commissioner is completely independent of government in what he does. The Police minister can, under the Police Administration Act, direct the Police Commissioner but that direction has to be tabled in the parliament. I am not aware of one instance in the history of the Northern Territory, both in CLP and Labor Party times, when a Police Commissioner has been given a written direction by the Police minister that was tabled in parliament.
We need to have these institutions – it is about the separation of powers. We saw, and I will allude again to what happened with Denis Burke and his attitude towards Paul White and the way he wanted to get a CLP crony into that position. That is where the CLP wants to go with police commissioners.
The Labor Party is not into that game. We respect the fierce independence of the Police Commissioner and we want him to do his job. We give him the freedom to do his job, and we have trust in his abilities to do that job. We are not going to pay $130 000 a year for another committee to waltz around, comprised of ex-police officers, probably from the opposition’s side. We would rather put the $130 000 with the millions we are already putting into policing in the Northern Territory to get a result for Territorians.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, before I say anything else, I personally acknowledge that we, on this side, believe that the police are doing a fantastic job.
I was also at the graduation recently of 25 new police officers coming out to protect our community. They have sworn to serve and protect. I recall that feeling very well. I have done it twice in my life, at a police graduation, and sworn my allegiance to the Queen and to the people who I am out there to protect. I believe they will do a great job. But police are only as good as the government that stands behind them.
The authority that you have as a police officer, and I speak as a former police officer, only comes from the community and those who represent the community; the government of the day. If they do not have good policies and good systems in place to support those police officers, then police officers are hindered in doing a better job.
Having said that we really support these people, there are a number of things we need to consider. One is that the government needs to look at how they conduct themselves, and how they are seen by the community. We need to have solid deterrents so that people have confidence that the courts are going to do their job, we have programs in place to rehabilitate people to retrain them, we have youth programs in place to divert them, and we have early intervention systems in place.
One of the things we really need to do is take the pressure off the police officers. Many police officers who are at the front line have an incredible workload. That is because there are so many people – criminals - who believe they can do whatever they like, because it does not really matter if you go to court the first time, it is all right. There are people with hundreds of offences against them and they still get bail, even though bail has been tightened up. I believe the police are doing a great job of looking out for those people who are on bail.
However, we need to take the pressure off these particular officers so that they can concentrate on criminals. The ‘would-bes if they could-bes’ need to know that if you are actually going out there to break the law some serious consequences are going to happen to you. It will be something like a boot camp - or whatever name you want to give it - some form of rehabilitation camp, where it is tough. There is Brahminy. I have been to Brahminy and it is a great place. Knowing some of the people who are youth offenders - and are still out there offending – I am surprised that they are not in a program like Brahminy, there are only two out of the six positions. They are the sort of things that we need to do.
I point to some things the member for Johnston spoke about. We are looking at some of the issues and how they are dealt with, for instance, the PROMIS system. The PROMIS system still appears to be quite a cumbersome system. From my own experience, you hear of police officers who are called out to a job, they do the job and they go back to the police station so they can get in and update the PROMIS system. There have been alternatives offered to the government and they have not taken up those offers. There are time constraints on police officers, which then impact on their ability to go out, generally patrol the place, and be in these hot spots where these young people are gathering - young and other people - and causing all these problems.
One of the things we need to look at is retaining police. That comes under part (f) of what we are talking about, where it says: other matters relevant to the performance of Territory Police officers. I assure this place that there are officers who do not feel supported by the government. We have to go out there and demonstrate, as the Legislative Assembly, that all of us are behind their efforts. They are out there trying to cope with almost overwhelming odds and overwhelming jobs. You tend to work them very hard, with much overtime, and burn them out.
The revolving door syndrome in courts still appears to be there. I am sure that the government will say: ‘No, no, we have done this and we have tightened up and we have got tough on crime’. There are some very good laws in effect in the Northern Territory and they have been there for some years. The government needs to get those laws enforced and seek for the courts to do something that is going to deter these people.
When my own home was broken into, in the last few days, it would appear that there is no fear of coming back. It does not matter if you leave DNA evidence or fingerprints because you are probably not going to suffer too much when you go to court.
We need policies that are going to support early intervention. Let us talk about early intervention. As a former school-based police officer, I recall a time when we were down to 52% staffing levels. That is in the last two years. I believe it is up at the moment, but it will probably go down again - it fluctuates. We used to have a fantastic life skills program called DARE, Drug Abuse Resistance Education. It placed police officers into classrooms where we could influence young people. We could teach them and give them the resilience and the life skills they may not have been getting at home. Having dealt with youth for 19 years on a daily basis, with their families and older people in the community, you have a fair idea of what is needed. What I believe is needed and what I ask the government to consider is that you reintroduce good, solid programs where you can timetable police officers into classrooms.
Look at the statistics for when this government canned the DARE program - which was in the end of June 2005 - and at where the crime stats have gone, especially with youth. The crime stats show that, from 2005 to 2008, the government increased the budget by 30%, and property crime went up 30% over that time. Look at the graphs of where it is going and it relates exactly to when the government virtually took police officers out of schools. They left them there, but they did not support them. When we talk about early intervention, where is the support? Where are the people timetabled into these classrooms to give a balanced view to some of these young people - I am talking about from Transition on - who are either not getting instruction or role models at home? All they are being taught is: let us hate the police, let us hate society, let us go out there and create as much trouble and havoc as we can for fun.
A member: And some respect.
Mr STYLES: Yes, it is about respect. They are the sort of things that we have to do. We have to get the balance right. We have to empower youth to say no to becoming involved in crime. The problem is if you do not reach young people early enough they take it into adulthood, and then they become older folks. Same deal, same presence out there, they bully and pick on people. If we cannot get out there and support our community and our young people by the programs that need to be put in place, then I wonder what we are doing. Without law and order in our community, you have anarchy, and it keeps deteriorating to the point where people are too afraid to come out at night to go walking, they are too afraid to come out of their homes.
I am going to have a look at my own place, and in a week’s time it is going to look like Fort Knox, so that I can have some peace of mind that when I go away my family is protected. I am very fortunate that I am in a position where I can do that, even though it is going to cost a lot of money. What about the poor people, the constituents in my electorate who do not have the money to be able to take those security measures? How do they sleep at night? These are the issues I ask the government to consider, and these are the issues we should look at when we start to run these bipartisan committees.
We will need to look at prison funds. The government says the gaols are full and we have many police officers. I heard the member for Karama say this morning that if we get more police officers, we are going to have more prisoners. I do not know whether that is something I would like to see sustained right through, filling the prisons up with prisoners. Let us go into the community, provide some early intervention, and some deterrents so these people do not.
When you talk to many of these young criminals - and I suspect there are many people on the other side of the House who have not spent time talking to these people - they do not think like us, they do not think like you and me. They actually have a totally different view of the world and they do not care. They have no respect. These are things that we need to try to teach them.
When you talk to people over the years about unlawful entries and things like that, many people are very concerned that people have been in their homes, and it is not necessarily about the television set that is missing or whatever, but it is about their peace of mind.
The member for Johnston said today that there are 340-odd more police officers. That is an input. What we are looking for from this side of the House is outcomes - outcomes of a sustainable reduction in crime. But we see that it is going up again.
I quote from the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime Statistics December Quarter 2008. The member for Johnston said that crime is going down. I do not know where he quoted those figures from, it would be nice to have a look.
In Darwin, 430 assault offences reported for the December quarter. That is an 18% increase on the previous quarter and a 6% increase for the same quarter in 2007. Palmerston - same thing – a 12% increase and a 31% increase. Alice Springs, again, a 34% increase on the previous quarter, a 13% increase on 2007. That is a clear indication that crime is on the rise, both property crime and assaults.
I will address a couple of things the member for Johnston raised. One is that he referred to the O’Sullivan report. I inform the House that I was part of that; I was part of a group that was interviewed. My last recollection of the O’Sullivan report is that there are 428 pages. Mr O’Sullivan spent 20 minutes with us - there was a whole group of us - he spoke for in excess of half of that, then we had the chance to talk to him and express our views, and then he got up and left. To tell you the truth, we were very surprised that he did not spend more time with us in relation to our role of early intervention and equipping these young people so they have the skills to go out there and survive.
I am not saying that Mr O’Sullivan is not a very competent person, I believe he is. However, given the time frame that the government obviously gave him, and perhaps the resources, he deemed it necessary to only have a short period of time with us. By the way, of the 428 pages, there was actually less than half a page on his interaction with us, and we were the Crime Prevention Unit School Based Policing and we were out there trying to give these people the skills and trying to reduce the load on our colleagues in general duties at that time.
The member for Johnston also spoke about 1990-91 through to 1993-94 and the freeze on police numbers. I was part of the police force at that time and I recall that the federal ALP government, under Hawke and Keating, slashed the NT budget. I do not have the exact budget but it was over $200m. The member for Karama may laugh, but when you have over $200m, in those days, slashed from your budget you find that you are short. There are many things that suffered at that time courtesy of the federal ALP government in Canberra. For the member for Johnston to say that there was a freeze for the sake of having a freeze is quite incorrect. I was there through that whole period.
The member for Johnston also pointed out that we are trying to usurp the role of the Commissioner of Police by having this committee. I refer also to the member for Johnston, who stated that all the recommendations in the report have been implemented. I ask if recommendation 111 has actually been implemented and I will quote:
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: I have not seen that one and this is what we are trying to achieve today.
The member for Johnston mentioned the then Deputy Commissioner, Mr Valentin. I understand why the former member for Brennan, Denis Burke, was trying to get Mr Valentin in there because he was a very competent and well respected Deputy Police Commissioner, one of the most respected Deputy Police Commissioners. I believe he would have done a fine job, irrespective of what his views were, or whatever the member for Johnston was saying that the man’s views were. I am sure that police commissioners try to be bipartisan and please all by being independent, and so they should.
I am not sure on this, so I will stand to be corrected, but I would like to raise the issue of PIPS positions within the police force. This is the type of thing that this is designed to have a look at. I am led to believe that there are a number of PIPS positions that have two police officers or one police officer doing two positions and they are put down against two PIPS positions, which gives the impression that there are more police officers in certain places than others. We are currently researching that and if we can get some information I will come back to the House and inform them of that.
I note that the government is looking at youth hubs in Alice Springs and I encourage them to do that. I believe we have to go further than that and establish some neighbourhood activity centres, which is an idea that I quoted during the election campaign. I commend the government to have a look at these and implement our policy on that because, from experience, it would be a very positive thing to have not only in the northern suburbs but throughout the Territory.
The police need our assistance and I believe that we, as representatives of the community, should do everything in our power to give them the right tools and to give them the right backing. I will also talk about retention of police. I believe retention rates have been around 10%, so if we have lost 8% to 10% of our police force over the last eight years, every year that is about a 70% turnover.
The member for Johnston also said that we lacked experience. When you have a look at the turnover and the lack of retention of police officers we train, not only is that an enormous expense to the community of the Northern Territory, it also takes out those people with experience. Perhaps the member for Johnston needs to look at what is going on in his situation at the moment and in the police force in relation to retention. We have to look after them. If we do not, we will end up with a very bad and deteriorating community across the Northern Territory.
In closing, I mention a particular incident that occurred some years ago, to give the House some indication of the destruction caused by unlawful entries, whether it is assaults or taking property. I had a neighbour who worked for a government department and he used to spend much of his time travelling around the Territory. One evening, whilst his wife and their three young children were sleeping, a thief broke into their home, robbed it and then left the premises. The lady got up in the morning, was absolutely terrified and virtually had her confidence to stay in that home destroyed because his job required him to travel. They were not in a financial position where he could walk away from his job. She did not want to stay in the house with three young kids, so he had to buy another home and move, put up fences, buy dogs and things like that. That cost him around $40 000. This shows the destruction of the confidence of people to stay in their own homes; people are in fear in their own homes.
I believe that we should ensure that it is not the good community and citizens of the Northern Territory who are in fear but the criminals. The criminals should be in fear of our police and we should give them the tools and we should give the courts the tools and the policies to back up our voice.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the opportunity has been presented to approach this problem in a different way. I acknowledge that the government has been provided with a challenge. The acting Police minister, speaking on behalf of the Labor government, whilst understanding some aspects of the argument presented, has largely rejected the proposition from the opposition to try to find a new way through. That is disappointing. When you weigh the arguments for and contrast it with the arguments against, we recognise that we need to approach this problem differently; it is predictable, but still disappointing that there is that rejection.
I thank the member for Johnston for his contribution. I thank my colleague particularly for his contribution and acknowledge his years of service in the force. I am very fortunate to have these people on my team who have experience. I assure members that their experience will assist in providing support for our police; our police need that. Perhaps this was one vehicle that would have achieved a solution to the problem.
It is sad in the extreme that government largely adopts the position where it can, as I noted the minister in his reply, quickly dived into the statistics and started reading a different story from the statistics. Perhaps that is satisfying in some way. It is perhaps like eating a Mars Bar and confusing confectionery for real food. However, you have to marry that up with reality and talk about what people are thinking and feeling, and then allow the statistics to speak as a reflection of what is reality.
My colleague, the member for Sanderson, has identified the effect that the breakdown of law and order has on our community. We should be alarmed and should be responding with greater vigour, promoted out of an intention to address that problem rather than be locked into a political response and endeavour to bat it away with strong words and looking over the horizon to the past somewhere. As though that is going to make a jot of difference to anyone who is experiencing troubles tonight. I wonder if someone will get broken into tonight.
I wonder if our debates will make much difference. It is a damn shame that we have these discussions and debate, then a decision is made and we move on as though it is some kind of debating club. It is a real world out there and people are crying out for some real leadership.
We will continue. The sentiment expressed in this motion remains; we need to take a different approach. We want to make sure that we go to the next level. It is not just recognition of the problem and the application of the solution, in this case the police, but it is how we can apply a greater level of analysis to the application of that resource against the problem.
I will endeavour to keep my ears open so I can hear whether there is genuinely an understanding of this and a response. I will listen through the filter of the political contest to see whether there are efforts made that affect what we desire - a significant downward trend in the crime stats. I would love to see that recorded, but we live in hope.
I urge members to support this motion so that we can take the next bold step in moving closer to the goal of experiencing and seeing a significant downward trend in the crime statistics. This is one vehicle we believe could achieve that. I thank members for their contribution. I urge support for the motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Mr Styles Mr Knight
Mr Tollner Ms Lawrie
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr McCarthy
Ms McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Section 45 of the Information Act states that:
(a) the information:
(i) was brought into existence for submission to and consideration by an Executive body,
whether or not it has been submitted to or considered by the Executive body.
The big difference is that the information ‘was submitted’. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that papers and reports are only exempt from the Information Act if the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence was for the submission to and consideration by an Executive body - that is the Caucus.
This does not mean a document that the government considers it needs to shield from public eyes can be shielded, unless its dominant purpose for coming into existence was to bring it before an Executive body. This amendment removes the ability of the government to decide that the information within any document can be concealed by deciding that it may have been for consideration, even though it was actually never actually considered or submitted to the Executive body.
This amendment makes the government more accountable. It ensures that freedom of information is just that. This will ensure that the government can only use the exemptions under this section for documents if the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence was for executive use. No more hiding of documents that may cause embarrassment to the government, like the member for Karama.
The second amendment is even simpler. The amendment of section 156 - Fees for applications and complaints, we intend to insert after section 156(2), clause:
These amendments are so simple, and they make common sense.
This insertion brings true meaning to the words ‘freedom of information’ for members of the Legislative Assembly, bringing a higher level of accountability to the government of the day, no matter which side of politics hold the government. I make that clear: it brings a higher level of accountability to the government of the day no matter which side of politics hold the government. This is looking to the future no matter which side or which team holds government. It is equal to all.
The burden of extensive freedom of information requests or complaints on the members of the Legislative Assembly is high and cost prohibitive. This includes our Independents. This cost is at times extremely high with the intent of ensuring governments are truly accountable.
How can the government be truly accountable if the freedom of information by members of the Legislative Assembly is not free? If the information is vitally important but the cost often restricts and controls the decisions whether to continue with the freedom of information application or complaint.
The intent is for a member of the Legislative Assembly, in the execution of his or her duty, to access this information as a member of the Legislative Assembly for the duties within parliament and not for general personal knowledge. The member is not intended to become a broker of freedom of information for all. This is about ensuring that the government, the Northern Territory government, of the people is accountable, without prohibitive obstructions.
If a good government is governing fairly and honestly it should not have any objections to such an inclusion. I will repeat that, for some that may not listen on the other side: if a good government is governing fairly and honestly it should not have any objections to such an inclusion.
Objections to this insertion or amendment could only indicate a government that has something to hide or is fearful of certain information. If the government intends to hide behind these prohibitive costs it has something to hide and could be considered arrogant. A government conducting its business with the best and the fairest interests of all the people of the Northern Territory should have nothing to fear and should support these amendments.
I told you it was pretty simple and it is. They are two very simple amendments that add up to about six lines in total. They pull some of the clauses in tighter. They are not meant to harm anyone. They are not meant to harm either side of the House. They are there to make the government more accountable. If there is an objection from the other side, after they take the time to read this, it is only because they wish to continue to hide information which should be public. If the government of the day, now or in the future, is doing the governance in the interests of the people they should have nothing to fear. If it is fair, open, and transparent, it should have nothing to fear by these amendments.
These are very simple and mild adjustments with common sense. If the government has nothing to fear and is true and honest in its approach to governing the people of the Northern Territory and their wellbeing, it should not object to this legislation.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the Environment Protection Authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements. This bill is simple and does nothing more than ensure that the Environment Protection Authority evolves into the type of authority that I believe it should be and most people expect it to be.
This bill would amend functions and recommendations to major projects and how the EPA reports to the minister, the parliament and, therefore, the people of the Northern Territory.
Let us discuss how the EPA reports to this House. Currently, if the Environment Protection Authority chose to take on an investigation it would report its findings to the minister. I have the word from the current minister that all recommendations from the EPA would be tabled in parliament. I trust the minister and she has not provided me with any reason to doubt her word today. However, while I may have a level of trust for the minister, unfortunately, I do not share the same views on the Cabinet. That makes me very sceptical of the process. I can see a day when the current minister is overruled by other Cabinet colleagues, because a recommendation may be less than positive and reflect badly on the government.
It should be noted that the government has the propensity to reshuffle from time to time; to stack the deck, so to speak. Although I am confident in the current minister’s ability and believe that her heart is in the right place when it comes to protecting the environment, I cannot say the same for others - perhaps the next minister or the minister after that.
This bill sets out to diminish that threat, ensuring that all recommendations from the EPA are made public. This does not suggest in any way that the EPA can overrule this House. The government can still make a judgment that is at odds with an EPA recommendation. It means that such a decision would be made in an open and accountable manner.
I provide a little background. In 2005, the EPA Board was established and, in consultation with the community, developed the guidelines that established the framework. In 2006, the EPA Board had its workshops. In 2007, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 was passed by this parliament. In January 2008, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 commenced and, in October 2008, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 review was announced.
It is interesting that during the workshops some of the recommendations in the summary of the issues included: that the EPA should have the capacity to receive referrals from the public; the EPA should have powers to investigate environmental wrongdoing and enforce environmental laws; it should provide leadership on environmental issues and do proactive work to avoid environmental problems before they occur; and any minister who does not take EPA advice should be required to give reasons.
Some other points include: processes for communication need to be established and transparent; the EPA should make recommendations to the government or the parliament, but not final decisions; it needs to be strongly independent and beyond political influence; and the EPA should be advisory rather than a decision making. All the listed points support the amendments proposed by this bill which were ignored during the original legislation.
During debate on the EPA, the former member for Goyder stated:
I do not quite agree with that. The former member for Goyder went on to say:
Again, I cannot agree.
We note that the EPA is tasked by the minister for NRETA to investigate the environmental assessment and approval processes outlined in the Environmental Assessment Act for major development proposals and recommend improvements for the government’s consideration. It also says that the authority is not subject to the minister’s direction in relation to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions. So, I am a little muddled.
The reality is that this act does not require the minister to inform the public of any decisions arising from advice or recommendations received from the authority. Again, I have the word from the current minister and I appreciate that. But time moves on. We have seen different ministers in this House over the years and the same cannot be said about them. We can protect this in legislation to ensure that the recommendations remain open and accountable, whether it is a minister from the Labor government or a future Country Liberals government.
One of the suggestions in this bill is to increase the independence of the authority. Currently, the act states ‘in accordance with criteria and arrangements agreed with the Minister’. I suggest it should say: made by someone else and accepted by the authority. The bill also suggests that the authority report on all major projects. The amendments state that the authority must give advice or make recommendations on major projects.
I recently drafted a letter to the current minister because of a couple of threats to the environment in the Northern Territory and, rightly or wrongly, I assumed that the EPA would have some advice. We know that there are other departments and other areas that deal with environmental threats. However, I sat, I waited and I hoped that the EPA would have some kind of involvement.
The first one involved a chemical spill at the wharf. I appreciate that there was a Work Health safety report investigation on the matter, but I worried at the time that, although those people do a very good job, their focus is not on the environment but on work practices. It goes without saying that improved work practices can improve and protect our environment because, if it is done right, we know that there is less impact on our environment. However, I was not so sure that their focus would be on the environment. I was hoping that the EPA would look at the ‘what ifs’, and if one accident can happen, perhaps other accidents could happen.
The wharf is an area that is used for any number of chemicals and fuels, and some chemicals are perhaps more dangerous than others. Perhaps that was an opportunity for the EPA to step in and do a review of practices at the wharf to look at some of the current practices with the chemicals and some of the processing that goes on, loading on and off ships, that may have an impact on our environment, and offer some kind of recommendation on how it could be done better in the future.
The second incident involved diesel fuel in the gulf. I suspect that if it happened in Darwin Harbour or closer to a built-up area perhaps more action would have been taken. I am not saying that no action was taken; we know that action was taken. Perhaps the appropriate action was taken. But I felt that if the EPA was truly independent it might step in and have a look, and lead the way with the investigation.
I suppose it was brought home to me after seeing how the EPA in Queensland took a leadership role and managed that tragic event which happened off the east coast of Australia that could have, and did, cause a great deal of harm to our environment. Because of the EPA within hours a hotline was set up. The hotline could be used by people to call in and have action taken when animals and the environment were affected by oil and so forth. There was a leadership role by the EPA which I believe is, sadly, lacking in the Northern Territory.
The further I look into the current EPA, the more I understand what it is there for. I appreciate what it is there for, but I do not think that an EPA is perhaps the right name for it; maybe it is not really an EPA. If you travel around the world and have a look at some of the regulatory powers that EPAs have, you would be astounded. You have businesses that are closed down because EPA representatives have walked in and seen something and put a stop to that business - they had real regulatory powers.
I am not suggesting that we are quite ready for that in the Northern Territory; perhaps we are or perhaps we are not. The fact is we have an agency called the Environment Protection Authority, which is a little like changing the name of a security officer to a police officer without all the training, knowledge and experience that goes with it. All of a sudden, we change the name of all the security guards that work in the shopping centres, banks and so forth, and we are going to call them police – but they are not really police. They do not have the training, they do not have the expertise, they do not have the knowledge, and they perhaps do not have the law that backs them.
In this case, we have an EPA that is a glossed up version of what it really could be. I refer to EPAs in the United States, for instance, that have a regulatory power, that can go in and can make a difference because it has either been reported, or they have walked in off the street and they have seen some practices that are hurting the environment and they have the regulatory authority to shut it down. I do not see that we are at that stage. What we have is something that is dressed up. I do not really believe that the Environment Protection Authority is the right name for this particular agency, because I do not believe it is the same thing as other EPAs around the world. It is fantastic for advice, for what it has been set up to do, but it is not a true EPA.
I went on radio a couple of weeks ago because of the incidents that happened in Queensland. It was put to me why do I not send a letter to the EPA asking them to investigate this matter or that matter, given that the EPA can receive recommendations from someone in the public. I must admit that it put me on the spot because I was hoping that the EPA, if it is truly independent and truly had its focus on the environment, I would not need to put something into the EPA, it should be doing it on its own. But I did. I sent a letter to the minister and the minister was kind enough to respond. I thought one of the comments was a little complicated, because it said I wanted to have a slice of this cake and a slice of this pie because I was advocating for it being independent but on the other hand I am calling on the minister to direct the agency. I understand that and it is a very good point.
The reason I drafted the letter was because it was clear that the EPA was not going to act on either of these issues, so perhaps I did want a foot in both camps. I wanted a foot in both camps because it was clear that the EPA was not going to act, therefore I felt I had a responsibility to request that the EPA act on the matter. As it turns out, it did not, and I understand that there are other agencies involved in that area.
It brings me back to the point that the EPA is not really an EPA as we are led to believe EPAs are around the world. The purpose of this bill is to provide the authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements.
The last point is changing the way that these recommendations are brought to this House, not through the minister, but tabled in this House. After the recommendation is tabled in parliament, this House decides whether it is the right thing to go forward with a particular development. This does not preclude the government from not taking or accepting advice from the EPA and stop something that they recommend you stop, but at least that decision becomes accountable and can be debated in this House. At least then the public get to know that the EPA has made a decision, and it may or may not support a particular development, but it is this House that then debates whether it should go ahead.
In some cases the House will support what the EPA will say, perhaps in more cases than not. But there will be times, for the sake of jobs or development opportunities, when the government decides that it will move forward on a development that the EPA recommends it does not, or perhaps requests that changes are made to a particular development which would appease the EPA in some way. The difference is that the public knows what the decision is and why. I believe that if you are looking at a truly independent EPA, these small changes are not going to change the world but they will make a real difference to the perception of the current model that we have in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is introduced to this parliament as virtually an amended version to a similar bill introduced by the member for Blain in the first half of 2007, during the 10th Assembly.
Since that time circumstances have changed, in light of the fact that the Blue Mud Bay decision has now been finalised. I feel it is appropriate to revisit this matter by way of having the bill reintroduced as an amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act and further debated.
It is the intention to have this bill passed into law to provide a means by which non-Indigenous people may have access to the inter-tidal zone without the need for a specific permit to be issued. At the outset, I assure all members that this amendment is not designed to facilitate a carte blanche circumnavigation of the current permit system as it stands. It is designed and intended to provide a vehicle by which traditional owners and relevant land councils can open up, by way of a general exemption, the inter-tidal zones to the general public, or a particular class of the public.
At the present time, except where provided for by the provisions of sections 9 and 19 of the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory relating to exceptional circumstances, anyone other than an Aboriginal who is entitled by Aboriginal tradition must obtain a permit in order to enter Aboriginal land or closed seas.
The terms ‘Aboriginal land’ and ‘closed seas’ are defined in the act at section 3, where ‘Aboriginal land’ is defined as having the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and ‘closed seas’ means seas closed by notice in the Gazette under section 12.
The decision of the Federal Court, and subsequent machinations of that court, to consider the inter-tidal zone as Aboriginal land has brought with it issues which were never and could never be considered in deliberations and debate on the original Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory. I believe the act would have been brought into being based on the premise that Aboriginal land and seas should be subject to the use of traditional owners and the permission could be given to certain individuals to enter that land or those seas, if they have a legitimate reason for doing so.
Currently, the method for providing this permission is by way of a permit issued to a single individual. This is what is enshrined in the act in sections 5 and 15. This amendment does not seek to diminish the original intent, but to add to it in a way that provides Aboriginal people a broader power to determine who comes onto or into the inter-tidal zone, which is now considered as Aboriginal land.
For the sake of completeness for Hansard, the inter-tidal zone is the area of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark of certain waterways in the Northern Territory. In terms of the physical process of accessing the inter-tidal zone, this can be done in two ways, either by water or land. I will deal with the land access method in the first instance.
In this hypothetical situation, a recreational fisherman might like to fish the Rose River in East Arnhem Land at Numbulwar. To get there by road, he drives out along the Roper Highway, turns off this side of Ngukurr and continues to Numbulwar. The fisherman must enter Aboriginal land, taken in the traditional sense, and to do this he must get a permit to enter that Aboriginal land, the same as prior to the Blue Mud Bay decision. Under these circumstances, the permit, by virtue of the Blue Mud Bay decision, now includes the inter-tidal zone where he will access the waterway and conduct his fishing. Because he has obtained a permit to enter Aboriginal land, there will be no need for him to be considered under the general exemption that is proposed in this amendment.
In the second scenario, the same recreational fisherman launches his boat in the higher reaches of the Daly River, where a permit to enter Aboriginal land is not required. He motors down river to a part of the river which falls into the area affected by Blue Mud Bay. To fish, enter or remain in the inter-tidal zone, he would currently require a permit, issued under the auspices of section 5. Similarly, had he entered the Daly River from the sea, he would be subject to the same restrictions as if he had come from the upper reaches. There is nothing that precluded him from having previously applied for and obtained a permit under section 5. But it might be the decision of Aboriginal people of those reaches of the Daly or the Northern Land Council that all recreational fishermen are permitted to fish the inter-tidal zone. For that matter, it might be that the traditional owners may wish to open up the inter-tidal zone to people wearing blue shirts or white sandshoes. The point is that the decision on who may enter those inter-tidal waters still lies wholly and completely with the traditional owners or the relevant land council.
Under the current legislation, there is no provision for the traditional owner or the land council to provide, other than by way of a permit issued to an individual or a group such as recreational fishermen, to enter their inter-tidal zone. This amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act introduces a provision to allow that to happen. The amendment also outlines, at proposed new clause 7A(2)(c), that a general exemption ‘may be subject to any conditions stated in the instruments of exemption’; thus, granting traditional owners and the relevant land council further powers in determining such matters as who, how, when, how often, etcetera. This proposed amendment does not, in any way, derogate from the current provisions of the act but provides a new section that complements the existing provisions.
Regarding breaches of the permit system, sections 4 and 14 of the act provide for the offences of entering Aboriginal land or closed seas respectively, and will continue to provide for those offences. Under the Blue Mud Bay decision, the land encapsulated in the inter-tidal zone is now considered Aboriginal land as per the definition. Entering the inter-tidal zone, either without a permit or without the benefit of an exemption under this amendment, would still constitute an offence, as it constitutes an offence at the present time under the present incarnation of the act.
The proposed amendment should not be considered controversial. Yet, I fear there will be some in the community who will see such an amendment as a derision or, in some way, as an attack on the permit system as it currently stands. There may be some in the community who, with good intention or not, or with misguided loyalty or not, may see this as a gradual erosion of the permit system. This is definitely not the case.
The current permit system will remain as it is if this amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act is passed. If it were deemed appropriate and right, having regard for the contemporary wishes of Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to review the permit system as it currently stands, then this would be a matter for a great deal of consultation, very careful consideration, and a great deal of debate for some time in the future. In the meantime, the remainder of the Aboriginal Land Act would remain unmolested.
For all the reasons provided thus far in this portion of the debate, I believe this amendment is a progressive way of furthering the empowerment of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is a way of allowing Aboriginal people to have more say and greater self-determination regarding who they allow to enter the inter-tidal zone which is now deemed to be Aboriginal land.
One only has to look at what is occurring around the Northern Territory at the present time, regarding negotiations between the government, other stakeholders, and Aboriginal traditional landowners and land councils with respect to Blue Mud Bay. The Tiwi Land Council has decided, unless that has changed in recent times, to virtually go their own way when it comes to negotiating access rights for people to gain access to the inter-tidal zone around the Tiwis. That is a prime example of how Aboriginal people are taking up for themselves their own level of determination. The Northern Territory government is guilty of failing, thus far, to expedite negotiations. I understand that it has fairly recently announced that those negotiations with other landowners. However, they have been tardy.
The opposition has seen fit to leap into the fray with this because we felt that we were able to produce a bill with some amendments that would facilitate what the Tiwi Islanders and the Tiwi Land Council are doing off their own bat. This is an amendment that we believe would be effective and efficient in delivering self-determination to Indigenous people who are custodians of the inter-tidal zone.
I commend the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-tidal Waters) Bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the bill and an accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
This was put on the Notice Paper last General Business Day and it is a very important motion, which seeks to move forward in a bipartisan manner to identify positive measures that can assist and grow Alice Springs. It also addresses some concerns we have in Alice Springs and broader Central Australia in the vicinity of Alice Springs.
We all know that Alice Springs is a marvellous place and the people who live in Alice Springs are marvellous people, and in the surrounding communities in the Central Australian region of Alice Springs there are amazing people. Yet, despite the business opportunities, the work ethic and all the positives of Alice Springs, the tourism and the natural resources we have, with the MacDonnell Ranges and the like, there are a number of issues that confront Alice Springs, in a social aspect, an environmental perspective and an economic base.
If we are going to have a focus on Central Australia, and growing Central Australia, particularly when you look at things like the 2030 vision that was put out yesterday by the Chief Minister, through a Ministerial Statement, we need to have a concerted strategy on how we are going to grow.
The 2030 vision stipulated that Alice Springs would progressively have a population of around 18.2% at projections. If we are going to see that eventuate, which I believe will be a positive thing, we need to ensure we have strategies in place that detail what the economic base is and how we grow that economic base to move forward, through growth of industries, such as tourism, mining and so forth. Many of those things are identified in the 2030 vision.
We also need to ensure we have a greater focus on our environment. We must ensure that when we look at things such as water quality and abundance and how we utilise that water in a sustainable fashion, if Labor pushes through with its uranium mine, how much water is available for that mine, will it be leeched, and is there going to be sufficient water available for the community?
On the social aspects, how do we address some of our social concerns about antisocial behaviour, alcohol, and violence? The 2030 vision puts out what it sees as some of the key areas where it would like to achieve by the year 2030. What the 2030 vision was lacking was a strategy about how to achieve those things over the longer term and also over the shorter term.
The purpose of the Central Australian Development Committee on a sessional basis is to identify what some of those core issues are, work with the stakeholders and develop a plan on how we can take immediate action now and into the future to improve some of those areas of social, economic and environmental concerns and build our great Central Australia, as we know it is, to be an even better place.
Over recent times, the members for Araluen and Greatorex and the members for Stuart and Macdonnell and I have worked together in a very positive fashion - I believe we call it a bipartisan approach - to fix some of the youth issues. Those youth issues have not been fixed yet, but we have gone a long way and I thank the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, for taking up that mantle of trying to do much more. More needs to be done before we can fix some of these problems.
Throughout the day we have spoken about some problems with alcohol across the Northern Territory and there are more alcohol problems in Central Australia than other places. In 2007, there were around 7000 people picked up and placed under protective custody by the police – 7000 people is a big number of people to be picked up. In 2008, 13 800 people were picked up in one year. That is tremendous numbers of people being put into PC every year. The word is that this year there will be even more than that. The problem that we have at the moment is that there is no solution on how to fix the reliance and the endemic problem that so many of our local constituents have with alcohol.
Alcohol is having a negative social effect on our communities, both the narrow perspective of Alice Springs and the broader perspective of Central Australia. Many people are coming into town, drinking to their wits end, causing social upheaval, filling our gaols, filling our sobering-up shelters and there is no reprisal for the next day.
I spoke earlier about a Coronial report which reported on the passing of a gentleman who had been admitted 215 times to PC in Darwin. It is atrocious that this happens and there is no intervention to assist that person to get off alcohol or protect himself. That is also happening in Alice Springs. The people in Alice Springs could be picked up 300 to 400 times but the police do not have the resources to do that. The people who are on the streets chronically drunk every night are a problem. It detracts from our tourism industry, it leads to antisocial behaviour and, more worryingly, the alcohol-fueled violence that is on our streets is causing great concern.
You only have to sign up to ministerial releases by the Northern Territory government to find out exactly what is happening in Alice Springs on a daily basis. You will get four or five e-mails talking about what happened last night or during the day in Alice Springs. Two came in today. One of them was talking about vehicles that were interfered with in Hillside Gardens, Stephens Road, Gap Road, Tilmouth Court on Monday night and Tuesday morning, with rear windows smashed, rocks thrown at cars and buses, Toddy’s Backpackers getting broken into. These things happen all the time and it is not just about the effects of drink-driving, it is the effects of drinking this time.
We can go on about how bad law and order is in Alice Springs and the problems with public housing, overcrowding, homelessness and a lack of crisis accommodation. We can keep beating the drum but we would be better working on an overall community perspective with a partnered approached between the Country Liberal members in Alice Springs and the two members of the government who are from bush electorates but base themselves in Alice Springs.
If we are going to solve these problems we have to respond to what the community wants. The wider community of Alice Springs and Central Australia wants its political leaders to come up with ideas; to stop bickering and in-fighting; to solve some of these problems; and look to the future. We know many things that need to happen and we know what we would like to be. There are different opinions about how to approach the issue and we will always find it difficult to get over some of the philosophical views about how to approach things. As mature adults and leaders within our community we should be able to work together in a bipartisan way to solve some of these problems. They do not just go to the heart of antisocial behaviour, lack of jobs or business opportunity. This also goes to the heart of planning and land release in Alice Springs.
Approximately one month ago we had the release of a planning document by the Planning minister for the future of land release in Alice Springs. That was nothing more than weasel words. We will not see land release in Alice Springs for a long time to come. Whether we move out to the Arid Zone or to the northern side of The Gap, land is not going to be released in Alice Springs in the short-term. We have a vacancy rate of about zero. The price of house ownership is going through the roof. The First Home Owner’s grant has helped escalate that problem. People moving to our town to take up work cannot find anywhere to live.
While there is a growing unemployment rate around the rest of Australia, there are jobs available in Alice Springs and the potential to start a construction industry or to spur on the construction industry in Alice Springs is enormous. If we had places where people could live and the land was released, we could be taking people from all around the country to build houses to solve some of our overcrowding problems.
The Minister for Housing talked earlier today about a piddly $12m from the recession rescue package - the cash splash dollars - to build public housing across the Territory; we will get two houses in Alice Springs, maybe one. These are the things that will help Alice Springs in terms of additional housing but you cannot do it if there is no land.
This bipartisan sessional committee, titled the Central Australian Development Committee, would enable the five local members in Central Australia to work together to identify the best opportunities for land release.
If we have to go out to the Arid Zone let us release it now. Let us not wait until 2012, for the next Territory election, so the government can parade itself around in pomp and grandeur with all the bells and whistles going off.
I want to see solutions for Alice Springs now. We stand there on a frequent basis, watching people come through our doors complaining about some of the negative aspects in our town. I cannot solve them all. I have solutions for them, but I cannot solve them all without the cooperation of government and the willingness of government to want to do something. If the government wants to take the northern line of not wanting to provide that assistance, or the party lines of not wanting to work with the local members, that is a negative for us. There is an opportunity to work together to solve some of these problems. It is not about a ‘he said, she said’ basis; it is about a team approach where a parliamentary committee can come forward and say: ‘This is what we think needs to happen in Central Australia’.
The 2030 vision did not provide that information for Central Australia. It had some lovely motherhood statements and a couple of ideas. But there was nothing about making Central Australia the solar capital of the world, the IT hub for solar technology development as we move forward to address climate change in a solar capacity, structuring how we can do that and what sort of investment is required, and how we attract people from overseas to develop new technologies.
Some of these ideas could come out of a parliamentary committee such as this sessional committee that I have promoted. It is something that would place Central Australia in a forthright position to grow and prosper: 18.2% may be a shadow; 18.2% growth in the next 21 years may be nothing. We may reach 60%; we may reach 100%.
I believe in growth and development, and this sessional committee I have proposed will see us work together collectively to put Alice Springs, Central Australia, and the communities first, and identify ways we can grow and move forward. We can address the problems with transport and homelessness. These are not hard problems.
My colleagues, the members for Macdonnell and Stuart, will know that they have me and the members for Araluen and Greatorex fighting together against their Cabinet to provide resources in Alice Springs. We will be a team fighting for Central Australia. That is why I have put this motion forward. I believe that if we are going to have positive change in Central Australia, we have to work together.
It does not just stop at the antisocial behaviour, the social issues or the land release. We would also look at business opportunities that we can create in Central Australia. We had a fairly vibrant business environment in Alice Springs. The November 2007 audit of business confidence in Alice Springs was very high. There is only one reason it was very high; because John Howard was still in. It has gone backwards since then, and there have been a number of business owners leaving town because they are sick and tired of law and order issues. People are leaving Alice Springs all the time because of law and order. They are leaving because there is nowhere to live or because they are being assaulted. They are leaving because the Minister for Housing will not do anything about public housing problems.
A member interjecting.
Mr GILES: It seems like a laughing matter, but I can tell you it is not safe.
I believe this sessional committee provides a perfect opportunity to have not only the five members sitting around coming up with ideas, but to go out and consult with the people and the organisations I have listed in the motion: Alice Springs Town Council, Tangentyere Council, Central Australian Tourism, the land council, Chamber of Commerce, Congress, schools, and the hospital. These are the people who have the ideas, and the organisations have the staff and the human resource capacity and have much knowledge about how they would like to see the town move forward.
This is a way we can support a positive approach to drive real change and see Alice Springs, once again, become a growth hub of the Northern Territory, rather than just a welfare service centre which is where it seems to be positioned now, albeit with limited retail and tourism capacity in the region.
If we are going to have a strong bush in Central Australia, we need a strong Alice Springs, because it supports it as a regional service centre and we have to move forward.
Madam Speaker, I will not take up any more time but I commend this motion to the House and ask my colleagues from Central Australia to support me on this motion.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Braitling. I say that genuinely, because last year we had a debate on Alice Springs with the MPI from the member for Greatorex. People spoke passionately about Alice Springs, and I know the member for Braitling is passionate about Alice Springs, even though his roots are not firmly planted there. I know he and his family have made Alice Springs their home. I acknowledge that, member for Braitling, and thank you for your passion.
Alice Springs is a fantastic town. It is a town that is resilient, it is hard, and it has been founded by Indigenous and non-Indigenous pioneers, and they are the people we should thank for making the town what it is today; a fantastic town. It is all about living together. It is like many country towns throughout Australia, it has the tough elements, along with the good elements. Sport is fantastic in Alice Springs and it bridges the gap across all parts of the town’s social fabric.
But it is a tough town. Alice Springs for me really shines amongst the rest of the towns in the Northern Territory in hard times. We see the community get together in hard times, whether it is through the floods that we have experienced over the years, whether it is through drought, through bushfires in some of our pastoral properties close to town, the community does get together, and we pull together and support each other, so it is a positive aspect of Alice Springs.
We do have many issues, like any town. Recently, in the news, you read about or saw the issues some of our major capital cities are having with antisocial behaviour and gang violence. While we are focusing on Alice Springs today, we are encountering issues across the country. Communities are torn, and what can they do to deal with these issues? This government frequently discusses antisocial behaviour and is concerned about the issues.
In my lifetime in Alice Springs I have seen and experienced the neglect of the region by previous governments, and also at certain times by this government. As someone who has been on the backbench and as a member of a large bush electorate who is passionate about Alice Springs, I continually raise issues about Alice Springs, my electorate and the region. It is something that I have experienced - the neglect - and something that I acknowledge, member for Braitling.
I also have personal experience of the trauma and devastation caused by violence and grog, excessive alcohol consumption, petrol sniffing, to families, and to my own family. That is something I have lived through in my time growing up in the Gap.
In 2009, Alice Springs is the service centre for more than 250 remote communities scattered across the Central Australian region, including Tennant Creek, and including some communities in South Australia and Western Australia. That provides opportunities for Alice Springs, for businesses and for the community in general, but it also presents us with high levels of challenges, unique challenges that many places in Australia do not face.
We also recognise that people want to come to Alice Springs for a multitude of reasons, such as sport and recreation, particularly with our Aussie Rules competition in Alice Springs, but also to access high quality health services, legal services, retail outlets, and so on, despite what their own home community may offer. This is their right as Australians. The native titleholders of Alice Springs, the Lhere Artepe organisation and the central Arrernte people, recognise this, but they equally recognise that visitors to the town must behave in an appropriate manner.
The Northern Territory government, in conjunction with the Australian government, has been happy to financially and practically support Lhere Artepe to put together their cultural protocols for visitors to our town. No doubt, you would have seen the advertising campaign on television and in newspapers. This is a strong statement from the native titleholders and we wholeheartedly support it. Member for Braitling, I am not sure if you have them on your list of stakeholders, but the native titleholders are very important stakeholders in Alice Springs and worthy of acknowledgement.
The economic benefits that remote community visitors bring to Alice Springs is without question and we can attribute, in no small part, visitation from remote communities to Alice Springs’ capacity to successfully ride out the historical global and national economic shocks. I have no doubt that remote communities around Alice Springs will again play a major role in assisting our town to ride to out the tough times that we currently face.
But Alice Springs, as a community, must be prepared to meet the challenges associated with this high level of visitation. All levels of government are working to tackle disadvantage at the community level, to improve governance, to provide adequate housing, to provide opportunities to participate in the economy, to secure real jobs for real wages, to deliver high quality education and training, and to provide for the social demands for those who choose to live out bush.
Equally, in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, governments are working collaboratively to improve living standards for Indigenous people, while endeavouring to make our towns safer for everyone to live, work and raise families. Regional growth and education are keys to building a prosperous and sustainable future for the Northern Territory. There are many ways in which the Northern Territory government is helping to develop Central Australia and the region beyond it.
This week we have been discussing the draft strategy of the Territory 2030 document which the Chief Minister launched this week, and it is a strategy that has identified key focus areas. I was listening carefully to the member for Braitling when he said that the Territory 2030 document says nothing about Alice Springs or presents any creative or unique opportunities. However, reading from the strategy fact sheet, I can highlight a few things that I am particularly interested in.
Under the education strategy, there is no doubt that establishing Alice Springs as a hub for remote education is a great and unique opportunity. In my early days as a board member on the Institute for Aboriginal Development, I had the fortunate experience of working with some great Aboriginal leaders, whose vision was to put together the Desert Peoples Centre. The idea then was to bring together the IAD, the Batchelor Institute, and the Centre for Appropriate Technology. People, like the late Mr Djerrkura, were on the board of the Desert Knowledge then. Even though he was a saltwater man, he was very passionate and very jealous about how we were talking about bringing together Indigenous institutes to deliver a better education for our people. There were also people like Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, Mr Jim Bray, Harold Furber to name a few, but there is a fantastic opportunity in the future for Alice Springs and Central Australia to become the hub for education excellence.
I will also put in that basket the ICT e-learning aspects. I believe we have a unique opportunity, and, as minister for ICT, it is something that I continually raise in my meetings with – Information, Communications and Technology, sorry member for Nelson. In this document, the 2030 Strategy for Central Australia, ICT is an important part and I believe that Alice Springs is well placed to be a leader in our country.
In terms of society, the strategy says:
ensure larger remote towns have access to an appropriate level of services and amenities.
Prosperity:
develop appropriate economic infrastructure in all our towns and cities.
This one is close to my heart, as Minister for Regional Development. As I travel around the Territory, particularly this year, I have been to Maningrida, Nhulunbuy, and Ngukurr, and one of the big issues we face is that of leases. We have done the economic study into Maningrida and looked at the differences between the economic opportunities in towns in New South Wales compared to Maningrida. We have a long way to go in providing these economic opportunities in our remote Indigenous towns, and that is something I am focused on.
I believe our communities should be given the opportunities and given the choice, the same as anyone else in the Territory, to have access to private businesses and to shop at a different place from the normal community store. A good example is Nhulunbuy; I was there with the member for Nhulunbuy last week. The amount of private sector investment in Nhulunbuy is fantastic and it gives people choice. Competition is great and I will be encouraging that within my department. That is another area in the Central Australian 2030 strategy that has much potential and makes common sense.
Also in the area of prosperity to:
encourage Indigenous and non-Indigenous joint venture businesses.
This is something I have worked on quite closely with Indigenous companies and non-Indigenous mining contractors during my time at the Central Land Council and during my time working for Normandy Mining Limited - North Flinders Mining Company. One example was the successful partnership I managed to pull together with Central Desert Enterprises and Roche Mining in an open-cut mining contract during my time at The Granites. As the Minister for Regional Development I am keen to see that happen more often. It is also a great way to bring together all parts of our community, non-Indigenous and Indigenous, to build strong relationships through business. We talk about it through sport but business is a facet that we can develop more.
In terms of knowledge, creativity and innovation, the strategy proposes to:
establish access to high-speed broadband Internet for Territorians in major towns and communities.
We have successfully completed the East Arnhem fibre-optic project. This involved 800 km through East Arnhem Land, connecting some of the major communities through to Nhulunbuy. This provides multiple benefits for everyone in the areas of health, education and business. There should be more of that. I regularly talk to my staff about that. I also talk with Senator Conroy about the National Broadband Network, the Glasson Report, and the gaps in IT throughout our remote regions.
In relation to those comments, member for Braitling, the Territory 2030 document has a lot of substance for Central Australia. It sets out a broad framework and a vision we can build on. As a community, let us get behind it. As parliamentarians - Central Australian members of parliament - whether you are that side of the Chamber or this side, we should take the opportunity with this 2030 document and put some more into it.
In terms of my portfolios, at the microeconomic level in Central Australia, we are assisting Indigenous development under the Indigenous Business Development Program. Since July 2005, 70 businesses have been established creating some 140 new jobs.
The Regional Economic Development Fund stimulates and supports regional economic development through local initiatives. Around $300 000 per year is allocated to projects around the Northern Territory, such as the Tennant Creek Foundation which I recently launched with the member for Barkly. This is bringing together the Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre with the Battery Hill Mining Centre, a great combination of two historic icons of Tennant Creek.
At the macroeconomic level, a new Indigenous Economic Development Strategy is being developed with a target of 3000 more jobs for Indigenous people and 200 new Indigenous businesses established by 2012. Member for Braitling, being a Central Australian member, I see Central Australia and Alice Springs playing a key role in getting some of these outcomes for new jobs and businesses for Indigenous people.
The biennial Indigenous Economic Forum will be held in Alice Springs in October 2009 and is attracting national and international interest.
Our decision to relocate the senior executive of the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources to Alice Springs means that decision making about the region will be made in the regions. It was with great pleasure that we welcomed the newly appointed CEO of the department, Mr Richard Galton to the job and to Alice Springs this week.
The Regional Development presence and resources in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek have been significantly boosted. We now have a majority of staff based in our regions, where it matters.
Economic Development Committees are active in Alice Springs, Ti Tree through the Anmatjere region, the West MacDonnells and Tennant Creek in the Central Australia region. The Economic Development Committees are linking to Territory 2030, to Regional Development Australia and the newly formed shires.
In November 2008, the Alice Springs Economic Profile was completed. I believe that is the one the member for Braitling was talking about. While I may disagree about the reasons for the high confidence in the economic profile of Alice Springs in the business community, I acknowledge the great work that now provides us with hard economic facts about our wonderful town of Alice Springs. That is some work that the Economic Development Committee did in Alice Springs, and it shows that the confidence is there. It is providing the government and our community with baseline economic data about Alice Springs.
