2011-02-24
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Batchelor Area School students accompanied by Ms Tanya Bollinger and Ms Kristy Williams. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Administrative Arrangements Order made by the Administrator on 9 December 2010 transfers responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act to the Department of Justice. Under the previous Administrative Arrangements Order of February 2010, no agency had responsibility for the act; the responsibility rested solely with me as the minister. Under the new Administrative Arrangements Order, I retain ministerial responsibility as the Minister for Health. This is appropriate because the act deals with health complaints.
For the period from the commencement of the act on 10 June 1998 until 29 August 2010, the Ombudsman had the position as commissioner. This also meant the Ombudsman had responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the act. During 2010, the current Ombudsman indicated she did not want to be reappointed when her current appointment expired. The former commissioner also suggested in her annual report for 2008-09 that, in view of the commission’s significantly increased role, a review of the dual positions of commissioner and Ombudsman was desirable.
The commissioner noted that separate appointments would: first, remove actual conflicts of interest as well as public perceptions of conflicts; second, provide the public with a more equitable health complaints service given that one person cannot adequately perform the duties of both functionaries during this period of reform in the delivery of health services; and third, enable greater and more effective participation in national initiatives.
It is generally agreed that the function of Ombudsman and Health and Community Complaints Commissioner are potentially incompatible given that the commissioner, like many other independent statutory officers, is potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman concerning some administrative actions. It was also decided, as a matter of policy and governance, that the office of the commissioner should not be administered by the department of Health, given the department is a provider of services that are subject to the commissioner’s complaint jurisdiction. Accordingly, administration of the act has been brought into the Department of Justice.
The act has a number of provisions that reflect the policy positions taken in 1998; namely, the commissioner’s position be held by the Ombudsman. These include provisions consequent to the very special relationship between the Legislative Assembly and the Ombudsman concerning appointing and suspending the Ombudsman. This special relationship does not exist between the Assembly and other important and independent statutory office holders such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Registrar-General, Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner and Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. Indeed, involving the Assembly in the appointment and suspension processes potentially introduces political overtones.
This bill seeks to amend the act so the Administrator, in appointing or suspending the commissioner, is no longer required to act on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly. The bill also clarifies some ambiguities regarding the employment relationships and status of the staff of the commission. As with the Ombudsman’s staff and the staff of most other independent officers, the employees of the commission are to be public sector employees as defined in the Interpretation Act. This, in fact, maintains the status quo.
The bill also amends the act so it is plainer that statutory powers are exercised separately from employment powers derived from the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The bill also puts in statutory form the commissioner’s capacity to hire as consultants persons such as lawyers and medical experts. Consultants provide independent advice and are not employees for the purpose of the act.
The bill also makes amendments of a statute law revision nature as identified by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Penalties amendments are being dealt with in a separate bill.
I also formally advise members that I intend to finalise the statutory review of the operation of the act. This will involve the Department of Justice and the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints providing me with an updated report on the act. It is intended the department and the commissioner will, in developing this report, engage in significant public consultation. I anticipate being in a position to introduce any necessary amendments to the act by the end of 2011.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to the final report of the Statehood Steering Committee. It is timely we debate this report today, as this week we have seen again that our rights as Territorians are less than those of other Australians.
In 2005, this parliament, with bipartisan support, passed a bill preventing the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth had a different view and passed laws that will now allow a nuclear waste facility in the Territory. This is the second intrusion into our rights as Territorians; the first being the earlier overturning of the euthanasia laws. Notwithstanding the controversial nature of both of these issues, surely Territorians have a right to have the laws passed by their parliament respected in the same way that states’ laws are respected? We are all elected in the same way.
Few Territorians would realise that our laws can be overturned by a Commonwealth minister within six months of assent by our Administrator or, after that, by an act of the federal parliament. And few would understand that at national referenda our votes do not really count. We are only counted in the mass of all Australian electors whereas, for a referendum to pass to change the Australian Constitution, it requires a majority of electors to agree, as well as the majority of states to vote yes.
The Commonwealth government has committed to holding a referendum on recognition of Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution in the next few years. This will be significant for us in the Northern Territory because more than 30% of our population is made up of Aboriginal Australians. Yet, when they and all other Territory electors are asked to vote on this important question, as long as we are not a state, our vote will not have the same weight as that of an elector resident in a state. I believe this is unjust and, after 100 years of being a Territory, it is time for us to reclaim our rights.
This is what the members of the Statehood Steering Committee have been working on for the past five years. These are dedicated Territorians and Australians who believe passionately in the Territory becoming the seventh state of Australia, and we are here today to discuss the work which they have produced over that time.
The Statehood Steering Committee was a creature of this Assembly which came into existence in early 2005, holding its first meeting in Alice Springs on 20 April of that year. With a mix of community representatives and members of the Assembly, it was a truly representative arrangement which has worked long and hard to achieve important goals.
On Monday, 6 December last year, the Statehood Steering Committee met for the 27th and final time. After 27 formal meetings over five years and 50 community consultation forums held last year, as well as more than 200 other meetings and information sessions during its life, the Statehood Steering Committee members can be very proud of what they have achieved. I draw your attention to many members of the former Statehood Steering Committee who have come here today - I will name them later in my speech.
In its first year the Statehood Steering Committee, in conjunction with the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, set seven major reporting milestones. These were:
establishing the Statehood Steering Committee;
community education;
public meetings and hearings;
examining the legal requirements;
a constitutional convention; and
a referendum.
The report we consider today covers the first four milestones focused on community engagement and education. Parts five and six of the program are being developed in further detail now by the standing committee, and part seven remains the ultimate goal which would occur as a consequence of any recommendations received, if made by the delegates at a proposed constitutional convention.
The Statehood Steering Committee’s status was that of an advisory body to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am the Chair. To fulfil its advisory role, the steering committee undertook an extensive program of education and consultation. The outcomes of the program are documented in both this report and in the previous reports to the Assembly.
The activities the Statehood Steering Committee reports on include:
community visits across the Territory;
school visits and establishing a Statehood Teachers Advisory Group;
participation in the Charles Darwin symposia;
establishment of Friends of Statehood;
submissions to two separate federal parliamentary inquiries, and communications with the Northern Territory government;
production and dissemination of fact sheets, discussion papers, and information papers;
the 2008 Walking Together Towards Statehood campaign in conjunction with celebrating 30 years of self-government; and
the creation of the Northern Territory 2011 Towards State 7 campaign designed to culminate in a people’s constitutional convention.
In January last year, the steering committee launched the NT 2011 Towards State 7 campaign. The key feature of this campaign was 50 information road show forums. These forums were held around the Territory from the Centre to the Top End and from east to west - and I note that 42 of those forums were held in remote areas.
They provided an opportunity for members of the steering committee to discuss statehood with the people of the Northern Territory. Five things arose from these important community discussions and were raised fairly consistently