We have funded the Central Australian Chamber of Commerce to undertake the Employing Indigenous Territorians project in Alice Springs, an initiative of the Alice Springs Economic Development Committee. The project involves mentoring local businesses to employ young Indigenous people. Further, the Alice Springs Economic Development Committee nominated a Workforce Development project as a local priority, and the scoping for this is under way.
Preliminary work on an economic profile and survey for the Tennant Creek and Barkly regions will begin this week.
The Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement - the member for Braitling has advised us that he was involved with this in his previous job - is a partnership between the Northern Territory government, the Australian government, Newmont, the Central Land Council, and the Central Desert and Victoria Daly Shires. It is aimed at boosting employment opportunities in the Tanami Region.
The Tennant Creek Foundation was launched in March 2009. The foundation has taken over the management and operations of the Nyinkka NyunyuCultural Centre and the Battery Hill Mining Centre to ensure they have a commercial focus and result in a boost in local employment opportunities. Plans for Growth are being developed for Ti Tree, Tennant Creek and Katherine.
The Tennant Creek common user bulk mineral distribution facility has been given major project status to assist in fast-tracking the development.
Tax incentives are currently being developed to encourage investment on Indigenous land. It is my belief that we need to look at the leases. It can assist in commercial development on Aboriginal land and in our Indigenous towns.
The Northern Territory government is working in partnership with the Australian government on economic development initiatives in Central Australia including working closely with the federal government on realigning the former Northern Territory Area Consultative Committee into the new Regional Development Australia.
I recently met with the board of the new Remote Enterprise Centre based in Alice Springs. The CEO has been appointed and the Northern Territory government will be working closely with it to invigorate the business community in remote regions of the Northern Territory. The Remote Enterprise Centre is based at the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs and will receive $10m over the next four years.
The Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program is a joint Commonwealth/Territory initiative worth $672m over five years. In my electorate in Central Australia, Hermannsburg, Yuendumu and Lajamanu are major projects identified under that program. Through my trips through my electorate, I encourage as many people as I can at Yuendumu and Lajamanu to get on board because there are significant amounts of new dollars there for housing which is badly needed. I am doing my best to assist the land councils, the government, and my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, to get these leases up and running.
Regional Development is focused on stimulating private sector partnerships and investment opportunities, and many businesses are taking up the opportunities in Alice Springs. The Centralian Advocate front page this week highlights a 30-unit development at Mt Nancy that will cater for people seeking short- and long-term accommodation. The developer is very positive about the opportunities in Central Australia and is quoted as saying that everyone is eager to get into new projects.
The government has been acutely aware that particular issues have had a profound impact on the town. Throughout the 1990s, petrol sniffing had become a scourge of Central Australian communities, destroying the lives of individuals and families, and inhibiting community functions. Moreover, the prevalence of petrol sniffing in Alice Springs was on the increase and was a major contributing factor to crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets.
In October 2004, a Select Committee on Volatile Substance Abuse in the community produced its final report and, as a result, the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act was introduced in 2005. It became effective in early 2006, focusing on prevention and intervention; assessment and treatment; community management; and unlawful supply of volatile substances. The act was accompanied by $10m in recurrent and one-off funding over five years to support existing services and establish new rehabilitation treatment centres, including an adult service at Arrernte House, and a youth rehabilitation and case management service at Schwarz Crescent in Alice Springs. Complementing this legislation and funding, the Commonwealth government supported the roll-out of Opal fuel, a low aromatic unleaded fuel, throughout Central Australia and supported this with additional youth service funding for remote Indigenous communities.
The combination of both the NT and the Australian government initiatives has seen a radical decline in the incidence of petrol sniffing in the region, with sporadic outbreaks being managed by existing services. At this point, I commend these service providers, such as the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service; the Mt Theo Substance Abuse Prevention Program in my electorate; the Bushmob; DASA; and Alcohol and Other Drug services of Central Australia for the terrific work they are doing in managing the impact of volatile substance misuse across Central Australia.
The Volatile Substance Abuse Community Management Plans, which control the use, supply and storage of a range of volatile substances, including petrol, paint and glue, are giving local people the opportunity to be involved in solving local problems. VSA management plans are in place in nine communities across Central Australia and in two town camps, the latter designed to complement the plans in remote communities. While petrol sniffing remains a concern for the Central Australian region, it no longer dominates debates as a primary causal factor of crime, antisocial behaviour and community dysfunction.
There is no doubt that alcohol continues to dominate debate around crime and antisocial behaviour in our town. In March 2006, the Alcohol Task Force was established to tackle the excessive rate of alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. As a result, the Alcohol Management Plan for Alice Springs was developed and aimed at reducing harm, demand, and supply.
A raft of initiatives under the plan have been introduced, including public and private dry area legislation; alcohol product and availability restrictions; the introduction of takeaway ID systems through the Liquor Supply Plan; the introduction of Alcohol Courts; additional treatment options for offenders; and, increased monitoring of licensed outlets. So far the results have been encouraging. Measurable indicators have been positive, with a sustained reduction in the consumption of pure alcohol in excess of 10% since the commencement of the plan.
From 15 January to 1 April this year, 76 people have been placed on court-imposed restrictions, made possible through the introduction of the ID system. Records show that there have been 122 occasions where people on restrictions have attempted to purchase alcohol and have been refused service. There have been a further 1680 attempts during that same period to purchase a restricted item on a second occasion on the same day.
The Alcohol Management Plan is currently being independently reviewed by the Menzies School of Health Research, along with the Tennant Creek plan, and a final report is expected in the coming months.
The CLP’s policy is not to do the right thing but the popular thing. Not content to wait for the empirical evidence to guide its decisions, its policy will be a disaster for the town. A ‘back to the future’ where Alice Springs would be, as the former Deputy Mayor and Branch President of the CLP, David Koch declared it was:
as it was 10 to 15 years ago under the CLP government.
Excessive alcohol consumption continues to be a major social issue for Alice Springs, as the member for Braitling indicated. While the Alcohol Management Plan has a marked and sustained impact on the community, there is a broad divergence of opinion on future actions required to continue to reduce alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. That is why we will wait for the outcomes of the Menzies review before deciding what direction we take to continue to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol.
In August 2007, a summit was held to engage the community in finding local solutions to antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. As a result, a commitment was made to maintain police numbers at establishment level, and a new police-led public safety model was established. This continues to operate as the Tasking and Coordination group, chaired by the police, with the oversight of the intensive case management service including the return to country program and the personal identification service.
In addition, a youth camp has been established at Hamilton Downs, as we heard from the minister for Family and Children’s Services today, and additional funding was provided to expand youth recreational services.
A commitment to contribute in excess of $300 000 to install and monitor CCTV cameras in the Todd Mall was made, and this commitment was extended in August 2008, with an additional $1.1m to expand CCTV coverage with $200 000 per annum to monitor the cameras.
In April 2008, the Chief Minister announced the Safer Streets Strategy. Alice Springs is on track to receive a full 24-hour patrol, with 10 officers under this initiative in the financial year 2009-10. These extra police officers add to the establishment numbers.
In February 2009, the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan was announced to deal with the increasing prevalence of youth crime, property damage and antisocial behaviour. I also acknowledge, as did the member for Braitling, the bipartisan approach that led to this action plan being developed. I also acknowledge my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, for her strong leadership on this issue and pulling together all the members from Central Australia around the table, along with our colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, and the mayor of Alice Springs.
Under this plan, the Police Beat has been fast-tracked and will be delivered in July 2009, adding an additional seven police officers to establishment numbers at a cost of $2m in the first year. In the interim period, private security patrols have been funded to patrol the Todd Mall and surrounds at an estimated cost of $100 000 in the financial year 2008-09. Police have established a dedicated Todd Mall patrol, consisting of three officers over two shifts commencing at around 12 noon until 7 am, seven days per week.
Since the establishment of the Todd Mall patrol, police have reported a marked reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour in the area.
The Youth Action Plan includes: the establishment of the Alice Springs Middle School, uniting the ANZAC Hill and Alice Springs High School campuses under the one school umbrella across two campuses; the development of a youth hub, under the management of a Youth Services Coordinator to coordinate all government and non-government youth services; and the establishment of a Police Youth Club at the ANZAC Hill campus.
To meet the demand for youth accommodation, a 30-bed boarding facility will be established and six new emergency accommodation beds will augment the existing emergency accommodation funded by the Northern Territory government and provided by the Tangentyere Council, Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Services, Bushmob, and Anglicare.
Additional funding of $75 000 per annum has been provided to the Gap Youth Centre to expand its after hours youth recreation services, taking the total funding for all youth services in Alice Springs in the financial year 2008-09 to $4.4m.
This government is serious about dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour and economic and social dislocation. That is why we are not just dealing with the visible symptoms but also with the underlying causes. We have taken the tough decisions to improve governance in remote communities by undertaking the most comprehensive local government reform process since self-government.
The creation of the shire structures is providing local representation from remote communities and the opportunity to contribute to broader economic and social planning and development of their regions. The shires have provided the structure to ensure that basic services, which those living in urban areas have come to expect, are delivered in their home communities. Improved employment opportunities, improved repair and maintenance schedules to housing and infrastructure, more efficient use of available resources …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you. The shires have improved employment opportunities for people in the regions around Alice Springs. In the MacDonnell Shire, for example, there has been a 39% increase in real jobs, with a total of 531 positions. Under the old council system there was only 326 staff in the region. In the Central Desert Shire there are more jobs and 73% of those employed by the shire are Indigenous. We should be congratulating the shires on their achievements of getting people into real jobs in the bush.
The generational plan to Close the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage has allocated over $300m over five years to be invested in remote communities and children’s services, child protection, education, policing, business development, job creation, sport and recreation, Indigenous cultural programs, and housing.
In addition, $672m over five years is being invested by the Northern Territory and Australian governments in the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. Central Australia and the Barkly will share over $165m of the total sum and this will mean upgraded and new housing across 31 towns and communities in Central Australia.
We continue to work collaboratively with the Australian government to deliver new and upgraded housing to town camps in Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Julalikari Council will receive $36.5m as part of the SIHIP program and, subject to a successful negotiation with Tangentyere Council, $50m will be allocated to upgrade town camps in Alice Springs, in addition to the $5.3m already allocated.
These are the fundamental solutions to improving economic and social development in Indigenous communities: improving services and infrastructure in those places; reducing overcrowding in housing; improving access to and outcomes of education; and providing reasons for people to remain in their communities, pursuing a safe, secure and gainful existence.
These are the things that will reduce dependence and stress on social infrastructure and services in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. These are real initiatives that improve the economic and social outlook for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people living in the Centre. These are the actions that deal with the problems at their source, while ensuring that the immediate issues of safety and security of everyone living in our region are managed.
The member for Braitling wants to set up a committee to talk about these issues. We heard yesterday from members in the House about the need for all of us to pick up the phone or to sit around a fire at a campsite and talk about these issues as members of the Northern Territory parliament.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about his experience in sitting around the campfire with Peter Toyne. Member for Braitling, my door is always open. We both live in Alice Springs and we share a passion for Alice Springs. My door is always open to you and to other colleagues in Central Australia. I have detailed this government’s approach to Alice Springs, and in particular, to some of the points in the member for Braitling’s motion. Generally, we are doing much work.
We are not always going to have the silver bullet to fix all the problems. I believe we are on the right path. We have the strategic approach of Territory 2030, we are looking at the vision and where we want to see Alice Springs in another 20 years. With the Alice Springs Youth Plan and our planning document I believe we are on the right track.
Member for Braitling, I am focused on actions and not words and, as such, I will not be supporting your motion today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his response, although, I felt like I was getting a ministerial statement, rather than an answer to the motion. It was a very good statement - do not get me wrong - but it did move away, to some extent, from the basis of the motion.
I do not come from Alice Springs. I first visited Alice Springs in 1964, and I am fairly sure the minister was not even alive then. In 1964, Alice Springs was a far different town than what it is today. From my memory, as a young schoolboy visiting the town, there were no alcohol problems, unless it was sly-grog problems. However, it was a very small town and the issues, especially Indigenous issues, were nothing compared to issues today.
I would like to debate more fully what you said about local government providing jobs. I do not regard the shires as local government. I have been looking at what has been developed by these super shires. They are really departments of the government. They are playing many roles that the government would normally do. It is not fair to compare the local government that I know with the local government that the Territory government has put in place. It is taking on many functions that a normal local government would not take on; they would be functions of the government.
I said to the retired Minister for Local Government: ‘What you have is a regional government; you do not have local government. You have a branch of the Northern Territory government and many of its departments, and the Commonwealth’. I am very wary that local government, which is doing just local government things, has created jobs. It is not a manufacturer; it does not create jobs in the sense that we can produce more things. It has taken on other people’s jobs as an agency. That is not quite the same as making jobs, because those jobs are there because another branch of the government wanted those jobs to occur. I understand where you are coming from but, technically, you are not right.
I have one concern that the minister raised; that we are starting up more talk by having a committee. I know it only goes until September, I believe it is meant to finalise in September 2009 so it would not be an ongoing committee. It would only be around for five months, so it has some benefits.
I ask the member for Braitling how that fits with the action committee that you are involved with at the moment, with all the members of the Central Australian area? Would it clash with its role? Is that action committee still operating? Could some of the things that you want done be done through that action committee, so we are not overlapping and duplicating? That is more important than anything we do in government.
I am an outsider who hardly goes to Alice Springs, but I try to go as often as possible. I have been there twice this year. I have friends in Alice Springs. I go down for the Masters Games. I try to keep in touch with the issues in Central Australia. As an Independent, I feel I have to do my best to keep in touch with a broad range of subjects across the Northern Territory, where possible, because these matters will be debated. If I can contribute to some of the debate about those issues, with some background, it is worthwhile from my point of view and, hopefully, from others.
There are two big factors in Alice Springs: one is creating jobs, because you have an increasing population, and some of that increasing population, as the minister said, comes from economic dislocation. It is not a new thing. The industrial revolution was about people in rural England or rural Europe moving to the cities, not only for jobs, but to the bright lights to some extent. That is what we see. We see people with limited opportunities in rural or remote Northern Territory, which is no different to remote parts of New South Wales and Queensland, where places have depopulated because their economic opportunities are limited. That would be the case in many remote areas in the Northern Territory.
How do you produce enough jobs in a place like Alice Springs so that people coming are not going to sit around and get involved in all the problems that exist? We know that tourism exists, but I believe that tourism needs to be revived in Alice Springs because the problems with antisocial behaviour must affect tourism.
I was there earlier this year and I visited the Hamilton Downs Youth Camp, spoke with Damien Ryan and some other people, like the manager of Colemans, about antisocial behaviour. I also went to Hoppy’s Store, north on the Stuart Highway. People said to me, you were shocked. I was shocked because there were fights, and involving many people, occurring next to the Stuart Highway which spread on to the Stuart Highway, and this was at about 4 pm.
You can imagine the feelings of an elderly couple coming down from the north with their caravan at 4 pm in the afternoon, and there was a big fight, with hundreds of people standing around, and a few women belting themselves with sticks. I was horrified, not because I had not seen fights before, but because it was so open and in the main street and no one was stopping it. There did not appear to be anyone concerned about it, it was as if it was normal.
People coming into Alice Springs would get their petrol and keep going. Tourism has to be one of the main industries, rather, it is the main industry for Alice Springs, yet, the antisocial behaviour is something that threatens it. I am not knocking Alice Springs to be negative, but sometimes when you go into a new town, you see things from a different perspective than people who live there all the time. I felt parts of the town were dirty. I have seen some takeaway places where the garden is dead, the irrigation does not work, and the car park looks like it could do with a good clean.
For a tourist town, there are some parts of Alice Springs that need a good wash. Maybe you cannot throw too much water around in Alice Springs, but if you have a place where you are expecting international and other tourists, you need to make sure the business looks spick and span and professional. I am not going to name those places, but if you took someone around at 8 am in the morning and had a look at some of the businesses, you would think that someone should have been out there at 6 am washing the windows, cleaning up the rubbish outside, and giving some life to the garden. You can plant many native plants in Alice Springs without much water, the Stuart Highway median strip is a classic example. I always remember my friend, Jeff Myers, making sure they did not plant anything but native plants in the main street of Alice Springs, and that is fantastic. We should be doing the same thing in the Top End by the way, but that is another issue.
Alice Springs is a hub for mining, not just for mining nearby; it is an exploration hub. Tanami people come through Alice Springs. I believe that Viv Oldfield just got the contract to do the drilling for the Angela Pamela uranium. The mining industry is creating more jobs in Alice Springs.
You have the Desert Knowledge, which is terrific. I am on the subscription list for the little book that comes out from the Centre for Appropriate Technology, which is a great book. There is a niche market for that type of work, not only in Central Australia and other parts of Australia, but worldwide. I remember having the book some years ago because I used to run the vegetable garden at Bathurst Island and I was looking for small equipment for small gardens, not large equipment. I remember getting a book from India and it had all this machinery that was made for smaller crop growing and I believe the same sort of thing applies here. It is great if we can sell technology that is suitable for remote communities, that are low-energy users and that do the job. I congratulate the Centre for Appropriate Technology for the work it does.
You mentioned being the centre for education, and I agree and wonder whether we should be looking at a rural college. There is the cattle industry in the North. Katherine Rural College or the CDU campus does it in the North but if we are trying to develop the cattle industry, especially for Indigenous communities that have moved out of cattle, then a rural college in that area would be good.
Naturally, art is very much a part of Alice Springs. You cannot go past Alice Springs without seeing art everywhere. I have a good number of pieces of art in my office and there is high quality art available.
You talked about sport, which is always an attraction. You can see how popular the new football league is, with the combined football teams from the region.
Horticulture and agriculture: horticulture has been well known. I presume there is still the horticulturalist that produces lettuces in Alice Springs. He became very famous for that. As far as I know, he still exports, if you can put it that way, lettuces to Darwin from Alice Springs. I wonder whether there is more potential for horticulture. I know water is a limiting factor but the water issue can be solved or we can get an ongoing supply of water. Horticulture must be an expanding industry in the climate you have in Alice Springs.
You have the transport industry - you are right in the centre of Australia, where the trains go through and then the trucks head out to remote communities and to mining areas.
The member for Braitling talked about solar technology. What better place in Australia to do it? Not only do we have the solar side of things, we have the night sky. I am not sure how much of a tourist attraction astronomy is these days. We regard Central Australia as one of the best viewing places in the world to study the stars. I am not sure whether that type of industry, which is a niche market, is still promoted.
There is defence. We should not forget that. You have Pine Gap and other facilities within Alice Springs, so that is an important part of Alice Springs’ economy.
All these things are great, but land is an issue if you want to expand and grow the economy. The member for Braitling has spoken about it. There have been many debates in this parliament about the lack of available land and, when it does become available, it is very dear. You cannot get growth in a community if there are no places for people to live, or if you have places to live and it is too expensive. People will go elsewhere to find a place to live. Also, if it is too expensive then you will have overcrowding, where people try to squeeze into other places. Those are some of the areas that need looking at.
The other side of my visit to Alice Springs - it is also part of what the member for Braitling was talking about regarding antisocial behaviour – is that I was quite impressed by Hamilton Downs Youth Camp. There have been three camps run by the government. The feedback I get is that they have been successful, at least in the short-term, but I believe the proof is in the pudding. Will the young people who have been out to that youth camp experience long-term changes in their life pattern? It is important to monitor that, otherwise it is just a week out and in a couple of months they are behaving themselves and you would hate to see it all fade away with time.
I am interested in the Police Youth Club that you mentioned, minister, and member for Braitling. That is a good initiative. I have raised this in debates before. We used to have one across the road. When I raised that, the Chief Minister said he believed we should have Police Youth Clubs in the Darwin area. I am interested to know whether there has been a move to introduce Police Youth Clubs in Darwin. They are good. I believe they should be run by the police, so there is interaction between young people and the police, which helps build up trust between the two sides.
If boxing is regimented and done properly it is beneficial. I talk about Boyd Scully who is a local boxing coach in Darwin. These people know how to run it properly and safely. Kids, who have an axe to grind in life or bit of a short fuse, can either take it out on their mate or the punching bag. We went away from some of these things because they became politically incorrect and, in some cases, there were health issues. But if it is run properly, boxing has a lot going for it.
I mention Father Reilly, a priest in New South Wales, who keeps kids off the street. I would like to see the work he does. He used to take young people out on horseback, mustering cattle through parts of outback New South Wales. We need places to get kids out bush, make them work, give them education and let them have a chance, under the stars, to think about where they are going. You cannot do that in a place like Alice Springs or Darwin.
Some kids need a little breathing space. They need love and looking after, and sometimes they also need a kick up the bum. They need time to think about where they are going in life. Hamilton Downs provides the opportunity to do that.
The idea of a dormitory-type establishment in Alice Springs, for kids roaming the streets at night who cannot go home because they are at risk, is good. I am interested to hear from the action committee how that is working. Is it something that has made a positive change in Alice Springs, especially in helping young kids? That is also a good initiative of the government.
None of the problems you are trying to solve are easy, whether it is creating jobs or trying to reduce antisocial behaviour. We have been talking about this for donkey’s ages. But at least there are some new initiatives. We could have a Hamilton Downs Youth Camp elsewhere in the Territory. There are two private ones. But I would still like Wildman River to be reopened. It could have had the same use as Hamilton Downs. We need more of those things. We need opportunities to get young people out onto the cattle stations, to have some work, and give them a chance to see if they can turn their lives around.
The minister and the member for Braitling mentioned the problems with alcohol; it is a major problem in the Territory. We are caught between the rights of those people who do not have a problem with alcohol and those people who abuse alcohol and cause much of this antisocial behaviour. It is an ongoing discussion. I do not intend to talk forever on alcohol problems in the Northern Territory, but if you are going to have this committee, alcohol problems would be high on the list of issues to address. To identify specific measures, although there are many measures already, you would have to see whether they are working or if we need to introduce different measures. Alcohol is a problem that is, unfortunately, the ruin of many Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people’s lives and families.
I am willing to support this committee, based on the fact that it will only be going till 2009 and it can report to the government.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Stuart saying he was not going to support it. Is that right? That is disappointing. I thought he would have.
There are a number of things that the member for Nelson spoke about that we have spoken about in Alice Springs, as Country Liberals members, as part of the policies that we took to the Territory election.
A number of the things that went forward in the current youth action strategy and the stuff that the member for Arnhem was involved in, without claiming ownership, were ideas of the Country Liberals. The ideas of a boarding school, the boot camp, the Hamilton Downs facility, and the approach to servicing youth - many of these things were our ideas and you have adopted them. That is what being bipartisan is about. Some of the things were sprung on us without telling us until today, such as closing down ANZAC Hill High School by this government. However, working together is a very important approach. I believe that by deciding today that you are not willing to work in a bipartisan manner, is a sad day for Central Australia …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not say that I am not going work in a bipartisan way. I said that we can continue to work in a bipartisan way without having to set up a committee.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order but, if you wish to make a personal explanation, you may approach me later.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Deciding today that you are not prepared to work in a bipartisan manner is very negative approach for Central Australia. Many of the ideas that you have taken up have been things that I, as a new member in Alice Springs, have put forward. There are also contributions that the members for Araluen and Greatorex have put forward. We have worked together well as a team. We represent all people in Alice Springs, as local members. We received a large majority of the vote in Alice Springs. People support us, our philosophy, and what we say.
The member for Nelson spoke about the police youth club. I have called for a police youth club at Larapinta and it would be a great thing to have in Alice Springs. I support that and I expect you to now take that forward. You may bring that up, although now that you are not working in a bipartisan way – you have put a knife right through the heart of bipartisanship - it may not happen. You may not take these ideas up anymore. It is going to be very interesting to report to the community that the member for Stuart declared that he was not prepared to work together; to take our ideas and work with the wider community to set forth a platform, a process and a strategy about how to move forward.
I looked at the member for Barkly’s comments last night, when we were talking about the issue of drink-driving. I reflect on the member for Stuart talking about how he cares for Alice Springs. He did say a little about Alice Springs, but he really read a few media releases and made it sound like a statement, as the member for Nelson said. I thought that the member for Stuart had a heart. I thought he cared passionately about Alice Springs. I thought he would stand up and work together with people who have a new approach and new ideas, and would want to see things change and bring about a new youth approach and vigour to the process.
However, he has obviously taken the same position as the Minister for Transport, who said last night that Cabinet runs the Northern Territory. We are talking about Alice Springs and the potential for a sessional committee in Central Australia to support the growth of Alice Springs - take all of my ideas; I am very happy for it – but he is obviously of the view that Cabinet runs the Northern Territory, which I can only take to mean that he does not get to have a say in Central Australia, so he does not really stand up for people in Central Australia.
Is that how it works - Cabinet runs the Northern Territory? I did not think it was the case that Cabinet ran the Northern Territory. But, Cabinet’s function is to run the Northern Territory, as stated by the member for Barkly last night. I find it difficult to believe. I find it interesting that the member for Macdonnell is not even here to talk about this motion tonight. She quickly ducked in and grabbed her stuff …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Braitling should know by now that he cannot refer to the presence or absence of another member in the House. He talked about an absence of a member, and I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I was not aware of it. Could you withdraw the comment? Thank you.
Mr GILES: What did I say wrong?
Madam SPEAKER: You have apparently referred to a member not being present in the House.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. I was surprised that the member for Macdonnell did not contribute to the debate, and I am surprised that the member for Macdonnell is not here listening to my concerns.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, we have had the ‘I pass on bipartisan’, and now we have someone who ignores the conventions in this place.
Mr GILES: I did not say she was not here.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that perhaps it did sound like that, member for Braitling. Maybe if you could withdraw and just remember that you cannot refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Mr GILES: Yes, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
I am very pleased to see the member for Stuart is here and decided not to take a bipartisan approach, as the sole member for Central Australia.
The member for Nelson spoke about driving into the Northside shops and seeing 100 people rioting. That happens on a weekly basis. They are my local shops and I go there every night. People ring me up and ask: ‘Adam, what are you doing about it?’ I say: ‘Urban drift, it is a problem. Alcoholism, people on the drink, put them up for PC every night’. I ring up old Burt: ‘Burt, mate, do us a favour and get your police truck down here and get the coppers and move these people on?’ I have Shorty, the butcher, ringing me up, or when I pop in and see him, he will say: ‘Adam, they are not only drinking in a dry town, but this is my shop and everyone is defecating and urinating, and drinking and vomiting all day every day. Can you get the police?’ ‘Oh yeah, no worries’, and, ‘They are fighting down here too. Can you do something about that?’ ‘Oh yeah, no worries’. Then I talk to Hoppy’s Shop and they complain about the fighting that goes on.
I set up my stall out the front of the supermarket on a Saturday morning, about 8.30 am or 9.30 am, and sit there for a couple of hours. I see all the people humbugging the shoppers. Other people came up and punched one of the shoppers; a middle-aged bloke walks there and does his shopping on a Saturday morning, he came out and someone wants $2 and he gets punched in the face.
You shake your head, Mr non-bipartisan-approach-member-for-Stuart, but this is what happens. You can stand up. I am not going to stand here and beat the drum about Alice Springs again, because I want to see a positive approach to a good town. You can hustle all you like and you can talk about what the government is doing, this is our strategy, this is our policy, and this is how much money we put in. People get bashed every week at Northside shops, and you sit there with a smirk on your face.
Dr Burns: Do not verbal him.
Mr GILES: He has a smirk on his face.
When I go there this Saturday and sit at the shops, people will come up and say: ‘What happened in parliament, and how come there are so many people hanging around here and waiting for grog and fighting again?’ I will say: ‘Ask the member for Stuart, because he does not support doing anything about it’. He has a 40-minute ministerial statement where he reads off the accolades and the triumphs of everything since 2001, but it is not changing – and the people in Central Australia demand action.
I will give you a good example. This is another Northside shop story. A family member of one of the members of this parliament from the bush came up to me and said: ‘G’day Adam, how are you going? Can you help me? I have moved into town because my wife has now been encouraged to go to Charles Darwin University because it needs some more numbers’. I asked him: ‘Where do you live?’ He said: ‘I live at Hoppy’s Camp’. I said: ‘But Hoppy’s Camp only has a few houses. How do you fit?’ He said: ‘I do not live at the camp; I live in the river at the camp.’ I asked him: Where do you shower and use bathroom facilities?’ He said: ‘We do not actually have any of those. My wife does not shower when she goes to CDU.’ I asked what he was doing. He said: ‘I generally grab a carton in the morning and have a drink.’ That is what he does. He is a very strong family member of someone in this parliament and he came to me.
I met all his family the next Saturday, when they came to complain and ask if anything could be done about Central Australia. These are family members of people here. There are numbers of bush people coming to see me about their concerns because their local members are not doing anything in Central Australia. This is not just about helping my electorate or Araluen or Greatorex. This is about helping Stuart and Macdonnell as well.
I sent an e-mail to the member for Arnhem this afternoon, in her ministerial capacity, on a confidential matter that is not in my electorate. We are trying to solve things because the electorate in Central Australia has become so disenfranchised with Labor that they are coming to the Liberals in droves asking: ‘Can you help us?’ We are saying: ‘Let us work together, have a real strong focus about what we can do, and we will give you our ideas’.
I tell you what I believe is the right way to go to make positive changes and you just shove it in my face. It is back to the point of a non-partisan approach to Central Australia, not supporting Central Australia, and no new ideas in your approaches. You have had a few offers. I will be in the media tomorrow talking about how you are not supporting a bipartisan approach. I will be writing that as hard as I can because that is dead, that is now dead. If you vote tonight against it, that is dead. You are on your own and everything that you fail with is dead - we are not touching it - because we know that you are failing the people of Central Australia. That is fact.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: The next person who is bashed next week when nothing has happened, I will be saying: ‘Oh well, I would have liked to have helped but the Minister for Central Australia, that is his job and he does not want to work with me’.
All the people who come into town from the Minister for Central Australia’s electorate, who come and ask me: ‘Why is nothing happening, can you help?’ I will say: ‘I would love to help but the Minister for Central Australia does not want to work together’. That is what it is about.
I wonder what happened to the spine, Madam Speaker. I thought the member for Stuart, in his ministerial capacity as well, was someone who would stand up to Cabinet. You know the people who run the Territory according to the Minister for Transport, the member for Barkly. I thought he would be someone who would stand up in Cabinet and say: ‘Listen, we need to do this because we have three committed people in Central Australia who want to support us and work together’, but clearly that has not been the case. It is a shame because I remember the previous Minister for Central Australia was a passionate advocate for working together and taking ideas from people and working in partnership …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find it uncomfortable that in what I felt would be a bipartisan debate the member for Braitling is really over-the-top with the member for Stuart. This is about forming a committee and I am uncomfortable with bagging the member for Stuart, because regardless of whether this goes through it is destroying the bipartisanship relationship.
This is a debate about a committee. I do not believe that because someone does not agree with the committee, that bipartisanship is finished or someone is against reform or helping people in Central Australia. There is an action committee where the member for Braitling and other people are working together. I would hate to see that destroyed simply because someone on one side did not agree with this. I will abstain from voting on this particular matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, are you in fact referring to Standing Order 67, no digression from the topic?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I believe that we have moved from the basics of what we are debating to more about personalities.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Member for Braitling, if you could keep your comments as closely as possible to the motion that you put forward, and direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: No. The point of order is over. I have just asked you to direct your …
Mr GILES: Speaking to the bipartisan approach, Madam Speaker. There is no moving forward with a committee that will take on a bipartisan approach, but there is no action committee in Alice Springs. The six members, including the Minister for Children and Families, met once at Alice Springs resort and we have not met again. There is no action committee and there never has been an action committee. We sat together then, and we have tried to meet again and it has not happened. There have only been three of us who have been able to get together since our first meeting in January.
I put this motion and we will see what happens. I take on board the comments that the member for Nelson made recently and before. I take on board the statements made by the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia. It is disappointing that it took 40 minutes to get to the point of saying no. We could have wrapped this up fairly early but that did not happen.
It appears as though the people on level five have taken over running not just the Cabinet, but also the personal directions of individuals within the government about how to move forward. It almost seems like the people upstairs, who are like a jelly fish, have more of a spine than other people who are unwilling to vote to support this process.
I commend this motion to the House. I believe it will go a long way towards supporting Central Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion, as moved by the member for Braitling, be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly reconsider its decision to reduce the time allocated to a member for an adjournment debate in the Assembly from 15 minutes to five minutes.
The important word in this motion is ‘reconsider’. I am not asking the government to change its mind; I am asking it to listen to …
Mr Chandler: You know they will not.
Mr WOOD: It may not go against the word ‘reconsider’. It may not agree with it, but I ask ...
Dr Burns: You are wildly optimistic, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: We live in a world of hope, so let us give it a try. The government has not told me how it will vote, and I do not believe I am asking for too much. The word ‘reconsider’ means exactly that - would the government at least reconsider the changes it has brought forward?
It is difficult in this debate to not repeat some of the other debate we have had on this issue. I recall quoting from Nicholas Rothwell, who wrote in The Weekend Australian on 7 and 8 February. The headline of his article is: ‘Free speech down to five minutes’, and I will quote from this article again:
We are a small parliament of 25 people. We have reduced the speaking time from 15 minutes down to five. Why? I am still not 100% sure, except perhaps people want to go to bed early. Were we wasting much time by having a 15 minute adjournment? I believe we have to go back to statistics. We need to look at the science, as the Labor Party sometimes says, not that they always look at it very well.
I took a sample of three adjournment debates last year when we had a 15 minute limit. On one night, there were 12 speakers, who spoke for an average of 11 minutes. On another night - this is the night when we spoke after midnight – there were seven speakers, who spoke for an average of nine minutes. On another night, there were 11 speakers, who spoke for an average of nine minutes. Overall, we were not even using up the 15 minutes.
If you wanted to meet halfway - not quite – maybe it could be extended to 10 minutes, because from those three nights the average speech was nine minutes. If you look at the sittings in February and calculate the time it would have taken, if we averaged nine minutes per speaker each night, these are the totals: one hour and 12 minutes; one hour and 12 minutes; 36 minutes; 54 minutes; one hour and 12 minutes; one hour and 48 minutes; and one hour and 30 minutes. That is not a great deal of time for an adjournment debate.
The maximum time under the new system, when we had 10 speakers at five minutes, was 50 minutes, compared to one hour and 30 minutes if we had gone for nine minutes. I am using nine minutes because that is the average time that people speak. That is the science. I do not believe that is much time at the end of the day’s debate.
We should not be plotting our course according to other states. Victoria has 128 members: 88 in the Legislative Assembly and 40 in the Legislative Council. It may be practical for states that have large numbers to limit the time they are allowed for adjournments.
One of the beauties of the Northern Territory, as Nicholas Rothwell said, is that we are a lovely, small scale community. I might not have said it in such an artistic way, but I know what he means. We are all close to our constituents and we like to talk about things that are close to our hearts. We also like to raise issues, and this is the opportunity to do that. I know the member for Port Darwin loves this time, and good on him. He can raise issues that he has a passion for at this time because, generally speaking, there is not much time in parliament, especially for people on this side of parliament, to raise some of the issues they are concerned about. As Nicholas Rothwell said, sympathising with the bereaved.
Madam Speaker, you were giving a bereavement speech in the last sittings for my good friend, Father John Leary. Part way through that bereavement, because you had been given the bereavement speech from a good friend of Father Leary’s which was not set up to be read in five minutes, you had to break your speech and continue the next night. This is main reason for reverting to 10 or 15 minutes. I believe it was almost insulting that a speech for a person who this parliament was to honour for the work they did in the Territory was broken by a rule that said we cannot go any further.
That instance convinced me that this is not right. And we need to change that. I am asking the government to please reconsider it, bring back the little of the Northern Territory that is different to all the other states. Some of the things other states do are so complicated. There are states where you can only talk on Mondays and Tuesdays at certain times, on Wednesdays at different times, or on Thursdays. There are a few where the whole time is only 30 minutes, there is a maximum of 5 minutes per person and if you run out of time, that is the end of it. Some of them are far more complicated. Why do we not just keep ours nice and simple? I believe that is what our parliament should be about - not overruling us – and allow freedom of speech, as Nicholas Rothwell said.
It is also unfortunate that part of these changes to the rules also includes guidelines for incorporation of material into Hansard. Madam Speaker, what I am saying is not personal, but these are the rules that are now applied. If we want to speak for more than five minutes, we have to give you material, two A4 sheets of paper, typed at - I would have to change my computer - 9.5 Arial font and it must be submitted electronically at 10 am the day before.
I do not know if I am like everyone else, but I have done many adjournment speeches on the spur of the moment. There might have only been a few people and I have thought that this is an opportunity for me to speak, if it went over five minutes that was the end of it. How did I know I was going to speak tonight? I was not sure if I was, but under the rules, if I had a large speech, I had to get it to you by 10 am the previous day and wait until you told me whether …
Madam SPEAKER: 10 pm.
Mr WOOD: … 10 pm the previous day. I then had to wait until you gave me approval before it could be put into Hansard.
Whilst I accept that there is a normal part of standing here talking and there are rules relating to what I can and cannot say in parliament, especially in relation to unbecoming words - we would not say that, Madam Speaker; unparliamentary language, we would never have any of that - but there are rules, which I know I have to apply. To some extent, I feel like I am being censored, because I have to give it to you - not you personally, I am talking to you as the Speaker - I have to give you my speech beforehand and then I have to wait for your big tick to see whether I can put it into Hansard on the day that I am going to deliver my five minute adjournment debate.
That makes another layer of regulation - we have been talking about regulations today – and it goes against the spirit of why people like to give adjournment speeches. I do not give them all the time, but I use them for anything. I was going to talk about the Anzac Day cricket match tonight. I might talk about my mother’s 90th birthday; or I might recognise people in my electorate who have done great things.
I know that the member for Johnston always recognises people in his electorate. I remember when we first introduced these time limitations and I quote from the Hansard:
The member for Johnston nearly beat the former member for Arafura, Jack Ah Kit’s speech when he was told to hurry up. I do not know if members remember, he spoke at about three times his normal speaking speed in order to finish his speech. The member for Johnston was nearly doing the same thing to fit his adjournment debate into five minutes. That is ridiculous.
I understand what the government is doing, but this is not part of that. If we cannot stay up for a little longer at night for 33 days of parliament - I do not want to see people start pulling divisions and quorums when the adjournment debate is on - this is what I was told. If people want to go home when the adjournment debate is on they are allowed to. I do not know whether that is as per the standing orders, but my understanding is that once parliament is finished, we then have an extended period where people have the opportunity to speak to the House about matters in their electorate or other matters. It should be a choice if people want to stay. Some people may want to work in their office and others might have the opportunity to speak for 15 minutes.
The motion I am putting to parliament, and it is being put to the government, is to reconsider this change. I believe it is a backward step and that we have lost something special in our parliament. There have been some great speeches during the adjournment debate. I am not sure whether minister Jack Ah Kit did his Slim Dusty song during the adjournment, but I will never forget that; it was a terrific rendition.
Leave us with the opportunity to be flexible. Not everyone speaks for 15 minutes. Some people - I will not name names, probably even me - stretch the 15 minutes to the limit, whereas others talk for five minutes and go home. Give us the flexibility and the opportunity to be Territorians. Let us have a parliament that has some Territory character about it and, in the end, let us support free speech.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, with my comments in relation to this particular issue in the past you would be aware that I support this motion.
If I sought to amend this motion it would be to reinforce, in a far more vigorous way, what the member for Nelson is attempting to do, with a level of politeness and courtesy which has not been extended to this House by the government, that has seized this House as an item to be feared, loathed, despised, and to be silenced at every available opportunity.
When I did my Arts degree with a political science and history major, the other major I picked up was a literature major, some of which focused on Jacobean literature, so I have a fortunate understanding of what this parliament represents and how the system works, that we aspire to maintain. That is so often not reflected in the attitudes, beliefs, pronouncements and, more importantly, the actions of the government of the Northern Territory.
I am not going to go into a dissertation into its history, but one of the great joys of the Westminster system is that it creates a system of responsible government which means that the government is responsible to this House. It is this place which is the supreme law-making body of the Northern Territory. Yesterday, I heard, to my dismay, the well-educated Leader of Government Business talk about Cabinet as if it was some sort of supreme body, as if it had some rite of passage over what happens in this place.
That may be what happens in reality. It is one of the shortcomings of the unicameral system, where an absolute majority exists but, goodness gracious me, what a departure from the system of government that we so respect. These people call themselves democrats. The only reason, I suspect, that the government subordinates to the electoral system is that, at least in the overwhelming consciousness of the general public, the public would not stomach a departure from the democratic system.
Beyond the electoral cycle, this government is almost rapacious in its desire to turn parliament into nothing more than a glossy brochure upon which the Chief Minister can have his face painted. We saw a perfect example of that this morning; when matters that have been sitting on the Notice Paper, of great substance to the people in this Chamber and much farther beyond, are removed from the Notice Paper, without notice, because the government thinks the debate has moved on.
No, that is not correct. The debate has not moved on. Those two debates are as relevant today as they were some time ago. In some ways they are more relevant, because they would have created or given a lens of six months to see where the government was at, what it was saying its attitudes were and where it was taking us. Sadly, it has chosen to diminish the rights of Territorians by removing those items from the Notice Paper.
This House has been in a state of decay since the last election. The 15 minutes allotted to the adjournment debates at the end of each sitting day are to be cherished. They can be cherished in two ways: first, by the fact they are used for whatever purpose the speaker should choose to speak and, second, by not being used. This issue is you know you have a vehicle by which, in 15 minutes, you can speak to whatever matter is important to you whether it is a palm tree next to a tenant’s house in a Northern Territory Housing complex or something as complex as an allegation of corruption in the government.
However, this government despises the capacity for members in this House to speak freely and unrestrained. The insult to the injury is the clumsiness by which this government chose to do it. This was demonstrated last night when, all of a sudden, we abandoned the operation of standing orders because it was convenient. Another rule of this House needed to be broken to make me aware of what the actual process was but, as it was last night, the standing orders were abandoned.
Madam Speaker, I checked Standing Order 41A, and there is nothing in Standing Order 41A which enables or empowers you, or any other person, to willy-nilly ignore the demands of that standing order.
Whilst I have no objection to the process that was finally decided on, it is not reflected in standing orders. We just abandon standing orders whenever it suits us. I was unaware because the members of the committee, who had approached you, were actually upholding the standards of the committee and treating the privilege they had in that committee with the respect it deserves. I only became aware of what was occurring when the Leader of Government Business clumsily got to his feet and breached that privilege himself, in an endeavour to try to explain why we were not adhering to the standing orders. It is clumsy, oafish, and it diminishes this place even further.
The other concept, which is utterly beyond my understanding, is this absurdity - which I refuse to do on principle and will continue to refuse to do on principle – of having my speech vetted before I choose to give it. If there is ever a disgrace that has been perpetrated in this place, it is that absurd, stupid, nave rule. I fully accept that I am responsible for every word that rolls off my tongue in this place. I will live or die politically as a result of the words I utter. Have I said things that are inappropriate and made mistakes? My word, I have, and I have been belted for them. Have I said things that are unparliamentary and regretted? Yes, I have. But, gee whiz, Madam Speaker, for me to have to provide you with a copy of my speech so that you can go through it, like some kind of schoolmarm, so that it can be sanitised, in accordance with the rules of this place is, to me, an affront to everything that this House stands for.
When I stand in this place, I am overwhelmed with a sense of history. I am fortunate enough to know the history of what makes the Dispatch Boxes what they are, why they look like that, and why they are there. I understand the role of the Mace. I understand why there are two-and-a-half sword lengths that separate us from that side. I also know that these places are built on the corpses of millions of people. That may sound melodramatic, Madam Speaker, but it is not, because it is true.
Ever since the first parliament sat - for a lack of better words, it was not called a parliament – after the signing of the Magna Carta and the first real challenge was issued to the divine right of Kings, the freedom of speech and the freedom to exert yourself against a Monarch, was being woven into the fabric of everything that we hold true. It is that process, not the ancient Greeks, but the process that was established which has led to the construction of nearly every major democracy in the world, including the United States, which runs on a variation on the same theme.
Where did Montesquieu turn his eyes when he sought to create a model of ideal government? He turned his eyes to England, and although he changed it slightly, he described the separation of powers, as he saw it in the Westminster system, refined it, and now the most powerful nation on earth embraces his world view, but it is all an extension of this place. And what do these places stand for? They stand for free speech; the capacity to stand up against the state, to agree with the state, and to even direct the state. The state is subordinate to this place. The laws that we pass in this place are the laws by which this government must abide; something that it has become quite slack at doing.
If you look at the issue of annual reporting, and the poverty of adherence to the legislative instruments passed in this place, we can see the continual erosion in this jurisdiction of this government’s approach to the simplest aspects of complying with the systems that it has inherited. And what is it all about? Why would it confront the structures that we have inherited in such a simple, clumsy fashion? When I was interviewed on this issue by a journalist not that long ago, I made the observation that I do not believe that it is spite or malice on the part of government. The journalist said that was rather surprising. I said: ‘No, you misunderstand me. Spite or malice implies that you understand the system. This is the equivalent of a dumb animal crawling through a china shop, knocking over everything that is porcelain and worthwhile. It does not understand, through its own shallowness and vacuity, the damage it is doing’.
It is for this reason I have been a passionate champion of the rights of members in this House. The government is already in a strong position and it should not be afraid of this place. The CLP was accused of arrogance in the highest order for all sorts of reasons, but, my goodness gracious me, while in government it did not silence members who wanted to speak, particularly in detail during the adjournment debates. Whilst members of the CLP government at the time would groan under the weight of Neil Bell’s tirades - the former member for Macdonnell - he was not, as a general rule, prevented from speaking, particularly in the adjournment debates; he was free to exercise the rights and privileges that had been granted to him.
Not so now, Madam Speaker. Where are the voices of dissent now from all the people who decried the CLP for its heights of arrogance? Dumb in silence. Why? Because they would rather subordinate the system which they relied on for a right to speak and complain about the CLP to being party hacks.
This is not an issue of partisan politics for me. This is an issue of an anaerobic environment being provided for oxygen-loving people, who believe the voice of freedom …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact that you sit in here with a straight face and encourage this sort of thing shows what a cur you are; you are a disgrace. And all who voted for this are a disgrace. I have no compassion or compunction in criticising you in the most complete terms. You have no courage. You do not have the courage to face your critics and your answer is to deprive your critics of oxygen. Cowardice in the lowest and most vile terms …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: … disgraceful – utterly disgraceful. And I can tell you that we, come the revolution - dare I say it - come the revolution, will restore the dignity of this House to what it should be, to what its predecessors in opposition said it should be and more.
This disgrace perpetrated on this place diminishes us all and diminishes the Territory. If you think for a second that this attitude does not have a flow-on effect, then why do we have less power over the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory today than we had in 1978 after self-government? Because the federal government said that you are not doing the job properly. The attitude that comes into this place percolates into the way you govern.
You talk about statehood. Goodness gracious me; you could not be further away from statehood now than we were in 1978. We got an intervention - the federal government rolling into town diminishing your jurisdictional capacity - and you say: ‘That looks like a good idea’.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We suggested that you contact the Prime Minister of the day and protect our jurisdiction. What was the attitude of the Chief Minister of the day?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to address your comments through me, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, what was the attitude of the Chief Minister of the day?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: This is a …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We are so far away now, and that is the part the government does not understand. What do we see in the forms of governance? The government walks in with the 2030 statement. It abrogated its responsibility, as the people who lead the Northern Territory - the source of the ideas - and passed it off to a second party.
This whole attitude which permeates the government, your psyche, and the way you deal with people around you - all of it - diminishes the Northern Territory in its completeness. That is what this is about for me. It is about the right to speak for 15 minutes on things that are important but it is also about what we are losing. Every day it is getting less and less, it is meaning less and less. People could not care about statehood now. Why are the fires going out? The passion has gone. We have stopped caring. ‘Oh, but we are committed to statehood’, some bland, ‘tofu-esque’, banal comment like that deals with the issue for a day.
Where is the fire, the drive, to make this the best place in the country? It has gone and it is reflected in the way this government and this group of people come into this Chamber and abuse it. Then they whinge about little parts of process, they walk over process when it suits them. We have the Leader of Government Business breaching privilege in an effort to justify the departure from standing orders and it is all right then. I walk in through the advisors’ room, which happens to be open and it is just a convenient way to get here, and I get all these messages back saying: ‘Oh my god, you have committed this horrible crime’. It is all about pettiness. Whilst we immerse ourselves in this petty thinking and point scoring, we are losing control of the Northern Territory at a jurisdictional level.
Dr Burns: The one who lost control was you.
Mr ELFERINK: You see this is the point; a little cheap shot. See, he has another little cheap shot. Great, you have me. Big deal. I am bleeding from the chest, and who cares?
We do not have the control over the Northern Territory that we used to have. If it was important to you, you would be telling Kevin Rudd, right now, to give it back; we will work on some dual arrangement, but give back the control that we had, give us back our jurisdictional rights. But we could not care less about that stuff.
This House is so diminished by this whole attitude that permeates the mind, the heart, and soul of government. What is it about? It is about a glossy brochure, how we look - dress ups. Every time I get the Chief Minister’s face in my letterbox, it is not because I care they are on this propaganda drive; it is because the focus is on power at any price. The focus is on achieving just enough votes to govern. A win is a win, says the Chief Minister. But it is not about actually improving the Northern Territory or about improving us.
For me, the motion being brought forward by the member for Nelson is symbolic of what is happening: a cancer that is growing in the spine of the Northern Territory’s integrity. It needs to be cut out. What frustrates me the most is that the members opposite, the ones who have carriage of these duties and responsibilities, not only refuse to do it but I believe they have gone beyond the point where they can refuse to do it - they are simply incapable of seeing the desperate damage that this relentless pursuit of the image is doing to the integrity of the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction. Shame on them all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion that has been brought before this House by the member for Nelson. I promise that my comments tonight will not be quite as flamboyant and colourful as those put forward by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, although I did enjoy his dissertation.
In the relatively short time I have been in this House, I have seen a degeneration of the way matters are conducted and, more specifically, of the opportunity that the representatives of 50% of the Northern Territory voting population have endured. We began the 11th Assembly with 15 minute time allotments for adjournment debates. We had no specific end time set for debate at the end of each night. I can only imagine what the Cabinet room machinations were regarding how they were going to gag the opposition in the best way.
I imagine they sat up there after the first few days, or perhaps a couple of weeks of sittings, and were reeling from the onslaught and attack that came to them from this side of the House. They would have sat there absolutely gobsmacked, asking: ‘How the hell are we going to sort this out? What can we do to limit our exposure to the attacks that the opposition are bringing upon us?’ I imagine they would have sat down with their strategist and decided the best way to do it was to use the weight of numbers they had in the Standing Orders Committee to deal with us.
They have chosen, in no small way, to reduce the power that we have to bring forward informed debate from this side of the House, which is an important part of achieving balance in government. Not just in the Northern Territory, but across Australia.
What are the ways that they are most likely to get us or that they are most likely to use to attack the government? Two of them are MPIs and the adjournment debate. The time that has been set for finalising parliament for the day at 9 pm, before the adjournment debate starts, has effectively stymied our means of bringing up very important matters to the people of the Northern Territory through matters of public importance. Under the new regime, we could start an MPI at 8.50 pm expecting or hoping that we might get a number of speakers on for 20 minutes or so, but 10 minutes later our debate would be truncated.
Other than an arrangement made to extend that debate by 10 minutes, the opportunity to raise important issues before this parliament has been virtually prevented. I imagine they would be thinking along the lines of: we will drag the debate out on all the other matters throughout the day. We will filibuster as long as it takes, and we will shut these blokes down. Not only that, we are not going to give them 15 minutes to bring up matters that are important to the Northern Territory during the adjournment debate; we will limit them all to five minutes. They can only do so much damage in five minutes.
I suspect that is the process that they have gone through. It is the type of arrogance that I am learning to expect from the members opposite. It is such a shame. It is a shame that new members, on the other side of the House, have been so poisoned by the Labor machine that they must fall into line with their colleagues in dealing with the opposition members who represent 50% of the Northern Territory. It is a slight on the democracy of the Northern Territory that the democratic process is denied to such a large proportion of Northern Territory residents and voters; to have their voices heard in this parliament.
It is extremely disappointing that the government would use the bullying tactics that it has - and that is what it is, bullying. The government has the strength in numbers and it bullies everyone out of its way, so that it gets its own way and makes life a little more comfortable. But it leaves us in a very awkward position.
I sat through most of General Business Day today. There were a number of motions put forward by the opposition and a number of matters were brought on. Each one of those matters, where a decision could have been made, was killed - shut down and killed. There goes another opportunity for the other 50% of the Northern Territory to be given proper representation in this place. It is disappointing.
I see that when some of the members on the other side of the House are put on the spot over certain issues - I saw it happen last night to the member for Barkly, when the member for Braitling put him on the spot over whether he would support the introduction of confiscation of motor vehicles for drink-drivers. I could see the look on his face - I could not read his mind – which said to me that he wanted to agree. He wanted to give his support to the concept that we should get tough on drink-drivers. Yet, the members are so tied in and made to conform to the way of thinking that the government promotes, in arrogance. I wonder how difficult it makes it for those members across the other side of the House to sleep.
They must be torn between what they know is right and what they see being bullied by their own party. I can imagine the government sitting over there or the members who are experienced will sit there and say the Country Liberals do the same. But I assure you that is not the case. We are a group of free-thinking individuals on this side of the House. Each one of us has individual rights to bring up matters with our parliamentary wing, we have an equal right to be heard, and we have an equal right in the decision-making processes. Sadly, that is obviously not the case on the government side. Otherwise I would not have been looking at the member for Barkly last night, and seen the look on his face, like a rabbit caught in the spotlight.
The democratic process which has been eroded in this parliament by changing the standing orders to truncate all our debates and to gag the opposition does serve a purpose, I suppose. The purpose we have alluded to - the member for Port Darwin alluded to it tonight - the people of the Northern Territory can see through it. They are quite clever people, they should not be dumbed down in any way, and I see the government guilty of dumbing down the people of the Northern Territory all the time.
You only have to look at the myriad of glossy brochures that come from the government to realise that that is how they are trying to sell governing the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory are a hell of a lot smarter than that. They can see through that veil. The member for Port Darwin alluded to it. Come the revolution, the government will pay the price for its arrogance. What we see, in the changes to standing orders to allocate shorter times for us to have a few words, is a classic example of that arrogance coming to play.
I found it a little frustrating and annoying going through today’s experience of having every motion put up by the opposition defeated by those on the other side of the House. It does not diminish my resolve - and I can speak for all the members on this side of the House - it does not diminish our resolve to bring about the very best outcome that we can for Territorians, in the limited way that we can from the opposition.
We are all, on this side of the House, willing to continue to fight the good fight on behalf of Territorians. Despite the hard time that we get from the government, we will not back away from bringing matters up to the government that affect Territorians every day of their lives.
A classic example was the motion today in relation to a review of police numbers. That issue has not been fully dealt with, and I know the member for Karama said something today along the lines of, well, it is always being debated and we do not need to bring it on, we are not going to agree to the motion. We are going to take things off the Notice Paper that relate to police presence. The member for Karama does not realise that by doing that she is, and the government is, effectively alienating every police officer who would like to hear the continuation and the finalisation of a debate that affects their job. In the Northern Territory there are - without knowing the figure off the top of my head – about 1100 police officers - a few more if you count auxiliaries and ACPOs. Each one of those employees in the police force would like to hear what the opposition has to say about the way the government is treating them and the way that the government’s policy is allowing the law and order in the Northern Territory to fail.
The police are only as good as the government behind them. If the government does not give the police all the tools to do the job they need to do, then the job that they can do is limited.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Katherine is digressing. This is a debate about adjournment times. We had the Territory police debate earlier in the day.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Katherine, if you could keep it as close as possible to the motion before the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, the point I was making, so that the member for Karama can understand the relevance of this, is that by shutting down parliament at a specified time and limiting adjournment debates, for whatever reason, because they want to go home to bed early …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent debate on the motion put by the member for Nelson be completed before the adjournment of the Assembly.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The standing orders are clear about when this House should adjourn as a result of Standing Order 41A, I believe. I ask you to seek advice from the Clerk on whether the motion that the member for Port Darwin is proposing contravenes standing orders or is at odds with standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: Please sit down, member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin has moved a motion. The question is that the motion as moved by the member for Port Darwin be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion moved by the member for Port Darwin negatived.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is now past 9 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly does now adjourn.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, yesterday I tabled petitions from 1344 women of the East Arnhem region protesting the closure of Gove District Hospital’s maternity services and calling on the government to explore options to see services restored.
I acknowledge and thank the strong women who drove this petition, along with a raft of other lobbying activities. Thanks to Kylie, Kim, Pam, Esther, Danielle, Meagan and Annie who combined efforts with Djapirri, Dhangal, Margaret, Gulumbu, Yananymul and many others to unite with one strong and single voice.
When that petition was commenced in late February, the hospital was facing a possible and temporary closure, which did occur, due to the enormous difficulty in attracting and recruiting new GP proceduralists with obstetric skills to replace doctors whose contracts were due to expire.
The story unfolded with a good deal of media coverage and as the local member, a woman and as a mother who had all three of her babies at Gove District Hospital, I was really proud to march with more than 200 Yolngu and Ngapaki women from our hospital to Nhulunbuy Town Hall.
An open forum was held there for women, their husbands and their kids who came to ask questions and yes, to vent their frustration and anger with me as their representative for the Northern Territory government, the CEO for the Department of Health and Families, David Ashbridge, and also the member for Lingiari, the Honourable Warren Snowdon.
The collective voices and actions of the women of my region are powerful. They are a resolute group of people. This was something I knew from years ago, when in the early 1990s the then CLP government proposed to close Ward 2 and relocate maternity services to Ward 1, the general medical surgical ward; a ward where people are sick and the risk of infections are present, all the more for newborn babies. Thanks to a groundswell of public backlash, led by a woman I know well, Jacki Rawles, the decision of the CLP was, not surprisingly, reversed and common sense and best health practice prevailed.
The good news is that Ward 2 at Gove District Hospital, which is better known as the Baby Hilton, will now reopen on 5 May, which is, coincidentally, International Midwives Day.
I thank the Health Minister who visited Nhulunbuy on 8 April and met with members of the maternity coalition group, as well as staff from the Department of Health and Families, who have worked extremely hard to resolve this situation.
It has highlighted the enormous challenges of attracting, recruiting, and retaining employees, especially professionals with high-level skills, to remote areas in the Northern Territory. I have lived and worked out there for more than 19 years and I can think of no other place to live, work, and raise my family. However, even testimonials like mine, together with an enhanced salary package to the tune of around $300 000, did not receive an instant take up.
I know that every effort was made to avoid even a temporary closure of the ward, but if the right people with the right skills cannot be found, and if safe birthing cannot be guaranteed – and that means the ability to perform an emergency caesarean section - then the hospital and the Department of Health and Families has an obligation to provide a contingency plan and an alternative.
A good deal of hard work has gone into organising for women to be able to give birth at the Royal Darwin Hospital or at Katherine Hospital. For one month, women have had to travel outside of Gove to give birth, supported by the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme, which included travel for a partner. Some families chose to travel to family down south to give birth. It has probably been most difficult for Yolngu women to leave country for birthing - to have to travel away from Gove - and I apologise for that.
However, from Tuesday, maternity services will be back at Gove hospital. To celebrate the occasion and to recognise International Midwives Day, Gove District Hospital’s midwifery staff have issued an open invitation to the community to come along to the hospital for a morning tea. Unfortunately, I will not be able to get there due to sittings.
I pay tribute to all of our nursing and medical staff at Gove District Hospital, who are dedicated and highly skilled professionals. I especially acknowledge Doug Gilchrist, the Director of Nursing and General Manager of Gove District Hospital, Sally Putland, Nurse Manager of Ward 2, and her second-in-charge, Tracey Kelly, and all of the midwives who have worked as part of that team, and worked particularly hard during this busy period to support women and babies.
In a former life, I was a state Enrolled Nurse in South Australia and come from a family of nurses, so I know a little about the hard work they do and the dedication it takes. I take my hat off to Gove District Hospital and midwives, and welcome the return of our obstetric services next week.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the Alexander Day Group that meets in the Gray Community Hall on most Wednesdays. I had the great pleasure of having an early Anzac Day with our seniors at the Gray Community Hall, where a fantastic group of over 30 people turned up. Everyone had a fantastic time, even though some of the sausages I cooked were a little burnt. In fact, some of the rissoles were burnt as well. However, they did not complain and they had a fantastic time at their luncheon. Thank you to everyone who helped to arrange that fantastic lunch for these people. They are the salt of the earth and, no matter which side they believe in, they are lovely people to talk to and have many stories to tell. I also thank Peter Chandler and our electorate officers for all their help, and those who helped us with the barbecue on the day.
I thank all those in Palmerston who came to pay their respects at the Anzac Day Dawn Service and the 10 am service in Palmerston. Both events were extremely well attended, with over 600 people turning up each time. I thank the soldiers of 1st Brigade for their excellent presentation and dedication to the Palmerston Anzac Day Service. It is the young men and women of our services who make you proud when they stand so proudly in respect to Diggers past and our Diggers in current service all around the world. You get that concept of being a proud Australian. These young soldiers stood there for the length of the service, they manned the catafalque party and did a fantastic job.
I always find it enjoyable, being an ex-service person, when I can observe their drill and make a decision on whether they have done a good job or not. I could not fault these young soldiers for their drill, at either the Dawn Service or the 10 am service. It made me feel proud to have so many service people in my electorate. Their behaviour afterwards at the RSL club at the Palmerston Hub was exemplary. They represented themselves very well and I felt very proud to be part of that fantastic service. It was great so many people turned up to see …
Ms Lawrie: Hear, hear!
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you for that comment. It was really good to see so many people turn up. It was great to have the community getting behind Anzac Day because, unfortunately, some of our soldiers in active service have been injured or killed - they have paid an extreme price for that - but they serve as gallantly and as proudly as any of our former ANZACs. I thank them all. I thank 1st Brigade for the dedication of their service this Anzac Day.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the Milingimbi Remote Learning Partnership Agreement which was signed on 20 March. The Milingimbi community can be proud that it has chosen a long-term commitment to education and training. This agreement will improve education, wellbeing, training, and employment outcomes. It was terrific to see the children and adults who came and made the day special. In this particular case, there was an emphasis on the customary law - if you like - of the Milingimbi elders in trying to translate the importance of a significant occasion to all those present.
This agreement is based on mutual respect and understanding, and tells us about the commitment, roles, and responsibilities of the Milingimbi community and the Department of Education and Training. The Department of Education and Training is committed to supporting the Milingimbi community and working together to achieve the priorities set out in this agreement.
Together, the school and the community will:
remember the Vision for this Agreement: Creating tomorrow: Successful, strong, healthy people achieving in both
worlds – a terrific title, because that is exactly what the people of Milingimbi are doing; creating a future for the children
to come through and know that they will have a future beyond their education;
attendance is a priority;
Yolngu culture;
the community to provide a senior secondary campus to support local training initiatives;
the Dha-djirrpul governance group has been formed to reflect community needs and ensure two-way decision making.
It is important that the children of Milingimbi see that understanding both worlds will be the challenge and the elders of
the community want to ensure that is understood; and
work towards equity in housing, conditions of employment, and entitlements for all Indigenous school staff, and to
maintain partnerships with other community organisations.
The Yolngu staff at Milingimbi School will grow in their leadership and as assistant teachers, teachers and other positions within the school and the community. The Yolngu will develop strong people who live their culture and who are strong in both worlds.
As part of the Northern Territory government’s Closing the Gap strategy, school staff will be given the opportunity to train locally and fulfil their career aspirations. More young people will be given opportunities in the school. It was a pleasure to see the increase in Year 12 graduates in Milingimbi.
Community members will participate in cultural competence programs for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff. The agreement is a significant step forward and, through genuine relationships and clear actions, it says we can all do better. We can all be part of building a future in this community. Governments, community leaders and members, organisations, businesses, families, and young people all have a role to play.
I thank and praise the Djunggaya Negotiation Team who participated in the negotiation of the Milingimbi Remote Partnership Agreement: Keith Lapulung, Gulurrthu Gondarra, Judith Madupinyin, Jeffrey Malawa Dhamarrandji, Oscar Datjarranga, Djuwandayngu Ruluminy Wunungmurra, Brian Brown, Elizabeth Ganygulpa, Charlie Djirarrwuy, Ross Mandi, and Gordon Lanyipi Rinymalpuy. It is significant that you have begun to build on your commitments to this agreement by establishing the Dha-djirrpul structure for Milingimbi.
Dha-djirrpul is the name of the combined leadership groups - the Djunggaya, the Milingimbi School Principal, the School Council, and the Senior Cultural Advisor, that have equal roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes for this agreement.
This is the starting point of a new era in the relationship between the people of Milingimbi, the school, and the Northern Territory government.
Thank you to the elders and board of community for their contribution to the whole process, and to the organisations and individuals that participated in the consultation, sharing their concerns and their ideas for the future. Thank you to the traditional owners who signed this agreement: Laurie Bayamarrwanga, Joseph Bangguli, George Garmayana Pascoe, David Marpiyawuy, and Lena Walunydjinalil. Thank you to members from the Department’s Negotiation Team, the Community Engagement Team, as well as the independent facilitators who ensured transparency and an equal footing for all through the negotiation process.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I offer an apology to Madam Speaker which I will do fulsomely and without reservation. During the last division in this House, I said words which reflected on her capacity as the Speaker of this House. I seek to withdraw those words, if the Hansard microphones picked them up, and I offer an unqualified apology to Madam Speaker.
I acknowledge that from time to time, in my passion to defend this House, my passions can get the better of me. I have spoken to the Speaker about this matter prior to coming into this House. At the first opportunity, I offer an unqualified apology and, Madam Speaker, now that you are there, I offer it to you directly and without reservation. It was inappropriate that I reflected on you in the way that I did and I apologise without reservation and without hesitation.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Before I call someone else, I appreciate you apologising to the House and to me. However, I would like you to be cautioned that should this happen again, this is a naming offence and, member for Port Darwin, I will not hesitate in naming you under the same circumstances again.
Mr Elferink: I am sorry. I know it is a breach of protocol. I thank you for your indulgence.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the Anzac Day celebrations in my electorate, particularly at Adelaide River. In my view, the Dawn Service is the premier Anzac Day event across the Territory.
The war memorial at Adelaide River is a significant place with many deceased soldiers from World War II and it is also adjacent to the site of the old hospital for injured patients who came from Darwin during the bombing of Darwin. It is a very significant place and dawn is a mystical time to have such a service on such a day in such a place. The memorial never ceases to move me.
The Coomalie Shire Council did a fantastic job. Congratulations to the entire council: Andrew Turner, the President; Lisa Wain, the CEO; the Sport and Recreation Officer, Jason, who does a fabulous job. I am sure there are many other people who work for the council who volunteer their time. The emergency volunteers were all there before 5 am to park the vehicles, which makes it much easier.
This year was special. It was the first time that we have had an Administrator at the Dawn Service and I thank His Honour, Tom Pauling, for coming. He made a very moving speech at the service and I am sure everyone appreciated his time. I am sure he was delighted to be in such a special place. He came to the breakfast at the show society afterwards and thoroughly enjoyed his time mixing with the locals from Darwin and around the region.
Special thanks go to Lana Keanes, who is now a famous 11-year-old trumpeter/bugler. She played her trumpet as a bugle and was recruited at the last minute. Unfortunately, we lost our bugler who has been there for many years. Lana is from Humpty Doo, but I hope that she will be our permanent bugler for the future. Thanks to her mother for bringing her down. I hope she continues to attend. She did a fine job. She got a special sound out of that trumpet and people were considerably moved.
The breakfast held afterwards had dozens of volunteers and everyone was under the pump. There were about 1600 to 1800 people who attended Anzac Day at Adelaide River, and this number keeps growing every year. It is not as if the council and organisers are promoting the event heavily; people come through word of mouth and when they come once they keep coming. I spoke to people at the breakfast who said it was their first time and they committed to come back. I spoke to people on the Sunday afterwards who were saying they would like to come the following year and I am sure that they will.
Congratulations again to the council. We need to have a look at the event; I am sure there will be a debrief. I will go into bat for more funding to assist with the breakfast and organisation, because it is becoming large. It is one of the premier events and I hope over time that it gets bigger.
I have a few people to mention: Sandy McLean did a fantastic job; Patsy Fawcett was in the kitchen with Linda Macintosh working, cooking savoury mince, baked beans and a whole range of foods for the many people who came along; Colin Wain, the husband of Lisa, the CEO, was there working alongside his wife. Everyone gives their time and it is a special day. Congratulations to the council for putting on such a wonderful event.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I pay my thanks and respect to the people who participated on Anzac Day. In particular, I thank the people of Alice Springs for supporting Anzac Day so well at the Dawn Service and the march up to the Cenotaph on Anzac Hill.
In particular, I thank the RSL for the hard work they undertook in coordinating the many functions held over the weekend. The weekend actually started on Friday morning, at Braitling Primary School, when the Acting Deputy Principal, Peter Hirst, put on a service for the children and their parents. Alistair Sheriff, the teacher, arranged the service, and I thank him, the teachers and administration staff, who supported the event on Friday 24 April, 2009.
I also thank Loraine Braham, the previous member for Braitling, for attending and taking a wreath from one of the classes to be laid at the Anzac Day service on Saturday. In particular, I thank Ella Moyses and Alicia King for emceeing the event.
I thank Dennis Parker, the President of the RSL Alice Springs, and Kevin Rockemer, the Vice President, for putting on the 48th annual Anzac Day dinner at the RSL. I also thank Captain Adie Viney for saying grace that night and 1 RSU for attending the dinner and also the Anzac Day services, both the Dawn Service and the march. NORFORCE were strong in their contingent supporting the dinner, the Dawn Service and the march, and special thanks to Major James Cook, from Centre Squadron, NORFORCE, as well as Warrant Officer Rob McKeown.
In relation to Anzac Day, I thank Wing Commander Mike Cowell from 1 RSU for coming up, and our bugler, Peter Gillam. The bugler did not turn up on Friday night, but we were right on Saturday.
I thank Mayor Damien Ryan for participating in the events. It was also good to see the Vietnam Veterans do a tour in Alice Springs and have its AGM in Alice Springs. There are 400 members of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club, and 153 turned up in Alice Springs, along with a number of support staff totalling 200 or thereabouts. They spent time at the RSL and supported our local economy. I understand the Chief Minister’s Department supported the dinner on Friday night at the RSL, and I thank the Chief Minister’s Department for that.
I also thank Sean and Kim Parnell for being present at the dinner on Friday night. I thank the Emergency Services staff for turning up on the day. I thank the schools, students, and the children of Alice Springs for coming out on Anzac Day. The OLSH school captains, Anna Mick and Joseph Egar for laying a wreath on Anzac Day; it was great participation. All in all, it was a great celebration of Anzac Day in Alice Springs, and I hope it continues to grow. I saw the member for Macdonnell on Anzac Day. We stood next to each other at the Dawn Service. It was nice and cold and dark. I hope that next year people continue to attend, celebrate, and remember the fallen heroes.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay a couple of tributes tonight. I want to talk about the great work of the Stuart Park Residents Association that has recently been wound up after 15 years. Many of us in this House have residents’ associations in our electorates. I am glad I do. They see the day-to-day things that we often do not. They tell us about things that others just drive past and leave for someone else to worry about. Basically, they get things done.
The Stuart Park Residents Association was exactly that kind of group - committed, passionate advocates for their suburb and their issues, and they got things done. The SPRA was first started by Peter Forrest 15 years ago. In 15 years, they had four presidents, which is a tribute to the stability of the organisation: Peter Forrest for two years; David Hibbert for three years; Col Freeman for three years; and the most recent past president, John Briers, who held the post for seven years. These presidents have ably led the Stuart Park Residents Association, providing the public face and voice of everyone within the area.
Over the 15 years the SPRA was operational, the group advocated and lobbied in a number of areas: road safety and traffic, schools, planning, housing, parks, and public amenity. The issues they took on were often a mix of council, Territory government and federal government responsibilities.
Many of my colleagues have received letters or phone calls from me, or my predecessor, Clare Martin, about issues raised by the Stuart Park Residents Association. The most well known, perhaps, is the intersection of Duke Street and the Stuart Highway. The Stuart Park Residents Association lobbied long and hard to get the black spot on the Stuart Highway at the intersection of Duke Street addressed. There were traffic surveys, resident surveys, media appearances and meetings. In the end, they reached a solution that has, no doubt, saved lives and made that area a much safer place. Many of the other successes are not what outsiders would consider big issues, but all issues, regardless of their size, have been taken on over the years.
Some of these include: safer parking at Stuart Park Primary School and drop-off points at Westralia Street shops; removal of the old meat storage facility at Westralia Street shops; more reliable burglar alarm at Stuart Park Primary; lobbying for Parkside Lodge to be a Territory Housing single men’s residence; lobbying for Stuart Highway to be a clearway from 6 am until 9 am from Westralia Street to Duke Street; and for the Iliffe Street, Bishop Street and Woolner Road intersection to be upgraded with a roundabout to be installed when federal government funding becomes available - I was talking to council the other day and they are very excited about that, and that should be coming forward soon; council parking on Duke Street; traffic calming devices on Duke Street; getting council to maintain the public park on Duke Street where it had previously been uncared for; and many more issues.
While they have not always achieved everything they wanted to, many times they were able to find a compromise with government, council or property developers to make the situation better for all residents. I worked with the Stuart Park Residents Association since my election to parliament in August last year and it has been a pleasure. They are a great bunch of people working hard to ensure their suburb is as good as it can be.
Unfortunately, as in many community groups these days, people are busy, and so new members were hard to come by. This led to a very difficult decision by the core membership to wind up the SPRA and move on to other things. I assure all the people of Stuart Park that just because the association has gone it does not mean the issues will go by the wayside. Everyone is always welcome to let me know what is going on in their neighbourhood and what they hope to do for their suburb. I know the members of the Stuart Park Residents Association remain active and involved community people and I often talk to them.
I take this opportunity to thank every member of the Stuart Park Residents Association over the past 15 years. Whether you attended one meeting or 100 meetings, you have achieved much for Stuart Park and I hope that all of you will continue to work with me to make Stuart Park an even better place.
I pay tribute to Mr Peter Garrigan for his commitment to the education of Territory children. Peter has spent the last 10 years on the Darwin High School Council, chairing the council for five of those years. Anyone who has ever been to a school council meeting will know that it takes dedication to do a full day’s work and then go to a council meeting that night.
Under Peter’s leadership, the school has embarked on projects including the construction of the Lawrence Ah Toy Science and Home Economics facility, and the refurbishment of the top floor of A-block to accommodate the secondary Intensive English Unit. These are not small projects and I know Peter has worked hard together with the council and staff to get these projects done.
Peter also spent nine years as President of the Council of Government School Organisations, between 2000 and 2008, representing COGSO on a number of Northern Territory and federal government standing committees. This role has helped provide parents with a voice, influencing and responding to government policy.
Peter is one of the reasons the public education in the Northern Territory is so good - committed, passionate parents working with other parents and staff to improve the education of our kids. As Marion Guppy, Principal of Darwin High School, said:
I know Peter’s presence on the Darwin High School Council will be greatly missed, but I have every confidence that the current council will continue Peter’s efforts. Congratulations to you, Peter, on your commitment to Darwin High School and its students.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Four-and-a-half minutes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to my Mum. I flew down to Melbourne on Sunday for my Mum’s 90th birthday. It is on 24 April, and that is good, because it is about the only birthday I ever remember in my family, because I know it is the day before Anzac Day.
My Mum has celebrated 90 great years. She is a wonderful lady. We had a beautiful celebration in Frankston in Melbourne. Even though the weather was absolutely bitter and the wind was blowing such a gale that wheelie bins and trees were falling over, we still had a wonderful time. The day started off at the local church, St Jude’s, where my brother is Parish Priest, and he announced to the parishioners at the end of Mass that it was my mother’s birthday and the entire congregation sang Happy Birthday. That was a good way to start.
We went to a restaurant south of Frankston where we surrounded Mum with lots of gifts and friendship and had a great meal. She was most surprised by some of the people who turned up, including me, because she did not expect me to be there. My daughter and her children all turned up from Darwin and she did not know they were coming. My two other daughters and one grandchild and my son-in-law, who live in Canberra, turned up as well. On top of all the relations who live in Melbourne, she not only had a wonderful day, but it was a great surprise to meet all those people she did not think she would expect to see on that particular day.
What better day to meet and get together than Mum’s 90th birthday. From my point of view, the best mum in the world, but that is a bit biased.
Ms Anderson: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Macdonnell. She has cared for six of us. Mum had three boys and three girls, and I was the youngest boy. I suppose I was given a little favouritism in my life with my Mum because I was the one who had polio, and of course, for Mum, that was a hard time for her. I was only very young, two years old, and I can only just imagine the pain and the suffering that Mum would have gone through in those terrible times when they did not know what was going to happen to me and how much I would be affected by polio. But my mother had great faith, and I am here today I reckon because of my Mum.
I also mention Marysville. You know all about the fires. While I was in Melbourne, I did a quick trip up to see where my brother lives. It is like a holiday retreat for him, but he does have a house in Buxton. I wanted to see the conditions of the area that had been devastated by the recent bushfires. I also wanted to talk to the lady who owned the Marysville post office.
In the condolence motion that I gave at that time I mentioned that I had a clock in my room which I bought from the post office. I called into the Healesville post office and they knew exactly the lady I was talking to, in fact my condolence motion ended up in the local newspaper for Marysville and Buxton, to my surprise; I believe my brother had something to do with it. So they knew who I was and they put me on to the lady who was the post office lady for Marysville. She is quite well. She is ready to go back to work as soon as she gets a new post office and it was very nice to hear from her.
I also visited my brother’s house and how he survived and how his house survived I cannot understand. If people want to see the pictures of the land around his house, you are quite welcome to come to my office and I will show you on the computer. It is amazing. The entire landscape is burnt, yet his house still stands. And you see that right through the landscape in that area at the moment. The funny thing is that the pastures are now all green, the cattle are grazing, yet there is a house here and a house there that are completely wiped out and then there is one that is not even touched.
The bush is just starting to come back to life. So there are these dead trees and green pastures, there is even snow in the Alps now that the cold weather has arrived. You have people doing their normal farming work, compared with places like Marysville where 90% of the houses have gone. The main street hardly has a shop standing. The bakery is doing good business because all the construction workers are cleaning up all the houses, so they are getting fine business, but for many people it must be extremely sad.
Many people stayed at Marysville for honeymoons, at times to get together, and to have time on their own. Most of that is gone. Perhaps I will continue this talk a little later about my trip to Marysville, but for the moment I wish all of those people in that area all the best and hope that Marysville and that area comes back to what it used to be.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Anzac Day in Palmerston and I commend the minister for attending.
It was a very proud day for Palmerston. I have attended quite a few of the Anzac Day marches and services around the country and the numbers in Palmerston for both the Dawn Service and the 10 am service were remarkable. I believe the numbers were similar in other jurisdictions. As a Palmerston resident for many years, I was extremely proud of the community. Looking out into the darkness the heads just seemed to go on and on and it was a wonderful tribute to past and present soldiers.
It also marked 40 days for me without beer, so after 40 days it was time for a flood. I did have a beer for a tribute to Anzac Day, and although I will not call it a flood, it was the first in 40 days.
I also mention a dear friend of mine, Bob Brander, who passed away last week. I attended his funeral today and I want to say some words from the notes from the funeral. Bob was born on 5 October 1944, in Kimberley, British Columbia, Canada. He was the third of six children born to Annie and Willis Brander. They lived in Kimberley for four years and then the family moved to The Incline, Mt Shier, Squamish and Britannia Beach. From there, at 18 years of age, Bob joined the army and, after training, he had a stint in eastern Canada, he then went overseas and spent time in the Middle East. On his return, he stayed in British Columbia for a short time and then went to New Zealand to visit some cousins and made the trip to Australia. He will be sadly missed by his wife, Sharon. I pass on my condolences to Sharon and all the extended family in Malaysia, Australia, Canada and beyond.
I spoke last night about housing issues in Palmerston. From the stories and the photos I have seen and the places I have visited, I believe we have an issue with management. I have even had people say to me that perhaps my approach is a little harsh on some people and that they need to be treated with kid gloves. I have a different attitude. I do not want to see any people, currently living in Territory Housing, on the street but they have a choice to make.
One is to live by the rules of society and to maintain their properties and look after them and they will be quite welcome to stay as long as they want. But if they do not treat them with respect and the courtesy that they should, they basically do not have a right to be there. Territory Housing should be seen as a privilege not a right.
I also mention that I have sent out many letters in recent times to different ministers and it was remarkable to receive so many letters in the last week, in the lead-up to parliament. I wonder whether all those responses were so that I could not come in here over the next couple of days …
A member: So cynical.
Mr CHANDLER: … and say that I had not heard from the ministers. I am not being cynical, I do not think, but there was a big response in the last week. I thank the ministers who responded to the many issues I raised with them.
I want to mention the number of people who have come into my office to talk about the former member for Brennan being offered a very highly paid position in the Chief Minister’s office in Palmerston. Although I only have 60 seconds to speak, one thing that shook me to the core recently was to see the former member walk in with a whole heap of government hats, t-shirts and other government paraphernalia. I assure you that I cannot even get a flag, a little metal flag out of Protocol and yet these people seem to be able to get as many things as they want.
I work in a government-funded office in Palmerston and I could not even get a Territory flag for that office. It is a government office. I had to purchase that myself. Yet this side of the House is supporting former members which can only be seen as a taxpayer election campaign for the next three years. They are supporting them by giving them whatever they want as give-aways to people to promote themselves. You work in a government office and you cannot even get a Territory flag and I think that is very poor.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak about Anzac Day and how impressed I was with the service. The Dawn Service I went to was one of the most impressive and enjoyable I have attended in many years. I have only missed about two Dawn Services in the 28 years I have been in the Northern Territory.
When I first came here many years ago and went to the Dawn Service there were about 300 to 400 people. This year the estimates are around 8000 people and, for a small town, when you consider Darwin to Sydney, 8000 people is a tremendous effort for people to support the memory of those who served for us.
The service at St Mary’s Cathedral was also very enjoyable, as it has been for many years. The march seems to get bigger every year. I suspect we are going to have to extend it a little further down Cavanagh Street because they had trouble fitting everyone in on both sides of the street outside the RSL club.
The Darwin RSL, as it does from year to year on Anzac Day, put on fabulous entertainment and service. The branch that I am a member of, the North Darwin branch, goes to a lot of trouble to put on a fantastic day for returned servicemen, women and their families, in a traditional pastime of two-up and generally enjoying each other’s company.
It is very heartening to see so many young people turning up at the Anzac Day service. This year, when I looked around at the crowd, gave me another opportunity to reflect on my own childhood and memories of going to Anzac Day. I spoke to my father some years ago about this and asked him how old I was when I went to my first Dawn Service and he said I was two months shy of my third birthday. I recall that day sitting on his shoulders walking up Kings Park Avenue to the Kings Park Memorial in Perth. It is a huge war memorial which overlooks the city of Perth. It was a very memorable event. Even though I did not understand what it was all about, I was to learn in later years the significance of Anzac Day and what it meant to this nation as a whole, and some might say, the birth of the nation.
It was very interesting to reflect on how many people were at the Dawn Services in those days, how many young people were there and of course, the Diggers, both World War I and World War II. As a very young person, down on the Esplanade in Perth, there were thousands of returned servicemen and women from World War I, World War II, and from Korea. It is fantastic and very encouraging to see that more people are attending to recognise the contribution and in memory of these people who have served us, those who died in the conflict, and those who have passed in recent years.
It was with great pride that I attended the Gallipoli Dawn Service in 2007. I encourage anyone, who is an Australian citizen, to go and experience what an awesome event that is, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Go and see what these people, who went off on a cause, put up with and, in the greater scheme of things, were seen as fighting for our freedom.
What made this year very special for me was the fact that I took an elderly friend of mine, John Moyle, who turned 90 on 5 January this year. He is a World War II veteran who served in New Guinea and in the South Pacific. He is a guy who continues to serve his community. You will see him in APEX clubs, at the football manning the stands, and at the Northlakes Shopping Centre raising money for the Red Cross. He recently raised $1112.50 for the Red Cross Bushfires Appeal. He is currently raising money for the RSPCA, another fine body of people who volunteer their time for a fantastic community service.
I recognise John as one of those outstanding people who makes an enormous contribution to his community, during his war efforts, in business and now, in his retirement, he is still actively out there supporting his community and giving his heart and soul. I acknowledge the fantastic effort that he gives.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Wanguri
Member for Wanguri
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Wanguri, Mr Henderson, be granted leave of absence for Wednesday, 29 April and Thursday, 30 April to attend COAG.
Motion agreed to.
Member for Araluen
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Araluen, Ms Carney, be granted leave of absence for this day and tomorrow on account of ill health.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Wanguri and Member for Araluen; and
Member for Wanguri and Member for Sanderson
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Wanguri and Member for Araluen; and
Member for Wanguri and Member for Sanderson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for Wednesday, 29 April 2009, for the member for Wanguri and the pair is with the member for Araluen; and for Thursday, 30 April 2009, for the member for Wanguri and the pair is the member for Sanderson. It has been signed by both the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
MOTION
Discharge of Government Business
Discharge of Government Business
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Orders of the Day, Government Business relating to the following business items be discharged from the Notice Paper: Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Draft Bill; Ministerial Statement titled Economic Direction of the Third Labor Government; and Ministerial Statement titled Increasing Police Presence.
Madam Speaker, the bill relates to a draft exposure that was put before the public, the other two items have been superseded by budget announcements.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Speaking to the motion, Madam Speaker. This is a demonstration of how this government operates. It comes into this place and loads up the Notice Paper with business and matters that are important to them and then withdraws those matters from the Notice Paper before every member of this Chamber has had an opportunity to speak.
Some of the items have been sitting on the Notice Paper since last year. We have had members complain and I know, particularly, that the member for Nelson wished to speak on these issues. To have the government waltz in, without notice, I add, and withdraw these matters and important discussions from the Notice Paper is nothing shy of politically disgusting.
This is an outrage to the people of the Northern Territory. The people who sit in this Chamber have the voice of the people of the Northern Territory. For the government to waltz in and introduce items it considers to be so important that it has ministerial statements on them, such as Increasing Police Presence which has been sitting on the Notice Paper since 18 September 2008, a grandstanding statement by the Chief Minister which has not been adequately replied to, to have it now withdrawn from the Notice Paper so Territorians are deprived of their voice is typical of how this government has come to operate in this House.
Mr Mills: Arrogance, arrogance!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the arrogance that is being displayed by this government mounts every day. As a member of this Chamber, I am ropable that other people in this House - on both sides of the House - have been deprived of their voices and of the opportunity to speak on important issues that matter to us.
We were quite happy to spend hours yesterday debating whether the legislation in relation to the declaration of plagiarism in the legal profession should be passed into law. The government was quite happy to do that for hours. However, should we want to come into this place and speak about the economic direction of the Labor government – no, you are not going to talk about the economic direction of the Labor government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We are not going to talk about that; it does not want to talk about itself. When would it be a more important time to be speaking about the economic direction of the Labor government than now - today?
You have no decency, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: You have no decency. Madam Speaker, what is being perpetrated today is an outrage, and the dead hand of this government, yet again, falls upon the mouths and noses of the people in this place so that we suffocate under the weight of their political arrogance ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have received no notice of this and I will be voting against this motion. These matters need to be discussed. If the government thinks it is so important to bring these issues into this House, then the government should be prepared to debate them out. If it was not for its astonishing laziness, its astonishing ineptitude, or that it is not even able to govern itself, let alone the rest of the Northern Territory, it would not have to do these sorts of things. The fact is it does.
I and members on this side of the House are outraged, as well as Territorians who will be deprived of their voice, as a result of this disgusting political charade.
As far as government members are concerned, they think that this House is a vehicle by which they can grandstand and cover themselves in laurels and triumph. All they do by coming into this House and treating it in such a contemptible fashion is to cover themselves in …
Mr Mills: In shame.
Mr ELFERINK: … in shame. Thank you. It was not the word that I had in mind and I am grateful that you have given me a better one.
I am furious about this for many reasons. One of the courtesies in this House is that when the government is going to pull a stunt like this it gives some notice. Let us keep this real. Let us talk about how we deal with each other in this House. The government has waltzed in, without telling us, and said: ‘These items will be taken off the Notice Paper. Hopefully they will not notice what the government is up to’. What was wrong with picking up the phone last night and saying: ‘The government is going to pull this off the Notice Paper?’ This is an absolute outrage. Some members have not had an opportunity to speak on these items. This government stands condemned, buried in its own arrogance and hypocrisy.
I will be standing up for the people of Port Darwin and voting against this dreadful, awful, despicable, and arrogant motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will also vote against this motion. One of the reasons the government changed the way we operate our parliament by increasing the number of days was so that we could get through more work. There were complaints that we were not getting through enough work so they decided to change the standing orders.
These bills were adjourned on 16 and 18 September 2008. Why have they not been debated since then? The previous sittings had an extra sitting day. Those bills could have been brought on then.
It highlights to me that in previous sittings we had an approach to these particular issues that if it went past a certain time we would adjourn and go to the adjournment debate and go home. This proves the point that this is a poor way of debating these statements. For instance, some members would have debated these bills on 18 September. The members who did not debate those items would then wait until the government brought them back for further debate. Two things would have happened. If you were really interested in these debates, you would be waiting to give your response, or by the time they came back to parliament, you would have forgotten them, or they would have become nearly irrelevant.
Unfortunately, what we have is a classic example of these important issues being put forward to parliament and left on the paper for sitting after sitting. Members hoping that there would be an opportunity to debate them, now find they are going to be totally wiped.
Two approaches are needed when the government brings forward a statement for debate. It should allow that debate to be finished during the sittings and it should not be allowed to take items off the paper without full consultation with the people in this parliament.
From a practical point of view, I might have spent some time researching one of these items, put together a speech and kept it in a file waiting for the day when it would be debated, only to find that today it has been scrapped. There is much hard work for nothing.
There are some practical reasons why we should finish the debate on these matters. Instead of dropping those items let us bring items 9, 10, and 11 on and debate them when we finish GBD today, or bring them on tomorrow, debate them and get rid of them.
Do not bring on any new statements. We still have the statement on 2030. Do not bring any new statements on until we have cleared some of the statements on the paper. This would ensure that everyone who wanted to have a say had the opportunity. I might not have wanted to say something on all these issues. They are so long ago I cannot remember if I have spoken on them.
There are many reasons why the system of making ministerial statements needs to be sorted out to ensure that issues are debated at the time. This would ensure that issues remain relevant. It would also allow every member to have a say at the time, and not waste their time preparing for something that may never happen. In this case, if you have been preparing to debate these issues, they are not going to happen.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government to change its mind on this issue and leave them on the Notice Paper. We have tomorrow. If there are members who would like to complete the debate on these issues that would give them an opportunity. That is a far better way to run the system, rather than take them off. I would prefer for the debate on ministerial statements to be completed on the day or in those same sittings, so that they remain relevant and everyone has a chance to debate the issue.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, this is a serious outrage. As the member for Nelson said, not more than a couple of months ago, we sat in this room working out ways we could reduce our sitting hours. We now start at 10 am, have a two hour lunch break, or an hour lunch break, and then knock off at 9 pm.
Ms Lawrie: 10 o’clock.
Mr TOLLNER: At that time, I was arguing about what if there are items still to be discussed. Surely we can sit later; surely we can add extra days. Sure enough, we walk in today and the Leader of Government Business sweeps in like a fox, stands up at the first opportunity and tries to remove items from the Notice Paper; items that some of us want to discuss.
I am fortunate to have spoken on one of those items. There were another two I wanted to speak on; one which I particularly wanted to speak on – and I hope every member wanted to speak on it – which is Increasing Police Presence, Making Communities Safer.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is a major failure of your government. That is what this is about. You know it is a failure. You know the government has failed in that area – now you are trying to hide it. You have taken it off the Notice Paper. You curs! This is disgusting – arrogant curs. Leave it on the Notice Paper – let us discuss it. This is the biggest issue for any government - keeping its citizens safe.
‘On our GBD’, says the Leader of Government Business. It is only on our day that we have the opportunity - once every three months – to talk about law and order and crime in the community. Today is the only day. That is the only day you blokes want to discuss it.
It is absolutely appalling. You sneak away from this issue every time it is raised. Yesterday I made a point about it – four interjections from you, Leader of Government Business – standing up and saying, ‘oh no, you are not relevant, you cannot talk about this now. You cannot talk about this now.’ You did not let me talk; you took every opportunity you could to try to shut me down. You know, I know, and the member for Karama knows, because she has described her own electorate as a war zone. She knows it is …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is misleading parliament. I have never described my electorate as a war zone. A residents’ meeting many years ago did. It is a beautiful place …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I invite you to come out and visit. Come and visit the water park.
Mr TOLLNER: My kids went out to the opening of the water …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I am speaking, thank you. While there is no point of order, Deputy Chief Minister, you may approach me about making a personal explanation about the matter if you wish to.
Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair. Remember that we speak in the third person and not directly to members opposite.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I apologise. The member for Karama knows that her electorate is a war zone. My children went to the opening of the water park in Leanyer, somewhere near her electorate. Guess what? There was a riot. There was a riot in my electorate only a couple of days ago. Every time you open the newspaper there are stories of crime, antisocial behaviour, and drunkenness, yet you people do not want to discuss it. You do not think it is important – you drag it off the Notice Paper. Get real.
First, you have to be in bed by 9 pm because, in the words of, I believe, the member for Karama, if she does not get enough sleep she cannot function properly. We sit for 35 days a year and she cannot get past 9 pm without dozing off; she cannot function after 9 pm.
Ms Lawrie: You are bizarre.
Mr TOLLNER: They are your words.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim knows that he needs to direct his comments through the Chair.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. Can you please ask the government to stop interjecting while the member for Fong Lim is talking?
Madam SPEAKER: I have called order a number of times. Government members and opposition members, please cease interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I apologise. I should direct my comments through you. I am very worked up about the issue of increasing the police presence and making our community safer. These issues are very dear to my heart. They are issues that every member on this side of the Chamber is very interested in. I am amazed that the government is not interested in them.
Every time you turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, go to the markets at Rapid Creek, or talk to anyone in your electorates, they are really only talking about one thing: the lawlessness in our society and the way things are getting out of hand.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go again, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business interjects, saying that he wants to talk about 340 extra police. Bring it on, buddy. I want to talk about the 340 extra police too, so why are you dragging it off the Notice Paper? How appalling are these people, Madam Speaker? I am sure you have crime problems in Nightcliff, Madam Speaker. I am sure the member for Johnston has crime problems in Jingili. I am sure that everywhere we look around the Northern Territory, from Darwin to Alice Springs and beyond, there are crime problems and issues with safety in our community. That is what we want to discuss.
I am absolutely disgusted that this government has, one, cut the hours that this parliament can sit, and two, that they want to drag important items off the Notice Paper. I register my absolute outrage, Madam Speaker. I intend to vote against the motion of the Leader of Government Business. There will be a division if he continues to pursue this matter further.
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, we know that the opposition is simply about grandstanding …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: He cannot help himself. At the core of the matters before us, which are being removed from the Notice Paper, are three items.
The first is the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment draft bill. Since that was introduced we have introduced the domestic violence mandatory reporting bill into the Chamber. We introduced it, debated it at length, and we are the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to have mandatory domestic violence reporting. We are withdrawing it now because it was superseded by the actual legislation, which is world first legislation that was debated at length in this Chamber and in the community, and still continues to be debated, as it should be, as an issue of significant importance to the Territory. Why? Because, sadly, domestic violence makes up more than 50% of assault cases across the Territory, and we must change that. We have had fulsome debate in this Chamber on domestic violence. It was a draft bill that was followed up and superseded by the actual legislation that came before this House, went through rigorous debate, has been enacted, and is world first. We have gone where no other parliament and legislation has gone in the mandatory reporting of domestic violence and that is the universal mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
Regarding the Economic Direction of the Third Labor Government statement, there was debate at the time on that statement; it is not a bill, member for Nelson, it is a statement. What has occurred since then? You have to be living in a burrow somewhere not to have noticed the global financial crisis.
Since then we have debated the mid-year report by the government that I, as Treasurer, hand down, which talks about the financial and economic circumstances of the Territory. We have had fulsome debate on that. I invite the opposition to ask questions about the economic situation in the Territory and they avoid them.
Next week, as Treasurer, I will be handing down the budget, which is at the core of delivering the economic picture of what the Territory is like now and also going forward. Very genuine debate occurs on the economic situation in the Territory, led by the government because the opposition is missing in that space. That statement has been superseded by the global financial crisis and has changed circumstances dramatically. Those circumstances have been debated through the mid-year report debates we have had in this parliament. They will be debated in detail when I deliver the budget next week and the opposition replies. I invite the shadow ministers to participate fulsomely in the budget debate, for a change, because you normally sit there and wait.
In terms of police, Madam Speaker, the opposition would have Territorians believe that there is not a debate almost every day in this parliament on police and law and order. It is very hard to recall a day in this parliament when, at some time during the sitting, we do not debate police or law and order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: It occurs all the time and both sides of this parliament raise it. The government talks about the increase in police numbers - the 340 extra police. The government talks about how that has led to more arrests, how it is impacting on the court system, how it has led to more prisoners in our gaols, how it is resourcing, and about the Police Beats that the government is establishing that the opposition do not want. The government is talking about the Police Beats that it is putting into shopping centres to help improve community safety.
There is not a day that goes by in this parliament, that I can recall, when we are not in some way debating police and the issue of law and order. We are all genuinely concerned about improving community safety across the Territory - not just the urban centres, but the regional and remote centres …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: It is this Labor government, working with the federal Labor government, that is delivering more police across the Territory, particularly in the regions where they have not existed previously due to the decades of neglect from the CLP because they did not want to service the bush. We are now reaping the results in the area of antisocial behaviour of those decades of neglect in the Territory. If you ignore and deny that, then you are a fool. You do not understand the causes that lead to the symptoms that we are now recognising across the Territory. We have this debate all the time and we will continue to have this debate, as we should, because these issues are of great importance to the Territory. We welcome it.
The content of the two statements has been superseded by significant changes since then, both in economics and the police. The DV was a draft bill that has since been introduced as legislation, debated in full and passed. We are world first – the only place in the world with universal mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
They can grandstand all they like but all of these matters have been superseded. I have explained how and in what way. The Leader of Government Business is ensuring that the Notice Paper remains contemporary.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I, and anyone who has a place in this parliament to represent the good people of the Northern Territory, will strongly oppose this motion on these grounds.
This is a parliament to express the will of the people of the Northern Territory. It is not a vehicle to advance the interests of the elected government. When you have a look at the dates of these statements and when they were put on the Table, we see the true nature of this beast: its interest is self. This is simply for self-promotion. It was to create an impression. We want to know that the people of the Territory are cared more about than the capacity of this government to invest all its energy into a media release, a statement, a gesture, that is to elevate its own perception and profile in the Northern Territory community.
I oppose it on these grounds. It demonstrates that the actions of this government show a complete disregard for the interests of Territorians. One way the government can redeem itself is to make an admission that, from this point on, any time a statement is brought before this parliament it will go on and off in that session. That would demonstrate whether you are genuine, or whether it is the ‘hollowmen’ upstairs breathing life into some strategy that will create some kind of impression, with yourself at the centre of it.
Let us recognise what this parliament is about and bring back some dignity. Do not put things on the Table that you have no intention of putting your heart into, to address issues that are of concern to the people who made the decision to vote for us and put us in this Chamber so that we can represent them.
On this basis, I want to hear an admission that you are never again going to put anything on this Notice Paper that you will not take off at the end of the session. Show us you are genuine. Show us by your actions - by which we have seen that you are not genuine - to invest good taxpayers’ money into promoting yourselves across the community. You are happy to give those who were unsuccessful in the last Territory election some money, to put them out there to promote the government through glossy brochures. You even use the parliament; this attitude affects the parliament. You put things on the Notice Paper for presentation purposes only, with no interest whatsoever in advancing the true interests of Territorians but only your own political interests. I strongly oppose this motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, if there are no more speakers, I will conclude this debate. I have listened carefully to what the opposition has said, and I believe it is a little showy of them to do this, when a couple of their number - including the member for Port Darwin - have taken items off the Notice Paper in recent times. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
Moreover, the Deputy Chief Minister articulated that these items have been superseded, starting with the exposure Bill, the draft bill for Domestic and Family Violence. That was done as an exposure draft so it could go out for public comment and input, and that is exactly what happened. The government listened to that input and we amended the act to take into account some of the concerns that were raised with us, particularly by groups involved in escape planning for people who are affected by domestic violence and giving them some flexibility around trying to support those people, particularly women, who are trying to get out of very abusive circumstances without putting a number of people in danger. I believe it was quite appropriate that the draft bill was put out for comment, and it is quite appropriate that it be taken off the Notice Paper now.
Regarding the other matters that have been removed, as the Treasurer pointed out, there has been a profound change in the economic world, in the world at large, with the global financial crisis. It is time that we had a contemporary debate about the economic situation of the Northern Territory. We will be doing that. Each one of us will be doing that about the budget, and that is crucial to Territorians. That is a contemporary debate.
In terms of police and police matters, as the Deputy Chief Minister outlined, there have been changes there also. There have been budget announcements. This government is willing to debate police matters at any time. We are debating them today. They have been raised by the opposition and we have taken up about 20 minutes debating this particular issue, when we could be debating the same issues that the member for Fong Lim has raised. It will be a little repetitive.
Let us get on to the General Business Day and go through the business of this parliament. That is what this government is all about. We have flexibly addressed issues on the Notice Paper, to clean it up, unlike the opposition which every General Business Day clogs the Notice Paper with things they take off, then put on, which are incredibly repetitive. This government is interested in business, not show.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Mr Elferink
Dr Burns Mr Giles
Mr Gunner Mr Mills
Mr Hampton Ms Purick
Mr Knight Mr Styles
Ms Lawrie Mr Tollner
Mr McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms McCarthy Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Northern Territory Engagement – Asian Region
Northern Territory Engagement – Asian Region
Dr BURNS (Asian Relations): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory’s engagement with the Asian region in order to advance Territory interests is a priority for this government.
The Asian region includes the Northern Territory’s key trade and investment partners and there are links to many other fields including tourism, education, sport, and culture. The government maintains its engagement with the Asian region by such means as ministerial and official missions focused on specific interests and opportunities. These include outward business missions and encouraging inward visits by buyers and investors; select cooperative projects with regional neighbours for mutual benefit; targeted funding support for trade development activities by Territory businesses; contributions to offshore and onshore conferences; and sporting and cultural events.
Over the last eight years, this government has had significant engagement with the countries in our region including China, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
China is the Territory’s second largest trading partner with almost $1.5bn dollars in 2007-08. Chinese-based companies continue to invest significantly in the Territory creating new job opportunities, stimulating economic growth and sustaining our lifestyle. The government and the business community attach high priority to the trade and investment relationship with China. Exports of minerals and services including tourism, education and training, and investment attraction activity in the mining sector are the main focus of interest.
A key element underpinning our growing relationship will be the Territory’s participation in the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. On 23 April 2009, I attended the signing ceremony in Darwin with the Commonwealth government establishing the Northern Territory as a silver sponsor of the Australian Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo. It is projected that during the six month period, seven million people will visit the Australian Pavilion. This event will become a showpiece for the Territory to demonstrate its many capabilities and advantages to China, but also, importantly, bring the world to our doors to open new trade and investment opportunities.
Ministerial travel into Asia is undertaken where necessary to advance the Northern Territory’s interests. In May, immediately after these sittings, I plan to visit Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan to advance Northern Territory interests in various portfolio areas including Asian Relations, Defence Support, Business, Trade, and Tourism.
In Indonesia, as I outlined yesterday, I plan to meet with government ministers and senior executives of Garuda to further consolidate our bilateral relationship and to discuss the temporary cessation of air services between Darwin and Bali.
In Singapore, I intend to call on the Minister for Defence and the head of the Singapore Air Force to strengthen our bilateral ties in relation to Darwin as a military training and exercise venue.
In Vietnam, I propose to continue to foster strong relationships with the central government of Vietnam which will underpin current and future trade opportunities in live cattle and international student enrolments in the Territory. A further objective of the visit will be to continue to position the Northern Territory as a modern and sophisticated travel and trade destination with direct air links to Vietnam via Ho Chi Minh City.
The visit to Japan is aimed at continuing to strengthen the close ties between the government and key investors such as INPEX. Informally, with INPEX FEED contractors, the visit is aimed at directly demonstrating the local Territory-based industry capability which is available during the construction and operation phases of the project. I will also be participating in an Austrade sponsored mineral seminar to promote the Territory as ready for further mineral and energy exploration and production investment.
As part of the China Investment Attraction Strategy, the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources will lead the Territory delegation in May 2009 to run NT investment seminars in Shanghai.
In late May, the Chief Minister will be travelling to Timor-Leste, accompanied by myself and minister Knight, to attend an inaugural meeting of the NT Timor-Leste Ministerial Forum, a very important forum. We will be accompanied by a delegation of Territory business and community leaders to further develop our people-to-people contact and commercial links with Timor-Leste.
Under the Henderson government, the Territory-Asian engagement and trade strategies will continue to receive priority focus. I will work hard to see export revenues grow for Territory-based businesses.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a reactive move on behalf of the government. Anyone who has familiarity with the proud history of the Northern Territory and its proactive engagement with the region, with a clear vision that was well coordinated and led by the government of the past, would know that it has dropped, decayed, and fallen away.
All those words mean nothing. If you cannot give us an account of what you mean by your vision, how can you measure that vision? For example, tell us how many kids in our schools learn Mandarin or Indonesian? I came here in 1989. Many of us across the country were looking at Darwin because it was punching well above weight and recognised the need to strategically engage our near neighbour, in this case Indonesia. How many kids learn Indonesian? How many of our teachers are equipped to teach Indonesian? What cultural programs are run in the public sector? How many are held today?
You talk about relations and trade, but you cannot promote the great possibilities of trade without first building relations. Those relationships begin with people-to-people exchanges; kids being able to speak the language. How many exchanges have been conducted and sponsored to support this great vision? The public sector programs that were once run, and the art and cultural exchanges - how many are there now? What sort of funding is going into this specific aspect of this great strategy? What about the sport exchanges? The Arafura School Games was once a very innovative vehicle for engagement of our students and our community into the eastern provinces, which has now disappeared. We still have the Arafura Games, but is that actually connected to this vision? Let us hear about it. We will hear reference to that, but that was put in place to advance this vision. You have lost the way and, under Labor, Indonesia has disappeared from the map.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I take up from the Leader of the Opposition’s statement about people-to-people contact.
I remind the House that schools like Taminmin High School have an exchange program each year with a school in Japan. One year, Taminmin High School students go to Japan and the next year the Japanese high school students come to Taminmin High. It is a very worthwhile exchange.
That raises the point of how much contact the Territory government has with Japan. Unfortunately, we export all of our LNG to Japan, and we look like we are going to establish a much bigger LNG plant, through INPEX, which will also export all its gas to Japan. I am interested to know what contacts we have with Japan, as they would be a major trading partner with the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Asian Relations): Madam Speaker, in answer to the member for Nelson, there are very regular contacts with Japan. They are a very important business and tourism relation and we are always looking to build those relationships.
In answer to the member for Blain, Bahasa Indonesia is taught in a number of schools across the Territory, and, increasingly, Mandarin. My wife is learning Mandarin at Casuarina Senior College and she is very enthusiastic about that.
We are a government with a trade strategy. You ask how we measure it. The Territory trade goods surplus increased by $793m in the year to February 2009; a $793m increase to a surplus of $2.9m. We are focused on getting results and I believe we are achieving results. I am looking forward to my first trip in this portfolio area to a range of countries where we are building trade and relationships.
Essential Services in Remote Indigenous Communities
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the Henderson government’s plans for investment in essential services in remote Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
The Territory government will invest $67m in Budget 2009-10 to improve power, water, and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities. This investment includes $18.9m for the Indigenous Essential Services Program, a boost of $3.95m. We are committed to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage and a part of that is improving essential services in the bush.
This work is not just about improving essential services. It is also about regional development and creating jobs. The increasing age of some of our essential service infrastructure in communities has contributed to the need for upgrading and replacement. We will fast-track these upgrades.
This government knows that the demand for power and water will continue to grow as the population in remote areas increases, and more homes, schools and health facilities are built and upgraded. Furthermore, this investment links with, and builds upon, our continued focus on remote communities through initiatives such as the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, the record $672m joint housing investment by the Northern Territory and Australian governments. Improving essential services, along with housing upgrades, will improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians. We look forward to inspecting the SIHIP project works under way on the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt, and in Tennant Creek over the next few weeks.
Increasing Indigenous essential services funding will help us plan for the future. It builds upon, and improves and delivers new infrastructure for electricity, water, and sewerage services.
The Indigenous Essential Services Program for the Territory in Budget 2009-10 will deliver real benefits to regions, which include:
in the Barkly region: $1.6m for a new power station at Alpurrurulam; and $450 000 for water source development
and production bore drilling at Alpurrurulam;
and $420 000 to replace the ground-level storage tank at Wilora;
equipping of new production bores at Rittarangu; $450 000 for upgrade work at Beswick; and $450 000 for upgrade
works at Barunga; and
repairs to existing elevated water storage and to provide additional storage capacity at Warruwi; and $600 000 has been
allocated for extending the power station and upgrading the fuel bunding in Warruwi. This is significant.
The Henderson government recognises the need to improve essential services for Territorians in remote communities. It is about growing the Territory’s services, investing in our regions, and delivering real results for Territorians. This funding will be delivered through partnerships with shire councils, pastoralists, and private contractors which employ essential services officers based in communities to undertake the day-to-day operational responsibilities.
Budget 2009-10 will focus on building the Territory and protecting Territory jobs. This funding delivers on that commitment.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): You have to be joking! Honestly, you waltz into this place and start banging on about the great work that you are doing in the bush keeping our essential services up to speed because there has been decay in those essential services. No, pooh-pooh, Sherlock, really. You do not have to travel that far to realise how poorly our essential services have been maintained. A trip to the Casuarina Zone Substation or transformer last week, which shut down 3000 households, should give you an indication of the quality and condition of our essential services.
The budget will also announce huge borrowings because this government has failed to squirrel away the $1.2bn of extra unexpected income they received over the last few years to invest that in essential services. They have failed miserably.
Up comes the borrowing, and who is paying? The taxpayers of the Northern Territory are paying, because they happen to use power. And guess what? They are also paying through the bills they have to pay now. A 25% increase – the government likes to say 23% - but if you work out the compounding factor of 18% and 5%, it is closer to a 25% increase in power and water fees in the next two years, and this government is banging on about what a great job it is doing in essential services. They should hang their heads in shame.
How can we tell when this government is not being honest? It is when their lips are moving. This was demonstrated so ably last night by the member for Braitling who pointed out that they claim $2.6m for the Tennant Creek and Katherine sobering-up shelters. But oops, they are not happening now. It is in your budget from last year and I urge you to look at your regional and remote infrastructure, page 10 on Closing the Gap and you will discover how deceitful you really are. You are a disgrace and I am gobsmacked at the audacity of the people opposite.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Having listened to the report, I understand where the government is spending its money, but I would like to know what its real vision is for remote communities when it comes to energy and how energy is sourced.
There is much talk from this government about how environmentally friendly it is, yet, where is it going with some of these very isolated communities in relation to solar and wind?
If you go to Epenarra you will see a huge wind tower that has broken down and is standing idle, for whatever reason. It seems to be symbolic of where we have gone with using renewable energy sources in areas where they should be used, that is in the remote areas, where there is very little manufacturing industry required. Why are we not pushing that type of energy source in those areas? Also, what are we doing to extend the gas that we are getting from Blacktip out to some of these communities so we have less reliance on diesel? I would like to see the government’s vision in that area.
I ask if the government could give us some more debate and discussion about its position for the supply of energy. If I stood up to discuss whether we, as one of the biggest uranium exporters in Australia, could talk about the possibilities of nuclear power, I would be pooh-poohed. But I expect the government to give me an alternative to power in the Northern Territory. That is the use of renewable resources or the use of gas throughout the Northern Territory. We need to debate about energy. We need to be doing the upgrades that the minister is talking about. I have no problem with that. But I would like to see the government’s vision and where it intends to go in relation to long-term energy demands, especially for remote areas of the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. The opposition team is a little confused where the services are being delivered in the bush. The Indigenous Essential Services program operates under the Local Government portfolio, for which the member for Katherine is the shadow. They are a little confused on the other side and they did not mention the Territorians that these services will be delivered to. The poor maintenance comes back to the CLP’s legacy in this area – it is a dangerous area.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Can you stop the clock, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am not stopping the clock. Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Nelson raised a few points. There is the outstation policy being developed, member for Nelson, and that will inform many of the decisions in the future. There are solar farm projects operating at the moment and there are some considerations about the Blacktip gas and utilisation from that for those communities. There is work being done but it needs to be finalised.
Fog Bay - Closure to Commercial Barramundi Fishing
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I report on my decision to close Fog Bay to commercial barramundi fishing.
We recognise that fishing is a way of life for many Territorians. Per capita we have the highest recreational fishing participation rates in the nation. Territorians also own more boats than any other Australian jurisdiction and the chance of catching a prized barra lures many visitors to the Territory. Our fish stocks support the viable fishing industry, which supplies to those who are unable to catch their own.
We know how important it is to protect our fishery resources and to act immediately when threat arises. Globally, all sawfish species have been listed as critically endangered. Photos and video have emerged revealing that large numbers of sawfish have been killed as a result of commercial barramundi netting in Fog Bay. These sawfish deaths occurred over a number of days.
I have now used my emergency powers to close Fog Bay to commercial barramundi fishing. This will remain in force for 90 days while permanent arrangements are implemented.
Commercial fishers have a voluntary Code of Practice to minimise impacts on non-target species. The code requires that:
- Fishing in areas where a high incidence of by-catch or protected species should be avoided. All attempts should be made to quickly
release non-target animals alive with the minimum of stress and injury.
However, the voluntary code did not prevent a large number of sawfish from being killed. Obviously the code has not been followed. I will now legislate these codes to make them enforceable.
We understand how important fishing is and we are undertaking a range of initiatives to ensure that it remains sustainable into the future. We are prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure our fishery resources are not pushed beyond their limits. Prominent among these decisions is our election promise to buy back commercial fishing licences. We have already bought back one barramundi licence and are currently negotiating the purchase of another two, as part of the commitment to buy back six barramundi licences during this term.
Given the considerable concern about the impact of barramundi fishing on sawfish for bait and this government’s election commitment to buy back commercial fishing licences, I have advised commercial fishers that I will be seeking a permanent closure to barramundi fishing in Fog Bay. This decision has been made and it has been widely welcomed. In the words of AFANT: ‘We congratulate government on jumping right in to fix this problem’.
A consultative process will commence shortly in seeking the permanent closure of Fog Bay to commercial barramundi fishers. I move that the Assembly take note of this report.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. The sudden closure of Fog Bay is this government’s knee-jerk reaction to what it saw as an aberration, something that was unusual in the fishing industry, with the well publicised catch of the sawfish in Fog Bay.
I advise the House that, sad as it is, there are a number of species that are caught quite frequently as by-catch, not only in the barramundi fishery but also in other fisheries in the Northern Territory.
This matter has been made more public because one fisherman was caught on film with sawfish in the nets. As a result of a neap tide the fish, which would normally have been washed back into the ocean, settled on the mud bank to be exposed …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The issue is that the minister has chosen to punish the whole of the commercial fishery that use the area of Fog Bay, rather than deal specifically with one operator who may have been in breach of the voluntary guidelines which they are supposed to follow.
I raised this as an issue with the minister a little while ago, who was quite stern about continuing with the course of action. I advised him that it was incorrect and I still believe it to be incorrect. I believe that the use of his emergency powers under the Fisheries Act is quite misplaced. It is not what they were designed to do ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I believe there are two issues here. There is the issue of what happened at Fog Bay and how the fish ended up there. If someone did the wrong thing, the government should act on that. But to bring in this other debate about closing fisheries, reducing licences, quoting AFANT, a lobby group for the amateur fishermen - I have no problem with that, I get on very well with Chris Makepeace. We also have the Barramundi Fishing Association and I am interested to know whether the minister has had discussions with them.
I believe we need a barramundi eating association. There are people in the Northern Territory who do not own a boat, who are not able to go fishing. I am not knocking the people who do go fishing - good luck to them - I wish I had the time to do many of those things. I believe many Territorians would like to eat Territory wild catch barramundi at a reasonable price.
The more we reduce our licences, the dearer the barramundi will get. If you go to Fisherman’s Wharf and have a look at the price of wild catch Territory barramundi, it is extremely high - it is $24 per kilogram. It is expensive enough as it is. If we keep closing our fishing areas to commercial fishermen we are going to be eating either very expensive wild catch fish or imported fish. We have a government that is pushing us to buy Territory products, but we are making it harder for people to buy Territory products.
We need to get some balance in this debate. It is not all about amateur fishing. It is about the community being able to access fish, our wonderful Territory barramundi, and I will throw in thread-fin salmon, because I prefer that, but it is normally caught at the same time. We need to balance the argument about how much we are going to close to commercial and how much we are going to allow for the use of amateurs, because they take a lot of fish as well. You see the pictures in the paper every day. There are many barramundi and other fish being caught. We need to balance the argument.
By all means, punish the people who have done the wrong thing, but do not let us forget those people who like barramundi ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired. Minister in reply.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, there are two issues. The first is – and I challenge the member for Katherine - that was not an accidental catch and release of fish that died because of a neap tide. It was a deliberate killing of the fish and there is evidence. There are YouTube films and photographs that show the fisherman breaking the backs of the fish.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: In addition to that, the current arrangement with the Code of Practice does not allow me to penalise one particular fisherman and does away with the operation of the Fisheries Act. I need to make legislation to target the fishermen who break the law.
We will also be removing six barramundi licences in order to give better opportunities to the remaining barramundi fishermen to catch more fish.
As for barramundi products, there are many barramundi produced in the Territory in aquaculture. You must have some difficulty finding barramundi, but Ziko Ilic, Director, Darwin Fish Market says there is not much difficulty getting fresh barramundi:
- Maybe we have to pay an extra dollar a kilo or something … it is not much, overall it is not much.
… the restaurants he supplies with fresh wild caught barra are happy to pay this extra money …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
MOTION
Establishment of a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee
Subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee
Establishment of a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee
Subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
1. Establishes a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee;
(i) to review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices
and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government; and
nominated by the Manager of Opposition Business; two members nominated by business associations (made up of a representative from the Business
Council, REINT, Chamber of Commerce, Cattlemen’s Association, Trucking Association, Construction Association, the MTAA, the HIA and any other organisation
agreed to by the chair and deputy chair) of the Northern Territory; a consumer advocate agreed to by the chair and deputy chair of the committee; and the
Northern Territory Ombudsman;
structure levels and terms and conditions of payment of meeting/sitting fees, travel allowances paid to Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee members
in similar terms to that of the Statehood Steering Committee; and
recommendations of the Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee.
Various jurisdictions across the world have established similar committees to review regulations and legislation that governments have enacted. The purpose of this Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee is that business should be relieved of the shackles of over-regulation by government.
It is my long held view that one of the best things that government can do for business is to get out of the way. Business is very good at doing business and, in most cases, do not need to be overregulated and overburdened by needless government laws and regulations. The committee we are proposing will be about reviewing legislative interest instruments to make the process of doing business in the Territory easier and simpler.
Access Economics released a report yesterday which suggests that in 12 months time there may be a doubling of unemployment in the Northern Territory. We also know that the world is going through some fairly tough financial times and that is going to impact heavily on the Australian economy and the Northern Territory economy. The last thing that businesses need in this environment is regulations and laws that restrict them doing business.
As legislators, we have an obligation to business to streamline our practices and ensure that doing business in the Northern Territory is one of the best - if not the best - places in the world to do business. One way of doing that is making sure that the laws and regulations we have do not impede business.
The member for Araluen articulated a number of scenarios in a similar motion that related to redundant or irrelevant legislation in a debate in this House on 10 October 2007, including comment on archaic laws of the operation of a horse and wagon and recognition of the modern methods available for information management. In the debate at the time, the Treasurer, minister Stirling, made the comment:
… Competition Impact Analysis Process developed as an essential component of COAG National Competition Policy commitments.
It is a strict review process to remove any unnecessary or unduly burdensome business regulation. Under the National Competition
Policy, all jurisdictions are required to review existing legislation that restricts business conduct and market competition to ensure
that the benefits of such restrictions to the community outweigh the cost of the introduction of it.
Prior to articulating the need for the Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee, the following questions need to be asked. Since 10 October 2007 what reviews have been done by the government? What has been undertaken? What restrictions to business have been removed, if any at all?
I have had personal experience in dealing with the government over the last few months since I was elected to this position. The government has had to supply the elected member for Fong Lim with an electorate office. The election was on 9 August last year, it is now the end of April, and we moved into our office this week. It is nine months since the election. It has taken government nine months to get a process under way so that an elected member of parliament can operate from an office.
I will not to go through all of the detail, but it has been one shemozzle after another trying to get into this office. We have operated from a temporary office since the end of last year. The temporary office would breach almost all work health requirements that are set down by this government. The ceiling leaked; there were wires hanging out of the ceiling. For the last three or four weeks, the air conditioners were not working. Why is that a problem? I have had to pardon my electorate officer from her work duties at 11 am or 12 o’clock every day because the temperature in the office reaches about 40C. It gets just too hot to work. Despite the fact that we have fans working, people cannot work in 40C or 45C heat.
The government’s regulation in that regard was ignored but simple things in relation to the fit-out of this office seemed to become extraordinarily difficult. For instance, I noticed on a wall where I wanted to put a TV mount that there was a little hole for a power point and an aerial about 60 cm from the ground. I said to the contractor: ‘That is in the wrong spot. It has to be higher; it has to be at the centre of the room’. He said: ‘Do not talk to me about it. You need to go back to the person in the department, talk to them and they will alter the plans’. Rather than simply move it - do something quite easy - it was not. This is one example of a number of issues.
We are dealing with a large array of different departments in the fit-out of an office. I am advised that the cost of this fit-out will be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can see that when I move in and the bills are made public, yours truly will feature again in the newspaper informing Territorians that I have cost them huge amounts of money, when yours truly has very little say in the whole process and cannot even talk to the contractor to ask them to move a power point. All these things add up and cost money.
That is a personal experience I had, but I am finding more and more that this is emblematic of processes that apply across government. I talked to a public servant in relation to my office. I did not realise who he was. I asked him how his day was going and he said: ‘Not too bad’. I said: ‘What are doing around here?’ He said: ‘I am looking at this office’. I said: ‘Mate, this has to be the greatest joke under the sun’. Only to find out that he is one of the people who are actually involved with it. He said to me: ‘Mate, you do not know half of what has gone on here’. I said: ‘How about we sit down one day and you can give me a quiet briefing about what you know about it’, and he said: ‘Mate, I have been pulling my hair out’.
I am not going to name that public servant because I realise that this government has a penchant for penalising and prosecuting public servants, and contractors who contract to government, whenever they speak out. I have spoken to a number of business people around the Territory who all have complaints, and I ask: ‘Why haven’t you put these complaints in writing? Why haven’t you made an issue of it?’ They say: ‘If we do that we get no more work. This government is quite keen and ruthless in making sure that we do not get our complaints aired in a public forum.’ That is a concern as well.
This mish-mash and mismanagement of the government spreads across a range of areas. For instance, the demands of the government in relation to the Bellamack development are causing many potential developers great anger. We hear so much about Bellamack because this is one of the great things that the government is doing. But it seems to be a process that drags on and on, seemingly without end.
The government is demanding that it receives a slice of the profits of Bellamack rather than simply selling the land at unimproved capital value to the approved developer. This places the government in a very odd position and gives it a vested interest in making sure that prices are high so that it can capitalise on that and receive more revenue. We have heard that on several occasions from people who have come to us. The authorisation for the minister to demand such contractual arrangements can be found in the Contracts Act. Perhaps business may, in this forum that we are proposing, recommend changes to that act which have remained unchanged since self-government. This may the prevent the government from engaging in commercial arrangements that place it in a position of being in conflict with its own social responsibilities, such as ensuring that there is affordable land.
We know that Bellamack is still a long way away from having a single house ready for sale. The government put out a release or information about how many houses it requires in the future. The government is falling behind its own targets because of its own regulation and legislation. This is another shameful area, where the government’s regulation is stifling growth and it is stifling housing for those people who require it.
I also know that the requirements of the government regarding compliance costs are a huge problem. There are many legislative instruments, such as tax regulations, that incur compliance costs for businesses. The most obvious is payroll tax. Payroll tax is a great example because the time it takes in meeting compliance issues cost businesses money. I am sure there is a range of ways that the compliance costs, in relation to payroll tax, can be removed. We know that 80% of payroll taxes come from 20% of the businesses that are required to pay it. I suggest that raising the threshold may exempt a range of smaller businesses in the Territory, and not impact greatly on the revenue that the government receives.
Another of the most contentious areas, probably the most contentious area of government in the business community, is that of the procurement. I understand that procurement is always going to be contentious, because every tender you put out only one business will win it and others will fail. Most business people believe they offer a superior service, that they deliver good value for money and when they are rejected from a particular tender, they often have their noses out of joint.
The area of procurement rankles people in many ways. It is very heavily regulated through subordinate legislation and one would hope that the process is fair and reasonable, but it remains a source of unending irritation for many. I know that the government will say that it has fixed some of these problems by increasing the procurement thresholds, making it easier for businesses to access tenders. However, there is a level of transparency required if government is going to do that.
One of the big concerns I have is that this level of transparency does not exist; it is very difficult to make the process completely transparent because of commercial sensitivities and the like. One way that it can be done is ensuring that there is a system of probity audits in place. Several years ago, for all contracts in excess of $1m there was an automatic probity audit carried out. That ceiling has been removed. I do not know, and I cannot ascertain, what the requirements now are for probity audits. Someone said to me they are going to be contentious but, I put it to the government, almost all tenders are contentious simply because you have a range of businesses applying for them. But there is a requirement to step up the number of probity audits that occur with tenders.
Probity audits give business the confidence that matters are being dealt with fairly. Providing there is a good, robust probity auditor doing their job properly, business will generally feel satisfied that they competed on a level playing field.
We heard the member for Daly banging on this morning about some of the infrastructure spending that the government is engaging in. Good on it. It is not before time; eight years of sitting around on your hands, still blaming the old government, and finally the penny has dropped. The system has rundown to the extent that you have to do something because the lights are going out and you have to spend some money on infrastructure. Well, beauty! Not before time.
The amount of paperwork that stands in the way of businesses applying for these contracts is a source of complaint and businesses complain bitterly about this. I have spoken to a number of business people who are complaining loudly about the cost of putting in tenders. I spoke to a business person the other day who was a failed bidder for quite a large contract, about $60m. It cost them in the vicinity of $0.75m to get that tender process put in place. $0.75m is a lot of money in anyone’s language, and that has to be an inhibiting factor in businesses wanting to apply for government work. I know that particular company is now seriously considering upping stumps and leaving the Territory because they have major problems in these areas.
Almost universally, across the business community, it is recognised that the government is a customer of last resort. It is only when things get really tight and bad that businesses will actively pursue government work. That is a sad indictment on the government. That tells you that the government is getting things wrong. There is too much paperwork and process, and too much of a mind screw to go through in order to win work, complete work, and report that the work has been done. This cannot continue the way it is. The government really needs to look at that.
There is a range of areas where the government is failing. However, we will not know exactly what those areas are until a complete study has been done. The suggestion that this Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee contains people from business associations is very important. It is those people who represent people at the coalface; the people who have to deal with the government. It is their views that are most important, and their views that need to be heard.
Organisations like the Chamber of Commerce can sit on that committee, can talk to their membership base and to other people in business and get real feedback. There is that real view out there - and I look at the minister and he is shaking his head wondering where I am going with this. Minister, you have to understand that there is the real view that this government has a penchant for penalising and punishing businesses and public servants who have the gall to criticise some of the processes of government. For the minister, or a politician from the government, to say: ‘We are constantly talking to business and we are hearing what they say’, business is only telling you what they think you want to hear. They are not telling you the real facts. The reason they are telling you what they think you want to hear is because they are scared of giving you the facts.
When we were in government and you guys were in opposition, maybe the same thing occurred. Maybe you were hearing stories from within the community that were negative about the government; that people were not game to say it because of some perceived view that they may be prosecuted or life would be made tough for them by the government of the day. That is a real issue in the business world at the moment: people are reluctant to say anything at all about you guys because they fear prosecution.
One way of making sure there is a flow of information to the government and to this parliament is to ensure we have a conduit for business to talk to. Business can go to its local representatives, its industry bodies – I recommended a number of them in this motion that should be included on this advisory committee - businesses should be able to go to those organisations and tell them legitimately, sincerely and honestly what their gripes are and have confidence that those organisations will report to the committee in an honest way and make some real change.
This is so important at this point in time. When Access Economics is predicting a doubling of the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory, from 4% to somewhere around 8%, we have to ensure that every job is important and that we maintain every job in our community. The best way of doing that is to ensure the government is streamlined and is not inhibiting business growth, development, or business people getting out there and making a buck. If businesses cannot make a buck, they cannot employ people. That is very important, and that is one of the fundamentals of running a strong economy.
This is an innovative proposal. The motion proposes that a number of experts, heads of peak bodies, and politicians work in a bipartisan way. This is not meant to be an attack on the government. It is meant to be a real effort at finding bipartisan solutions to problems that exist in the community. I know they exist. I have been going through it for the last nine months with the construction of my electorate office - there are real problems. I probably have 80% of the Northern Territory’s business in my electorate. When you take into account the port, Berrimah, Winnellie and the Coconut Grove Industrial Village there is a large business community within my electorate. I make every effort to talk to those people as often as I can and I hear horror stories.
Another example is tourism. The government is competing with business. We have an organisation called Territory Discoveries, an arm of Tourism NT, which is actively competing with every tourism agency in Darwin, and around the world.
Dr Burns: Not so.
Mr TOLLNER: The minister says ‘not so’. It just ran a campaign called Tell 20 - tell 20 of your mates to come to the Territory and you get $1000 towards a Territory holiday. Who was that available to then? Was that available to Jetset, Flight Centre, or the countless travel agents around the Territory? No, it only happened if you booked through Territory Discoveries. You find yourselves in direct competition with businesses all the time, in a whole range of different areas.
Dr Burns: You go out to the tourism industry and tell them you are going to take away Territory Discoveries. You do that. You do not understand.
Mr TOLLNER: I outlined Bellamack. ‘I do not understand’, is what the minister tells me. I look around on this side of the House and I see a whole whack of people who have been in business, people who know business, and people who talk to business. I look over there, and where are they? The minister has the gall to say that we do not understand. Minister, I do not want to get partisan about this. I am calling for a bipartisan effort because this is something that we should be working on.
I am glad to hear that the Chief Minister has trotted off to COAG. Maybe someone will get into his ear and talk about his National Competition Policy Commitments, because I cannot remember the last time that this government reviewed legislation and regulations in the Northern Territory.
When the global financial crisis is starting to bite and we are seeing unemployment numbers rising across the Territory, and there are early predictions of almost a doubling of unemployment in 12 months, I believe it is time to start streamlining some of our processes and making sure that business is not restricted in any way. Government has to get out of the way, and let business get on and do business. That is what we should be about: reducing regulations, red tape, and compliance costs. Compliance costs are a dreadful burden. Every time the government requires businesses to do paperwork is an employee that they might not be able to employ. We need to stop that.
Madam Speaker, I recommend this motion to the House most seriously.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to this motion. The member for Fong Lim has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the procurement processes, for a start, and the input that business can have through the government procurement council.
I will detail that soon, but there are already representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and other people from the Top End and Central Australia. What he is proposing to do, through this red tape committee - as I will call it - he calls it the Regulation Review Advisory Committee, there is some red tape at the start from the member’s proposal. Not only is it longer than it should be, but he is seeking to duplicate something that is already in existence.
He talked about over-regulation by the government. I believe it is a little rich of the member for Fong Lim to talk about that. He was the member for Solomon and part of the Howard government that oversaw the intervention and enshrined in legislation the $100 alcohol fee which no one in the liquor industry wanted. Everyone, including the general public, thought it was absolutely stupid. We are still trying to wind that back.
The other thing he did, being one of Mal Brough’s mates, is the income management stuff that went on. It excluded a whole range of Territory businesses from custom that they had for decades with Indigenous people up and down the Territory. The Mayor of Alice Springs is one of those. He told a story of his photographic business, which was excluded for some reason from this system. People could go to K-Mart and purchase their photos. He lost long-standing customers. He told me that it was possible for him to get on a list to allow people to purchase from him but it was a long and convoluted bureaucratic process. That was instituted by your government, the government you were a part of, enshrined in legislation, and people are still trying to wind that back. Yet you have the cheek and the gall to talk about red tape and over-regulation.
I will have a very measured response to everything you have said. However, I will remark on your electorate office. I believe that is very unfortunate, member for Fong Lim, and I do sympathise with you on that in a genuine way. I would not support anyone criticising you for the re-fit of your electorate office in Winnellie, within reasonable boundaries - which is in the middle of Fong Lim - because you have gone to the right place, and obviously it has taken some time and that is very unfortunate. I sympathise with you on that. I had a few refurbishments to do when I moved into the Millner electorate office, which are complete now. I am still settling in. There is a broom cupboard here and there that I would like, but they are fairly minor compared to the issues that you have had to deal with. I am sympathetic at that level, member for Fong Lim.
We are a pro-growth and pro-jobs government, and the fundamental priority of this government has been the creation of a competitive business environment for Northern Territory enterprises. Since coming to office, successive Labor governments have implemented reforms to support private sector growth and job creation, including red tape reduction.
It is very important to reflect on the Sensis forecast and the Sensis data that comes out on business confidence. Business confidence in the Northern Territory is the highest in the nation, by far. To some degree the Leader, no, not the Leader of the Opposition, sorry, I am getting ahead of myself …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The member for Fong Lim has probably become a bit of a lightning rod for negativity. You have to get out more, member for Fong Lim, and meet positive influences, rather than being a negative lightning rod, because they are there and Sensis shows that. It is important to come back to reality about business confidence in the Northern Territory, in spite of the global economic situation.
Mr Tollner: In spite of the government.
Dr BURNS: No, not in spite of the government, because I will demonstrate for you, member for Fong Lim, exactly what this government has done in this regard, and it is very impressive.
There has been continued reduction of business burdens through the progressive reduction on business taxation, especially for small and medium firms, and this is a key focus for the government. This covers, for example, as you raised, payroll tax reduction and stamp duty cuts. We keep on saying – you do not seem to listen, but I know business knows it – that this government is the smallest taxing jurisdiction on small business in Australia by a country mile, because we have progressively reformed payroll tax, and a whole range of other things, to the point that there are now literally hundreds of businesses that do not payroll tax that were paying payroll tax under the CLP government.
I know businesses appreciate it. They are always on our back to reduce it more, but I will leave announcements like that for the Treasurer, with the upcoming budget. This is a government that has shown over successive budgets - and we did make an overall commitment some years ago to progressively reduce payroll tax and we are abiding by that commitment, member for Fong Lim - there have been significant reductions.
The 2008-09 budget provided further tax savings for Territorians, including significant reductions to conveyancing stamp duty, saving Territory homebuyers and property investors a total of $12m per year; an increase in the stamp duty concession threshold for first homebuyers to $385 000. Further reduction in the payroll tax to 5.9% down from 6.2%, and the Northern Territory has the lowest recurrent taxes for small and medium businesses in Australia.
To support a competitive environment for Territory businesses, red tape and regulatory reduction has also been a continuing priority of the government. Whilst not exhaustive, there are a few examples I would like to give. The red tape review that you mentioned, regulation making policy and framework procurement reforms - which I have been part of - Northern Territory contribution to national reforms, a comprehensive review of business and legislation in the Northern Territory was completed in May 2004. The review was chaired by the then Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory, with committee members drawn from business and the government.
That particular review, in May 2004, examined current red tape; the impact of legislation and regulation on Northern Territory businesses; how red tape issues have been effectively addressed in other jurisdictions; and whether, in relation to Northern Territory processes for new amending legislation and regulation, the interaction with business is appropriately managed; options to improve current legislative and regulatory processes and/or licence packages, including hot spots in business sectors where pilots could be developed of alternative ways to achieve regulatory objectives and how they might be achieved.
The recommendations from the review aim to develop legislation and regulations through a process that is transparent, accountable, just, fair, democratic, participatory, and responsive to people’s needs.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned about people being scared and afraid to talk. I remember when we came to power in 2001, and subsequent to that until now, people say we have a level playing field now - no more silver circle - and we have an open and transparent tender process which is currently being reviewed. We have a proud record in tendering and process.
It was also to minimise the direct and indirect burden of compliance on business, government and agencies, improve the management of information and the coordination of its delivery across the whole of the Northern Territory government. The key recommendations have been implemented and they have contributed to reducing the burden on business and, most importantly, substantially reducing the development of unnecessary new regulatory burdens on business, industry and the wider community in the Northern Territory.
As a result of the red tape review, policies on the assessment of business and competition impacts of regulatory proposals and the current stock of NT regulation were developed. The role, function and operational arrangements for an effective regulation impact assessment process were approved and introduced in 2007. Compliance with these processes is a prerequisite for consideration of all new Territory regulatory and legislative proposals by government. Under the Northern Territory regulation and policy making framework regulation and competition impact statements are required for all proposals unless specifically examined.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned the issue of Territory Discoveries. Territory Discoveries has been around for a long while; it preceded this government. The role of Territory Discoveries is to sell travel and tourism products to people who are inbound into the Territory. In contrast, the majority of work that is carried out by travel agents you mentioned is mainly outbound. I did challenge - I was interjecting, maybe Hansard did not pick it up, but I will lay it on the record now. I challenge the member for Fong Lim to go out to the tourism industry and tell them that he was doing away with Territory Discoveries. That is a challenge for you, member for Fong Lim, because tourism operators, particularly the very small operators, are very supportive of Territory Discoveries and the way in which it sells and markets their products in a very successful way.
The government acknowledges that there are potential conflicts with Territory Discoveries. It is a tightrope, but the government - not only this government, but the CLP government that preceded us - very wisely decided that it was going to keep Territory Discoveries. It has a very important role. We need to clarify that role in its funding, its business activities, and that has occurred over the years. The Auditor-General looked at that particular issue. The member for Fong Lim might want to review some of the findings of the Auditor-General. It is a tickly issue; there is no doubt about that, member for Fong Lim, but if you got out and about with the tourism industry, particularly the smaller operators all around the Territory, you would find much support for Territory Discoveries.
I understand that there are some segments of the travel industry that would have a problem with Territory Discoveries but, overall, on balance, we need to keep Territory Discoveries and I believe the tourism industry wants us to keep Territory Discoveries.
As Minister for Tourism, I extend an invitation to you: the next time you are in Alice Springs if you want to have a tour and receive a briefing on Territory Discoveries, I am very happy to extend that to you, member for Fong Lim. They are very hard-working people there. There is at least 20 to 30 staff working in Alice Springs. It is an important employer in Alice Springs. They are very keen and it is great to see them selling the Territory to people inbound. That is its focus.
I mentioned the Government Procurement Council before; the member for Fong Lim’s motion seeks to replicate the Government Procurement Council. In a way, his committee is entirely redundant. The Government Procurement Council, established in 2003, advises the minister responsible for procurement - that is me - and comprises a very similar establishment that is proposed in the motion before this House today. The current membership includes the Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce, the Executive Officer of the Motor Trades Association, the General Manager of the Territory Construction Association, the Branch Secretary of Unions NT, three prominent industry representatives from private sector services, engineering and consulting disciplines.
I attended those meetings when I was procurement minister previously, and I have attended a meeting since. I know the people who are involved on that committee and they are not backward in coming forward. If businesses were to tell them of some anomaly or some injustice, they would not be backward in bringing that before the procurement council. The procurement council is very keen at the strategic level, to fix anything that is broken. I am very keen to work with them. I have told them that when they identify problems the government will work very hard to resolve those issues to the satisfaction of business. There are good people on that council. There are also public servants, including the Chief Executives of the Department of Business and Employment and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
There is much understanding around that table, which has grown with the years. In the beginning there might have been the Berlin Wall down the middle of the table with a few groups, but each group has communicated their needs and aspirations and their requirements. There is understanding and pretty frank talk around that table.
The council has provided considerable input into procurement reforms and improvements which is evidenced by the replacement of the traditional procurement guidelines with the new procurement directions in 2006. I was involved with those reforms in 2006, and it has simplified the procurement process by collapsing 37 procurement guidelines down to 13. Approximately two-thirds reduction in red tape in one fell swoop, member for Fong Lim, and that is very significant.
Later the same year, the Government Procurement Council instigated additional changes increasing the public tendering threshold from $10 000 to $50 000. In 2007, disclosure of tender assessment criteria weightings for tenders valued at over $1m was introduced. This was the first step. There have been further progressions in that area to try to clarify the process, and make it more transparent for businesses, which complain, quite reasonably, that with these large tenders you have these criteria but they do not know whether that criteria is 25%, 10%, or 5%. In all fairness, and on the instigation of the procurement council, the government acted to clarify this particular issue.
More recently, the tender thresholds were reviewed, again in concert with a benchmarking exercise with the assistance of the Assistant Director for the State Supply Commission of the government of Western Australia - the tender area - and it was identified that approximately 40% of tenders, in terms of annual volume, represented only 8% of the total value of tenders awarded, and were typically for purchases valued between $50 000 and $200 000. In response to this information and the Chief Minister’s desire to cut red tape, the public tender threshold has been increased from $50 000 to $200 000 effective from 30 March 2009.
I know there are some concerns by business about transparency, and ensuring everyone gets a shot at this particular change. Generally, business welcomes the fact that these tender thresholds have changed and things have been opened up, but they want to be assured that there are things in place to assure quality. The government, and I, as the minister, is very intent on doing that. We are out-posting procurement experts into the major departments - there are a few major departments involved in these tenders - and having a process of reporting back so that people can see how many people have tendered and who the successful tenderer was in a more open and transparent way, and also in terms of inviting businesses to tender for work in this particular band.
The government is aware and it is working closely with business in general, the procurement council in particular, and, individual organisations like the Chamber of Commerce, the TCA and other housing bodies.
We are also working at a national level to achieve substantial reductions in regulatory burdens and red tape. The Territory is chairing the Small Business Ministerial Council in 2008-09, and contributing to the broad range of national small business initiatives and reforms being guided by this council. These include: registration of business names; recognition of business licences; retail tenancy arrangements; franchising improvement options; further Trade Practices Act reforms; small business banking; and market transparency.
The Territory is also a strong contributor to relevant national business regulations and competition reforms being developed through the COAG’s Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, which is a very important group. These are also coordinated by other relevant ministerial councils.
All of these reforms are aimed to lower the burden on business and improve government efficiency while achieving the levels of service and protection that the community, business and organisations expect. Some of the reforms have already been the subject of COAG decisions and announcements and others are the subject of continuing development.
A key focus at present is on capturing the benefits for the Territory as a result of the national action to achieve a more seamless, integrated Australian economy. This is especially important as the Territory economy plays a larger role in the national economy and becomes even more strongly linked to the world economy through major new export developments like INPEX. The Northern Territory business regulation and red tape reforms have been progressing satisfactorily.
If the member for Fong Lim and his colleagues opposite were genuinely interested in supporting Territory business, they would have supported the Prime Minister’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan initiative. The federal stimulus package is providing a $400m investment to the Territory and will create or save 2000 jobs. We had the spectre of Malcolm Turnbull dancing around, I believe it was the Warringah oval, like a cheerleader trying to claim some benefit or ownership over something that was funded by the stimulus package that he opposed. Where is this bloke coming from?
It would be like going out to Tiger Brennan Drive when the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer and the minister for roads will be opening that wonderful overpass, the road separation, the extension to Tiger Brennan Drive, and the member for Fong Lim will be there saying: ‘Me too, me too’. The poor old member for Fong Lim, when he was member for Solomon, could not squeeze out the extra money. This is at the basis of it all. The Commonwealth had $13.5m, the Territory had $13.5m, and the project, at that stage, when I was roads minister, was much more than $27.5m. We continually said to the federal government: ‘We will stump up half if you stump up half’ …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister knows that when the idea first came to the federal government it was a $27m project. The minister might care to tell us what it is worth now.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, there is no point of order.
Dr BURNS: It is worth much more, because of the road separation …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I repeat: it was a $27m project: $13.5m from the Territory and $13.5m from the Commonwealth. I remember wrestling with the likes of Warren Truss, Jim Lloyd, and others. I remember Warren Truss saying to all the states and territories: ‘Do not bother asking for any extra money for any of these projects because the Commonwealth will not be putting in any extra money’. It was at a time when costs were escalating, the price of steel and labour was going through the roof, and they steadfastly refused. They were just hoarding their money. They were not really interested in nation building; they are still not interested in nation building. We will see whether you turn up at the opening of Tiger Brennan Drive, member for Fong Lim. I believe you probably will.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I digress, Madam Speaker. Let us return to this motion. Let us look at the operating costs of such a committee. We already have the Government Procurement Council operating, but here is another committee the member for Fong Lim and the opposition are proposing - they are proposing all sorts of committees through their general business and their …
Ms Lawrie: They want government by committee.
Dr BURNS: Yes, government by committee. Based on the operating costs of existing committees, the proposed new committees would generate additional costs calculated conservatively in the order of $360 000. This particular committee would cost about $120 000 to $130 000. When the proposal for a health committee came up last year, I mentioned a figure of around $1m based on what had happened in New South Wales. This was a more complicated committee where people had a lot of legal representation. The average cost of a committee running within this parliament, without much travel, is around $120 000. It would be a profligate waste of money, when a very engaged group is already undertaking this work, which has been working for some time to the satisfaction of business and the peak bodies. The member for Fong Lim wants to create a whole new entity when it is unnecessary.
Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion. We believe it is a redundant motion, and we also believe that we have an opposition which wants to govern by committee.
We are a government that gets in there and supports business, which is evidenced by the level of business confidence, our economy, by businesses confidence in our future, in projects like INPEX which this government fought so hard to secure despite some of the antics opposite - the member for Brennan, and we have had Senator Nigel Scullion doing his part as well. We are a government that moves on, does business, brings home the bacon to the Territory, not creating endless committees.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Establishment of a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee
Subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee
Establishment of a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee
Subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will begin with the Treasurer’s and the Minister for Business’ performance that we have just seen, because it goes to the issue that we are debating in the House at the moment.
We have seen a minister table a document that says $200m when it only adds up to $126m. We have seen the Treasurer so asleep at the wheel that she forgot to give notice of fairly important legislation. It shows how much these guys on the other side of the House have been dropping the ball on the governance of the Northern Territory. They are now flat out running a calculator over a sheet of paper and remembering to jump when there is a request for notices from your good self, Madam Speaker.
We see, exemplified in this government at the tail end of Question Time today, one of the problems that have become apparent, that this motion seeks to address. We know that this government is bereft of ideas, because we spent last night discussing the 2030 slogan which is being pushed out. It is a document that I believe has some substance and some worthwhile elements. After all, it is an aspirational statement for what is going to happen in 21 years time. The government, which, by the way, is the vehicle elected to govern the Northern Territory on behalf of Territorians and to have in its own possession good ideas and a vision for the future, in the meantime has now abrogated that responsibility to a degree by sending it out to a third party consultant. What exactly is government doing if it is not setting a direction for the Northern Territory itself?
This mish-mash approach is reflected in the Chief Minister’s own assertions, in more recent times, that the procurement process is too difficult to manage for many of the people who seek to procure government contracts. We know this by virtue of the fact that he changed the rules to accommodate the expenditure of Commonwealth monies passed recently by the federal parliament.
It was not that long ago that we suggested a committee like this. The response of the Chief Minister on that occasion was to simply say: ‘Oh, piffle, and bah humbug, we do not need such things. We already have a vehicle by which we address such issues’. There is an inconsistency which is: if it was unnecessary a few months ago or late last year when this idea was first mooted, why was it necessary to change the system to accommodate this federal expenditure which is going to find its way to the Northern Territory? You cannot have and hold those two positions simultaneously and then try to reject an idea of this particular flavour.
The member for Fong Lim is postulating, and I thoroughly agree with him, that there needs to be a review to determine how the regulatory instruments that govern the Northern Territory affect the Northern Territory. This has been done in one fashion in the past. It was done by necessity in the late 1990s and the early part of this decade as a result of the agreement by Australian governments to the National Competition Policy. I heard the member for Fong Lim discuss the National Competition Policy briefly, I am not going back there, but it did require a review of all Northern Territory legislation and as time passed regulatory instruments were changed to get rid of the anti-competitive elements in those regulatory instruments.
In the National Competition Policy, there are numerous exceptions to why you would still allow a non-competitive regulation to exist. One of those exceptions is when there is a social matter which exceeds in its importance the need for a competitive environment. Prior to the lunchtime break, I heard the member opposite discuss some regulations. If I heard it correctly – I was distracted at the time, I am afraid, so I can be corrected - but if I understood what was said, the member basically intimated that regulations exist in some instances to protect social outcomes. I am not suggesting, and nor is this side of the House suggesting, that we will abandon all regulation for the sake of business. What we are counselling is that there is an environment out there where people do resent the imposts of government upon them.
I will give you an example. I know one that really annoys some of the larger businesses around town, and that is payroll tax. I understand why payroll tax exists. I understand the necessity for payroll tax. I also understand that payroll tax is probably the largest single earner in own source revenue. It might be a little different this year with royalty payments, depending on how the Australian dollar goes, but cutting a long story short, payroll tax is a very important source of own source revenue. When you come from such a narrow own source base that the Territory relies on, and when you consider that 69%, not 67% as the Treasurer asserts, of the Territory’s income is derived from the Goods and Services Tax; when you also consider that a further 11% is derived from SPPs, or NPs as they are now called, you can understand why the Northern Territory government, particularly in this financial year, would be careful to protect its payroll tax environment.
However, does that prevent us looking at payroll tax? Does it prevent us looking at any particular tax that we simply need to protect the income? There may be a more equitable way to do taxation in this jurisdiction. Let us have a look at it. That is what this committee is about. Let us have a look at regulatory instruments that stand in the way of the growth of business. Do I know that this minister asserts care for the business community in the Northern Territory? My goodness, we have just seen him table a paper trying to demonstrate the level of the care that he has for business in this part of the community, in spite of a minor overstatement as to what was actually on the page.
I also heard the comments that the Procurement Review Board exists. Yes, it does, but the Procurement Review Board only deals with procurement. We are talking about casting a wider net than just procurement. Frankly, the procurement system is one that is oft criticised for a whole raft of reasons, some justified and some not. If you look at the case in point a couple of years ago now, I believe it was the February 2007 Report by the Auditor-General, whilst he found no wrongdoing, he points to a procurement environment where a single panel contractor was getting 85% of the work. If you talk to the industry, they believe that the Auditor-General was generous in his favour in relation to making that determination. I trust the Auditor-General’s judgment in this instance and make no more reference to it.
The process of going through our regulatory instruments and finding out what is a bar is also a reflection of how a bureaucracy works. We have a government which has sought fit to increase the size of the public service, and there are, from time to time, elements in the public service that will seek to justify their position. That will occasionally cause a regulatory element to be designed, built, shaped up and put in front of the minister and the minister will be told that it is a good idea and, particularly in the environment of uncritical ministers, will sometimes find its way into regulation and law.
On the occasions that this occurs, it is up to the ministers to prevent unnecessary regulation to exist. However, that is unfortunately not the case in this jurisdiction. I will give you a case in point. Whilst I appreciate the importance of a safe working environment, more recently we had changes to our work safety regulations in the Northern Territory which manifested themselves in a cost impost on the construction of a house, according to the industry, of up to $40 000 for the construction of a ground level house, when there was very little substance - no that is incorrect. Strike those words …
Dr Burns: Much of what you are saying is incorrect.
Mr ELFERINK: I am giving you an example where the industry thinks otherwise.
Dr Burns: I know what industry thinks.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. I am reflecting what the industry thinks in this instance. There is no statistic available that says there is a high rate of injury and death as a result of falls on single level dwelling constructions. Yet we see an instance where anyone working over 1.5 m, I believe - I could be corrected on that - needs to put on a full scaffold, and it adds $40 000 to the cost of a house. Based on what record of workplace injury? I would like to know. None was made available to the industry, and I have yet to see any evidence to demonstrate that there was such a high accident rate in existence in Territory construction for dwelling houses that warranted such a cost impost on the construction of a ground level dwelling. Yet there it is. That is the sort of regulation that this organisation would seek to visit.
Dr Burns: No Territory law. No Territory regulation. Get your facts right.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that. This is the standard gumph that this government comes up with. It is a national scheme which we have adopted? Yes?
Dr Burns: No.
Mr ELFERINK: Then stand up and correct me. Because the industry is not happy about what is going on.
Dr Burns: You are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: These are the sorts of the legislative instruments - I am going to pick up on that interjection as well. If I am wrong, why is the industry taking out newspaper ads saying that the cost impost is $40 000 a year?
Dr Burns: These issues have been worked through with industry.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not the one taking out the newspaper ads, they are.
Returning to the subject at hand, that is an impost on business. We also saw the introduction of legislation in this jurisdiction in relation to the Workplace Health and Safety Act, which was far more aggressive than any other jurisdiction in this country, enabling union right of access to the workplace. Whilst we will always have an ideological difference on the rights of unions to enter the workplace and do whatever it is they choose to do in those workplaces, you have instruments down south which have some safeguards built into them. No such safeguards occur in this jurisdiction. I imagine that industry would like an opportunity to respond to these legislative instruments which were jammed down their throats. A consultative process? Nonsense. They were simply informed what was going to happen and then it was jammed down their throats, and that was because this government had an ideological axe to grind.
It is small wonder that the business community has lost so much faith in this government and its capacity to govern for all Territorians equally. There is a bias in this government’s world view, and this bias is demonstrated in the legislative instruments this government passes. It is not beyond the capacity or the realm of this government to look for ideas from other places. It was banging on about it yesterday, so why should it not turn to industry and players, such as the ones prescribed by the member for Fong Lim in his motion, to give them some comfort that the government cares enough to look at this stuff? The answer will be no. The answer will be no because this government thinks it knows what it is doing. But it does not.
If the government did know what it was doing it would not need the independent body it put together on the 2030 report to give it ideas. You cannot claim on one hand that we need ideas from people because we have run out of ideas and then stand up in this place and say we do not need your ideas from across the other side. That is just part of the typical ‘we know better than you’ entrenched warfare this government engages in. It engages in it at every level and it will not brook criticism or give anyone the enjoyment of any sort of free speech or comfort against the things it wants to do. We saw an example of that this morning.
It is almost like from the black heart of the Chief Minister, sitting up on the fifth floor, the tar trickles down this building and starts to fill up the pit, which is this Chamber, and at some point in the future, an anthropologist or archaeologist trying to determine whatever happened to the democracy in the Northern Territory will find the petrified body of the woolly mammoth, which is democracy in this place.
I am mystified at this government’s approach in dealing with people on this side of the House, despite the fact we represent half of the Northern Territory, and the way they deal with other Territorians. They switch it on and off as they see fit.
I am keen to support this particular motion because it reflects the motion that I sought to withdraw from the Notice Paper and informed the other side, in good notice, that the withdrawal was going to occur. It went through the Whips, so I presumed it was all done. They could have raised a query some time ago when we decided to withdraw that material. If they wanted to debate this issue twice, I am happy to accommodate that. In fact, I am happy to put it back on the Notice Paper if you bring the stuff you withdrew from the Notice Paper back on.
Whilst he likes to pretend he is a caring minister who talks to businesses and gets feedback from businesses and represents business in the community, I am hard pressed to believe it. Whilst the government likes to reflect on the period of governance of the former CLP government, here is a bit of reflection.
There was a time when Shane Leslie Stone, MLA, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, almost had walk-in access to the then President of Indonesia; that was the level of penetration we had into Indonesia. Not only occasionally, but often, Shane Stone and other Chief Ministers and ministers met with people like Suharto, who was then the President of Indonesia. We had huge penetration, particularly through Mick Palmer, into the Philippines and Vietnam, as I understand it. I suspect that we had a larger influence in south-east Asia and a more intimate level of penetration into that area than the Australian government at one point. All of that has been lost.
That was reflected by the words from the Business Minister in relation to the Garuda thing. I have politely written to the minister in Indonesia in the hope that we can engage in a face saving exercise so we can get Garuda running here. That is good, but why do we not have a pick-up-the-phone level of communication? This government dropped the ball. Whilst I am now digressing, we have to re-engage with south-east Asia on behalf of business; but we also have to engage with business on behalf of the Northern Territory.
That is what this motion is about. There is no real engagement between the government and business. The walls that exist between government and business are getting taller every day. The tender process is just one example of it. The cost of constructing dwellings is another example. The imposts of the portable long service scheme, which is proving to be a nightmare, and difficult to administer, is criticised and qualified by the Auditor-General. These are all examples of this government creating a business and legislative environment which confronts business and is not good for business. I believe it is about time we had a look at all of these legislative instruments. I fully support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the motion with a few changes. Perhaps it should have been called Regulation Review Advisory Committee instead of Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee. I say that because regulations are there for a purpose.
I believe there needs to be a review of regulations to see if they are worthwhile regulations or if they are regulations we can live without. Regulations are not necessarily there to inhibit businesses. They are there for other reasons; for instance, protection of taxpayers’ money, protection of an employee who works for a company, and protection of the employer. We also need regulations for the health and wellbeing of people and for good planning.
It is interesting to look at planning because it affects businesses. There should be a review of planning. We have the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, which has been out for three years. A number of issues have been raised with me about some of the anomalies in planning that cost money because you have to go through the planning process. It is nothing to do with whether someone’s life is at risk.
The example I will give – and while the minister is here, I thank the minister for her response – is a case in relation to industrial containers. It does not apply to changes everywhere but, for instance, under the existing laws a container is regarded as a demountable. Under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, a demountable requires planning approval under all zones. The interesting thing is that Royal Wolf, in theory, should have to get planning approval for every demountable it has on its site. That would be very costly and also impractical.
In the rural area, you require permission for a container which is regarded as a demountable. You need building board approval if you want to have a container as a house, so there are already regulations there. If you want to use a container as a storage shed you need building approval as well. There are already regulations covering that. The government is looking at changing that so that you do not have to go through two processes. At the moment you would have to get planning approval to have a container and then you would need to have building approval.
It is good that the government has changed a regulation that was putting a cost onto consumers and businesses. I have not seen the final draft of what the government is putting forward, but it shows that there is a need, at times, to review legislation to see what legislation is duplicated, is unnecessary, or, if it has a cost to it, whether that cost is really a burden on business simply because the government puts an artificial fee on that regulation. If you want to apply to the Planning Authority there is a certain amount charged that will apply to your application. If you want to have a rezoning application, there is a certain charge for that. That is one example where a review of regulations would be worth looking at. Most businesses, at some stage, have to deal with planning applications and planning issues.
Another area that could be looked at is in relation to the cost of providing services. We have a monopoly that controls development - Power and Water. I have a case at the moment of a childcare centre which is struggling to get off the ground for a number of reasons. First, it was going to be an ABC childcare centre in Howard Springs. It had the pegs in the ground and, about one week later, ABC went into receivership. Another company was asked to take over the project. One of the issues the owner of the land had in developing this site was that Power and Water wanted a considerable amount of money for this particular building. This building is not by itself; there are many other buildings around it. At the present price, I believe they are talking about $170 000 to connect water to the childcare centre. Part of the reason is that they needed to come up to a standard required for firefighting. The amount of money is not only for the childcare centre. It is a sum of money Power and Water believe will serve that area. As happens in a few cases in the rural area, the first person to develop something has to pay the up-front costs for that area.
I will give you another example. Some people subdivide land and they are required to put transformers in. The transformer is a very expensive item. It will also help other people who subdivide in the area have adequate electricity. However, the first person to subdivide cops the full amount of money to do that. Some people say that Power and Water’s charging is exorbitant when it comes to infrastructure.
I am interested to know if the review the member for Fong Lim is talking about would look at some of those costs that have been put on to business to develop are reasonable and fair. Those issues can affect whether business can operate.
I also had a request - I believe it was to government and probably would have gone to Power and Water - about extending water along Whitewood Road. The answer was that it would only be extended if there was $0.75m to upgrade the water line along Whitewood Road. Placing a large impost on people who would like to upgrade or develop, and making those businesses or residences take up the full amount of money without any government responsibility for providing some of the services, is an impost on how we develop.
I once believed that what we used to call Power and Water, before it became semi-privatised, had a role in developing the Territory. Some of the government money went into infrastructure to promote development. Nowadays, it seems that developers have to pick up nearly all the outside costs.
Another example is the Girraween District Centre, which includes the Girraween Primary School. The rest of the land in that area should be owned by the Churcher Estate or the government. The Churcher Estate people have been looking at applications to put in a childcare centre. I believe it is also interested in a small district centre. It has basically been told that it has to put in the sewerage system. The people who live at Humpty Doo do not build the sewerage ponds. They were built in the days before Power and Water became a so-called private company. Now the burden is totally on the developer to build a sewerage system for the whole district centre.
Surely the developer has to put in the basic infrastructure for the site and maybe some pipe to the sewerage system, but I do not believe that the developer should have to build the entire sewerage system. That is another impost on businesses. I do not know where the regulations say that it is the developer’s job but someone in Power and Water has a rule that says that is not its job; that is the responsibility of the business. I believe that is holding up some of the businesses in the rural area because it is too expensive to put in the infrastructure that is required.
The other area that concerns me is the idea of a five-star energy house - I know the government has not said it has adopted it - a house that is perfectly nice for people who have air conditioning or if you live down south. But in relation to costs and being environmentally friendly, are we going to put regulations on people who want to build a house that will make that house over-the-top for what we need in the tropics? Are we going to have a layer of regulation that says you have to build a house with only 15% window because someone down south decided that we would become part of this five-star energy rating system? This is totally unsuitable for people who believe that you can live in the tropics with natural airflow and who believe that we should be trying to reduce our energy consumption. Someone has made a decision that we may be regulated by a national system and that is going to cost the average person quite a lot of money.
I take the point that the member for Port Darwin made, and maybe the member for Johnston can explain more at another time, but we have this issue that was raised last year about the extra cost of safety requirements for single dwelling houses - one storey housing - and how the industry regarded that as an impost that would cost the builder or the purchaser of a house an extra $40 000.
You see changes in many things, for instance in road works today. Once, if you wanted to patch a piece of road you could put up a few signs and take people round it. Nowadays, you have 40, 60, and 80 zones, lollipop men, and reflective signs everywhere. I am not saying safety is not important – do not get me wrong - but we seem to have gone from a system which I thought was working to a system where you have to employ a company - I do not know if you have to - but there is a company that just does traffic control.
At Freds Pass Show there could be parking problems, I understand that; there was not enough room for parking. All of a sudden there was a regulation that said you have to construct a parking management plan - you have to get a company to write a parking management plan. Then there has to be someone to carry out that parking management plan. All you wanted to say is that you cannot park on the highway; you need to find a place down the back and that is it. No, it had to have a parking management plan. It seems that areas that only needed good old common sense are turned into regulations that make life awfully complicated and at a cost. It would have cost something to write up a car park management plan for Freds Pass Show. That would not have been cheap, unless someone volunteered to write that plan.
Regulations are important and there is no doubt that we need regulations. But what the review should do is look at the regulations that are superfluous. What are the regulations that we could take away and streamline the process without the consumer being unduly affected or the health and safety of workers being unduly affected? Let us see if some of our regulations are over-the-top.
We have had the discussion before about whether you can live in a shed. You can obtain an occupancy certificate to have a shed but you cannot occupy it if you have a kitchen in it. I say that if the shed gets passed to code, I am not sure it is the end of the world if someone lives in it, as long as they know that shed is not classified as a dwelling. It is like nearly getting into bed with someone - are you going to go around to a property and see whether they are sleeping in their shed or cooking their breakfast in the shed, because that is really the difference. In many cases, once you put a kitchen in a shed, you are saying it is a house for occupancy. To find out whether people are doing that, someone has to come around and walk on the property and check that out.
I am not talking about people living in a building that is not up to code or an old chook shed someone is living in. I am talking about a building that has been built as a shed and sometimes people cannot live in anything else. There are times when regulations, whilst they are necessary, need to be looked at from a commonsense point of view in how they are applied. That is not saying you should only apply it to certain people and not to others. You should apply it according to each particular case. If a shed is all they can afford to live in, then I am not sure we should condemn them to live outside because that shed does not quite come up to the nth degree of regulation.
The other thing I did not mention to the member for Fong Lim is that there could be a little more weighting to consumers. It is fairly heavily weighted to industry. Industry cannot survive without the consumer, so the consumer should have a little more weight in this committee. It is also a biased committee, because it has no Independents on it, but I have enough work to do so I put my full faith in the people on this committee. In summary, it would be better to talk about regulations in general, rather than regulation relief, and there should be a few more people on there who deal with the consumer side of it, to give it more balance.
Member for Fong Lim, I believe it is an important area. The government might say it has certain bodies already established to do it, but I am not sure that is always the case. I have pointed out the issues of regulations in planning. I do not know who would review that under the present system of government, only the government, or if someone saw an issue which needed to be fixed. An overall review would take a fair while to review all the regulations in the government, but I do not believe an ongoing review committee would do any harm.
If we can make things simpler, cheaper, and at the same time keep the basics of what we are after, the safety, health, and protection of consumers, then that would be good. I support the motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members who contributed to this discussion. I appreciate the interest you have shown in my motion. I believe it is a good motion. It is required and I appreciate that the members who spoke took the time to think about it.
Member for Nelson, I take it that you are supportive of the motion. I take on board your comments. I probably did not highlight enough in my presentation that I agree that some regulations are good. We have to have an eye on community health and safety and welfare. We need to have an eye on a whole range of other areas. I also note you acknowledge that there are at times bad laws and regulations, areas where there is duplication and needless costs to business. I hear your calls about the costs developers in your area are facing in relation to sewerage, water and other things. I agree that those types of issues are a handbrake on progress. We may not have such a housing crisis if some of those regulations were relaxed and if the government stepped up to the plate a little more.
I made the observation earlier regarding the development of Bellamack and how the government is involving themselves in that development to the point where it is looking to make a profit, and how that profit, at times, can force up the price of housing and, at the same time, scare off potential developers. We come into this place and time and time again we hear about the government’s wonderful plans for developing and releasing land and seeing more houses built. We note there has not been one single house built in Bellamack, despite the fact that it has been talked about for several years now.
The government is also way behind in its own forecast on the number of houses that are needed in the Territory to meet demand. A colleague was telling me today that it is somewhere around 800 houses behind the eight-ball already, just in this part of the year, based on their own figures. That is sad.
The member for Port Darwin contributed well. I have no comment on woolly mammoths. He does have a penchant to wax lyrical at times, but I agree with him that some of the regulations involved in building a house add costs to the house. He mentioned a figure of an average of $40 000 dollars. That is an impost.
Payroll tax can be looked at and reviewed again. I heard what the minister said in his speech, but I cannot understand why these things cannot be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
Union rights of access under the guise of work health laws, portable long service leave - whilst I am not opposed to it in principle - does create problems for business. The Housing Industry Association is taking out large ads in the newspaper to protest some of those provisions.
The member for Nelson is not around at the moment, but he did mention aspects of the five-star ratings on houses and the like, and the requirement for safety measures. I understand where he is coming from; he makes a very valid point. We always need to have an eye on safety but it can go too far at times. A fellow I quite often read is a writer called P J O’Rourke. He has made …
Dr Burns: Why does that not surprise me?
Mr TOLLNER: You are not surprised, minister?
Dr Burns: No, I am not surprised.
Mr TOLLNER: PJ O’Rourke wrote a book called Republican Party Reptile. I am sure the minister has read it as well. I will quote one little paragraph from it. I do not mean to be offensive, member for Karama, I am quoting from a book:
- The forces of safety are afoot in the land. I, for one, believe that it is a conspiracy – a conspiracy of Safety Nazis, shouting
Sieg Health and seeking to trammel freedom, liberty, and large noisy parties. The Safety Nazis advocate gun control,
vigorous exercise, and health foods. The result can only be a disarmed, exhausted and half-starved population ready
to acquiesce to a dictatorship of some kind.
I wonder whether that is the case with this government and the way it operates at times. It has a well-known penchant for penalising and prosecuting public servants, contractors or anyone else who might decide to speak out against it ...
Dr Burns: Will you be marching this May Day? Come down to May Day.
Mr TOLLNER: I have been to several May Days, minister, you know that. I have marched. I am for the worker.
Minister, I appreciated your contribution. I was disappointed that you pre-empted the debate and signalled that you are not going to support this very important motion. I thought you may have listened and made a judgment based on the debate but you signalled early. That is your right and your prerogative, and goodness help us if the government starts supporting opposition motions. It is not something that you would want to encourage, minister.
I thank you for acknowledging that the electorate office that is being fitted out for me has been a complete disaster. One thing I did not say about the electorate office was that I was informed early on in the piece that this was a priority project; that it would be given the highest priority. I note, minister, that your office has been fitted out. You are having some problems with cupboards and all of that. It needs to be understood that these things can happen, but for many months yet I will be ironing the bugs out of the problems at the electorate office where I am to be stationed. Minister, I thank you for conceding that there have been problems.
The minister described me as a lightning rod for negativity, if I got that right. He said he does not hear these negative comments around the place. He referred to the Bureau of Statistics Index of Business Confidence, and how the Northern Territory leads Australia in business confidence. It is there for everyone to see that the Northern Territory does lead the country in the area of business confidence. But I put it to the minister that this is in spite of the government, not because of the government. There are some fantastic businesses in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory, as most people acknowledge, is a pioneering part of the country and it is still very much a frontier. As developed as it is and as beautiful as it is, the Northern Territory is still considered a frontier and people with a pioneering spirit come and set up business. I believe that the business people in the Northern Territory are second-to-none, anywhere in the country, or in the world, for that matter, and they soldier on despite the blockages that the government puts in their way.
To say that the government has it all right, that there is nothing in its way, and that things cannot be improved, I believe is a wrong assumption. That would be proven if an advisory committee of the nature that I am proposing in this motion were established. There is a real feeling in the community that this government has a penchant for penalising and prosecuting people who speak out against it. I believe there is great merit in an advisory committee of this nature being set up to be a conduit to the government to provide free and frank advice.
It is disappointing that the minister has indicated that the government will not be supporting the motion. This idea precedes my election to this place by quite some time. The opposition has been wedded to the idea of consulting with industry and the community to relieve bureaucratic red tape and silly regulations and laws from our books for quite some time.
I am glad to find myself in the position where I have some sort of carriage of it, and I assure the government this is not going to be the last that you hear of it. The opposition is very keen to do everything it can to ensure that the blocks to business, business progress and commercial activity are removed in the most sensitive way, but in a way that allows business to get on with business.
Our view is that the best thing the government can do for business is to get out of the way. They do not need the shackles of over-regulation by the government, and we are committed in that area. We want to get out of the way; we want to make sure that business can get on with business.
It is crucially important at this time with rising unemployment. We have been informed that unemployment will double in the Northern Territory in the next 12 months. We know, courtesy of the member for Daly, that there is going to be a 25% price hike in the cost of electricity. Goodness knows, probably more for those uncontested customers in the business world. There is going to be a 70% increase in water charges. It does not bode well. We are also in the middle of a global financial crisis. This is the time to throw off those shackles, get rid of needless regulation, duplication and costs that we put onto business.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is a worthwhile motion. I encourage members on the other side to have a serious think about this and consider supporting this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ADVERTISING BILL
(Serial 16)
(Serial 16)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The intent of this bill is to assist the government, or governments, at a time when cynicism - just in case members opposite think I am having a shot at them, this would apply on either side; in fact any government would be well-served to consider what is being proposed here – cynicism is mounting in the community regarding the capacity of a government that can divert its energies and resources into self-promotion. We want to preserve the integrity of the government to govern in the best interest of the community. It is nothing more and nothing less.
The issue is the use of taxpayer funded advertising to push party political points, in this case the 2007 federal election. This came to light and it was blatant, make no mistake. However, there is the capacity to turn a blind eye when political interest or self-interest is at the helm. That has to be dealt with. Our community is desperate for good leadership. Here is a good opportunity to restore at least some confidence in the instrument of the government.
In one Northern Territory government department, over $4m in taxpayers’ money is dedicated to marketing and promotion. That does not include recruitment, consultants, and document production. The problem is there is no transparent accountability for this expenditure. There is not. It is shameful and rather embarrassing to have a government that becomes, after eight years or less, so accustomed to the trappings of office and desirous of maintaining power that they find ways to work within the regulations to make use of the resources they have been entrusted with, to work around the regulations and still maintain the capacity to make plain use of taxpayers’ funds for political advantage.
We need to find better systems if we are going to have that kind of operation at play; if we have regulations and we have a government that is still finding its way through those regulations to use taxpayers’ funds for self-promotion. Make no mistake. I am not saying that all promotion that comes from government is bad. The problem is large amounts of money are spent and have been spent that are plainly in breach of regulations. The government has breached its own regulations and, if there is a breach in the existing act, there is no sufficient sting to deter that kind of behaviour.
The sad thing is we often talk about young people and how we want to provide a better future for young people - how many times has that been said, with hand on heart, in this place? Yet, in full view of the community, those who expect good leadership will find the government has the capacity to perform these tricks before the whole community.
Massive amounts of taxpayer-funded advertising promoting the budget finds its way into mailboxes, promoting things that really do not need promoting. Let us be honest: there is much that is promoted that does not need promotion. I find this astonishing and I suggest that the government have another look at this strategy. I do not know whether it is working for you, but perhaps, if you push on, it might bear some results. You are still promoting yourselves in quite extraordinary ways with things that often do not need that level of promotion.
There have been some health issues of recent times yet the government has not found the heart, mind, or the will to put a public education campaign, a promotional exercise, or a glossy brochure on health issues into the letterbox. Instead, we find the Chief Minister’s face promoting one thing or another.
I fully expected that when they noticed the Dry Season was coming it would be a great Labor initiative and we would have a glossy brochure in the letterbox. It was becoming that ridiculous. If you read the Letters to the Editor and comments in the marketplace, people are wondering what the heck is going on.
There needs to be a stop to this, and this bill will assist in bringing some sense to this area. Being in this parliament since 1999 - I sat over there, I remember the gentleman from the Barkly Times, good to see you, I believe I saw you there in 1999 - I observed the end of an era, the end of a Country Liberal government that had been there for 27 years. I was only there for 18 months and then there was a change of government. I remember the members who were in opposition then, who are now the government, were so appalled by what they saw in promotional exercises conducted by the government. I thought at the time that they were genuinely outraged.
How things have changed since 2001. In opposition, Labor railed against it and was absolutely horrified. It looked like we were going to have a war crimes tribunal if there was ever a change of government. Then there was a change of government and, lo and behold, those who expressed outrage became far more adept at doing the things that once offended them. They outstripped the criticism that they had of a former government; they have surpassed that in so many ways. The things that they criticised, they have now become expert at and even more so. I find that part of the government, the effect of power on people and the blatant hypocrisy, disturbing and it keeps me here to try to find ways to at least keep an even keel.
This bill is not dissimilar to the guidelines available on the Department of the Chief Minister’s Intranet site. That is interesting. That means there are guidelines. However, the problem is that they do not have any sting, they are just guidelines. The government can do what it wishes. I make it clear that I am not saying or suggesting that the government or the departments breached caretaker conventions. That is not being said here, make no mistake. But it is hard not to notice Sprout Creative burning the midnight oil, pushing out glossy brochures, waxing lyrical about how wonderful the Labor government is.
It is extraordinary and I found it embarrassing, as a citizen within our democracy, to see how frequently these glossy brochures were clogging up the letterboxes in the lead-up to the election. You had predetermined this date, and you organised your advertising strategy to advance your interests at taxpayers’ expense in the lead-up to the election campaign, fully justified with some clever arguments, but you had guidelines and you challenged those guidelines quite significantly. Territorians saw this, and they made their judgment. I believe we need to live within the bounds of that which is decent. If we cannot understand what is right and wrong in this, there needs to be a sting in the tail, some kind of process that is a little more open so that we can be held accountable. If you do cross the line, there is a consequence. If we do not have that kind of order in this place and in the operation of the government, what hope do we have that we are going to get some order on the streets?
In recent times, there has been a spate of glossy brochures. I find that odd. You seem to be so desperate to pump yourself up that you are putting out glossy brochures and even negative attack ads so early on - it is only eight months since the election. They seem to be fading out a bit now.
The problem is that you are pushing the capacity to push party political points. The Territory government bombarded Territorians with a mail-out campaign criticising the Howard government’s introduction of the $100 limit on alcohol sales. This was astonishing. It was so plain: a big, bold ad, providing information to the community, which was clearly politically motivated. This was an ad paid for by Territorians that carried a political message - no one could miss it. It was not in the public interest; it was in political interests. And it was paid for by Territorians. It clearly named the government that it was referring to - the Howard government. That is a breach of your own guidelines. But there is no sting in the tail, and if you can get around it and you have sufficient power to fluff it, you can get away with it. That is not good enough.
If we are going to maintain some kind of decency and expect some kind of order within the community, it has to start here; it has to start with government.
The guidelines recommend that to avoid the perception of misusing public funds, Territory government advertising should avoid mentioning the party in government or opposition by name, for example, the Labor government. In relation to political messages in advertising, the guidelines state that to avoid the misuse of public funds, agencies should avoid outlining the policies of political parties. This is to keep it honest. That is the guideline.
The purpose of the guideline is to make sure that the money which is earned by the sweat of the brow – I do not know whether Labor understands that - money is earned by people who take risks, work very hard and sweat and then pay their taxes. It is then given to agencies to provide community services and so on to help run the society in which we live. Money comes through sweat and so it has a certain value. That is the bottom line. You have to make sure that the trust that has been placed in you, and the monies you have responsibility for acquitting, are used in the public interest, not in political interest. That is what the guidelines are talking about.
We need to tighten these guidelines up. Surely taxpayers have a right to be assured that advertising funds are spent as they are supposed to be and not to further political gain.
I am not going to say that the opposition is completely clean in this area, but anything that has occurred, or if any criticism be played to the opposition, misses the point. The point is that the government has been prodigious in its capacity to promote and we need to reinforce those guidelines so that we all adhere to those guidelines - not to say something and do something quite different. If the guidelines that are being proposed in this bill are in place, then we all need to adhere to them, make sure that we reinforce that which is good and right, and use that money to promote things that are clearly and plainly to the benefit of the community.
The figure I mentioned earlier does not include recruitment advertising costs. The $4.092m total marketing, promotion and advertising expenditure for 2007-08 for the Department of the Chief Minister does not include recruitment advertising costs. That is just advertising. Let us compare this with other departments’ advertising, marketing and promotion expenses from the respective 2007-08 annual budgets: DEET - $1.863m; DPIFM - $114 000; and OCPE - $48 000. Other departments could not be included as their annual reports have yet to be tabled.
Even with such a small sample group, the total advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure for these four departments totals over $6.8m. The total spent on marketing, promotion and advertising came to over $15m in 2006-07, this does not include document production, recruitment advertising and consultants. There are no standard output criteria to measure the outcomes of any government advertising.
During the election, the opposition proposed an initiative for every Year 1 student to be sight and sound tested, providing support to families, and providing teachers with the resources and qualifications to develop those children identified as needing extra help. That was an important package and one we should still consider.
When you see what has been rolled out in Katherine, where these dear little children are sitting in a classroom and they are having difficulty hearing what the teacher is saying. If you are going to try to teach a language and the children cannot hear all the sounds, it will be incredibly difficult. You need to make sure that you have checked the hearing of those who are learning to read and write. During the campaign we outlined that initiative, and it will stay there, because we are serious about putting those sorts of measures in. It made me quite sad and I am sure anyone else who saw on television the other night, where you have a teacher with a microphone around her neck and kids contributing in the classroom are passing a microphone around so that the others could hear. This is in Katherine. It has been recognised as such a need that it is being taken up by other schools. That is good, but would it not be better if we checked the hearing earlier and we could intervene at an earlier stage? It is going to be hard running that kind of equipment in a Year 4, 5 or 6 class. If we get in there earlier and we start to focus our efforts we could address that when the kids are in early childhood.
The package we described was $4.9m in the first year with recurrent costs of $1.6m. In my view, that would be a better spend than what the government spent on advertising. Weigh it up and ask what would you prefer to do: promote the initiatives of government or to take on an initiative like that? $4.9m would have bought you that. It would have won greater respect from the community, to make a gutsy decision and said no, we are going to spend it on a program like that, instead of glossy brochures. It is a decision that government makes. That was $4.9m in the first year with recurrent costs of $1.6m; a much better way of spending money.
On the surface it looks like a saving from the $4.99m spend in 2006-07, but if you read page 96 of this year’s DCM Annual Report, it states that this reduction was in part due to the costs of a road safety campaign not re-occurring. To compare with previous years’ marketing expenses: $4.11m in 2005-06 and $4.07m in 2004-05.
The point is that when decisions are made of this nature, granted they can be justified because the guidelines are a little loose, and there is some disorder in the whole area, so if there is a gap we can go through it. It is time to tighten it up because money is taken away from other ventures that could be for the public good.
How much better would it be for a kid to be intervened at an early stage and feel that they are a part of the show, they can sit in the classroom? Many of them are boys; you see many of these kids, and I talk to them when I see them around Palmerston. When they reached Year 7 or Year 8, definitely Year 9, if they had missed out on many of these sounds and could not quite grasp what was going on, and felt that they were slipping so far behind, it becomes a matter of pride. They would prefer not to be seen as an abject failure in the classroom so they will start to muck up and can find themselves wandering around the shopping centres. I often speak to them, saying: ‘What the heck are you doing? Is school not on?’ They will say: ‘No, I am suspended’. They are proud of that. They are a little relieved but a little embarrassed. They are relieved of the embarrassment of being in class and failing and being shown that they are just not up to the mark. It is much better to be a clown or a goose and get kicked out and have some sort of street cred, than to be embarrassed because you missed out on getting a handle on reading.
These are the sorts of things that are at stake and that could be attended to. The community would appreciate that kind of approach, more than the glossy brochures. Even if you put a sieve through it and sieved out the things that are assessed as being genuinely in the public interest and chucked the others to the side, I am sure you could find much better use for that money; even if it is less than the $4.9m that we are describing in this case.
These are some comparisons with other output groups: 2007-08 estimated expenditure on interpreter and translator services was $3.274m compared to the advertising spend; 2007-08 estimated expenditure on early childhood education was $4.621m - to put it into perspective, less money was spent on early childhood education than advertising; and 2007-08 estimated expenditure for emergency services was $2.817m, significantly less than what was spent on advertising and promotion.
It is important to draw these comparisons to get some sort of order to this, because $4m from one department and over $15m across the government is an obscene amount of taxpayers’ money to devote purely to self-promotion. It is wrong and we need to have those guidelines drawn, take a deep breath and start to recognise what those guidelines represent, and the consequences for breaching those guidelines.
The government is more concerned about getting its mug shots into our mailboxes than it is in providing interpreter and translation services to our community. That is what it says when you distil it. The government is more interested in promoting its Convention Centre through glossy brochure handouts than providing our emergency services. That is effectively what it means.
This is a very interesting one. We had a sense, in about February, that you guys were going to go to the election as early as you possibly could. As we started to think about how a little outfit against a colossal government could be prepared, we had to start thinking ahead as best we could about advertising. Lo and behold, when we started to drill down, we discovered that there was a $40 000 dollar block of advertising booked for the July/August period of the year. It was blocked out - well ahead - and it was locked away. I asked a couple of questions about it. It could all be explained ...
A member: Pigs might fly!
Mr MILLS: You knew. It was like playing with a sinister poker player; you knew that it was explainable, but there was something else going on. The idea was to spend it on advertising the results of the Blue Mud Bay decision. That was the explanation. However, that decision was handed down during the election. Remember that at least four weeks of that period were devoted to the election, and departments were in caretaker mode - Estimates 2008. We are not saying that the government or the departments breached caretaker conventions and we are aware that the government pulled any planned ads during the caretaker period. However, in hindsight, it was just as well they planned to promote the Blue Mud Bay decision so heavily. What an extraordinary coincidence that there was all that space blocked out in the lead-up to an election. That is probably one of the best government plans I have seen.
Considering the loose adherence to the Chief Minister’s own guidelines, this bill will provide a much-needed protection of millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars the government spends on self-promotion every year. That is the purpose of the bill. I guess the temptations are huge when you are in power - not that I have been in that position. I can only assume that they are of sufficient magnitude that we can play with the guidelines to trespass, from time to time, quite significantly.
That is why we need to have a bill such as this: to ensure that you have the capacity for proper scrutiny, a mechanism for the assessment of decisions for promotion and whether they are genuinely in the public interest. We do not have that mechanism.
It is the same sort of thing that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, referred to when he was in opposition. To his great credit, he not only said something in opposition but he implemented it when he came to government. However, I find it genuinely disappointing that the Prime Minister, when in opposition, recognised this as a problem. But now that they are in government, and the argument is still strong, they resisted; they said the guidelines are sufficient.
The community thought differently, and I believe they made many of their decisions based on the attitude they had seen develop around the beast of government. They started to see the character and the nature, and they made their decisions.
However, it is most disappointing that after the 9 August election, when there was an opportunity to have a little humility and accept - forget the opposition, it would be too great a step to say we now adopt that which was proposed by the Country Liberals. But, at least you had your Prime Minister. You could have adopted his proposal which was similar to our own, to provide greater security over these matters. Issues that feed cynicism could be reduced to some degree, things could be genuinely open and transparent, and there could be a means to assess whether something is in the public interest. At least we would have that mechanism. That is what this bill describes.
I find it most disappointing that you did not take that next step after 9 August. I still hear the Chief Minister saying that he was astonished by the response of the electorate - taken aback - and he said: ‘I am now going to listen to Territorians’. I reckon Territorians were saying something like: ‘Make a quantum shift like this’. You did not have to take our lead on it. You could have told us that our proposal was rubbish, which you probably would anyway, but at least adopt the Prime Minister’s, because it was a new direction.
Fresh Ideas, Real Results is a nice slogan, but in the absence of the action to back it up it is empty words. There are no fresh ideas really. It is just a fresh slogan and people are a little tired of that.
This is an opportunity, but I doubt that there will be any sort of support for this, but it will stay. If a change does come, it will be implemented. I will do my darnedest, with our team, to make sure we can restore some confidence in the instrument of the government, and have a guideline that is understood and respected and mechanisms in place to provide consequences if those lines are stepped over. However, we do not have that at the moment. We have a government that has made its decisions and will live with those decisions. There are consequences to those decisions. This behaviour and attitude is being lived out in the presence of the whole community.
I have been in this Chamber for a long time - it is great to have a bit of company now - but often we had the then Leader of Government Business, the member for Wanguri, saying: ‘Member for Blain, you have to get out there, you have to listen to people. You are talking the Territory down. You have to get out there’. I am out there, but apparently you guys are not.
You have people around you who are saying the sorts of things to you that you like to hear. You probably hear other bits and pieces. However, they are saying a fair amount about this glossy brochure business at the moment. Here is an opportunity - I know you are not going to take it, I have lost my confidence in that area - nonetheless, could you just give it a shot and live within the guidelines you have, if you are not going to support this?
I wonder whether you guys actually make the decisions or if it is someone else who makes the decision and you just go along. That is probably the point, which must be pretty dispiriting. The test will be, next time advertising is commissioned that you are responsible for, can you, as a minister, let it pass that test, so you know it really is in the public interest? There is a little coming out, particularly around the Chief Minister, that I would not mind testing. We have an instrument described in the bill to test it. It might be fine. You might have some clever lawyers to argue it, but just test it. If we can reduce waste on this you will reduce cynicism but, more importantly, you will save some money that could be used for something better than self-promotion.
There is nothing more boring than a person who goes to a party and talks about themselves and is obsessed with themselves. They are not very interesting people at a barbecue. For a government to go around talking about itself all the time and promoting itself – watch out, the same sort of thing might happen.
I urge careful consideration of this bill. Members on the other side might want to have a look at it, because they have probably been given their marching orders, so they will go down that track. I am going to stick with this because I believe it is the right thing to do, even Kevin reckons that. I urge honourable members to support this and I look forward to the debate which will flow.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of Select Committee – Territory Police Review Committee
Establishment of Select Committee – Territory Police Review Committee
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
- 1. The Assembly establish a select committee to be known as the Territory Police Review Committee.
2. The committee is to be comprised of three government members nominated by the Chief Minister and three opposition members
nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; with a government member to be elected as the Chair and an opposition member to be
elected as the Deputy Chair of the Committee.
3. The committee inquire into the number and staffing levels of the Northern Territory Police Force with a view to establishing and
reporting on the following:
overtime worked by Territory Police) and the number of police needed to improve law and order in the
Territory;
average time, and assessed against procedures in other jurisdictions;
(c) the level of resources provided to police and whether it is impacting on the capacity of police to fulfil
their duties as required under the law;
(d) the numbers, impact and interrelation of Federal Police with the Territory Police in the Northern Territory;
(e) a management plan in respect to all areas of inquiry above, informed by what is occurring in other jurisdictions; and
(f) other matters relevant to the performance of the Territory Police Force.
4. The inquiry report to the Assembly by 31 October 2009.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important motion. If this motion is to be supported, we need to understand the nature of the problem. The nature of the problem is that we have rising crime and we have a community which feels increasingly unsafe.
At the first step the government is able to explain that away again and again. But you cannot honestly explain that away. The old call to get out there, have a listen and get in tune - not on the defensive but the offensive - listening carefully, engaging directly, so that you know how your community is feeling. It is not centred on a political issue; it is about providing leadership and a response to the community. There is clearly a problem.
Having recognised and accepted that there is a problem - if the government can accept that there is a problem - then the solution that is provided by the society is the police force. You need to have some deeper level of thinking to make sure that the application of that resource, the police force, is going to reduce the problem. It is clear to me that we are up against it; we are not fighting that battle, and we are not increasing the levels of safety within the community. It is delusional to point to the prison which is bursting at the seams with prisoners in shipping containers and say that is an example of a system that is working.
That is an example of a community that is straining and has some problems that need to be addressed. We need a strong police force. We have dedicated officers but we need to take it to the next step and do some deeper assessment and analysis to ensure that the resource is being applied in a way that reduces the problem.
A scientific approach is required. How many times have I stood in front of the cameras and been asked how many more police are needed? Playing the political game, I will say a few more than the government and that will sound stronger. I believe our communities are getting past that. If you go around the countryside at any election, you will have one side out-bidding the other on the number of police. The deeper question is not really asked: how many police do you need to get on top of the problem? The question is always based on the tougher party has more coppers. We have to go further than that.
The construction of this committee is to take it to a new level, so that we can start to marry it up with the effort applied to the problem. If this approach is made in good faith we could make some real progress. I am not going to accept any opposition to this proposal being unnecessary, because we are already doing that. Once again it is going back to the issue that you are not recognising there is a problem. You need to have a tighter fix on this. Is there a problem? You cannot ignore this. I was dismayed - I am getting into a new realm with this - to hear the responses at Question Time explaining away crime as though we are on top of it and everything is all right. We cannot even get to first base if you think that is the case.
A member: That really washes out there, too.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it would fail the pub test. That is for sure. I would love to give you a microphone and stand up in some of the pubs and run that speech. That would be a hoot. Stand up and explain away that the prisons are full because we are really on top of crime.
The Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics, December Quarter 2008 show 1586 assault offences recorded. That is a 25% increase from the previous quarter, up by 316 assaults, a 12% increase in the same quarter 2007, up another 168. The report stated:
- A statistically significant upward trend was identified.
What is driving this trend and are we understanding the trend and matching it? We would be able to answer that question through this process if it was supported. If we only look at these problems as political, we will always pose political solutions. We have to get past that, because the community is begging for something different.
There is a problem in Darwin. In the December quarter there were 430 assault offences recorded in Darwin, an 18% increase from the previous quarter, and a 6% increase in the same quarter 2007. I dare you to go to Shenannigans with a microphone and say: ‘Just a bit of order please, I want to explain the crime problem. It is not as bad as you think’. Then explain it away like you did at Question Time. They would not be shouting you drinks.
In Palmerston, there were 113 assault offences recorded for the December quarter. That is a 12% increase from the previous quarter, and a 31% increase in the same quarter 2007. In Alice Springs, 345 assault offences were recorded for the December quarter. A 34% increase from the previous quarter, and a 13% increase for the same quarter 2007. Houston, we have a problem. Oh no, no. It is just that we have more reporting. Oh, my god. There were 143 assault offences recorded in Katherine for the December quarter. That is a 32% increase from the previous quarter, and a 5% decrease from the same quarter 2007. Based on that, you will probably claim it is all working. If the argument applies against all the increases, obviously the people in Katherine are not reporting, because it has gone down. We might learn something from that. How did that occur?
I go back and, sadly, restate from the report:
- A statistically significant upward trend was identified.
You cannot keep talking about - none of us can keep talking about – an increase in police numbers and record spending in police and expect the public to believe that they are going to be safer in their homes. That is the problem. You cannot keep speaking about this, saying: ‘Do not worry, we have more coppers, we are spending more money than those blokes ever did’. People want to feel safer in their homes. They are getting tired of hearing the same talk. If you are viewing it as a political problem, then you will pose political answers. Increasingly, people have a filter up and the doors are closing on receiving any of these messages.
The police budget has risen by 30% between 2005 and 2008, yet property crime has risen by 30% - the same amount. Violent crime has risen by 55% and Territorians are feeling less safe in their homes now than in the entire time that the Labor government has been in office. Surely, Territorians are entitled to be told why the extra $46m dedicated to the police budget since 2005 has failed to improve their security and peace of mind in their homes.
If you see this as political, you are probably thinking: ‘He is having a go at us. We have tried really hard. We have spent heaps of money’. That is what this motion is about. We might need another instrument to help us find a better way to try to break the circle. That is what this is about. However, some of you are so indoctrinated with this political paradigm that you think this is a political battle. We have a social problem and we need to have – hang on, I have a good slogan - we need to have fresh ideas and real results, something that adds real life to that slogan.
Mr Elferink: We have the slogan sorted out.
Mr MILLS: We have the slogan. Let us come up with a fresh approach.
A member: Yes, we might use that.
Mr MILLS: Yes, you could use that. Here is an opportunity to breathe some life into that slogan, because it is a bit of an empty shell at the moment, I tell you.
We heard at Question Time about some poor bloke sleeping in his premises in Winnellie. Do not tell me that this is the first time you have heard anything like that. It is often referred to. I have visited Durban and I am starting to see the similarities. I was there in 2000 and people were barricading themselves in. They had nice houses but they were barricaded - really nice security fences and security systems. I noticed what they had in place and that society was changing. I was meeting with a couple of politicians and spent some time with them trying to get an understanding of that community. They said: ‘Things have changed quite significantly’. As politicians of many years, they said it was now very difficult to go doorknocking because they could not get to the front door.
I find the same in Palmerston. You cannot get to the front door easily. They say once bitten, twice shy. I have been bitten about four times and I do not know how shy you can get when you see some big dog bowl and great big footprints in the dirt. I think: ‘I am not sure, once bitten by a ridgeback, a chihuahua or a red heeler’. It is hard to get to the front doors in my own suburb; it has changed. Why would people do that? Is it like a competition to have the best fence? It makes them feel more secure. Why do they want this level of protection? Because they feel insecure, they feel unsafe.
A member was saying that his house was broken into. My house has been broken into. That still sends shock waves through our family; it is our family home that has been intruded in. Big deal, I am just another citizen. There are so many citizens who have experienced this. This bloke sleeps in his workplace to defend it. He has been broken into – how many times was it?
Mr Tollner: Fifteen times.
Mr MILLS: Fifteen times. We have had one and it feels as if you have been violated. It is twice for the member for Sanderson. I really feel for Linda at this time, because it does have a particular effect on the ladies. It erodes their sense of integrity around the home.
That whole thing has been intruded upon in our community. Do not tell me there is not a problem. Do not try to explain it away. I know the police are working hard. I know you think it appears to be genuine. ‘Do not worry, we spent more money’. You can quote the numbers of police but we need to go to a new level, and this will provide you that vehicle.
No, this is Darwin. This is the Northern Territory. This is Katherine. This is Alice Springs. This is our community. This is Nhulunbuy. Surely, we could do it better. I believe this is a step in the right direction. The Chief Minister boasted 60 police officers last budget, and yet Alice Springs, a town that has undergone more than its fair share of violence and antisocial behaviour over the past few years, received a grand total of none, that is zip. I note there have been a few deployed with the last wheel out. I believe it is particularly important for those who do not live in Alice Springs, who visit from time to time, to see that that community is changing. Once again, we have a problem.
The Police Association’s repeated call for a scientific resource allocation model has been ignored. The government has continually shown a reluctance to allow considered dissection and examination of its spending and process. It will not even allow the continuation of debate into its own statement on policing; it was taken off the paper. That was breathtaking. You put it on the paper, and I believe you reinforce the notion that it is there only for the effect, so you can put out a press release, make a grand statement, speak about the issue in the community, and say you are really worried about this. Then you say we are going to issue a statement in parliament and once you have had a few talking heads on it, you leave it on the paper, because you do not really care, it is all about how you are responding to a problem so people think you have done something. You have to get past that, for goodness sake. There are some serious problems out there. The government did not allow any further discussion on that statement; it was taken off the paper.
First, the government refuses calls for a transparent method of police resource distribution. Then it refuses to continue debate on how the Chief Minister intends to use these increasing resources – budget increases of 30% - and the government does not want to continue to discuss how it intends to spend the money – it is very defensive about it.
Once again, it is seen as a political problem and therefore it is a political solution. The government has to guard the way it looks and the way the community thinks about it as the most important thing to protect. No, that is not the most important thing to protect. We need to protect our community and make sure that the money is well spent.
I spent 10 years as a school principal and I had the responsibility for a budget. The school was becoming increasingly violent, with more bullies in the playground. The parents were becoming more concerned and kids were becoming frightened and crying and not wanting to go to school. If I kept saying no, do not worry, we have an excellent policy that we have costed, and we have spent more money than the former principal ever spent on this school in this area, people would say: ‘That is fine, but we have a problem in the playground. My kid does not want to go to school, and that has never happened before’. I could say: ‘Rest assured, here is a copy – I will be sending out another copy of our policy in this area – but rest assured, we have spent a lot of money on this. We have thought deeply about it and we are going to engage the community in little groups to talk about it’. But the kid still does not want to go to school.
You have to connect in a different way, recognise that there is a problem and ensure the money is spent to fix the problem, which is a community problem, not a political problem. This committee could achieve that.
The Chief Minister announced in his ministerial statement, the one that the government will not allow any further debate on, that the government has been responsible for putting an extra 255 uniformed police officers on the streets of the Northern Territory since 2003. When you go into your Caucus meetings you must have chanting or something like that so you can remember all these lines and you punch out those numbers, just speak into it, say the magic line, and we will finally turn this around. The pollsters will give us a report later that we have managed to claw back. No, you are not going to get much hope if you are going to continue this way.
The Chief Minister failed to mention that, of those 255 extra uniforms, only about 140 were sworn, fully-fledged officers who were out on the street. That is a different message, and it is a clear indicator that it is for presentation purposes. Why would you want to present it in such a way? It is to create the impression that you have many police. The people want to hear that you have responded to their problem. The problem is law and order, the answer is police. Do not worry everyone, we have 255, but they failed to tell them that only 140 of those were sworn, fully-fledged officers on the street. That is the impression that people have. It creates an impression and that is more important than the reality. Once again, it is a political problem that is solved politically, and the political problem is not the greatest one. It is the problem that people are feeling in their homes and in their streets. The decisions that they make about who is going to go down to the shop and buy something.
It is this convenient massaging of the figures that makes the establishment of a Territory Police Review Committee essential. If the Henderson government is as committed as it says to an open and accountable government, then there should be nothing to fear by taking part in a committee to ease public concerns. There would be nothing to fear if it says it is committed. If it is committed and wants to advance towards a solution, here is a shot.
I know it is going to be very difficult because it is coming from the opposition. It is going to be mocked and ridiculed, I expect, because it is a committee; you want a committee to solve a problem. We have spent this; we have done this, that and the other. I say again, go out there, have a listen to what is going on out there, and how people are really feeling.
If you were doing all the good things that you have been boasting about there would be no reason to hold a public review into the distribution of police resources. But the government will answer the same as when there have been calls for similar reviews of committees, that there is nothing really wrong, it is all fine, and we are looking after our business well. Your business is not a political business. Your business is to discharge services in the best interests of the Territory community. That is the business. If the government cannot accept that we have a problem then we do not have much chance of getting any further in this discussion.
I hope that we can reach a place where we recognise that there is a social problem, which the police are resourced to address, but at the moment, with the way in which it works, we are not keeping up; the effort is not matching the demand. That is not because of insufficient effort, it is the way in which it is applied. We need to assess that. We need to make some proper analysis so that we can then be sure that the coordination between different programs, projects, agencies, and the work of the police is all going to work together to produce a result.
I would like to be able to stand up one time - even if it is in opposition, I do not care – and make a comment that there has been a change. Not the little ups and downs that we see in the crime statistics, but that there is a real change. It would be good to be able to report in this Chamber that there has been a statistically significant downward trend, year after year. That is what we aspire to. But we do not have that. I have been here 10 years, and a significantly upward trend identified is not a good signal. It is even worse to explain it away and to look at it in a different way - this, that or the other - and try to reduce the pain you may feel politically. Put that aside; that is not the point. The point is that something is not right. We have significant effort, dedicated officers applied to that problem and we still have a statistically significant upward trend identified.
I urge members to consider and support this motion. We need to find a new way through this, and we need to find at least a toe hold, so that we can fight back and provide a better solution to the problems that are compounding across the community. Make no mistake. It is not a problem that can be explained away. I will leave you with the pub test. I challenge you to take the things that are said in here to Mitchell Street, say to Shenannigans, I can organise it for you …
A member: You go down yourself and explain it. You explain some of your policies down there.
Mr MILLS: … you can get up and explain how we do not have a crime problem. Go to Alice Springs and we will say: ‘Right, the member for Karama will explain how everything is now fine. Everything is just in order’. We could look at it this way or that; and we will see if it passes the pub test. I may be wrong. I may find that people think that I was looking at it the wrong way.
We had parliament down there a little while back and I remember the feeling in the street. Much of the strong feeling expressed by the community was as a result of seeing their community change and threatened by declining law and order. There is strong feeling out there and we need more than glossy brochures and breathy explanations to the problem. I urge members to support the formation of a select committee.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward.
It is important for us to look soberly and objectively at this problem. There is no one on this side of the House, Leader of the Opposition, saying that everything is hunky-dory, that we do not have a problem in the Northern Territory or we do not have significant problems with crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory …
Mr Bohlin: Were you listening at Question Time?
A member: That is not what the member for Karama says.
Dr BURNS: … the government acknowledges that …
Mr Bohlin: What was Question Time then?
Dr BURNS: Give me the courtesy of being able to give my views and my offering, member …
A member: Drysdale
Dr BURNS: Wherever. It is hard to grasp onto a presence in your particular corner of the equation.
I have been here long enough to know what I am saying. As I said in Question Time earlier, until we came to government there were no published crime statistics, they were not out in the open. The previous government never did that. We have done that and we said right from the outset we were prepared to have the debate on this very important issue. That is what we are doing today. That should be recognised.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about, and I will quote him:
- … convenient massaging of the figures …
He talked about statistical significance and downward trends and upward trends and all the rest of it. If you look at the crime figures since 2001, since this government came to power, there are a few key statistics: murders, homicides and related offences have dropped 19% since 2001; there has been a 58% drop in house break-ins; 26% drop in motor vehicle theft and related offences; and total property offences have dropped 29% since 2001. That is approximately 9300 fewer property offences then when we came to power.
As I acknowledged in Question Time, any property offence is one too many. I sympathise with the member for Sanderson with what has been happening at his house. I also acknowledge that there has been an increase, a statistical increase, in the number of property crimes and property break-ins in commercial properties. Police have advised that this often relates to people trying to search out alcohol. There is a whole history and cause of events behind that.
We have acknowledged that violent crime has increased with time. There are many reasons for that increase, which have been debated in this parliament. There has been an increase but I believe we have turned the corner. The number of offences committed against the person decreased by 4% during the 2008 year. Alcohol is still driving that and one only has to look at the reports coming from Nhulunbuy, and also Groote Eylandt, that if you can turn the tap down, you will turn down the offences, you will get people back to work and engaged in productive activity.
It is alcohol that is a major driver of the violent crime in the Northern Territory. The government acknowledges that. We have been criticised by the opposition, particularly in Alice Springs and other places, where we have brought in a whole range of measures. We have said that we are prepared to have them objectively evaluated and we will go with that ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I distinctly recall the minister talking about rap music being the major driver.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, thank you. Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: I have consistently said, on the public record in this House, that alcohol is the major driver of crime and violent crime in the Northern Territory. There has been a decline in domestic violence-related assaults. However, they are still too high; they are way out of proportion. We can see from the experience in places that have turned the tap down, that there can be a significant decrease.
Let us put these statistics in perspective. I just attempted to do that, while still acknowledging, on behalf of government, that we have a long way to go. The government is not saying everything is hunky-dory. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that the government is in denial; we are saying everything is hunky-dory. We are not. We are looking objectively at figures supplied quite independently, and are on the public record, unlike the way it was before under the previous CLP government. The government has brought about transparency in this whole debate.
I will provide more important history, if we are talking about the police force and police numbers. Let us go back to the O’Sullivan report of 2003 - I am not sure how many on the other side have read the O’Sullivan report. Jim O’Sullivan, a former Police Commissioner in Queensland, a very experienced police officer, came here and travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory to try to ascertain the detailed needs of the Northern Territory Police Force. I will read from his report on page 24, where he talked about recent history, and said:
- From 1990-91 to 1993-94 the police force establishment was influenced significantly by a freeze
on recruitment for a period of three years and 11 months.
- In 1997 there was another budget driven lapse in recruitment.
The figures he referred to showed police members and length of service which clearly showed the gaps in experience. He said:
- The impact of this recruitment freeze has been very significant. Not only was there an impact on absolute numbers
of Police Personnel during the years 1990-1994 as attrition rates eroded the membership base, but this four year gap
had moved progressively through the organisation so that there is currently a shortage of personnel with 10-13 years service.
He was saying that this not only impacted on numbers in toto of the police force, it also meant that officers in senior ranks were depleted because of that, and had a progressive effect through the Northern Territory Police Force, particularly in the ranks of Sergeant and above. That is very important. That is the first thing to talk about. The second one …
Mr Bohlin: How many of those recommendations have you completed?
Dr BURNS: All of them. All of them have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.
It talks about the lack of supervision on page vii, and I quote:
- The lack of supervision, mentoring and accountability is causing poor tasking to jobs with slow response times. On occasions police
reportedly try to talk complainants out of making complaints. Police complain about having insufficient time to investigate a broad
range of reported incidents. There is a developing culture of writing off jobs prematurely, of being unable to follow up many jobs,
and almost a total failure to advise victims of any outcomes.
That is an indictment of the Northern Territory Police Force under the CLP. As Jim O’Sullivan outlined, this has long-term ramifications on our police force. On page v he talked about police establishments:
- Police establishments throughout the Territory were reviewed to assess how well resources had been allocated to address a broad
range of policing inquiries. The assessment found that:
the approved establishments was available for more than 50% of the 28-day rosters to perform policing tasks.
For example, at Casuarina police station for the January-February 2003 roster only 25 of the established 58 police
personnel were available for more than half of the rostered period.
There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker, a reputable person, Jim O’Sullivan, reporting and giving a plan to the government in 2003 about what should be done. What did the government do? We said we would immediately invest $75m in the report handed down by Jim O’Sullivan. We have been proactive with this, and we have not stopped there.
On 28 April 2009, the Police minister made certain announcements. In addition to the approximately 340 extra police as a result of the O’Sullivan review, which includes police constables and above - ACPOs mainly - the Police minister says Budget 2009-10 will provide $6.5m to deliver an extra 54 police positions. The 54 extra police will complete our Safer Streets initiative, with 11 police at Palmerston, 10 in Alice Springs, and four in Katherine.
We will also continue to roll-out the Police Beats next financial year, with 12 constables and six auxiliaries; a Police Beat will be established in Alice Springs, and another two in Darwin. We are also improving the performance of our police call centre at Berrimah with an extra 10 auxiliaries. A superintendent position will also be established in the Alice Springs youth hub.
This government has invested resources into our police. I will demonstrate by this prepared speech I have that there have been quite a number of reviews into various aspects of the police force. I believe it is a bit cheeky of the opposition to come in with this motion, for a number of reasons not least of all its history in what was identified through O’Sullivan, but also because the committee the opposition is recommending and putting forward is usurping the role of the Commissioner of Police.
If you look at the Police Administration Act, section 14, Control and management of the Police Force:
- (1) Subject to this Act, the Commissioner shall be charged and invested with the general control and management of the
Police Force and may, in addition to those powers, exercise any powers conferred on a Superintendent or other officer
of the Police Force.
Those of us who have been here long enough know that when Paul White was named Commissioner of Police, early on, I remember the then member for Brennan, standing up in Question Time and assailing him. What was the reason? The CLP favourite, Mr John Valentin, did not get the job, and it was vicious. It was vicious in the Chamber and in Estimates, and they did everything they could. I remember the offhand, brutish, rude, arrogant attitude of Denis Burke towards the Police Commissioner. That made me very angry because, above all, the Commissioner is a very decent man, an honest man, and a man who has the interests of the Northern Territory at heart. Not political interests. One thing you can say about Paul White is that he is not really interested in politics, he is not partisan in any way; he is interested in his job. He is interested in the benefits and the welfare of the Northern Territory; to serve and protect Territorians.
What have we found with this new crop of CLP members who have come in, like the member for Drysdale? First, he started to attack the Commissioner, an attack over police numbers, trying to erode the confidence and the good name of the Police Commissioner. The Police Commissioner came out publicly and put him in his place and challenged him to put up or shut up. We have the commissioners-in-exile and we have this motion today which is a thinly veiled attempt - a futile attempt, because government will not be supporting it - to erode the power of the Commissioner of Police, who we believe is doing a good job.
I now turn to my prepared speech on this issue. This particular committee would establish another layer of bureaucracy and cause the taxpayer to incur avoidable and unnecessary costs, so we do not support it. I have already mentioned the duplication of roles with the Police Commissioner and the 340 extra police that have come into the force.
I was at a graduation ceremony, I believe it was last week - the member for Sanderson was there – for 25 fine young men and one woman - although the next squad will have more women - graduating and taking their oaths as police officers. It was a very solemn event. I have personally attended a number of graduations and I am thrilled to bits every time I am invited to a graduation to see the pride and the steadfast attitude on the faces of those police, knowing that they will benefit the Northern Territory.
I sat here the other day and someone from the opposition – I forget who it was now, it could have been one of the ex-policemen – said: ‘Just getting extra police, what does that do?’ How does that denigrate police officers? Every police officer who graduates, every police officer who takes up a place in the Northern Territory is an asset, will reduce crime, and will do the job to serve and protect. That is the job they are asked to do, that is the job they are trained to do.
To say that just getting more police is not going to do anything is very short sighted. Sure, you need to have the right structure within the police force and I have every confidence in the Police Commissioner, and that his organisation of the police force is along modern lines and intelligence-led policing. I know the Police Association has a contrary view, and they are quite at liberty to put that view. But the Police Commissioner is the Police Commissioner. The government has confidence in him and we believe he is doing the best he can and the government is very prepared to give him more resources to do that.
The performance of the Northern Territory Police Force in nearly every way is subject to the public record. There was the introduction of the Northern Territory Police Continuous Improvement Program in 2002 and the Northern Territory Police Force has reviewed its frontline police service delivery, both internal and external, through the conduct of a major core structures review and the frontline policing review including triage response. Reviews have also been undertaken in respect of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services Training College, the Territory Intelligence Division, the Joint Emergency Services Communications Centre and Alice Springs Police Communications Centre, police prosecution, violent crime and major crash and accident investigation capacity. Specific work groups have also been the subject of reviews including a review of the Aboriginal Community Police Officer and Police Auxiliary Scheme.
Previous reviews have addressed internal police processes surrounding merit-based promotion and selection, mainstream and Indigenous recruitment, customer service, police discipline, welfare and chaplaincy services, and equity and diversity. Reviews have also addressed police policy and procedures and include reviews into operational safety tactics training.
Each review engages a process of examining current practices against known best practice models from both within Australia and overseas. Many reviews are undertaken with the assistance of knowledge experts from other Australian police jurisdictions. All review outcomes and recommendations are made the subject of a full report to the Commissioner of Police through the Executive Leadership Group.
In addition to these formal review processes, Operational Performance Reviews are conducted biannually into every service delivery area of the police force. The OPR process examines in detail performance against the outcomes contained in the NT Police Force Business Plan. The OPR process provides yet another avenue for continuous improvement surrounding service delivery effectiveness and efficiency and provides an opportunity for success to be recognised and barriers to peak performance to be removed.
In addition to the foregoing, the Northern Territory Police Force is the only jurisdiction that undertakes police activity surveying as a basis for assessing resources dedicated to frontline policing, both in staff numbers and hours of service delivery and the ratios of activity dedicated to both core and non-core policing including overtime.
Data collated from the police activity survey is providing a platform for the development of a resource allocation model, which is currently being developed by the NT Police Force, and will be finalised following consultation with the Northern Territory Police Association. Performance outcomes and measures are defined in the Northern Territory Police Business Plan and are made the subject of publication through the annual report.
The motion suggested that the committee should also inquire into and report on the numbers, impact and interrelation of the Federal Police with the NT Police. This is managed through the auspices of Taskforce Themis and is the subject of performance reporting through the Australian government intervention.
We do not support this motion. I will come back to what I talked about in the Police Administration Act, section 14(1). Why is the Police Commissioner independent? It is very important that the Police Commissioner is completely independent of government in what he does. The Police minister can, under the Police Administration Act, direct the Police Commissioner but that direction has to be tabled in the parliament. I am not aware of one instance in the history of the Northern Territory, both in CLP and Labor Party times, when a Police Commissioner has been given a written direction by the Police minister that was tabled in parliament.
We need to have these institutions – it is about the separation of powers. We saw, and I will allude again to what happened with Denis Burke and his attitude towards Paul White and the way he wanted to get a CLP crony into that position. That is where the CLP wants to go with police commissioners.
The Labor Party is not into that game. We respect the fierce independence of the Police Commissioner and we want him to do his job. We give him the freedom to do his job, and we have trust in his abilities to do that job. We are not going to pay $130 000 a year for another committee to waltz around, comprised of ex-police officers, probably from the opposition’s side. We would rather put the $130 000 with the millions we are already putting into policing in the Northern Territory to get a result for Territorians.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, before I say anything else, I personally acknowledge that we, on this side, believe that the police are doing a fantastic job.
I was also at the graduation recently of 25 new police officers coming out to protect our community. They have sworn to serve and protect. I recall that feeling very well. I have done it twice in my life, at a police graduation, and sworn my allegiance to the Queen and to the people who I am out there to protect. I believe they will do a great job. But police are only as good as the government that stands behind them.
The authority that you have as a police officer, and I speak as a former police officer, only comes from the community and those who represent the community; the government of the day. If they do not have good policies and good systems in place to support those police officers, then police officers are hindered in doing a better job.
Having said that we really support these people, there are a number of things we need to consider. One is that the government needs to look at how they conduct themselves, and how they are seen by the community. We need to have solid deterrents so that people have confidence that the courts are going to do their job, we have programs in place to rehabilitate people to retrain them, we have youth programs in place to divert them, and we have early intervention systems in place.
One of the things we really need to do is take the pressure off the police officers. Many police officers who are at the front line have an incredible workload. That is because there are so many people – criminals - who believe they can do whatever they like, because it does not really matter if you go to court the first time, it is all right. There are people with hundreds of offences against them and they still get bail, even though bail has been tightened up. I believe the police are doing a great job of looking out for those people who are on bail.
However, we need to take the pressure off these particular officers so that they can concentrate on criminals. The ‘would-bes if they could-bes’ need to know that if you are actually going out there to break the law some serious consequences are going to happen to you. It will be something like a boot camp - or whatever name you want to give it - some form of rehabilitation camp, where it is tough. There is Brahminy. I have been to Brahminy and it is a great place. Knowing some of the people who are youth offenders - and are still out there offending – I am surprised that they are not in a program like Brahminy, there are only two out of the six positions. They are the sort of things that we need to do.
I point to some things the member for Johnston spoke about. We are looking at some of the issues and how they are dealt with, for instance, the PROMIS system. The PROMIS system still appears to be quite a cumbersome system. From my own experience, you hear of police officers who are called out to a job, they do the job and they go back to the police station so they can get in and update the PROMIS system. There have been alternatives offered to the government and they have not taken up those offers. There are time constraints on police officers, which then impact on their ability to go out, generally patrol the place, and be in these hot spots where these young people are gathering - young and other people - and causing all these problems.
One of the things we need to look at is retaining police. That comes under part (f) of what we are talking about, where it says: other matters relevant to the performance of Territory Police officers. I assure this place that there are officers who do not feel supported by the government. We have to go out there and demonstrate, as the Legislative Assembly, that all of us are behind their efforts. They are out there trying to cope with almost overwhelming odds and overwhelming jobs. You tend to work them very hard, with much overtime, and burn them out.
The revolving door syndrome in courts still appears to be there. I am sure that the government will say: ‘No, no, we have done this and we have tightened up and we have got tough on crime’. There are some very good laws in effect in the Northern Territory and they have been there for some years. The government needs to get those laws enforced and seek for the courts to do something that is going to deter these people.
When my own home was broken into, in the last few days, it would appear that there is no fear of coming back. It does not matter if you leave DNA evidence or fingerprints because you are probably not going to suffer too much when you go to court.
We need policies that are going to support early intervention. Let us talk about early intervention. As a former school-based police officer, I recall a time when we were down to 52% staffing levels. That is in the last two years. I believe it is up at the moment, but it will probably go down again - it fluctuates. We used to have a fantastic life skills program called DARE, Drug Abuse Resistance Education. It placed police officers into classrooms where we could influence young people. We could teach them and give them the resilience and the life skills they may not have been getting at home. Having dealt with youth for 19 years on a daily basis, with their families and older people in the community, you have a fair idea of what is needed. What I believe is needed and what I ask the government to consider is that you reintroduce good, solid programs where you can timetable police officers into classrooms.
Look at the statistics for when this government canned the DARE program - which was in the end of June 2005 - and at where the crime stats have gone, especially with youth. The crime stats show that, from 2005 to 2008, the government increased the budget by 30%, and property crime went up 30% over that time. Look at the graphs of where it is going and it relates exactly to when the government virtually took police officers out of schools. They left them there, but they did not support them. When we talk about early intervention, where is the support? Where are the people timetabled into these classrooms to give a balanced view to some of these young people - I am talking about from Transition on - who are either not getting instruction or role models at home? All they are being taught is: let us hate the police, let us hate society, let us go out there and create as much trouble and havoc as we can for fun.
A member: And some respect.
Mr STYLES: Yes, it is about respect. They are the sort of things that we have to do. We have to get the balance right. We have to empower youth to say no to becoming involved in crime. The problem is if you do not reach young people early enough they take it into adulthood, and then they become older folks. Same deal, same presence out there, they bully and pick on people. If we cannot get out there and support our community and our young people by the programs that need to be put in place, then I wonder what we are doing. Without law and order in our community, you have anarchy, and it keeps deteriorating to the point where people are too afraid to come out at night to go walking, they are too afraid to come out of their homes.
I am going to have a look at my own place, and in a week’s time it is going to look like Fort Knox, so that I can have some peace of mind that when I go away my family is protected. I am very fortunate that I am in a position where I can do that, even though it is going to cost a lot of money. What about the poor people, the constituents in my electorate who do not have the money to be able to take those security measures? How do they sleep at night? These are the issues I ask the government to consider, and these are the issues we should look at when we start to run these bipartisan committees.
We will need to look at prison funds. The government says the gaols are full and we have many police officers. I heard the member for Karama say this morning that if we get more police officers, we are going to have more prisoners. I do not know whether that is something I would like to see sustained right through, filling the prisons up with prisoners. Let us go into the community, provide some early intervention, and some deterrents so these people do not.
When you talk to many of these young criminals - and I suspect there are many people on the other side of the House who have not spent time talking to these people - they do not think like us, they do not think like you and me. They actually have a totally different view of the world and they do not care. They have no respect. These are things that we need to try to teach them.
When you talk to people over the years about unlawful entries and things like that, many people are very concerned that people have been in their homes, and it is not necessarily about the television set that is missing or whatever, but it is about their peace of mind.
The member for Johnston said today that there are 340-odd more police officers. That is an input. What we are looking for from this side of the House is outcomes - outcomes of a sustainable reduction in crime. But we see that it is going up again.
I quote from the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime Statistics December Quarter 2008. The member for Johnston said that crime is going down. I do not know where he quoted those figures from, it would be nice to have a look.
In Darwin, 430 assault offences reported for the December quarter. That is an 18% increase on the previous quarter and a 6% increase for the same quarter in 2007. Palmerston - same thing – a 12% increase and a 31% increase. Alice Springs, again, a 34% increase on the previous quarter, a 13% increase on 2007. That is a clear indication that crime is on the rise, both property crime and assaults.
I will address a couple of things the member for Johnston raised. One is that he referred to the O’Sullivan report. I inform the House that I was part of that; I was part of a group that was interviewed. My last recollection of the O’Sullivan report is that there are 428 pages. Mr O’Sullivan spent 20 minutes with us - there was a whole group of us - he spoke for in excess of half of that, then we had the chance to talk to him and express our views, and then he got up and left. To tell you the truth, we were very surprised that he did not spend more time with us in relation to our role of early intervention and equipping these young people so they have the skills to go out there and survive.
I am not saying that Mr O’Sullivan is not a very competent person, I believe he is. However, given the time frame that the government obviously gave him, and perhaps the resources, he deemed it necessary to only have a short period of time with us. By the way, of the 428 pages, there was actually less than half a page on his interaction with us, and we were the Crime Prevention Unit School Based Policing and we were out there trying to give these people the skills and trying to reduce the load on our colleagues in general duties at that time.
The member for Johnston also spoke about 1990-91 through to 1993-94 and the freeze on police numbers. I was part of the police force at that time and I recall that the federal ALP government, under Hawke and Keating, slashed the NT budget. I do not have the exact budget but it was over $200m. The member for Karama may laugh, but when you have over $200m, in those days, slashed from your budget you find that you are short. There are many things that suffered at that time courtesy of the federal ALP government in Canberra. For the member for Johnston to say that there was a freeze for the sake of having a freeze is quite incorrect. I was there through that whole period.
The member for Johnston also pointed out that we are trying to usurp the role of the Commissioner of Police by having this committee. I refer also to the member for Johnston, who stated that all the recommendations in the report have been implemented. I ask if recommendation 111 has actually been implemented and I will quote:
- The Commissioner of Police chair a Steering Committee to plan and implement approved assessment recommendations
and report regularly to government on progress against agreed performance indicators to ensure additional resources are
having the intended beneficial impact.
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: I have not seen that one and this is what we are trying to achieve today.
The member for Johnston mentioned the then Deputy Commissioner, Mr Valentin. I understand why the former member for Brennan, Denis Burke, was trying to get Mr Valentin in there because he was a very competent and well respected Deputy Police Commissioner, one of the most respected Deputy Police Commissioners. I believe he would have done a fine job, irrespective of what his views were, or whatever the member for Johnston was saying that the man’s views were. I am sure that police commissioners try to be bipartisan and please all by being independent, and so they should.
I am not sure on this, so I will stand to be corrected, but I would like to raise the issue of PIPS positions within the police force. This is the type of thing that this is designed to have a look at. I am led to believe that there are a number of PIPS positions that have two police officers or one police officer doing two positions and they are put down against two PIPS positions, which gives the impression that there are more police officers in certain places than others. We are currently researching that and if we can get some information I will come back to the House and inform them of that.
I note that the government is looking at youth hubs in Alice Springs and I encourage them to do that. I believe we have to go further than that and establish some neighbourhood activity centres, which is an idea that I quoted during the election campaign. I commend the government to have a look at these and implement our policy on that because, from experience, it would be a very positive thing to have not only in the northern suburbs but throughout the Territory.
The police need our assistance and I believe that we, as representatives of the community, should do everything in our power to give them the right tools and to give them the right backing. I will also talk about retention of police. I believe retention rates have been around 10%, so if we have lost 8% to 10% of our police force over the last eight years, every year that is about a 70% turnover.
The member for Johnston also said that we lacked experience. When you have a look at the turnover and the lack of retention of police officers we train, not only is that an enormous expense to the community of the Northern Territory, it also takes out those people with experience. Perhaps the member for Johnston needs to look at what is going on in his situation at the moment and in the police force in relation to retention. We have to look after them. If we do not, we will end up with a very bad and deteriorating community across the Northern Territory.
In closing, I mention a particular incident that occurred some years ago, to give the House some indication of the destruction caused by unlawful entries, whether it is assaults or taking property. I had a neighbour who worked for a government department and he used to spend much of his time travelling around the Territory. One evening, whilst his wife and their three young children were sleeping, a thief broke into their home, robbed it and then left the premises. The lady got up in the morning, was absolutely terrified and virtually had her confidence to stay in that home destroyed because his job required him to travel. They were not in a financial position where he could walk away from his job. She did not want to stay in the house with three young kids, so he had to buy another home and move, put up fences, buy dogs and things like that. That cost him around $40 000. This shows the destruction of the confidence of people to stay in their own homes; people are in fear in their own homes.
I believe that we should ensure that it is not the good community and citizens of the Northern Territory who are in fear but the criminals. The criminals should be in fear of our police and we should give them the tools and we should give the courts the tools and the policies to back up our voice.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the opportunity has been presented to approach this problem in a different way. I acknowledge that the government has been provided with a challenge. The acting Police minister, speaking on behalf of the Labor government, whilst understanding some aspects of the argument presented, has largely rejected the proposition from the opposition to try to find a new way through. That is disappointing. When you weigh the arguments for and contrast it with the arguments against, we recognise that we need to approach this problem differently; it is predictable, but still disappointing that there is that rejection.
I thank the member for Johnston for his contribution. I thank my colleague particularly for his contribution and acknowledge his years of service in the force. I am very fortunate to have these people on my team who have experience. I assure members that their experience will assist in providing support for our police; our police need that. Perhaps this was one vehicle that would have achieved a solution to the problem.
It is sad in the extreme that government largely adopts the position where it can, as I noted the minister in his reply, quickly dived into the statistics and started reading a different story from the statistics. Perhaps that is satisfying in some way. It is perhaps like eating a Mars Bar and confusing confectionery for real food. However, you have to marry that up with reality and talk about what people are thinking and feeling, and then allow the statistics to speak as a reflection of what is reality.
My colleague, the member for Sanderson, has identified the effect that the breakdown of law and order has on our community. We should be alarmed and should be responding with greater vigour, promoted out of an intention to address that problem rather than be locked into a political response and endeavour to bat it away with strong words and looking over the horizon to the past somewhere. As though that is going to make a jot of difference to anyone who is experiencing troubles tonight. I wonder if someone will get broken into tonight.
I wonder if our debates will make much difference. It is a damn shame that we have these discussions and debate, then a decision is made and we move on as though it is some kind of debating club. It is a real world out there and people are crying out for some real leadership.
We will continue. The sentiment expressed in this motion remains; we need to take a different approach. We want to make sure that we go to the next level. It is not just recognition of the problem and the application of the solution, in this case the police, but it is how we can apply a greater level of analysis to the application of that resource against the problem.
I will endeavour to keep my ears open so I can hear whether there is genuinely an understanding of this and a response. I will listen through the filter of the political contest to see whether there are efforts made that affect what we desire - a significant downward trend in the crime stats. I would love to see that recorded, but we live in hope.
I urge members to support this motion so that we can take the next bold step in moving closer to the goal of experiencing and seeing a significant downward trend in the crime statistics. This is one vehicle we believe could achieve that. I thank members for their contribution. I urge support for the motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Mr Styles Mr Knight
Mr Tollner Ms Lawrie
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr McCarthy
Ms McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 20)
(Serial 20)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Section 45 of the Information Act states that:
- (1) Information is exempt under section 44 if:
(a) the information:
(i) was brought into existence for submission to and consideration by an Executive body,
whether or not it has been submitted to or considered by the Executive body.
- … (and that was the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence) and the information was submitted
to and considered by the Executive body;
The big difference is that the information ‘was submitted’. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that papers and reports are only exempt from the Information Act if the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence was for the submission to and consideration by an Executive body - that is the Caucus.
This does not mean a document that the government considers it needs to shield from public eyes can be shielded, unless its dominant purpose for coming into existence was to bring it before an Executive body. This amendment removes the ability of the government to decide that the information within any document can be concealed by deciding that it may have been for consideration, even though it was actually never actually considered or submitted to the Executive body.
This amendment makes the government more accountable. It ensures that freedom of information is just that. This will ensure that the government can only use the exemptions under this section for documents if the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence was for executive use. No more hiding of documents that may cause embarrassment to the government, like the member for Karama.
The second amendment is even simpler. The amendment of section 156 - Fees for applications and complaints, we intend to insert after section 156(2), clause:
- (2A) However, no fee applies to an application or complaint made by a member of the Legislative Assembly.
These amendments are so simple, and they make common sense.
This insertion brings true meaning to the words ‘freedom of information’ for members of the Legislative Assembly, bringing a higher level of accountability to the government of the day, no matter which side of politics hold the government. I make that clear: it brings a higher level of accountability to the government of the day no matter which side of politics hold the government. This is looking to the future no matter which side or which team holds government. It is equal to all.
The burden of extensive freedom of information requests or complaints on the members of the Legislative Assembly is high and cost prohibitive. This includes our Independents. This cost is at times extremely high with the intent of ensuring governments are truly accountable.
How can the government be truly accountable if the freedom of information by members of the Legislative Assembly is not free? If the information is vitally important but the cost often restricts and controls the decisions whether to continue with the freedom of information application or complaint.
The intent is for a member of the Legislative Assembly, in the execution of his or her duty, to access this information as a member of the Legislative Assembly for the duties within parliament and not for general personal knowledge. The member is not intended to become a broker of freedom of information for all. This is about ensuring that the government, the Northern Territory government, of the people is accountable, without prohibitive obstructions.
If a good government is governing fairly and honestly it should not have any objections to such an inclusion. I will repeat that, for some that may not listen on the other side: if a good government is governing fairly and honestly it should not have any objections to such an inclusion.
Objections to this insertion or amendment could only indicate a government that has something to hide or is fearful of certain information. If the government intends to hide behind these prohibitive costs it has something to hide and could be considered arrogant. A government conducting its business with the best and the fairest interests of all the people of the Northern Territory should have nothing to fear and should support these amendments.
I told you it was pretty simple and it is. They are two very simple amendments that add up to about six lines in total. They pull some of the clauses in tighter. They are not meant to harm anyone. They are not meant to harm either side of the House. They are there to make the government more accountable. If there is an objection from the other side, after they take the time to read this, it is only because they wish to continue to hide information which should be public. If the government of the day, now or in the future, is doing the governance in the interests of the people they should have nothing to fear. If it is fair, open, and transparent, it should have nothing to fear by these amendments.
These are very simple and mild adjustments with common sense. If the government has nothing to fear and is true and honest in its approach to governing the people of the Northern Territory and their wellbeing, it should not object to this legislation.
Debate adjourned.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 17)
(Serial 17)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the Environment Protection Authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements. This bill is simple and does nothing more than ensure that the Environment Protection Authority evolves into the type of authority that I believe it should be and most people expect it to be.
This bill would amend functions and recommendations to major projects and how the EPA reports to the minister, the parliament and, therefore, the people of the Northern Territory.
Let us discuss how the EPA reports to this House. Currently, if the Environment Protection Authority chose to take on an investigation it would report its findings to the minister. I have the word from the current minister that all recommendations from the EPA would be tabled in parliament. I trust the minister and she has not provided me with any reason to doubt her word today. However, while I may have a level of trust for the minister, unfortunately, I do not share the same views on the Cabinet. That makes me very sceptical of the process. I can see a day when the current minister is overruled by other Cabinet colleagues, because a recommendation may be less than positive and reflect badly on the government.
It should be noted that the government has the propensity to reshuffle from time to time; to stack the deck, so to speak. Although I am confident in the current minister’s ability and believe that her heart is in the right place when it comes to protecting the environment, I cannot say the same for others - perhaps the next minister or the minister after that.
This bill sets out to diminish that threat, ensuring that all recommendations from the EPA are made public. This does not suggest in any way that the EPA can overrule this House. The government can still make a judgment that is at odds with an EPA recommendation. It means that such a decision would be made in an open and accountable manner.
I provide a little background. In 2005, the EPA Board was established and, in consultation with the community, developed the guidelines that established the framework. In 2006, the EPA Board had its workshops. In 2007, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 was passed by this parliament. In January 2008, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 commenced and, in October 2008, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 review was announced.
It is interesting that during the workshops some of the recommendations in the summary of the issues included: that the EPA should have the capacity to receive referrals from the public; the EPA should have powers to investigate environmental wrongdoing and enforce environmental laws; it should provide leadership on environmental issues and do proactive work to avoid environmental problems before they occur; and any minister who does not take EPA advice should be required to give reasons.
Some other points include: processes for communication need to be established and transparent; the EPA should make recommendations to the government or the parliament, but not final decisions; it needs to be strongly independent and beyond political influence; and the EPA should be advisory rather than a decision making. All the listed points support the amendments proposed by this bill which were ignored during the original legislation.
During debate on the EPA, the former member for Goyder stated:
- It is not something the minister can get in there and manipulate. It is very clear in the bill; you can see that it is independent.
I do not quite agree with that. The former member for Goyder went on to say:
- We have looked at the whole thing. If there has been the opportunity to get this right, it certainly is right now.
Again, I cannot agree.
We note that the EPA is tasked by the minister for NRETA to investigate the environmental assessment and approval processes outlined in the Environmental Assessment Act for major development proposals and recommend improvements for the government’s consideration. It also says that the authority is not subject to the minister’s direction in relation to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions. So, I am a little muddled.
The reality is that this act does not require the minister to inform the public of any decisions arising from advice or recommendations received from the authority. Again, I have the word from the current minister and I appreciate that. But time moves on. We have seen different ministers in this House over the years and the same cannot be said about them. We can protect this in legislation to ensure that the recommendations remain open and accountable, whether it is a minister from the Labor government or a future Country Liberals government.
One of the suggestions in this bill is to increase the independence of the authority. Currently, the act states ‘in accordance with criteria and arrangements agreed with the Minister’. I suggest it should say: made by someone else and accepted by the authority. The bill also suggests that the authority report on all major projects. The amendments state that the authority must give advice or make recommendations on major projects.
I recently drafted a letter to the current minister because of a couple of threats to the environment in the Northern Territory and, rightly or wrongly, I assumed that the EPA would have some advice. We know that there are other departments and other areas that deal with environmental threats. However, I sat, I waited and I hoped that the EPA would have some kind of involvement.
The first one involved a chemical spill at the wharf. I appreciate that there was a Work Health safety report investigation on the matter, but I worried at the time that, although those people do a very good job, their focus is not on the environment but on work practices. It goes without saying that improved work practices can improve and protect our environment because, if it is done right, we know that there is less impact on our environment. However, I was not so sure that their focus would be on the environment. I was hoping that the EPA would look at the ‘what ifs’, and if one accident can happen, perhaps other accidents could happen.
The wharf is an area that is used for any number of chemicals and fuels, and some chemicals are perhaps more dangerous than others. Perhaps that was an opportunity for the EPA to step in and do a review of practices at the wharf to look at some of the current practices with the chemicals and some of the processing that goes on, loading on and off ships, that may have an impact on our environment, and offer some kind of recommendation on how it could be done better in the future.
The second incident involved diesel fuel in the gulf. I suspect that if it happened in Darwin Harbour or closer to a built-up area perhaps more action would have been taken. I am not saying that no action was taken; we know that action was taken. Perhaps the appropriate action was taken. But I felt that if the EPA was truly independent it might step in and have a look, and lead the way with the investigation.
I suppose it was brought home to me after seeing how the EPA in Queensland took a leadership role and managed that tragic event which happened off the east coast of Australia that could have, and did, cause a great deal of harm to our environment. Because of the EPA within hours a hotline was set up. The hotline could be used by people to call in and have action taken when animals and the environment were affected by oil and so forth. There was a leadership role by the EPA which I believe is, sadly, lacking in the Northern Territory.
The further I look into the current EPA, the more I understand what it is there for. I appreciate what it is there for, but I do not think that an EPA is perhaps the right name for it; maybe it is not really an EPA. If you travel around the world and have a look at some of the regulatory powers that EPAs have, you would be astounded. You have businesses that are closed down because EPA representatives have walked in and seen something and put a stop to that business - they had real regulatory powers.
I am not suggesting that we are quite ready for that in the Northern Territory; perhaps we are or perhaps we are not. The fact is we have an agency called the Environment Protection Authority, which is a little like changing the name of a security officer to a police officer without all the training, knowledge and experience that goes with it. All of a sudden, we change the name of all the security guards that work in the shopping centres, banks and so forth, and we are going to call them police – but they are not really police. They do not have the training, they do not have the expertise, they do not have the knowledge, and they perhaps do not have the law that backs them.
In this case, we have an EPA that is a glossed up version of what it really could be. I refer to EPAs in the United States, for instance, that have a regulatory power, that can go in and can make a difference because it has either been reported, or they have walked in off the street and they have seen some practices that are hurting the environment and they have the regulatory authority to shut it down. I do not see that we are at that stage. What we have is something that is dressed up. I do not really believe that the Environment Protection Authority is the right name for this particular agency, because I do not believe it is the same thing as other EPAs around the world. It is fantastic for advice, for what it has been set up to do, but it is not a true EPA.
I went on radio a couple of weeks ago because of the incidents that happened in Queensland. It was put to me why do I not send a letter to the EPA asking them to investigate this matter or that matter, given that the EPA can receive recommendations from someone in the public. I must admit that it put me on the spot because I was hoping that the EPA, if it is truly independent and truly had its focus on the environment, I would not need to put something into the EPA, it should be doing it on its own. But I did. I sent a letter to the minister and the minister was kind enough to respond. I thought one of the comments was a little complicated, because it said I wanted to have a slice of this cake and a slice of this pie because I was advocating for it being independent but on the other hand I am calling on the minister to direct the agency. I understand that and it is a very good point.
The reason I drafted the letter was because it was clear that the EPA was not going to act on either of these issues, so perhaps I did want a foot in both camps. I wanted a foot in both camps because it was clear that the EPA was not going to act, therefore I felt I had a responsibility to request that the EPA act on the matter. As it turns out, it did not, and I understand that there are other agencies involved in that area.
It brings me back to the point that the EPA is not really an EPA as we are led to believe EPAs are around the world. The purpose of this bill is to provide the authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements.
The last point is changing the way that these recommendations are brought to this House, not through the minister, but tabled in this House. After the recommendation is tabled in parliament, this House decides whether it is the right thing to go forward with a particular development. This does not preclude the government from not taking or accepting advice from the EPA and stop something that they recommend you stop, but at least that decision becomes accountable and can be debated in this House. At least then the public get to know that the EPA has made a decision, and it may or may not support a particular development, but it is this House that then debates whether it should go ahead.
In some cases the House will support what the EPA will say, perhaps in more cases than not. But there will be times, for the sake of jobs or development opportunities, when the government decides that it will move forward on a development that the EPA recommends it does not, or perhaps requests that changes are made to a particular development which would appease the EPA in some way. The difference is that the public knows what the decision is and why. I believe that if you are looking at a truly independent EPA, these small changes are not going to change the world but they will make a real difference to the perception of the current model that we have in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT (INTER-TIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 19)
(Serial 19)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is introduced to this parliament as virtually an amended version to a similar bill introduced by the member for Blain in the first half of 2007, during the 10th Assembly.
Since that time circumstances have changed, in light of the fact that the Blue Mud Bay decision has now been finalised. I feel it is appropriate to revisit this matter by way of having the bill reintroduced as an amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act and further debated.
It is the intention to have this bill passed into law to provide a means by which non-Indigenous people may have access to the inter-tidal zone without the need for a specific permit to be issued. At the outset, I assure all members that this amendment is not designed to facilitate a carte blanche circumnavigation of the current permit system as it stands. It is designed and intended to provide a vehicle by which traditional owners and relevant land councils can open up, by way of a general exemption, the inter-tidal zones to the general public, or a particular class of the public.
At the present time, except where provided for by the provisions of sections 9 and 19 of the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory relating to exceptional circumstances, anyone other than an Aboriginal who is entitled by Aboriginal tradition must obtain a permit in order to enter Aboriginal land or closed seas.
The terms ‘Aboriginal land’ and ‘closed seas’ are defined in the act at section 3, where ‘Aboriginal land’ is defined as having the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and ‘closed seas’ means seas closed by notice in the Gazette under section 12.
The decision of the Federal Court, and subsequent machinations of that court, to consider the inter-tidal zone as Aboriginal land has brought with it issues which were never and could never be considered in deliberations and debate on the original Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory. I believe the act would have been brought into being based on the premise that Aboriginal land and seas should be subject to the use of traditional owners and the permission could be given to certain individuals to enter that land or those seas, if they have a legitimate reason for doing so.
Currently, the method for providing this permission is by way of a permit issued to a single individual. This is what is enshrined in the act in sections 5 and 15. This amendment does not seek to diminish the original intent, but to add to it in a way that provides Aboriginal people a broader power to determine who comes onto or into the inter-tidal zone, which is now considered as Aboriginal land.
For the sake of completeness for Hansard, the inter-tidal zone is the area of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark of certain waterways in the Northern Territory. In terms of the physical process of accessing the inter-tidal zone, this can be done in two ways, either by water or land. I will deal with the land access method in the first instance.
In this hypothetical situation, a recreational fisherman might like to fish the Rose River in East Arnhem Land at Numbulwar. To get there by road, he drives out along the Roper Highway, turns off this side of Ngukurr and continues to Numbulwar. The fisherman must enter Aboriginal land, taken in the traditional sense, and to do this he must get a permit to enter that Aboriginal land, the same as prior to the Blue Mud Bay decision. Under these circumstances, the permit, by virtue of the Blue Mud Bay decision, now includes the inter-tidal zone where he will access the waterway and conduct his fishing. Because he has obtained a permit to enter Aboriginal land, there will be no need for him to be considered under the general exemption that is proposed in this amendment.
In the second scenario, the same recreational fisherman launches his boat in the higher reaches of the Daly River, where a permit to enter Aboriginal land is not required. He motors down river to a part of the river which falls into the area affected by Blue Mud Bay. To fish, enter or remain in the inter-tidal zone, he would currently require a permit, issued under the auspices of section 5. Similarly, had he entered the Daly River from the sea, he would be subject to the same restrictions as if he had come from the upper reaches. There is nothing that precluded him from having previously applied for and obtained a permit under section 5. But it might be the decision of Aboriginal people of those reaches of the Daly or the Northern Land Council that all recreational fishermen are permitted to fish the inter-tidal zone. For that matter, it might be that the traditional owners may wish to open up the inter-tidal zone to people wearing blue shirts or white sandshoes. The point is that the decision on who may enter those inter-tidal waters still lies wholly and completely with the traditional owners or the relevant land council.
Under the current legislation, there is no provision for the traditional owner or the land council to provide, other than by way of a permit issued to an individual or a group such as recreational fishermen, to enter their inter-tidal zone. This amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act introduces a provision to allow that to happen. The amendment also outlines, at proposed new clause 7A(2)(c), that a general exemption ‘may be subject to any conditions stated in the instruments of exemption’; thus, granting traditional owners and the relevant land council further powers in determining such matters as who, how, when, how often, etcetera. This proposed amendment does not, in any way, derogate from the current provisions of the act but provides a new section that complements the existing provisions.
Regarding breaches of the permit system, sections 4 and 14 of the act provide for the offences of entering Aboriginal land or closed seas respectively, and will continue to provide for those offences. Under the Blue Mud Bay decision, the land encapsulated in the inter-tidal zone is now considered Aboriginal land as per the definition. Entering the inter-tidal zone, either without a permit or without the benefit of an exemption under this amendment, would still constitute an offence, as it constitutes an offence at the present time under the present incarnation of the act.
The proposed amendment should not be considered controversial. Yet, I fear there will be some in the community who will see such an amendment as a derision or, in some way, as an attack on the permit system as it currently stands. There may be some in the community who, with good intention or not, or with misguided loyalty or not, may see this as a gradual erosion of the permit system. This is definitely not the case.
The current permit system will remain as it is if this amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act is passed. If it were deemed appropriate and right, having regard for the contemporary wishes of Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to review the permit system as it currently stands, then this would be a matter for a great deal of consultation, very careful consideration, and a great deal of debate for some time in the future. In the meantime, the remainder of the Aboriginal Land Act would remain unmolested.
For all the reasons provided thus far in this portion of the debate, I believe this amendment is a progressive way of furthering the empowerment of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is a way of allowing Aboriginal people to have more say and greater self-determination regarding who they allow to enter the inter-tidal zone which is now deemed to be Aboriginal land.
One only has to look at what is occurring around the Northern Territory at the present time, regarding negotiations between the government, other stakeholders, and Aboriginal traditional landowners and land councils with respect to Blue Mud Bay. The Tiwi Land Council has decided, unless that has changed in recent times, to virtually go their own way when it comes to negotiating access rights for people to gain access to the inter-tidal zone around the Tiwis. That is a prime example of how Aboriginal people are taking up for themselves their own level of determination. The Northern Territory government is guilty of failing, thus far, to expedite negotiations. I understand that it has fairly recently announced that those negotiations with other landowners. However, they have been tardy.
The opposition has seen fit to leap into the fray with this because we felt that we were able to produce a bill with some amendments that would facilitate what the Tiwi Islanders and the Tiwi Land Council are doing off their own bat. This is an amendment that we believe would be effective and efficient in delivering self-determination to Indigenous people who are custodians of the inter-tidal zone.
I commend the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-tidal Waters) Bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the bill and an accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of Sessional Committee – Central Australian Development Committee
Establishment of Sessional Committee – Central Australian Development Committee
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
(a) The Assembly establish a Sessional Committee titled the Central Australian Development Committee to:
- (i) inquire into and report on detailed and specific measures and resource requirements to support the economic development of Central Australia; and
(ii) inquire into and report on detailed and specific measures and resource requirements to support the reduction in antisocial behaviour.
- (b) The committee comprise of five members: the members for Braitling, Araluen, Greatorex, Macdonnell and Stuart.
- (c) A Chairman be selected by the committee and two staff are provided to work with the committee.
- (d) The committee shall conduct hearings of stakeholders and individuals interested in the future of Central Australia comprising and not limited to,
Alice Springs Town Council, Central Desert and MacDonnell Shires CEOs and their elected officials, pastoral associations, Tangentyere Council,
Central Land Council, Central Australian Tourism, Chamber of Commerce, Alice Springs Hospital, Council of School Principals, Central Australian
Aboriginal Congress, youth service providers, teachers and nurses unions, and media representatives.
- (e) The committee shall report no later than 30 September 2009.
This was put on the Notice Paper last General Business Day and it is a very important motion, which seeks to move forward in a bipartisan manner to identify positive measures that can assist and grow Alice Springs. It also addresses some concerns we have in Alice Springs and broader Central Australia in the vicinity of Alice Springs.
We all know that Alice Springs is a marvellous place and the people who live in Alice Springs are marvellous people, and in the surrounding communities in the Central Australian region of Alice Springs there are amazing people. Yet, despite the business opportunities, the work ethic and all the positives of Alice Springs, the tourism and the natural resources we have, with the MacDonnell Ranges and the like, there are a number of issues that confront Alice Springs, in a social aspect, an environmental perspective and an economic base.
If we are going to have a focus on Central Australia, and growing Central Australia, particularly when you look at things like the 2030 vision that was put out yesterday by the Chief Minister, through a Ministerial Statement, we need to have a concerted strategy on how we are going to grow.
The 2030 vision stipulated that Alice Springs would progressively have a population of around 18.2% at projections. If we are going to see that eventuate, which I believe will be a positive thing, we need to ensure we have strategies in place that detail what the economic base is and how we grow that economic base to move forward, through growth of industries, such as tourism, mining and so forth. Many of those things are identified in the 2030 vision.
We also need to ensure we have a greater focus on our environment. We must ensure that when we look at things such as water quality and abundance and how we utilise that water in a sustainable fashion, if Labor pushes through with its uranium mine, how much water is available for that mine, will it be leeched, and is there going to be sufficient water available for the community?
On the social aspects, how do we address some of our social concerns about antisocial behaviour, alcohol, and violence? The 2030 vision puts out what it sees as some of the key areas where it would like to achieve by the year 2030. What the 2030 vision was lacking was a strategy about how to achieve those things over the longer term and also over the shorter term.
The purpose of the Central Australian Development Committee on a sessional basis is to identify what some of those core issues are, work with the stakeholders and develop a plan on how we can take immediate action now and into the future to improve some of those areas of social, economic and environmental concerns and build our great Central Australia, as we know it is, to be an even better place.
Over recent times, the members for Araluen and Greatorex and the members for Stuart and Macdonnell and I have worked together in a very positive fashion - I believe we call it a bipartisan approach - to fix some of the youth issues. Those youth issues have not been fixed yet, but we have gone a long way and I thank the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, for taking up that mantle of trying to do much more. More needs to be done before we can fix some of these problems.
Throughout the day we have spoken about some problems with alcohol across the Northern Territory and there are more alcohol problems in Central Australia than other places. In 2007, there were around 7000 people picked up and placed under protective custody by the police – 7000 people is a big number of people to be picked up. In 2008, 13 800 people were picked up in one year. That is tremendous numbers of people being put into PC every year. The word is that this year there will be even more than that. The problem that we have at the moment is that there is no solution on how to fix the reliance and the endemic problem that so many of our local constituents have with alcohol.
Alcohol is having a negative social effect on our communities, both the narrow perspective of Alice Springs and the broader perspective of Central Australia. Many people are coming into town, drinking to their wits end, causing social upheaval, filling our gaols, filling our sobering-up shelters and there is no reprisal for the next day.
I spoke earlier about a Coronial report which reported on the passing of a gentleman who had been admitted 215 times to PC in Darwin. It is atrocious that this happens and there is no intervention to assist that person to get off alcohol or protect himself. That is also happening in Alice Springs. The people in Alice Springs could be picked up 300 to 400 times but the police do not have the resources to do that. The people who are on the streets chronically drunk every night are a problem. It detracts from our tourism industry, it leads to antisocial behaviour and, more worryingly, the alcohol-fueled violence that is on our streets is causing great concern.
You only have to sign up to ministerial releases by the Northern Territory government to find out exactly what is happening in Alice Springs on a daily basis. You will get four or five e-mails talking about what happened last night or during the day in Alice Springs. Two came in today. One of them was talking about vehicles that were interfered with in Hillside Gardens, Stephens Road, Gap Road, Tilmouth Court on Monday night and Tuesday morning, with rear windows smashed, rocks thrown at cars and buses, Toddy’s Backpackers getting broken into. These things happen all the time and it is not just about the effects of drink-driving, it is the effects of drinking this time.
We can go on about how bad law and order is in Alice Springs and the problems with public housing, overcrowding, homelessness and a lack of crisis accommodation. We can keep beating the drum but we would be better working on an overall community perspective with a partnered approached between the Country Liberal members in Alice Springs and the two members of the government who are from bush electorates but base themselves in Alice Springs.
If we are going to solve these problems we have to respond to what the community wants. The wider community of Alice Springs and Central Australia wants its political leaders to come up with ideas; to stop bickering and in-fighting; to solve some of these problems; and look to the future. We know many things that need to happen and we know what we would like to be. There are different opinions about how to approach the issue and we will always find it difficult to get over some of the philosophical views about how to approach things. As mature adults and leaders within our community we should be able to work together in a bipartisan way to solve some of these problems. They do not just go to the heart of antisocial behaviour, lack of jobs or business opportunity. This also goes to the heart of planning and land release in Alice Springs.
Approximately one month ago we had the release of a planning document by the Planning minister for the future of land release in Alice Springs. That was nothing more than weasel words. We will not see land release in Alice Springs for a long time to come. Whether we move out to the Arid Zone or to the northern side of The Gap, land is not going to be released in Alice Springs in the short-term. We have a vacancy rate of about zero. The price of house ownership is going through the roof. The First Home Owner’s grant has helped escalate that problem. People moving to our town to take up work cannot find anywhere to live.
While there is a growing unemployment rate around the rest of Australia, there are jobs available in Alice Springs and the potential to start a construction industry or to spur on the construction industry in Alice Springs is enormous. If we had places where people could live and the land was released, we could be taking people from all around the country to build houses to solve some of our overcrowding problems.
The Minister for Housing talked earlier today about a piddly $12m from the recession rescue package - the cash splash dollars - to build public housing across the Territory; we will get two houses in Alice Springs, maybe one. These are the things that will help Alice Springs in terms of additional housing but you cannot do it if there is no land.
This bipartisan sessional committee, titled the Central Australian Development Committee, would enable the five local members in Central Australia to work together to identify the best opportunities for land release.
If we have to go out to the Arid Zone let us release it now. Let us not wait until 2012, for the next Territory election, so the government can parade itself around in pomp and grandeur with all the bells and whistles going off.
I want to see solutions for Alice Springs now. We stand there on a frequent basis, watching people come through our doors complaining about some of the negative aspects in our town. I cannot solve them all. I have solutions for them, but I cannot solve them all without the cooperation of government and the willingness of government to want to do something. If the government wants to take the northern line of not wanting to provide that assistance, or the party lines of not wanting to work with the local members, that is a negative for us. There is an opportunity to work together to solve some of these problems. It is not about a ‘he said, she said’ basis; it is about a team approach where a parliamentary committee can come forward and say: ‘This is what we think needs to happen in Central Australia’.
The 2030 vision did not provide that information for Central Australia. It had some lovely motherhood statements and a couple of ideas. But there was nothing about making Central Australia the solar capital of the world, the IT hub for solar technology development as we move forward to address climate change in a solar capacity, structuring how we can do that and what sort of investment is required, and how we attract people from overseas to develop new technologies.
Some of these ideas could come out of a parliamentary committee such as this sessional committee that I have promoted. It is something that would place Central Australia in a forthright position to grow and prosper: 18.2% may be a shadow; 18.2% growth in the next 21 years may be nothing. We may reach 60%; we may reach 100%.
I believe in growth and development, and this sessional committee I have proposed will see us work together collectively to put Alice Springs, Central Australia, and the communities first, and identify ways we can grow and move forward. We can address the problems with transport and homelessness. These are not hard problems.
My colleagues, the members for Macdonnell and Stuart, will know that they have me and the members for Araluen and Greatorex fighting together against their Cabinet to provide resources in Alice Springs. We will be a team fighting for Central Australia. That is why I have put this motion forward. I believe that if we are going to have positive change in Central Australia, we have to work together.
It does not just stop at the antisocial behaviour, the social issues or the land release. We would also look at business opportunities that we can create in Central Australia. We had a fairly vibrant business environment in Alice Springs. The November 2007 audit of business confidence in Alice Springs was very high. There is only one reason it was very high; because John Howard was still in. It has gone backwards since then, and there have been a number of business owners leaving town because they are sick and tired of law and order issues. People are leaving Alice Springs all the time because of law and order. They are leaving because there is nowhere to live or because they are being assaulted. They are leaving because the Minister for Housing will not do anything about public housing problems.
A member interjecting.
Mr GILES: It seems like a laughing matter, but I can tell you it is not safe.
I believe this sessional committee provides a perfect opportunity to have not only the five members sitting around coming up with ideas, but to go out and consult with the people and the organisations I have listed in the motion: Alice Springs Town Council, Tangentyere Council, Central Australian Tourism, the land council, Chamber of Commerce, Congress, schools, and the hospital. These are the people who have the ideas, and the organisations have the staff and the human resource capacity and have much knowledge about how they would like to see the town move forward.
This is a way we can support a positive approach to drive real change and see Alice Springs, once again, become a growth hub of the Northern Territory, rather than just a welfare service centre which is where it seems to be positioned now, albeit with limited retail and tourism capacity in the region.
If we are going to have a strong bush in Central Australia, we need a strong Alice Springs, because it supports it as a regional service centre and we have to move forward.
Madam Speaker, I will not take up any more time but I commend this motion to the House and ask my colleagues from Central Australia to support me on this motion.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Braitling. I say that genuinely, because last year we had a debate on Alice Springs with the MPI from the member for Greatorex. People spoke passionately about Alice Springs, and I know the member for Braitling is passionate about Alice Springs, even though his roots are not firmly planted there. I know he and his family have made Alice Springs their home. I acknowledge that, member for Braitling, and thank you for your passion.
Alice Springs is a fantastic town. It is a town that is resilient, it is hard, and it has been founded by Indigenous and non-Indigenous pioneers, and they are the people we should thank for making the town what it is today; a fantastic town. It is all about living together. It is like many country towns throughout Australia, it has the tough elements, along with the good elements. Sport is fantastic in Alice Springs and it bridges the gap across all parts of the town’s social fabric.
But it is a tough town. Alice Springs for me really shines amongst the rest of the towns in the Northern Territory in hard times. We see the community get together in hard times, whether it is through the floods that we have experienced over the years, whether it is through drought, through bushfires in some of our pastoral properties close to town, the community does get together, and we pull together and support each other, so it is a positive aspect of Alice Springs.
We do have many issues, like any town. Recently, in the news, you read about or saw the issues some of our major capital cities are having with antisocial behaviour and gang violence. While we are focusing on Alice Springs today, we are encountering issues across the country. Communities are torn, and what can they do to deal with these issues? This government frequently discusses antisocial behaviour and is concerned about the issues.
In my lifetime in Alice Springs I have seen and experienced the neglect of the region by previous governments, and also at certain times by this government. As someone who has been on the backbench and as a member of a large bush electorate who is passionate about Alice Springs, I continually raise issues about Alice Springs, my electorate and the region. It is something that I have experienced - the neglect - and something that I acknowledge, member for Braitling.
I also have personal experience of the trauma and devastation caused by violence and grog, excessive alcohol consumption, petrol sniffing, to families, and to my own family. That is something I have lived through in my time growing up in the Gap.
In 2009, Alice Springs is the service centre for more than 250 remote communities scattered across the Central Australian region, including Tennant Creek, and including some communities in South Australia and Western Australia. That provides opportunities for Alice Springs, for businesses and for the community in general, but it also presents us with high levels of challenges, unique challenges that many places in Australia do not face.
We also recognise that people want to come to Alice Springs for a multitude of reasons, such as sport and recreation, particularly with our Aussie Rules competition in Alice Springs, but also to access high quality health services, legal services, retail outlets, and so on, despite what their own home community may offer. This is their right as Australians. The native titleholders of Alice Springs, the Lhere Artepe organisation and the central Arrernte people, recognise this, but they equally recognise that visitors to the town must behave in an appropriate manner.
The Northern Territory government, in conjunction with the Australian government, has been happy to financially and practically support Lhere Artepe to put together their cultural protocols for visitors to our town. No doubt, you would have seen the advertising campaign on television and in newspapers. This is a strong statement from the native titleholders and we wholeheartedly support it. Member for Braitling, I am not sure if you have them on your list of stakeholders, but the native titleholders are very important stakeholders in Alice Springs and worthy of acknowledgement.
The economic benefits that remote community visitors bring to Alice Springs is without question and we can attribute, in no small part, visitation from remote communities to Alice Springs’ capacity to successfully ride out the historical global and national economic shocks. I have no doubt that remote communities around Alice Springs will again play a major role in assisting our town to ride to out the tough times that we currently face.
But Alice Springs, as a community, must be prepared to meet the challenges associated with this high level of visitation. All levels of government are working to tackle disadvantage at the community level, to improve governance, to provide adequate housing, to provide opportunities to participate in the economy, to secure real jobs for real wages, to deliver high quality education and training, and to provide for the social demands for those who choose to live out bush.
Equally, in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, governments are working collaboratively to improve living standards for Indigenous people, while endeavouring to make our towns safer for everyone to live, work and raise families. Regional growth and education are keys to building a prosperous and sustainable future for the Northern Territory. There are many ways in which the Northern Territory government is helping to develop Central Australia and the region beyond it.
This week we have been discussing the draft strategy of the Territory 2030 document which the Chief Minister launched this week, and it is a strategy that has identified key focus areas. I was listening carefully to the member for Braitling when he said that the Territory 2030 document says nothing about Alice Springs or presents any creative or unique opportunities. However, reading from the strategy fact sheet, I can highlight a few things that I am particularly interested in.
Under the education strategy, there is no doubt that establishing Alice Springs as a hub for remote education is a great and unique opportunity. In my early days as a board member on the Institute for Aboriginal Development, I had the fortunate experience of working with some great Aboriginal leaders, whose vision was to put together the Desert Peoples Centre. The idea then was to bring together the IAD, the Batchelor Institute, and the Centre for Appropriate Technology. People, like the late Mr Djerrkura, were on the board of the Desert Knowledge then. Even though he was a saltwater man, he was very passionate and very jealous about how we were talking about bringing together Indigenous institutes to deliver a better education for our people. There were also people like Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, Mr Jim Bray, Harold Furber to name a few, but there is a fantastic opportunity in the future for Alice Springs and Central Australia to become the hub for education excellence.
I will also put in that basket the ICT e-learning aspects. I believe we have a unique opportunity, and, as minister for ICT, it is something that I continually raise in my meetings with – Information, Communications and Technology, sorry member for Nelson. In this document, the 2030 Strategy for Central Australia, ICT is an important part and I believe that Alice Springs is well placed to be a leader in our country.
In terms of society, the strategy says:
ensure larger remote towns have access to an appropriate level of services and amenities.
Prosperity:
develop appropriate economic infrastructure in all our towns and cities.
This one is close to my heart, as Minister for Regional Development. As I travel around the Territory, particularly this year, I have been to Maningrida, Nhulunbuy, and Ngukurr, and one of the big issues we face is that of leases. We have done the economic study into Maningrida and looked at the differences between the economic opportunities in towns in New South Wales compared to Maningrida. We have a long way to go in providing these economic opportunities in our remote Indigenous towns, and that is something I am focused on.
I believe our communities should be given the opportunities and given the choice, the same as anyone else in the Territory, to have access to private businesses and to shop at a different place from the normal community store. A good example is Nhulunbuy; I was there with the member for Nhulunbuy last week. The amount of private sector investment in Nhulunbuy is fantastic and it gives people choice. Competition is great and I will be encouraging that within my department. That is another area in the Central Australian 2030 strategy that has much potential and makes common sense.
Also in the area of prosperity to:
encourage Indigenous and non-Indigenous joint venture businesses.
This is something I have worked on quite closely with Indigenous companies and non-Indigenous mining contractors during my time at the Central Land Council and during my time working for Normandy Mining Limited - North Flinders Mining Company. One example was the successful partnership I managed to pull together with Central Desert Enterprises and Roche Mining in an open-cut mining contract during my time at The Granites. As the Minister for Regional Development I am keen to see that happen more often. It is also a great way to bring together all parts of our community, non-Indigenous and Indigenous, to build strong relationships through business. We talk about it through sport but business is a facet that we can develop more.
In terms of knowledge, creativity and innovation, the strategy proposes to:
establish access to high-speed broadband Internet for Territorians in major towns and communities.
We have successfully completed the East Arnhem fibre-optic project. This involved 800 km through East Arnhem Land, connecting some of the major communities through to Nhulunbuy. This provides multiple benefits for everyone in the areas of health, education and business. There should be more of that. I regularly talk to my staff about that. I also talk with Senator Conroy about the National Broadband Network, the Glasson Report, and the gaps in IT throughout our remote regions.
In relation to those comments, member for Braitling, the Territory 2030 document has a lot of substance for Central Australia. It sets out a broad framework and a vision we can build on. As a community, let us get behind it. As parliamentarians - Central Australian members of parliament - whether you are that side of the Chamber or this side, we should take the opportunity with this 2030 document and put some more into it.
In terms of my portfolios, at the microeconomic level in Central Australia, we are assisting Indigenous development under the Indigenous Business Development Program. Since July 2005, 70 businesses have been established creating some 140 new jobs.
The Regional Economic Development Fund stimulates and supports regional economic development through local initiatives. Around $300 000 per year is allocated to projects around the Northern Territory, such as the Tennant Creek Foundation which I recently launched with the member for Barkly. This is bringing together the Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre with the Battery Hill Mining Centre, a great combination of two historic icons of Tennant Creek.
At the macroeconomic level, a new Indigenous Economic Development Strategy is being developed with a target of 3000 more jobs for Indigenous people and 200 new Indigenous businesses established by 2012. Member for Braitling, being a Central Australian member, I see Central Australia and Alice Springs playing a key role in getting some of these outcomes for new jobs and businesses for Indigenous people.
The biennial Indigenous Economic Forum will be held in Alice Springs in October 2009 and is attracting national and international interest.
Our decision to relocate the senior executive of the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources to Alice Springs means that decision making about the region will be made in the regions. It was with great pleasure that we welcomed the newly appointed CEO of the department, Mr Richard Galton to the job and to Alice Springs this week.
The Regional Development presence and resources in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek have been significantly boosted. We now have a majority of staff based in our regions, where it matters.
Economic Development Committees are active in Alice Springs, Ti Tree through the Anmatjere region, the West MacDonnells and Tennant Creek in the Central Australia region. The Economic Development Committees are linking to Territory 2030, to Regional Development Australia and the newly formed shires.
In November 2008, the Alice Springs Economic Profile was completed. I believe that is the one the member for Braitling was talking about. While I may disagree about the reasons for the high confidence in the economic profile of Alice Springs in the business community, I acknowledge the great work that now provides us with hard economic facts about our wonderful town of Alice Springs. That is some work that the Economic Development Committee did in Alice Springs, and it shows that the confidence is there. It is providing the government and our community with baseline economic data about Alice Springs.
We have funded the Central Australian Chamber of Commerce to undertake the Employing Indigenous Territorians project in Alice Springs, an initiative of the Alice Springs Economic Development Committee. The project involves mentoring local businesses to employ young Indigenous people. Further, the Alice Springs Economic Development Committee nominated a Workforce Development project as a local priority, and the scoping for this is under way.
Preliminary work on an economic profile and survey for the Tennant Creek and Barkly regions will begin this week.
The Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement - the member for Braitling has advised us that he was involved with this in his previous job - is a partnership between the Northern Territory government, the Australian government, Newmont, the Central Land Council, and the Central Desert and Victoria Daly Shires. It is aimed at boosting employment opportunities in the Tanami Region.
The Tennant Creek Foundation was launched in March 2009. The foundation has taken over the management and operations of the Nyinkka NyunyuCultural Centre and the Battery Hill Mining Centre to ensure they have a commercial focus and result in a boost in local employment opportunities. Plans for Growth are being developed for Ti Tree, Tennant Creek and Katherine.
The Tennant Creek common user bulk mineral distribution facility has been given major project status to assist in fast-tracking the development.
Tax incentives are currently being developed to encourage investment on Indigenous land. It is my belief that we need to look at the leases. It can assist in commercial development on Aboriginal land and in our Indigenous towns.
The Northern Territory government is working in partnership with the Australian government on economic development initiatives in Central Australia including working closely with the federal government on realigning the former Northern Territory Area Consultative Committee into the new Regional Development Australia.
I recently met with the board of the new Remote Enterprise Centre based in Alice Springs. The CEO has been appointed and the Northern Territory government will be working closely with it to invigorate the business community in remote regions of the Northern Territory. The Remote Enterprise Centre is based at the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs and will receive $10m over the next four years.
The Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program is a joint Commonwealth/Territory initiative worth $672m over five years. In my electorate in Central Australia, Hermannsburg, Yuendumu and Lajamanu are major projects identified under that program. Through my trips through my electorate, I encourage as many people as I can at Yuendumu and Lajamanu to get on board because there are significant amounts of new dollars there for housing which is badly needed. I am doing my best to assist the land councils, the government, and my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, to get these leases up and running.
Regional Development is focused on stimulating private sector partnerships and investment opportunities, and many businesses are taking up the opportunities in Alice Springs. The Centralian Advocate front page this week highlights a 30-unit development at Mt Nancy that will cater for people seeking short- and long-term accommodation. The developer is very positive about the opportunities in Central Australia and is quoted as saying that everyone is eager to get into new projects.
The government has been acutely aware that particular issues have had a profound impact on the town. Throughout the 1990s, petrol sniffing had become a scourge of Central Australian communities, destroying the lives of individuals and families, and inhibiting community functions. Moreover, the prevalence of petrol sniffing in Alice Springs was on the increase and was a major contributing factor to crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets.
In October 2004, a Select Committee on Volatile Substance Abuse in the community produced its final report and, as a result, the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act was introduced in 2005. It became effective in early 2006, focusing on prevention and intervention; assessment and treatment; community management; and unlawful supply of volatile substances. The act was accompanied by $10m in recurrent and one-off funding over five years to support existing services and establish new rehabilitation treatment centres, including an adult service at Arrernte House, and a youth rehabilitation and case management service at Schwarz Crescent in Alice Springs. Complementing this legislation and funding, the Commonwealth government supported the roll-out of Opal fuel, a low aromatic unleaded fuel, throughout Central Australia and supported this with additional youth service funding for remote Indigenous communities.
The combination of both the NT and the Australian government initiatives has seen a radical decline in the incidence of petrol sniffing in the region, with sporadic outbreaks being managed by existing services. At this point, I commend these service providers, such as the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service; the Mt Theo Substance Abuse Prevention Program in my electorate; the Bushmob; DASA; and Alcohol and Other Drug services of Central Australia for the terrific work they are doing in managing the impact of volatile substance misuse across Central Australia.
The Volatile Substance Abuse Community Management Plans, which control the use, supply and storage of a range of volatile substances, including petrol, paint and glue, are giving local people the opportunity to be involved in solving local problems. VSA management plans are in place in nine communities across Central Australia and in two town camps, the latter designed to complement the plans in remote communities. While petrol sniffing remains a concern for the Central Australian region, it no longer dominates debates as a primary causal factor of crime, antisocial behaviour and community dysfunction.
There is no doubt that alcohol continues to dominate debate around crime and antisocial behaviour in our town. In March 2006, the Alcohol Task Force was established to tackle the excessive rate of alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. As a result, the Alcohol Management Plan for Alice Springs was developed and aimed at reducing harm, demand, and supply.
A raft of initiatives under the plan have been introduced, including public and private dry area legislation; alcohol product and availability restrictions; the introduction of takeaway ID systems through the Liquor Supply Plan; the introduction of Alcohol Courts; additional treatment options for offenders; and, increased monitoring of licensed outlets. So far the results have been encouraging. Measurable indicators have been positive, with a sustained reduction in the consumption of pure alcohol in excess of 10% since the commencement of the plan.
From 15 January to 1 April this year, 76 people have been placed on court-imposed restrictions, made possible through the introduction of the ID system. Records show that there have been 122 occasions where people on restrictions have attempted to purchase alcohol and have been refused service. There have been a further 1680 attempts during that same period to purchase a restricted item on a second occasion on the same day.
The Alcohol Management Plan is currently being independently reviewed by the Menzies School of Health Research, along with the Tennant Creek plan, and a final report is expected in the coming months.
The CLP’s policy is not to do the right thing but the popular thing. Not content to wait for the empirical evidence to guide its decisions, its policy will be a disaster for the town. A ‘back to the future’ where Alice Springs would be, as the former Deputy Mayor and Branch President of the CLP, David Koch declared it was:
- … an open slather war zone …
as it was 10 to 15 years ago under the CLP government.
Excessive alcohol consumption continues to be a major social issue for Alice Springs, as the member for Braitling indicated. While the Alcohol Management Plan has a marked and sustained impact on the community, there is a broad divergence of opinion on future actions required to continue to reduce alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. That is why we will wait for the outcomes of the Menzies review before deciding what direction we take to continue to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol.
In August 2007, a summit was held to engage the community in finding local solutions to antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. As a result, a commitment was made to maintain police numbers at establishment level, and a new police-led public safety model was established. This continues to operate as the Tasking and Coordination group, chaired by the police, with the oversight of the intensive case management service including the return to country program and the personal identification service.
In addition, a youth camp has been established at Hamilton Downs, as we heard from the minister for Family and Children’s Services today, and additional funding was provided to expand youth recreational services.
A commitment to contribute in excess of $300 000 to install and monitor CCTV cameras in the Todd Mall was made, and this commitment was extended in August 2008, with an additional $1.1m to expand CCTV coverage with $200 000 per annum to monitor the cameras.
In April 2008, the Chief Minister announced the Safer Streets Strategy. Alice Springs is on track to receive a full 24-hour patrol, with 10 officers under this initiative in the financial year 2009-10. These extra police officers add to the establishment numbers.
In February 2009, the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan was announced to deal with the increasing prevalence of youth crime, property damage and antisocial behaviour. I also acknowledge, as did the member for Braitling, the bipartisan approach that led to this action plan being developed. I also acknowledge my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, for her strong leadership on this issue and pulling together all the members from Central Australia around the table, along with our colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, and the mayor of Alice Springs.
Under this plan, the Police Beat has been fast-tracked and will be delivered in July 2009, adding an additional seven police officers to establishment numbers at a cost of $2m in the first year. In the interim period, private security patrols have been funded to patrol the Todd Mall and surrounds at an estimated cost of $100 000 in the financial year 2008-09. Police have established a dedicated Todd Mall patrol, consisting of three officers over two shifts commencing at around 12 noon until 7 am, seven days per week.
Since the establishment of the Todd Mall patrol, police have reported a marked reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour in the area.
The Youth Action Plan includes: the establishment of the Alice Springs Middle School, uniting the ANZAC Hill and Alice Springs High School campuses under the one school umbrella across two campuses; the development of a youth hub, under the management of a Youth Services Coordinator to coordinate all government and non-government youth services; and the establishment of a Police Youth Club at the ANZAC Hill campus.
To meet the demand for youth accommodation, a 30-bed boarding facility will be established and six new emergency accommodation beds will augment the existing emergency accommodation funded by the Northern Territory government and provided by the Tangentyere Council, Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Services, Bushmob, and Anglicare.
Additional funding of $75 000 per annum has been provided to the Gap Youth Centre to expand its after hours youth recreation services, taking the total funding for all youth services in Alice Springs in the financial year 2008-09 to $4.4m.
This government is serious about dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour and economic and social dislocation. That is why we are not just dealing with the visible symptoms but also with the underlying causes. We have taken the tough decisions to improve governance in remote communities by undertaking the most comprehensive local government reform process since self-government.
The creation of the shire structures is providing local representation from remote communities and the opportunity to contribute to broader economic and social planning and development of their regions. The shires have provided the structure to ensure that basic services, which those living in urban areas have come to expect, are delivered in their home communities. Improved employment opportunities, improved repair and maintenance schedules to housing and infrastructure, more efficient use of available resources …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you. The shires have improved employment opportunities for people in the regions around Alice Springs. In the MacDonnell Shire, for example, there has been a 39% increase in real jobs, with a total of 531 positions. Under the old council system there was only 326 staff in the region. In the Central Desert Shire there are more jobs and 73% of those employed by the shire are Indigenous. We should be congratulating the shires on their achievements of getting people into real jobs in the bush.
The generational plan to Close the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage has allocated over $300m over five years to be invested in remote communities and children’s services, child protection, education, policing, business development, job creation, sport and recreation, Indigenous cultural programs, and housing.
In addition, $672m over five years is being invested by the Northern Territory and Australian governments in the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. Central Australia and the Barkly will share over $165m of the total sum and this will mean upgraded and new housing across 31 towns and communities in Central Australia.
We continue to work collaboratively with the Australian government to deliver new and upgraded housing to town camps in Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Julalikari Council will receive $36.5m as part of the SIHIP program and, subject to a successful negotiation with Tangentyere Council, $50m will be allocated to upgrade town camps in Alice Springs, in addition to the $5.3m already allocated.
These are the fundamental solutions to improving economic and social development in Indigenous communities: improving services and infrastructure in those places; reducing overcrowding in housing; improving access to and outcomes of education; and providing reasons for people to remain in their communities, pursuing a safe, secure and gainful existence.
These are the things that will reduce dependence and stress on social infrastructure and services in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. These are real initiatives that improve the economic and social outlook for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people living in the Centre. These are the actions that deal with the problems at their source, while ensuring that the immediate issues of safety and security of everyone living in our region are managed.
The member for Braitling wants to set up a committee to talk about these issues. We heard yesterday from members in the House about the need for all of us to pick up the phone or to sit around a fire at a campsite and talk about these issues as members of the Northern Territory parliament.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about his experience in sitting around the campfire with Peter Toyne. Member for Braitling, my door is always open. We both live in Alice Springs and we share a passion for Alice Springs. My door is always open to you and to other colleagues in Central Australia. I have detailed this government’s approach to Alice Springs, and in particular, to some of the points in the member for Braitling’s motion. Generally, we are doing much work.
We are not always going to have the silver bullet to fix all the problems. I believe we are on the right path. We have the strategic approach of Territory 2030, we are looking at the vision and where we want to see Alice Springs in another 20 years. With the Alice Springs Youth Plan and our planning document I believe we are on the right track.
Member for Braitling, I am focused on actions and not words and, as such, I will not be supporting your motion today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his response, although, I felt like I was getting a ministerial statement, rather than an answer to the motion. It was a very good statement - do not get me wrong - but it did move away, to some extent, from the basis of the motion.
I do not come from Alice Springs. I first visited Alice Springs in 1964, and I am fairly sure the minister was not even alive then. In 1964, Alice Springs was a far different town than what it is today. From my memory, as a young schoolboy visiting the town, there were no alcohol problems, unless it was sly-grog problems. However, it was a very small town and the issues, especially Indigenous issues, were nothing compared to issues today.
I would like to debate more fully what you said about local government providing jobs. I do not regard the shires as local government. I have been looking at what has been developed by these super shires. They are really departments of the government. They are playing many roles that the government would normally do. It is not fair to compare the local government that I know with the local government that the Territory government has put in place. It is taking on many functions that a normal local government would not take on; they would be functions of the government.
I said to the retired Minister for Local Government: ‘What you have is a regional government; you do not have local government. You have a branch of the Northern Territory government and many of its departments, and the Commonwealth’. I am very wary that local government, which is doing just local government things, has created jobs. It is not a manufacturer; it does not create jobs in the sense that we can produce more things. It has taken on other people’s jobs as an agency. That is not quite the same as making jobs, because those jobs are there because another branch of the government wanted those jobs to occur. I understand where you are coming from but, technically, you are not right.
I have one concern that the minister raised; that we are starting up more talk by having a committee. I know it only goes until September, I believe it is meant to finalise in September 2009 so it would not be an ongoing committee. It would only be around for five months, so it has some benefits.
I ask the member for Braitling how that fits with the action committee that you are involved with at the moment, with all the members of the Central Australian area? Would it clash with its role? Is that action committee still operating? Could some of the things that you want done be done through that action committee, so we are not overlapping and duplicating? That is more important than anything we do in government.
I am an outsider who hardly goes to Alice Springs, but I try to go as often as possible. I have been there twice this year. I have friends in Alice Springs. I go down for the Masters Games. I try to keep in touch with the issues in Central Australia. As an Independent, I feel I have to do my best to keep in touch with a broad range of subjects across the Northern Territory, where possible, because these matters will be debated. If I can contribute to some of the debate about those issues, with some background, it is worthwhile from my point of view and, hopefully, from others.
There are two big factors in Alice Springs: one is creating jobs, because you have an increasing population, and some of that increasing population, as the minister said, comes from economic dislocation. It is not a new thing. The industrial revolution was about people in rural England or rural Europe moving to the cities, not only for jobs, but to the bright lights to some extent. That is what we see. We see people with limited opportunities in rural or remote Northern Territory, which is no different to remote parts of New South Wales and Queensland, where places have depopulated because their economic opportunities are limited. That would be the case in many remote areas in the Northern Territory.
How do you produce enough jobs in a place like Alice Springs so that people coming are not going to sit around and get involved in all the problems that exist? We know that tourism exists, but I believe that tourism needs to be revived in Alice Springs because the problems with antisocial behaviour must affect tourism.
I was there earlier this year and I visited the Hamilton Downs Youth Camp, spoke with Damien Ryan and some other people, like the manager of Colemans, about antisocial behaviour. I also went to Hoppy’s Store, north on the Stuart Highway. People said to me, you were shocked. I was shocked because there were fights, and involving many people, occurring next to the Stuart Highway which spread on to the Stuart Highway, and this was at about 4 pm.
You can imagine the feelings of an elderly couple coming down from the north with their caravan at 4 pm in the afternoon, and there was a big fight, with hundreds of people standing around, and a few women belting themselves with sticks. I was horrified, not because I had not seen fights before, but because it was so open and in the main street and no one was stopping it. There did not appear to be anyone concerned about it, it was as if it was normal.
People coming into Alice Springs would get their petrol and keep going. Tourism has to be one of the main industries, rather, it is the main industry for Alice Springs, yet, the antisocial behaviour is something that threatens it. I am not knocking Alice Springs to be negative, but sometimes when you go into a new town, you see things from a different perspective than people who live there all the time. I felt parts of the town were dirty. I have seen some takeaway places where the garden is dead, the irrigation does not work, and the car park looks like it could do with a good clean.
For a tourist town, there are some parts of Alice Springs that need a good wash. Maybe you cannot throw too much water around in Alice Springs, but if you have a place where you are expecting international and other tourists, you need to make sure the business looks spick and span and professional. I am not going to name those places, but if you took someone around at 8 am in the morning and had a look at some of the businesses, you would think that someone should have been out there at 6 am washing the windows, cleaning up the rubbish outside, and giving some life to the garden. You can plant many native plants in Alice Springs without much water, the Stuart Highway median strip is a classic example. I always remember my friend, Jeff Myers, making sure they did not plant anything but native plants in the main street of Alice Springs, and that is fantastic. We should be doing the same thing in the Top End by the way, but that is another issue.
Alice Springs is a hub for mining, not just for mining nearby; it is an exploration hub. Tanami people come through Alice Springs. I believe that Viv Oldfield just got the contract to do the drilling for the Angela Pamela uranium. The mining industry is creating more jobs in Alice Springs.
You have the Desert Knowledge, which is terrific. I am on the subscription list for the little book that comes out from the Centre for Appropriate Technology, which is a great book. There is a niche market for that type of work, not only in Central Australia and other parts of Australia, but worldwide. I remember having the book some years ago because I used to run the vegetable garden at Bathurst Island and I was looking for small equipment for small gardens, not large equipment. I remember getting a book from India and it had all this machinery that was made for smaller crop growing and I believe the same sort of thing applies here. It is great if we can sell technology that is suitable for remote communities, that are low-energy users and that do the job. I congratulate the Centre for Appropriate Technology for the work it does.
You mentioned being the centre for education, and I agree and wonder whether we should be looking at a rural college. There is the cattle industry in the North. Katherine Rural College or the CDU campus does it in the North but if we are trying to develop the cattle industry, especially for Indigenous communities that have moved out of cattle, then a rural college in that area would be good.
Naturally, art is very much a part of Alice Springs. You cannot go past Alice Springs without seeing art everywhere. I have a good number of pieces of art in my office and there is high quality art available.
You talked about sport, which is always an attraction. You can see how popular the new football league is, with the combined football teams from the region.
Horticulture and agriculture: horticulture has been well known. I presume there is still the horticulturalist that produces lettuces in Alice Springs. He became very famous for that. As far as I know, he still exports, if you can put it that way, lettuces to Darwin from Alice Springs. I wonder whether there is more potential for horticulture. I know water is a limiting factor but the water issue can be solved or we can get an ongoing supply of water. Horticulture must be an expanding industry in the climate you have in Alice Springs.
You have the transport industry - you are right in the centre of Australia, where the trains go through and then the trucks head out to remote communities and to mining areas.
The member for Braitling talked about solar technology. What better place in Australia to do it? Not only do we have the solar side of things, we have the night sky. I am not sure how much of a tourist attraction astronomy is these days. We regard Central Australia as one of the best viewing places in the world to study the stars. I am not sure whether that type of industry, which is a niche market, is still promoted.
There is defence. We should not forget that. You have Pine Gap and other facilities within Alice Springs, so that is an important part of Alice Springs’ economy.
All these things are great, but land is an issue if you want to expand and grow the economy. The member for Braitling has spoken about it. There have been many debates in this parliament about the lack of available land and, when it does become available, it is very dear. You cannot get growth in a community if there are no places for people to live, or if you have places to live and it is too expensive. People will go elsewhere to find a place to live. Also, if it is too expensive then you will have overcrowding, where people try to squeeze into other places. Those are some of the areas that need looking at.
The other side of my visit to Alice Springs - it is also part of what the member for Braitling was talking about regarding antisocial behaviour – is that I was quite impressed by Hamilton Downs Youth Camp. There have been three camps run by the government. The feedback I get is that they have been successful, at least in the short-term, but I believe the proof is in the pudding. Will the young people who have been out to that youth camp experience long-term changes in their life pattern? It is important to monitor that, otherwise it is just a week out and in a couple of months they are behaving themselves and you would hate to see it all fade away with time.
I am interested in the Police Youth Club that you mentioned, minister, and member for Braitling. That is a good initiative. I have raised this in debates before. We used to have one across the road. When I raised that, the Chief Minister said he believed we should have Police Youth Clubs in the Darwin area. I am interested to know whether there has been a move to introduce Police Youth Clubs in Darwin. They are good. I believe they should be run by the police, so there is interaction between young people and the police, which helps build up trust between the two sides.
If boxing is regimented and done properly it is beneficial. I talk about Boyd Scully who is a local boxing coach in Darwin. These people know how to run it properly and safely. Kids, who have an axe to grind in life or bit of a short fuse, can either take it out on their mate or the punching bag. We went away from some of these things because they became politically incorrect and, in some cases, there were health issues. But if it is run properly, boxing has a lot going for it.
I mention Father Reilly, a priest in New South Wales, who keeps kids off the street. I would like to see the work he does. He used to take young people out on horseback, mustering cattle through parts of outback New South Wales. We need places to get kids out bush, make them work, give them education and let them have a chance, under the stars, to think about where they are going. You cannot do that in a place like Alice Springs or Darwin.
Some kids need a little breathing space. They need love and looking after, and sometimes they also need a kick up the bum. They need time to think about where they are going in life. Hamilton Downs provides the opportunity to do that.
The idea of a dormitory-type establishment in Alice Springs, for kids roaming the streets at night who cannot go home because they are at risk, is good. I am interested to hear from the action committee how that is working. Is it something that has made a positive change in Alice Springs, especially in helping young kids? That is also a good initiative of the government.
None of the problems you are trying to solve are easy, whether it is creating jobs or trying to reduce antisocial behaviour. We have been talking about this for donkey’s ages. But at least there are some new initiatives. We could have a Hamilton Downs Youth Camp elsewhere in the Territory. There are two private ones. But I would still like Wildman River to be reopened. It could have had the same use as Hamilton Downs. We need more of those things. We need opportunities to get young people out onto the cattle stations, to have some work, and give them a chance to see if they can turn their lives around.
The minister and the member for Braitling mentioned the problems with alcohol; it is a major problem in the Territory. We are caught between the rights of those people who do not have a problem with alcohol and those people who abuse alcohol and cause much of this antisocial behaviour. It is an ongoing discussion. I do not intend to talk forever on alcohol problems in the Northern Territory, but if you are going to have this committee, alcohol problems would be high on the list of issues to address. To identify specific measures, although there are many measures already, you would have to see whether they are working or if we need to introduce different measures. Alcohol is a problem that is, unfortunately, the ruin of many Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people’s lives and families.
I am willing to support this committee, based on the fact that it will only be going till 2009 and it can report to the government.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Stuart saying he was not going to support it. Is that right? That is disappointing. I thought he would have.
There are a number of things that the member for Nelson spoke about that we have spoken about in Alice Springs, as Country Liberals members, as part of the policies that we took to the Territory election.
A number of the things that went forward in the current youth action strategy and the stuff that the member for Arnhem was involved in, without claiming ownership, were ideas of the Country Liberals. The ideas of a boarding school, the boot camp, the Hamilton Downs facility, and the approach to servicing youth - many of these things were our ideas and you have adopted them. That is what being bipartisan is about. Some of the things were sprung on us without telling us until today, such as closing down ANZAC Hill High School by this government. However, working together is a very important approach. I believe that by deciding today that you are not willing to work in a bipartisan manner, is a sad day for Central Australia …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not say that I am not going work in a bipartisan way. I said that we can continue to work in a bipartisan way without having to set up a committee.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order but, if you wish to make a personal explanation, you may approach me later.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Deciding today that you are not prepared to work in a bipartisan manner is very negative approach for Central Australia. Many of the ideas that you have taken up have been things that I, as a new member in Alice Springs, have put forward. There are also contributions that the members for Araluen and Greatorex have put forward. We have worked together well as a team. We represent all people in Alice Springs, as local members. We received a large majority of the vote in Alice Springs. People support us, our philosophy, and what we say.
The member for Nelson spoke about the police youth club. I have called for a police youth club at Larapinta and it would be a great thing to have in Alice Springs. I support that and I expect you to now take that forward. You may bring that up, although now that you are not working in a bipartisan way – you have put a knife right through the heart of bipartisanship - it may not happen. You may not take these ideas up anymore. It is going to be very interesting to report to the community that the member for Stuart declared that he was not prepared to work together; to take our ideas and work with the wider community to set forth a platform, a process and a strategy about how to move forward.
I looked at the member for Barkly’s comments last night, when we were talking about the issue of drink-driving. I reflect on the member for Stuart talking about how he cares for Alice Springs. He did say a little about Alice Springs, but he really read a few media releases and made it sound like a statement, as the member for Nelson said. I thought that the member for Stuart had a heart. I thought he cared passionately about Alice Springs. I thought he would stand up and work together with people who have a new approach and new ideas, and would want to see things change and bring about a new youth approach and vigour to the process.
However, he has obviously taken the same position as the Minister for Transport, who said last night that Cabinet runs the Northern Territory. We are talking about Alice Springs and the potential for a sessional committee in Central Australia to support the growth of Alice Springs - take all of my ideas; I am very happy for it – but he is obviously of the view that Cabinet runs the Northern Territory, which I can only take to mean that he does not get to have a say in Central Australia, so he does not really stand up for people in Central Australia.
Is that how it works - Cabinet runs the Northern Territory? I did not think it was the case that Cabinet ran the Northern Territory. But, Cabinet’s function is to run the Northern Territory, as stated by the member for Barkly last night. I find it difficult to believe. I find it interesting that the member for Macdonnell is not even here to talk about this motion tonight. She quickly ducked in and grabbed her stuff …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Braitling should know by now that he cannot refer to the presence or absence of another member in the House. He talked about an absence of a member, and I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I was not aware of it. Could you withdraw the comment? Thank you.
Mr GILES: What did I say wrong?
Madam SPEAKER: You have apparently referred to a member not being present in the House.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. I was surprised that the member for Macdonnell did not contribute to the debate, and I am surprised that the member for Macdonnell is not here listening to my concerns.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, we have had the ‘I pass on bipartisan’, and now we have someone who ignores the conventions in this place.
Mr GILES: I did not say she was not here.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that perhaps it did sound like that, member for Braitling. Maybe if you could withdraw and just remember that you cannot refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Mr GILES: Yes, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
I am very pleased to see the member for Stuart is here and decided not to take a bipartisan approach, as the sole member for Central Australia.
The member for Nelson spoke about driving into the Northside shops and seeing 100 people rioting. That happens on a weekly basis. They are my local shops and I go there every night. People ring me up and ask: ‘Adam, what are you doing about it?’ I say: ‘Urban drift, it is a problem. Alcoholism, people on the drink, put them up for PC every night’. I ring up old Burt: ‘Burt, mate, do us a favour and get your police truck down here and get the coppers and move these people on?’ I have Shorty, the butcher, ringing me up, or when I pop in and see him, he will say: ‘Adam, they are not only drinking in a dry town, but this is my shop and everyone is defecating and urinating, and drinking and vomiting all day every day. Can you get the police?’ ‘Oh yeah, no worries’, and, ‘They are fighting down here too. Can you do something about that?’ ‘Oh yeah, no worries’. Then I talk to Hoppy’s Shop and they complain about the fighting that goes on.
I set up my stall out the front of the supermarket on a Saturday morning, about 8.30 am or 9.30 am, and sit there for a couple of hours. I see all the people humbugging the shoppers. Other people came up and punched one of the shoppers; a middle-aged bloke walks there and does his shopping on a Saturday morning, he came out and someone wants $2 and he gets punched in the face.
You shake your head, Mr non-bipartisan-approach-member-for-Stuart, but this is what happens. You can stand up. I am not going to stand here and beat the drum about Alice Springs again, because I want to see a positive approach to a good town. You can hustle all you like and you can talk about what the government is doing, this is our strategy, this is our policy, and this is how much money we put in. People get bashed every week at Northside shops, and you sit there with a smirk on your face.
Dr Burns: Do not verbal him.
Mr GILES: He has a smirk on his face.
When I go there this Saturday and sit at the shops, people will come up and say: ‘What happened in parliament, and how come there are so many people hanging around here and waiting for grog and fighting again?’ I will say: ‘Ask the member for Stuart, because he does not support doing anything about it’. He has a 40-minute ministerial statement where he reads off the accolades and the triumphs of everything since 2001, but it is not changing – and the people in Central Australia demand action.
I will give you a good example. This is another Northside shop story. A family member of one of the members of this parliament from the bush came up to me and said: ‘G’day Adam, how are you going? Can you help me? I have moved into town because my wife has now been encouraged to go to Charles Darwin University because it needs some more numbers’. I asked him: ‘Where do you live?’ He said: ‘I live at Hoppy’s Camp’. I said: ‘But Hoppy’s Camp only has a few houses. How do you fit?’ He said: ‘I do not live at the camp; I live in the river at the camp.’ I asked him: Where do you shower and use bathroom facilities?’ He said: ‘We do not actually have any of those. My wife does not shower when she goes to CDU.’ I asked what he was doing. He said: ‘I generally grab a carton in the morning and have a drink.’ That is what he does. He is a very strong family member of someone in this parliament and he came to me.
I met all his family the next Saturday, when they came to complain and ask if anything could be done about Central Australia. These are family members of people here. There are numbers of bush people coming to see me about their concerns because their local members are not doing anything in Central Australia. This is not just about helping my electorate or Araluen or Greatorex. This is about helping Stuart and Macdonnell as well.
I sent an e-mail to the member for Arnhem this afternoon, in her ministerial capacity, on a confidential matter that is not in my electorate. We are trying to solve things because the electorate in Central Australia has become so disenfranchised with Labor that they are coming to the Liberals in droves asking: ‘Can you help us?’ We are saying: ‘Let us work together, have a real strong focus about what we can do, and we will give you our ideas’.
I tell you what I believe is the right way to go to make positive changes and you just shove it in my face. It is back to the point of a non-partisan approach to Central Australia, not supporting Central Australia, and no new ideas in your approaches. You have had a few offers. I will be in the media tomorrow talking about how you are not supporting a bipartisan approach. I will be writing that as hard as I can because that is dead, that is now dead. If you vote tonight against it, that is dead. You are on your own and everything that you fail with is dead - we are not touching it - because we know that you are failing the people of Central Australia. That is fact.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: The next person who is bashed next week when nothing has happened, I will be saying: ‘Oh well, I would have liked to have helped but the Minister for Central Australia, that is his job and he does not want to work with me’.
All the people who come into town from the Minister for Central Australia’s electorate, who come and ask me: ‘Why is nothing happening, can you help?’ I will say: ‘I would love to help but the Minister for Central Australia does not want to work together’. That is what it is about.
I wonder what happened to the spine, Madam Speaker. I thought the member for Stuart, in his ministerial capacity as well, was someone who would stand up to Cabinet. You know the people who run the Territory according to the Minister for Transport, the member for Barkly. I thought he would be someone who would stand up in Cabinet and say: ‘Listen, we need to do this because we have three committed people in Central Australia who want to support us and work together’, but clearly that has not been the case. It is a shame because I remember the previous Minister for Central Australia was a passionate advocate for working together and taking ideas from people and working in partnership …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find it uncomfortable that in what I felt would be a bipartisan debate the member for Braitling is really over-the-top with the member for Stuart. This is about forming a committee and I am uncomfortable with bagging the member for Stuart, because regardless of whether this goes through it is destroying the bipartisanship relationship.
This is a debate about a committee. I do not believe that because someone does not agree with the committee, that bipartisanship is finished or someone is against reform or helping people in Central Australia. There is an action committee where the member for Braitling and other people are working together. I would hate to see that destroyed simply because someone on one side did not agree with this. I will abstain from voting on this particular matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, are you in fact referring to Standing Order 67, no digression from the topic?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I believe that we have moved from the basics of what we are debating to more about personalities.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Member for Braitling, if you could keep your comments as closely as possible to the motion that you put forward, and direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: No. The point of order is over. I have just asked you to direct your …
Mr GILES: Speaking to the bipartisan approach, Madam Speaker. There is no moving forward with a committee that will take on a bipartisan approach, but there is no action committee in Alice Springs. The six members, including the Minister for Children and Families, met once at Alice Springs resort and we have not met again. There is no action committee and there never has been an action committee. We sat together then, and we have tried to meet again and it has not happened. There have only been three of us who have been able to get together since our first meeting in January.
I put this motion and we will see what happens. I take on board the comments that the member for Nelson made recently and before. I take on board the statements made by the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia. It is disappointing that it took 40 minutes to get to the point of saying no. We could have wrapped this up fairly early but that did not happen.
It appears as though the people on level five have taken over running not just the Cabinet, but also the personal directions of individuals within the government about how to move forward. It almost seems like the people upstairs, who are like a jelly fish, have more of a spine than other people who are unwilling to vote to support this process.
I commend this motion to the House. I believe it will go a long way towards supporting Central Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion, as moved by the member for Braitling, be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Adjournment Debate – Allocated Time
Adjournment Debate – Allocated Time
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly reconsider its decision to reduce the time allocated to a member for an adjournment debate in the Assembly from 15 minutes to five minutes.
The important word in this motion is ‘reconsider’. I am not asking the government to change its mind; I am asking it to listen to …
Mr Chandler: You know they will not.
Mr WOOD: It may not go against the word ‘reconsider’. It may not agree with it, but I ask ...
Dr Burns: You are wildly optimistic, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: We live in a world of hope, so let us give it a try. The government has not told me how it will vote, and I do not believe I am asking for too much. The word ‘reconsider’ means exactly that - would the government at least reconsider the changes it has brought forward?
It is difficult in this debate to not repeat some of the other debate we have had on this issue. I recall quoting from Nicholas Rothwell, who wrote in The Weekend Australian on 7 and 8 February. The headline of his article is: ‘Free speech down to five minutes’, and I will quote from this article again:
- This is the change to the adjournment debate format: the lone segment of the parliamentary day when any individual voice or true emotion
comes to the surface as a member speaks. Adjournments used to last for a good 10 minutes, and could, by convention, be extended.
Now there will be a five-minute cap: if members want to speak longer, they can throw another five minutes worth into Hansard as if they
had spoken the words on the floor. The point cuts to the heart of the Territory parliament and the Territory’s public life.
This is still a lovely, small-scale community: provincial in the best sense of the word. The adjournment speeches were widely read, and almost
all parliamentarians used them to describe the grain and feel of life in their constituencies, sympathising with the bereaved, praising the bold,
setting down their travels in the deep bush and the odd back alleys of Territory towns. No one who heard Jack Ah Kit’s adjournments on sporting
dynasties ever forgot them; no one was left unmoved by former Chief Minister Clare Martin’s valedictory to her old friend, the historian Barbara James.
If anything was ever said of relevance in the great portentous fortress of the parliament, it was said in those precious, indulgent late-night hours.
We are a small parliament of 25 people. We have reduced the speaking time from 15 minutes down to five. Why? I am still not 100% sure, except perhaps people want to go to bed early. Were we wasting much time by having a 15 minute adjournment? I believe we have to go back to statistics. We need to look at the science, as the Labor Party sometimes says, not that they always look at it very well.
I took a sample of three adjournment debates last year when we had a 15 minute limit. On one night, there were 12 speakers, who spoke for an average of 11 minutes. On another night - this is the night when we spoke after midnight – there were seven speakers, who spoke for an average of nine minutes. On another night, there were 11 speakers, who spoke for an average of nine minutes. Overall, we were not even using up the 15 minutes.
If you wanted to meet halfway - not quite – maybe it could be extended to 10 minutes, because from those three nights the average speech was nine minutes. If you look at the sittings in February and calculate the time it would have taken, if we averaged nine minutes per speaker each night, these are the totals: one hour and 12 minutes; one hour and 12 minutes; 36 minutes; 54 minutes; one hour and 12 minutes; one hour and 48 minutes; and one hour and 30 minutes. That is not a great deal of time for an adjournment debate.
The maximum time under the new system, when we had 10 speakers at five minutes, was 50 minutes, compared to one hour and 30 minutes if we had gone for nine minutes. I am using nine minutes because that is the average time that people speak. That is the science. I do not believe that is much time at the end of the day’s debate.
We should not be plotting our course according to other states. Victoria has 128 members: 88 in the Legislative Assembly and 40 in the Legislative Council. It may be practical for states that have large numbers to limit the time they are allowed for adjournments.
One of the beauties of the Northern Territory, as Nicholas Rothwell said, is that we are a lovely, small scale community. I might not have said it in such an artistic way, but I know what he means. We are all close to our constituents and we like to talk about things that are close to our hearts. We also like to raise issues, and this is the opportunity to do that. I know the member for Port Darwin loves this time, and good on him. He can raise issues that he has a passion for at this time because, generally speaking, there is not much time in parliament, especially for people on this side of parliament, to raise some of the issues they are concerned about. As Nicholas Rothwell said, sympathising with the bereaved.
Madam Speaker, you were giving a bereavement speech in the last sittings for my good friend, Father John Leary. Part way through that bereavement, because you had been given the bereavement speech from a good friend of Father Leary’s which was not set up to be read in five minutes, you had to break your speech and continue the next night. This is main reason for reverting to 10 or 15 minutes. I believe it was almost insulting that a speech for a person who this parliament was to honour for the work they did in the Territory was broken by a rule that said we cannot go any further.
That instance convinced me that this is not right. And we need to change that. I am asking the government to please reconsider it, bring back the little of the Northern Territory that is different to all the other states. Some of the things other states do are so complicated. There are states where you can only talk on Mondays and Tuesdays at certain times, on Wednesdays at different times, or on Thursdays. There are a few where the whole time is only 30 minutes, there is a maximum of 5 minutes per person and if you run out of time, that is the end of it. Some of them are far more complicated. Why do we not just keep ours nice and simple? I believe that is what our parliament should be about - not overruling us – and allow freedom of speech, as Nicholas Rothwell said.
It is also unfortunate that part of these changes to the rules also includes guidelines for incorporation of material into Hansard. Madam Speaker, what I am saying is not personal, but these are the rules that are now applied. If we want to speak for more than five minutes, we have to give you material, two A4 sheets of paper, typed at - I would have to change my computer - 9.5 Arial font and it must be submitted electronically at 10 am the day before.
I do not know if I am like everyone else, but I have done many adjournment speeches on the spur of the moment. There might have only been a few people and I have thought that this is an opportunity for me to speak, if it went over five minutes that was the end of it. How did I know I was going to speak tonight? I was not sure if I was, but under the rules, if I had a large speech, I had to get it to you by 10 am the previous day and wait until you told me whether …
Madam SPEAKER: 10 pm.
Mr WOOD: … 10 pm the previous day. I then had to wait until you gave me approval before it could be put into Hansard.
Whilst I accept that there is a normal part of standing here talking and there are rules relating to what I can and cannot say in parliament, especially in relation to unbecoming words - we would not say that, Madam Speaker; unparliamentary language, we would never have any of that - but there are rules, which I know I have to apply. To some extent, I feel like I am being censored, because I have to give it to you - not you personally, I am talking to you as the Speaker - I have to give you my speech beforehand and then I have to wait for your big tick to see whether I can put it into Hansard on the day that I am going to deliver my five minute adjournment debate.
That makes another layer of regulation - we have been talking about regulations today – and it goes against the spirit of why people like to give adjournment speeches. I do not give them all the time, but I use them for anything. I was going to talk about the Anzac Day cricket match tonight. I might talk about my mother’s 90th birthday; or I might recognise people in my electorate who have done great things.
I know that the member for Johnston always recognises people in his electorate. I remember when we first introduced these time limitations and I quote from the Hansard:
- … it was very interesting seeing the member for Johnston give an accelerated version of an adjournment speech tonight.
The member for Johnston nearly beat the former member for Arafura, Jack Ah Kit’s speech when he was told to hurry up. I do not know if members remember, he spoke at about three times his normal speaking speed in order to finish his speech. The member for Johnston was nearly doing the same thing to fit his adjournment debate into five minutes. That is ridiculous.
I understand what the government is doing, but this is not part of that. If we cannot stay up for a little longer at night for 33 days of parliament - I do not want to see people start pulling divisions and quorums when the adjournment debate is on - this is what I was told. If people want to go home when the adjournment debate is on they are allowed to. I do not know whether that is as per the standing orders, but my understanding is that once parliament is finished, we then have an extended period where people have the opportunity to speak to the House about matters in their electorate or other matters. It should be a choice if people want to stay. Some people may want to work in their office and others might have the opportunity to speak for 15 minutes.
The motion I am putting to parliament, and it is being put to the government, is to reconsider this change. I believe it is a backward step and that we have lost something special in our parliament. There have been some great speeches during the adjournment debate. I am not sure whether minister Jack Ah Kit did his Slim Dusty song during the adjournment, but I will never forget that; it was a terrific rendition.
Leave us with the opportunity to be flexible. Not everyone speaks for 15 minutes. Some people - I will not name names, probably even me - stretch the 15 minutes to the limit, whereas others talk for five minutes and go home. Give us the flexibility and the opportunity to be Territorians. Let us have a parliament that has some Territory character about it and, in the end, let us support free speech.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, with my comments in relation to this particular issue in the past you would be aware that I support this motion.
If I sought to amend this motion it would be to reinforce, in a far more vigorous way, what the member for Nelson is attempting to do, with a level of politeness and courtesy which has not been extended to this House by the government, that has seized this House as an item to be feared, loathed, despised, and to be silenced at every available opportunity.
When I did my Arts degree with a political science and history major, the other major I picked up was a literature major, some of which focused on Jacobean literature, so I have a fortunate understanding of what this parliament represents and how the system works, that we aspire to maintain. That is so often not reflected in the attitudes, beliefs, pronouncements and, more importantly, the actions of the government of the Northern Territory.
I am not going to go into a dissertation into its history, but one of the great joys of the Westminster system is that it creates a system of responsible government which means that the government is responsible to this House. It is this place which is the supreme law-making body of the Northern Territory. Yesterday, I heard, to my dismay, the well-educated Leader of Government Business talk about Cabinet as if it was some sort of supreme body, as if it had some rite of passage over what happens in this place.
That may be what happens in reality. It is one of the shortcomings of the unicameral system, where an absolute majority exists but, goodness gracious me, what a departure from the system of government that we so respect. These people call themselves democrats. The only reason, I suspect, that the government subordinates to the electoral system is that, at least in the overwhelming consciousness of the general public, the public would not stomach a departure from the democratic system.
Beyond the electoral cycle, this government is almost rapacious in its desire to turn parliament into nothing more than a glossy brochure upon which the Chief Minister can have his face painted. We saw a perfect example of that this morning; when matters that have been sitting on the Notice Paper, of great substance to the people in this Chamber and much farther beyond, are removed from the Notice Paper, without notice, because the government thinks the debate has moved on.
No, that is not correct. The debate has not moved on. Those two debates are as relevant today as they were some time ago. In some ways they are more relevant, because they would have created or given a lens of six months to see where the government was at, what it was saying its attitudes were and where it was taking us. Sadly, it has chosen to diminish the rights of Territorians by removing those items from the Notice Paper.
This House has been in a state of decay since the last election. The 15 minutes allotted to the adjournment debates at the end of each sitting day are to be cherished. They can be cherished in two ways: first, by the fact they are used for whatever purpose the speaker should choose to speak and, second, by not being used. This issue is you know you have a vehicle by which, in 15 minutes, you can speak to whatever matter is important to you whether it is a palm tree next to a tenant’s house in a Northern Territory Housing complex or something as complex as an allegation of corruption in the government.
However, this government despises the capacity for members in this House to speak freely and unrestrained. The insult to the injury is the clumsiness by which this government chose to do it. This was demonstrated last night when, all of a sudden, we abandoned the operation of standing orders because it was convenient. Another rule of this House needed to be broken to make me aware of what the actual process was but, as it was last night, the standing orders were abandoned.
Madam Speaker, I checked Standing Order 41A, and there is nothing in Standing Order 41A which enables or empowers you, or any other person, to willy-nilly ignore the demands of that standing order.
Whilst I have no objection to the process that was finally decided on, it is not reflected in standing orders. We just abandon standing orders whenever it suits us. I was unaware because the members of the committee, who had approached you, were actually upholding the standards of the committee and treating the privilege they had in that committee with the respect it deserves. I only became aware of what was occurring when the Leader of Government Business clumsily got to his feet and breached that privilege himself, in an endeavour to try to explain why we were not adhering to the standing orders. It is clumsy, oafish, and it diminishes this place even further.
The other concept, which is utterly beyond my understanding, is this absurdity - which I refuse to do on principle and will continue to refuse to do on principle – of having my speech vetted before I choose to give it. If there is ever a disgrace that has been perpetrated in this place, it is that absurd, stupid, nave rule. I fully accept that I am responsible for every word that rolls off my tongue in this place. I will live or die politically as a result of the words I utter. Have I said things that are inappropriate and made mistakes? My word, I have, and I have been belted for them. Have I said things that are unparliamentary and regretted? Yes, I have. But, gee whiz, Madam Speaker, for me to have to provide you with a copy of my speech so that you can go through it, like some kind of schoolmarm, so that it can be sanitised, in accordance with the rules of this place is, to me, an affront to everything that this House stands for.
When I stand in this place, I am overwhelmed with a sense of history. I am fortunate enough to know the history of what makes the Dispatch Boxes what they are, why they look like that, and why they are there. I understand the role of the Mace. I understand why there are two-and-a-half sword lengths that separate us from that side. I also know that these places are built on the corpses of millions of people. That may sound melodramatic, Madam Speaker, but it is not, because it is true.
Ever since the first parliament sat - for a lack of better words, it was not called a parliament – after the signing of the Magna Carta and the first real challenge was issued to the divine right of Kings, the freedom of speech and the freedom to exert yourself against a Monarch, was being woven into the fabric of everything that we hold true. It is that process, not the ancient Greeks, but the process that was established which has led to the construction of nearly every major democracy in the world, including the United States, which runs on a variation on the same theme.
Where did Montesquieu turn his eyes when he sought to create a model of ideal government? He turned his eyes to England, and although he changed it slightly, he described the separation of powers, as he saw it in the Westminster system, refined it, and now the most powerful nation on earth embraces his world view, but it is all an extension of this place. And what do these places stand for? They stand for free speech; the capacity to stand up against the state, to agree with the state, and to even direct the state. The state is subordinate to this place. The laws that we pass in this place are the laws by which this government must abide; something that it has become quite slack at doing.
If you look at the issue of annual reporting, and the poverty of adherence to the legislative instruments passed in this place, we can see the continual erosion in this jurisdiction of this government’s approach to the simplest aspects of complying with the systems that it has inherited. And what is it all about? Why would it confront the structures that we have inherited in such a simple, clumsy fashion? When I was interviewed on this issue by a journalist not that long ago, I made the observation that I do not believe that it is spite or malice on the part of government. The journalist said that was rather surprising. I said: ‘No, you misunderstand me. Spite or malice implies that you understand the system. This is the equivalent of a dumb animal crawling through a china shop, knocking over everything that is porcelain and worthwhile. It does not understand, through its own shallowness and vacuity, the damage it is doing’.
It is for this reason I have been a passionate champion of the rights of members in this House. The government is already in a strong position and it should not be afraid of this place. The CLP was accused of arrogance in the highest order for all sorts of reasons, but, my goodness gracious me, while in government it did not silence members who wanted to speak, particularly in detail during the adjournment debates. Whilst members of the CLP government at the time would groan under the weight of Neil Bell’s tirades - the former member for Macdonnell - he was not, as a general rule, prevented from speaking, particularly in the adjournment debates; he was free to exercise the rights and privileges that had been granted to him.
Not so now, Madam Speaker. Where are the voices of dissent now from all the people who decried the CLP for its heights of arrogance? Dumb in silence. Why? Because they would rather subordinate the system which they relied on for a right to speak and complain about the CLP to being party hacks.
This is not an issue of partisan politics for me. This is an issue of an anaerobic environment being provided for oxygen-loving people, who believe the voice of freedom …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact that you sit in here with a straight face and encourage this sort of thing shows what a cur you are; you are a disgrace. And all who voted for this are a disgrace. I have no compassion or compunction in criticising you in the most complete terms. You have no courage. You do not have the courage to face your critics and your answer is to deprive your critics of oxygen. Cowardice in the lowest and most vile terms …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: … disgraceful – utterly disgraceful. And I can tell you that we, come the revolution - dare I say it - come the revolution, will restore the dignity of this House to what it should be, to what its predecessors in opposition said it should be and more.
This disgrace perpetrated on this place diminishes us all and diminishes the Territory. If you think for a second that this attitude does not have a flow-on effect, then why do we have less power over the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory today than we had in 1978 after self-government? Because the federal government said that you are not doing the job properly. The attitude that comes into this place percolates into the way you govern.
You talk about statehood. Goodness gracious me; you could not be further away from statehood now than we were in 1978. We got an intervention - the federal government rolling into town diminishing your jurisdictional capacity - and you say: ‘That looks like a good idea’.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We suggested that you contact the Prime Minister of the day and protect our jurisdiction. What was the attitude of the Chief Minister of the day?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to address your comments through me, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, what was the attitude of the Chief Minister of the day?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: This is a …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We are so far away now, and that is the part the government does not understand. What do we see in the forms of governance? The government walks in with the 2030 statement. It abrogated its responsibility, as the people who lead the Northern Territory - the source of the ideas - and passed it off to a second party.
This whole attitude which permeates the government, your psyche, and the way you deal with people around you - all of it - diminishes the Northern Territory in its completeness. That is what this is about for me. It is about the right to speak for 15 minutes on things that are important but it is also about what we are losing. Every day it is getting less and less, it is meaning less and less. People could not care about statehood now. Why are the fires going out? The passion has gone. We have stopped caring. ‘Oh, but we are committed to statehood’, some bland, ‘tofu-esque’, banal comment like that deals with the issue for a day.
Where is the fire, the drive, to make this the best place in the country? It has gone and it is reflected in the way this government and this group of people come into this Chamber and abuse it. Then they whinge about little parts of process, they walk over process when it suits them. We have the Leader of Government Business breaching privilege in an effort to justify the departure from standing orders and it is all right then. I walk in through the advisors’ room, which happens to be open and it is just a convenient way to get here, and I get all these messages back saying: ‘Oh my god, you have committed this horrible crime’. It is all about pettiness. Whilst we immerse ourselves in this petty thinking and point scoring, we are losing control of the Northern Territory at a jurisdictional level.
Dr Burns: The one who lost control was you.
Mr ELFERINK: You see this is the point; a little cheap shot. See, he has another little cheap shot. Great, you have me. Big deal. I am bleeding from the chest, and who cares?
We do not have the control over the Northern Territory that we used to have. If it was important to you, you would be telling Kevin Rudd, right now, to give it back; we will work on some dual arrangement, but give back the control that we had, give us back our jurisdictional rights. But we could not care less about that stuff.
This House is so diminished by this whole attitude that permeates the mind, the heart, and soul of government. What is it about? It is about a glossy brochure, how we look - dress ups. Every time I get the Chief Minister’s face in my letterbox, it is not because I care they are on this propaganda drive; it is because the focus is on power at any price. The focus is on achieving just enough votes to govern. A win is a win, says the Chief Minister. But it is not about actually improving the Northern Territory or about improving us.
For me, the motion being brought forward by the member for Nelson is symbolic of what is happening: a cancer that is growing in the spine of the Northern Territory’s integrity. It needs to be cut out. What frustrates me the most is that the members opposite, the ones who have carriage of these duties and responsibilities, not only refuse to do it but I believe they have gone beyond the point where they can refuse to do it - they are simply incapable of seeing the desperate damage that this relentless pursuit of the image is doing to the integrity of the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction. Shame on them all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion that has been brought before this House by the member for Nelson. I promise that my comments tonight will not be quite as flamboyant and colourful as those put forward by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, although I did enjoy his dissertation.
In the relatively short time I have been in this House, I have seen a degeneration of the way matters are conducted and, more specifically, of the opportunity that the representatives of 50% of the Northern Territory voting population have endured. We began the 11th Assembly with 15 minute time allotments for adjournment debates. We had no specific end time set for debate at the end of each night. I can only imagine what the Cabinet room machinations were regarding how they were going to gag the opposition in the best way.
I imagine they sat up there after the first few days, or perhaps a couple of weeks of sittings, and were reeling from the onslaught and attack that came to them from this side of the House. They would have sat there absolutely gobsmacked, asking: ‘How the hell are we going to sort this out? What can we do to limit our exposure to the attacks that the opposition are bringing upon us?’ I imagine they would have sat down with their strategist and decided the best way to do it was to use the weight of numbers they had in the Standing Orders Committee to deal with us.
They have chosen, in no small way, to reduce the power that we have to bring forward informed debate from this side of the House, which is an important part of achieving balance in government. Not just in the Northern Territory, but across Australia.
What are the ways that they are most likely to get us or that they are most likely to use to attack the government? Two of them are MPIs and the adjournment debate. The time that has been set for finalising parliament for the day at 9 pm, before the adjournment debate starts, has effectively stymied our means of bringing up very important matters to the people of the Northern Territory through matters of public importance. Under the new regime, we could start an MPI at 8.50 pm expecting or hoping that we might get a number of speakers on for 20 minutes or so, but 10 minutes later our debate would be truncated.
Other than an arrangement made to extend that debate by 10 minutes, the opportunity to raise important issues before this parliament has been virtually prevented. I imagine they would be thinking along the lines of: we will drag the debate out on all the other matters throughout the day. We will filibuster as long as it takes, and we will shut these blokes down. Not only that, we are not going to give them 15 minutes to bring up matters that are important to the Northern Territory during the adjournment debate; we will limit them all to five minutes. They can only do so much damage in five minutes.
I suspect that is the process that they have gone through. It is the type of arrogance that I am learning to expect from the members opposite. It is such a shame. It is a shame that new members, on the other side of the House, have been so poisoned by the Labor machine that they must fall into line with their colleagues in dealing with the opposition members who represent 50% of the Northern Territory. It is a slight on the democracy of the Northern Territory that the democratic process is denied to such a large proportion of Northern Territory residents and voters; to have their voices heard in this parliament.
It is extremely disappointing that the government would use the bullying tactics that it has - and that is what it is, bullying. The government has the strength in numbers and it bullies everyone out of its way, so that it gets its own way and makes life a little more comfortable. But it leaves us in a very awkward position.
I sat through most of General Business Day today. There were a number of motions put forward by the opposition and a number of matters were brought on. Each one of those matters, where a decision could have been made, was killed - shut down and killed. There goes another opportunity for the other 50% of the Northern Territory to be given proper representation in this place. It is disappointing.
I see that when some of the members on the other side of the House are put on the spot over certain issues - I saw it happen last night to the member for Barkly, when the member for Braitling put him on the spot over whether he would support the introduction of confiscation of motor vehicles for drink-drivers. I could see the look on his face - I could not read his mind – which said to me that he wanted to agree. He wanted to give his support to the concept that we should get tough on drink-drivers. Yet, the members are so tied in and made to conform to the way of thinking that the government promotes, in arrogance. I wonder how difficult it makes it for those members across the other side of the House to sleep.
They must be torn between what they know is right and what they see being bullied by their own party. I can imagine the government sitting over there or the members who are experienced will sit there and say the Country Liberals do the same. But I assure you that is not the case. We are a group of free-thinking individuals on this side of the House. Each one of us has individual rights to bring up matters with our parliamentary wing, we have an equal right to be heard, and we have an equal right in the decision-making processes. Sadly, that is obviously not the case on the government side. Otherwise I would not have been looking at the member for Barkly last night, and seen the look on his face, like a rabbit caught in the spotlight.
The democratic process which has been eroded in this parliament by changing the standing orders to truncate all our debates and to gag the opposition does serve a purpose, I suppose. The purpose we have alluded to - the member for Port Darwin alluded to it tonight - the people of the Northern Territory can see through it. They are quite clever people, they should not be dumbed down in any way, and I see the government guilty of dumbing down the people of the Northern Territory all the time.
You only have to look at the myriad of glossy brochures that come from the government to realise that that is how they are trying to sell governing the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory are a hell of a lot smarter than that. They can see through that veil. The member for Port Darwin alluded to it. Come the revolution, the government will pay the price for its arrogance. What we see, in the changes to standing orders to allocate shorter times for us to have a few words, is a classic example of that arrogance coming to play.
I found it a little frustrating and annoying going through today’s experience of having every motion put up by the opposition defeated by those on the other side of the House. It does not diminish my resolve - and I can speak for all the members on this side of the House - it does not diminish our resolve to bring about the very best outcome that we can for Territorians, in the limited way that we can from the opposition.
We are all, on this side of the House, willing to continue to fight the good fight on behalf of Territorians. Despite the hard time that we get from the government, we will not back away from bringing matters up to the government that affect Territorians every day of their lives.
A classic example was the motion today in relation to a review of police numbers. That issue has not been fully dealt with, and I know the member for Karama said something today along the lines of, well, it is always being debated and we do not need to bring it on, we are not going to agree to the motion. We are going to take things off the Notice Paper that relate to police presence. The member for Karama does not realise that by doing that she is, and the government is, effectively alienating every police officer who would like to hear the continuation and the finalisation of a debate that affects their job. In the Northern Territory there are - without knowing the figure off the top of my head – about 1100 police officers - a few more if you count auxiliaries and ACPOs. Each one of those employees in the police force would like to hear what the opposition has to say about the way the government is treating them and the way that the government’s policy is allowing the law and order in the Northern Territory to fail.
The police are only as good as the government behind them. If the government does not give the police all the tools to do the job they need to do, then the job that they can do is limited.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Katherine is digressing. This is a debate about adjournment times. We had the Territory police debate earlier in the day.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Katherine, if you could keep it as close as possible to the motion before the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, the point I was making, so that the member for Karama can understand the relevance of this, is that by shutting down parliament at a specified time and limiting adjournment debates, for whatever reason, because they want to go home to bed early …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent debate on the motion put by the member for Nelson be completed before the adjournment of the Assembly.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The standing orders are clear about when this House should adjourn as a result of Standing Order 41A, I believe. I ask you to seek advice from the Clerk on whether the motion that the member for Port Darwin is proposing contravenes standing orders or is at odds with standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: Please sit down, member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin has moved a motion. The question is that the motion as moved by the member for Port Darwin be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Mr Mills Mr Hampton
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion moved by the member for Port Darwin negatived.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is now past 9 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly does now adjourn.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, yesterday I tabled petitions from 1344 women of the East Arnhem region protesting the closure of Gove District Hospital’s maternity services and calling on the government to explore options to see services restored.
I acknowledge and thank the strong women who drove this petition, along with a raft of other lobbying activities. Thanks to Kylie, Kim, Pam, Esther, Danielle, Meagan and Annie who combined efforts with Djapirri, Dhangal, Margaret, Gulumbu, Yananymul and many others to unite with one strong and single voice.
When that petition was commenced in late February, the hospital was facing a possible and temporary closure, which did occur, due to the enormous difficulty in attracting and recruiting new GP proceduralists with obstetric skills to replace doctors whose contracts were due to expire.
The story unfolded with a good deal of media coverage and as the local member, a woman and as a mother who had all three of her babies at Gove District Hospital, I was really proud to march with more than 200 Yolngu and Ngapaki women from our hospital to Nhulunbuy Town Hall.
An open forum was held there for women, their husbands and their kids who came to ask questions and yes, to vent their frustration and anger with me as their representative for the Northern Territory government, the CEO for the Department of Health and Families, David Ashbridge, and also the member for Lingiari, the Honourable Warren Snowdon.
The collective voices and actions of the women of my region are powerful. They are a resolute group of people. This was something I knew from years ago, when in the early 1990s the then CLP government proposed to close Ward 2 and relocate maternity services to Ward 1, the general medical surgical ward; a ward where people are sick and the risk of infections are present, all the more for newborn babies. Thanks to a groundswell of public backlash, led by a woman I know well, Jacki Rawles, the decision of the CLP was, not surprisingly, reversed and common sense and best health practice prevailed.
The good news is that Ward 2 at Gove District Hospital, which is better known as the Baby Hilton, will now reopen on 5 May, which is, coincidentally, International Midwives Day.
I thank the Health Minister who visited Nhulunbuy on 8 April and met with members of the maternity coalition group, as well as staff from the Department of Health and Families, who have worked extremely hard to resolve this situation.
It has highlighted the enormous challenges of attracting, recruiting, and retaining employees, especially professionals with high-level skills, to remote areas in the Northern Territory. I have lived and worked out there for more than 19 years and I can think of no other place to live, work, and raise my family. However, even testimonials like mine, together with an enhanced salary package to the tune of around $300 000, did not receive an instant take up.
I know that every effort was made to avoid even a temporary closure of the ward, but if the right people with the right skills cannot be found, and if safe birthing cannot be guaranteed – and that means the ability to perform an emergency caesarean section - then the hospital and the Department of Health and Families has an obligation to provide a contingency plan and an alternative.
A good deal of hard work has gone into organising for women to be able to give birth at the Royal Darwin Hospital or at Katherine Hospital. For one month, women have had to travel outside of Gove to give birth, supported by the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme, which included travel for a partner. Some families chose to travel to family down south to give birth. It has probably been most difficult for Yolngu women to leave country for birthing - to have to travel away from Gove - and I apologise for that.
However, from Tuesday, maternity services will be back at Gove hospital. To celebrate the occasion and to recognise International Midwives Day, Gove District Hospital’s midwifery staff have issued an open invitation to the community to come along to the hospital for a morning tea. Unfortunately, I will not be able to get there due to sittings.
I pay tribute to all of our nursing and medical staff at Gove District Hospital, who are dedicated and highly skilled professionals. I especially acknowledge Doug Gilchrist, the Director of Nursing and General Manager of Gove District Hospital, Sally Putland, Nurse Manager of Ward 2, and her second-in-charge, Tracey Kelly, and all of the midwives who have worked as part of that team, and worked particularly hard during this busy period to support women and babies.
In a former life, I was a state Enrolled Nurse in South Australia and come from a family of nurses, so I know a little about the hard work they do and the dedication it takes. I take my hat off to Gove District Hospital and midwives, and welcome the return of our obstetric services next week.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the Alexander Day Group that meets in the Gray Community Hall on most Wednesdays. I had the great pleasure of having an early Anzac Day with our seniors at the Gray Community Hall, where a fantastic group of over 30 people turned up. Everyone had a fantastic time, even though some of the sausages I cooked were a little burnt. In fact, some of the rissoles were burnt as well. However, they did not complain and they had a fantastic time at their luncheon. Thank you to everyone who helped to arrange that fantastic lunch for these people. They are the salt of the earth and, no matter which side they believe in, they are lovely people to talk to and have many stories to tell. I also thank Peter Chandler and our electorate officers for all their help, and those who helped us with the barbecue on the day.
I thank all those in Palmerston who came to pay their respects at the Anzac Day Dawn Service and the 10 am service in Palmerston. Both events were extremely well attended, with over 600 people turning up each time. I thank the soldiers of 1st Brigade for their excellent presentation and dedication to the Palmerston Anzac Day Service. It is the young men and women of our services who make you proud when they stand so proudly in respect to Diggers past and our Diggers in current service all around the world. You get that concept of being a proud Australian. These young soldiers stood there for the length of the service, they manned the catafalque party and did a fantastic job.
I always find it enjoyable, being an ex-service person, when I can observe their drill and make a decision on whether they have done a good job or not. I could not fault these young soldiers for their drill, at either the Dawn Service or the 10 am service. It made me feel proud to have so many service people in my electorate. Their behaviour afterwards at the RSL club at the Palmerston Hub was exemplary. They represented themselves very well and I felt very proud to be part of that fantastic service. It was great so many people turned up to see …
Ms Lawrie: Hear, hear!
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you for that comment. It was really good to see so many people turn up. It was great to have the community getting behind Anzac Day because, unfortunately, some of our soldiers in active service have been injured or killed - they have paid an extreme price for that - but they serve as gallantly and as proudly as any of our former ANZACs. I thank them all. I thank 1st Brigade for the dedication of their service this Anzac Day.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the Milingimbi Remote Learning Partnership Agreement which was signed on 20 March. The Milingimbi community can be proud that it has chosen a long-term commitment to education and training. This agreement will improve education, wellbeing, training, and employment outcomes. It was terrific to see the children and adults who came and made the day special. In this particular case, there was an emphasis on the customary law - if you like - of the Milingimbi elders in trying to translate the importance of a significant occasion to all those present.
This agreement is based on mutual respect and understanding, and tells us about the commitment, roles, and responsibilities of the Milingimbi community and the Department of Education and Training. The Department of Education and Training is committed to supporting the Milingimbi community and working together to achieve the priorities set out in this agreement.
Together, the school and the community will:
remember the Vision for this Agreement: Creating tomorrow: Successful, strong, healthy people achieving in both
worlds – a terrific title, because that is exactly what the people of Milingimbi are doing; creating a future for the children
to come through and know that they will have a future beyond their education;
attendance is a priority;
Yolngu culture;
the community to provide a senior secondary campus to support local training initiatives;
the Dha-djirrpul governance group has been formed to reflect community needs and ensure two-way decision making.
It is important that the children of Milingimbi see that understanding both worlds will be the challenge and the elders of
the community want to ensure that is understood; and
work towards equity in housing, conditions of employment, and entitlements for all Indigenous school staff, and to
maintain partnerships with other community organisations.
The Yolngu staff at Milingimbi School will grow in their leadership and as assistant teachers, teachers and other positions within the school and the community. The Yolngu will develop strong people who live their culture and who are strong in both worlds.
As part of the Northern Territory government’s Closing the Gap strategy, school staff will be given the opportunity to train locally and fulfil their career aspirations. More young people will be given opportunities in the school. It was a pleasure to see the increase in Year 12 graduates in Milingimbi.
Community members will participate in cultural competence programs for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff. The agreement is a significant step forward and, through genuine relationships and clear actions, it says we can all do better. We can all be part of building a future in this community. Governments, community leaders and members, organisations, businesses, families, and young people all have a role to play.
I thank and praise the Djunggaya Negotiation Team who participated in the negotiation of the Milingimbi Remote Partnership Agreement: Keith Lapulung, Gulurrthu Gondarra, Judith Madupinyin, Jeffrey Malawa Dhamarrandji, Oscar Datjarranga, Djuwandayngu Ruluminy Wunungmurra, Brian Brown, Elizabeth Ganygulpa, Charlie Djirarrwuy, Ross Mandi, and Gordon Lanyipi Rinymalpuy. It is significant that you have begun to build on your commitments to this agreement by establishing the Dha-djirrpul structure for Milingimbi.
Dha-djirrpul is the name of the combined leadership groups - the Djunggaya, the Milingimbi School Principal, the School Council, and the Senior Cultural Advisor, that have equal roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes for this agreement.
This is the starting point of a new era in the relationship between the people of Milingimbi, the school, and the Northern Territory government.
Thank you to the elders and board of community for their contribution to the whole process, and to the organisations and individuals that participated in the consultation, sharing their concerns and their ideas for the future. Thank you to the traditional owners who signed this agreement: Laurie Bayamarrwanga, Joseph Bangguli, George Garmayana Pascoe, David Marpiyawuy, and Lena Walunydjinalil. Thank you to members from the Department’s Negotiation Team, the Community Engagement Team, as well as the independent facilitators who ensured transparency and an equal footing for all through the negotiation process.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I offer an apology to Madam Speaker which I will do fulsomely and without reservation. During the last division in this House, I said words which reflected on her capacity as the Speaker of this House. I seek to withdraw those words, if the Hansard microphones picked them up, and I offer an unqualified apology to Madam Speaker.
I acknowledge that from time to time, in my passion to defend this House, my passions can get the better of me. I have spoken to the Speaker about this matter prior to coming into this House. At the first opportunity, I offer an unqualified apology and, Madam Speaker, now that you are there, I offer it to you directly and without reservation. It was inappropriate that I reflected on you in the way that I did and I apologise without reservation and without hesitation.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Before I call someone else, I appreciate you apologising to the House and to me. However, I would like you to be cautioned that should this happen again, this is a naming offence and, member for Port Darwin, I will not hesitate in naming you under the same circumstances again.
Mr Elferink: I am sorry. I know it is a breach of protocol. I thank you for your indulgence.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the Anzac Day celebrations in my electorate, particularly at Adelaide River. In my view, the Dawn Service is the premier Anzac Day event across the Territory.
The war memorial at Adelaide River is a significant place with many deceased soldiers from World War II and it is also adjacent to the site of the old hospital for injured patients who came from Darwin during the bombing of Darwin. It is a very significant place and dawn is a mystical time to have such a service on such a day in such a place. The memorial never ceases to move me.
The Coomalie Shire Council did a fantastic job. Congratulations to the entire council: Andrew Turner, the President; Lisa Wain, the CEO; the Sport and Recreation Officer, Jason, who does a fabulous job. I am sure there are many other people who work for the council who volunteer their time. The emergency volunteers were all there before 5 am to park the vehicles, which makes it much easier.
This year was special. It was the first time that we have had an Administrator at the Dawn Service and I thank His Honour, Tom Pauling, for coming. He made a very moving speech at the service and I am sure everyone appreciated his time. I am sure he was delighted to be in such a special place. He came to the breakfast at the show society afterwards and thoroughly enjoyed his time mixing with the locals from Darwin and around the region.
Special thanks go to Lana Keanes, who is now a famous 11-year-old trumpeter/bugler. She played her trumpet as a bugle and was recruited at the last minute. Unfortunately, we lost our bugler who has been there for many years. Lana is from Humpty Doo, but I hope that she will be our permanent bugler for the future. Thanks to her mother for bringing her down. I hope she continues to attend. She did a fine job. She got a special sound out of that trumpet and people were considerably moved.
The breakfast held afterwards had dozens of volunteers and everyone was under the pump. There were about 1600 to 1800 people who attended Anzac Day at Adelaide River, and this number keeps growing every year. It is not as if the council and organisers are promoting the event heavily; people come through word of mouth and when they come once they keep coming. I spoke to people at the breakfast who said it was their first time and they committed to come back. I spoke to people on the Sunday afterwards who were saying they would like to come the following year and I am sure that they will.
Congratulations again to the council. We need to have a look at the event; I am sure there will be a debrief. I will go into bat for more funding to assist with the breakfast and organisation, because it is becoming large. It is one of the premier events and I hope over time that it gets bigger.
I have a few people to mention: Sandy McLean did a fantastic job; Patsy Fawcett was in the kitchen with Linda Macintosh working, cooking savoury mince, baked beans and a whole range of foods for the many people who came along; Colin Wain, the husband of Lisa, the CEO, was there working alongside his wife. Everyone gives their time and it is a special day. Congratulations to the council for putting on such a wonderful event.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I pay my thanks and respect to the people who participated on Anzac Day. In particular, I thank the people of Alice Springs for supporting Anzac Day so well at the Dawn Service and the march up to the Cenotaph on Anzac Hill.
In particular, I thank the RSL for the hard work they undertook in coordinating the many functions held over the weekend. The weekend actually started on Friday morning, at Braitling Primary School, when the Acting Deputy Principal, Peter Hirst, put on a service for the children and their parents. Alistair Sheriff, the teacher, arranged the service, and I thank him, the teachers and administration staff, who supported the event on Friday 24 April, 2009.
I also thank Loraine Braham, the previous member for Braitling, for attending and taking a wreath from one of the classes to be laid at the Anzac Day service on Saturday. In particular, I thank Ella Moyses and Alicia King for emceeing the event.
I thank Dennis Parker, the President of the RSL Alice Springs, and Kevin Rockemer, the Vice President, for putting on the 48th annual Anzac Day dinner at the RSL. I also thank Captain Adie Viney for saying grace that night and 1 RSU for attending the dinner and also the Anzac Day services, both the Dawn Service and the march. NORFORCE were strong in their contingent supporting the dinner, the Dawn Service and the march, and special thanks to Major James Cook, from Centre Squadron, NORFORCE, as well as Warrant Officer Rob McKeown.
In relation to Anzac Day, I thank Wing Commander Mike Cowell from 1 RSU for coming up, and our bugler, Peter Gillam. The bugler did not turn up on Friday night, but we were right on Saturday.
I thank Mayor Damien Ryan for participating in the events. It was also good to see the Vietnam Veterans do a tour in Alice Springs and have its AGM in Alice Springs. There are 400 members of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club, and 153 turned up in Alice Springs, along with a number of support staff totalling 200 or thereabouts. They spent time at the RSL and supported our local economy. I understand the Chief Minister’s Department supported the dinner on Friday night at the RSL, and I thank the Chief Minister’s Department for that.
I also thank Sean and Kim Parnell for being present at the dinner on Friday night. I thank the Emergency Services staff for turning up on the day. I thank the schools, students, and the children of Alice Springs for coming out on Anzac Day. The OLSH school captains, Anna Mick and Joseph Egar for laying a wreath on Anzac Day; it was great participation. All in all, it was a great celebration of Anzac Day in Alice Springs, and I hope it continues to grow. I saw the member for Macdonnell on Anzac Day. We stood next to each other at the Dawn Service. It was nice and cold and dark. I hope that next year people continue to attend, celebrate, and remember the fallen heroes.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay a couple of tributes tonight. I want to talk about the great work of the Stuart Park Residents Association that has recently been wound up after 15 years. Many of us in this House have residents’ associations in our electorates. I am glad I do. They see the day-to-day things that we often do not. They tell us about things that others just drive past and leave for someone else to worry about. Basically, they get things done.
The Stuart Park Residents Association was exactly that kind of group - committed, passionate advocates for their suburb and their issues, and they got things done. The SPRA was first started by Peter Forrest 15 years ago. In 15 years, they had four presidents, which is a tribute to the stability of the organisation: Peter Forrest for two years; David Hibbert for three years; Col Freeman for three years; and the most recent past president, John Briers, who held the post for seven years. These presidents have ably led the Stuart Park Residents Association, providing the public face and voice of everyone within the area.
Over the 15 years the SPRA was operational, the group advocated and lobbied in a number of areas: road safety and traffic, schools, planning, housing, parks, and public amenity. The issues they took on were often a mix of council, Territory government and federal government responsibilities.
Many of my colleagues have received letters or phone calls from me, or my predecessor, Clare Martin, about issues raised by the Stuart Park Residents Association. The most well known, perhaps, is the intersection of Duke Street and the Stuart Highway. The Stuart Park Residents Association lobbied long and hard to get the black spot on the Stuart Highway at the intersection of Duke Street addressed. There were traffic surveys, resident surveys, media appearances and meetings. In the end, they reached a solution that has, no doubt, saved lives and made that area a much safer place. Many of the other successes are not what outsiders would consider big issues, but all issues, regardless of their size, have been taken on over the years.
Some of these include: safer parking at Stuart Park Primary School and drop-off points at Westralia Street shops; removal of the old meat storage facility at Westralia Street shops; more reliable burglar alarm at Stuart Park Primary; lobbying for Parkside Lodge to be a Territory Housing single men’s residence; lobbying for Stuart Highway to be a clearway from 6 am until 9 am from Westralia Street to Duke Street; and for the Iliffe Street, Bishop Street and Woolner Road intersection to be upgraded with a roundabout to be installed when federal government funding becomes available - I was talking to council the other day and they are very excited about that, and that should be coming forward soon; council parking on Duke Street; traffic calming devices on Duke Street; getting council to maintain the public park on Duke Street where it had previously been uncared for; and many more issues.
While they have not always achieved everything they wanted to, many times they were able to find a compromise with government, council or property developers to make the situation better for all residents. I worked with the Stuart Park Residents Association since my election to parliament in August last year and it has been a pleasure. They are a great bunch of people working hard to ensure their suburb is as good as it can be.
Unfortunately, as in many community groups these days, people are busy, and so new members were hard to come by. This led to a very difficult decision by the core membership to wind up the SPRA and move on to other things. I assure all the people of Stuart Park that just because the association has gone it does not mean the issues will go by the wayside. Everyone is always welcome to let me know what is going on in their neighbourhood and what they hope to do for their suburb. I know the members of the Stuart Park Residents Association remain active and involved community people and I often talk to them.
I take this opportunity to thank every member of the Stuart Park Residents Association over the past 15 years. Whether you attended one meeting or 100 meetings, you have achieved much for Stuart Park and I hope that all of you will continue to work with me to make Stuart Park an even better place.
I pay tribute to Mr Peter Garrigan for his commitment to the education of Territory children. Peter has spent the last 10 years on the Darwin High School Council, chairing the council for five of those years. Anyone who has ever been to a school council meeting will know that it takes dedication to do a full day’s work and then go to a council meeting that night.
Under Peter’s leadership, the school has embarked on projects including the construction of the Lawrence Ah Toy Science and Home Economics facility, and the refurbishment of the top floor of A-block to accommodate the secondary Intensive English Unit. These are not small projects and I know Peter has worked hard together with the council and staff to get these projects done.
Peter also spent nine years as President of the Council of Government School Organisations, between 2000 and 2008, representing COGSO on a number of Northern Territory and federal government standing committees. This role has helped provide parents with a voice, influencing and responding to government policy.
Peter is one of the reasons the public education in the Northern Territory is so good - committed, passionate parents working with other parents and staff to improve the education of our kids. As Marion Guppy, Principal of Darwin High School, said:
- Peter was always forthright and passionate in his advocacy of public education and the work of teachers. He is committed to the active participation of parents in their children’s education.
I know Peter’s presence on the Darwin High School Council will be greatly missed, but I have every confidence that the current council will continue Peter’s efforts. Congratulations to you, Peter, on your commitment to Darwin High School and its students.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Four-and-a-half minutes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to my Mum. I flew down to Melbourne on Sunday for my Mum’s 90th birthday. It is on 24 April, and that is good, because it is about the only birthday I ever remember in my family, because I know it is the day before Anzac Day.
My Mum has celebrated 90 great years. She is a wonderful lady. We had a beautiful celebration in Frankston in Melbourne. Even though the weather was absolutely bitter and the wind was blowing such a gale that wheelie bins and trees were falling over, we still had a wonderful time. The day started off at the local church, St Jude’s, where my brother is Parish Priest, and he announced to the parishioners at the end of Mass that it was my mother’s birthday and the entire congregation sang Happy Birthday. That was a good way to start.
We went to a restaurant south of Frankston where we surrounded Mum with lots of gifts and friendship and had a great meal. She was most surprised by some of the people who turned up, including me, because she did not expect me to be there. My daughter and her children all turned up from Darwin and she did not know they were coming. My two other daughters and one grandchild and my son-in-law, who live in Canberra, turned up as well. On top of all the relations who live in Melbourne, she not only had a wonderful day, but it was a great surprise to meet all those people she did not think she would expect to see on that particular day.
What better day to meet and get together than Mum’s 90th birthday. From my point of view, the best mum in the world, but that is a bit biased.
Ms Anderson: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Macdonnell. She has cared for six of us. Mum had three boys and three girls, and I was the youngest boy. I suppose I was given a little favouritism in my life with my Mum because I was the one who had polio, and of course, for Mum, that was a hard time for her. I was only very young, two years old, and I can only just imagine the pain and the suffering that Mum would have gone through in those terrible times when they did not know what was going to happen to me and how much I would be affected by polio. But my mother had great faith, and I am here today I reckon because of my Mum.
I also mention Marysville. You know all about the fires. While I was in Melbourne, I did a quick trip up to see where my brother lives. It is like a holiday retreat for him, but he does have a house in Buxton. I wanted to see the conditions of the area that had been devastated by the recent bushfires. I also wanted to talk to the lady who owned the Marysville post office.
In the condolence motion that I gave at that time I mentioned that I had a clock in my room which I bought from the post office. I called into the Healesville post office and they knew exactly the lady I was talking to, in fact my condolence motion ended up in the local newspaper for Marysville and Buxton, to my surprise; I believe my brother had something to do with it. So they knew who I was and they put me on to the lady who was the post office lady for Marysville. She is quite well. She is ready to go back to work as soon as she gets a new post office and it was very nice to hear from her.
I also visited my brother’s house and how he survived and how his house survived I cannot understand. If people want to see the pictures of the land around his house, you are quite welcome to come to my office and I will show you on the computer. It is amazing. The entire landscape is burnt, yet his house still stands. And you see that right through the landscape in that area at the moment. The funny thing is that the pastures are now all green, the cattle are grazing, yet there is a house here and a house there that are completely wiped out and then there is one that is not even touched.
The bush is just starting to come back to life. So there are these dead trees and green pastures, there is even snow in the Alps now that the cold weather has arrived. You have people doing their normal farming work, compared with places like Marysville where 90% of the houses have gone. The main street hardly has a shop standing. The bakery is doing good business because all the construction workers are cleaning up all the houses, so they are getting fine business, but for many people it must be extremely sad.
Many people stayed at Marysville for honeymoons, at times to get together, and to have time on their own. Most of that is gone. Perhaps I will continue this talk a little later about my trip to Marysville, but for the moment I wish all of those people in that area all the best and hope that Marysville and that area comes back to what it used to be.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Anzac Day in Palmerston and I commend the minister for attending.
It was a very proud day for Palmerston. I have attended quite a few of the Anzac Day marches and services around the country and the numbers in Palmerston for both the Dawn Service and the 10 am service were remarkable. I believe the numbers were similar in other jurisdictions. As a Palmerston resident for many years, I was extremely proud of the community. Looking out into the darkness the heads just seemed to go on and on and it was a wonderful tribute to past and present soldiers.
It also marked 40 days for me without beer, so after 40 days it was time for a flood. I did have a beer for a tribute to Anzac Day, and although I will not call it a flood, it was the first in 40 days.
I also mention a dear friend of mine, Bob Brander, who passed away last week. I attended his funeral today and I want to say some words from the notes from the funeral. Bob was born on 5 October 1944, in Kimberley, British Columbia, Canada. He was the third of six children born to Annie and Willis Brander. They lived in Kimberley for four years and then the family moved to The Incline, Mt Shier, Squamish and Britannia Beach. From there, at 18 years of age, Bob joined the army and, after training, he had a stint in eastern Canada, he then went overseas and spent time in the Middle East. On his return, he stayed in British Columbia for a short time and then went to New Zealand to visit some cousins and made the trip to Australia. He will be sadly missed by his wife, Sharon. I pass on my condolences to Sharon and all the extended family in Malaysia, Australia, Canada and beyond.
I spoke last night about housing issues in Palmerston. From the stories and the photos I have seen and the places I have visited, I believe we have an issue with management. I have even had people say to me that perhaps my approach is a little harsh on some people and that they need to be treated with kid gloves. I have a different attitude. I do not want to see any people, currently living in Territory Housing, on the street but they have a choice to make.
One is to live by the rules of society and to maintain their properties and look after them and they will be quite welcome to stay as long as they want. But if they do not treat them with respect and the courtesy that they should, they basically do not have a right to be there. Territory Housing should be seen as a privilege not a right.
I also mention that I have sent out many letters in recent times to different ministers and it was remarkable to receive so many letters in the last week, in the lead-up to parliament. I wonder whether all those responses were so that I could not come in here over the next couple of days …
A member: So cynical.
Mr CHANDLER: … and say that I had not heard from the ministers. I am not being cynical, I do not think, but there was a big response in the last week. I thank the ministers who responded to the many issues I raised with them.
I want to mention the number of people who have come into my office to talk about the former member for Brennan being offered a very highly paid position in the Chief Minister’s office in Palmerston. Although I only have 60 seconds to speak, one thing that shook me to the core recently was to see the former member walk in with a whole heap of government hats, t-shirts and other government paraphernalia. I assure you that I cannot even get a flag, a little metal flag out of Protocol and yet these people seem to be able to get as many things as they want.
I work in a government-funded office in Palmerston and I could not even get a Territory flag for that office. It is a government office. I had to purchase that myself. Yet this side of the House is supporting former members which can only be seen as a taxpayer election campaign for the next three years. They are supporting them by giving them whatever they want as give-aways to people to promote themselves. You work in a government office and you cannot even get a Territory flag and I think that is very poor.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak about Anzac Day and how impressed I was with the service. The Dawn Service I went to was one of the most impressive and enjoyable I have attended in many years. I have only missed about two Dawn Services in the 28 years I have been in the Northern Territory.
When I first came here many years ago and went to the Dawn Service there were about 300 to 400 people. This year the estimates are around 8000 people and, for a small town, when you consider Darwin to Sydney, 8000 people is a tremendous effort for people to support the memory of those who served for us.
The service at St Mary’s Cathedral was also very enjoyable, as it has been for many years. The march seems to get bigger every year. I suspect we are going to have to extend it a little further down Cavanagh Street because they had trouble fitting everyone in on both sides of the street outside the RSL club.
The Darwin RSL, as it does from year to year on Anzac Day, put on fabulous entertainment and service. The branch that I am a member of, the North Darwin branch, goes to a lot of trouble to put on a fantastic day for returned servicemen, women and their families, in a traditional pastime of two-up and generally enjoying each other’s company.
It is very heartening to see so many young people turning up at the Anzac Day service. This year, when I looked around at the crowd, gave me another opportunity to reflect on my own childhood and memories of going to Anzac Day. I spoke to my father some years ago about this and asked him how old I was when I went to my first Dawn Service and he said I was two months shy of my third birthday. I recall that day sitting on his shoulders walking up Kings Park Avenue to the Kings Park Memorial in Perth. It is a huge war memorial which overlooks the city of Perth. It was a very memorable event. Even though I did not understand what it was all about, I was to learn in later years the significance of Anzac Day and what it meant to this nation as a whole, and some might say, the birth of the nation.
It was very interesting to reflect on how many people were at the Dawn Services in those days, how many young people were there and of course, the Diggers, both World War I and World War II. As a very young person, down on the Esplanade in Perth, there were thousands of returned servicemen and women from World War I, World War II, and from Korea. It is fantastic and very encouraging to see that more people are attending to recognise the contribution and in memory of these people who have served us, those who died in the conflict, and those who have passed in recent years.
It was with great pride that I attended the Gallipoli Dawn Service in 2007. I encourage anyone, who is an Australian citizen, to go and experience what an awesome event that is, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Go and see what these people, who went off on a cause, put up with and, in the greater scheme of things, were seen as fighting for our freedom.
What made this year very special for me was the fact that I took an elderly friend of mine, John Moyle, who turned 90 on 5 January this year. He is a World War II veteran who served in New Guinea and in the South Pacific. He is a guy who continues to serve his community. You will see him in APEX clubs, at the football manning the stands, and at the Northlakes Shopping Centre raising money for the Red Cross. He recently raised $1112.50 for the Red Cross Bushfires Appeal. He is currently raising money for the RSPCA, another fine body of people who volunteer their time for a fantastic community service.
I recognise John as one of those outstanding people who makes an enormous contribution to his community, during his war efforts, in business and now, in his retirement, he is still actively out there supporting his community and giving his heart and soul. I acknowledge the fantastic effort that he gives.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016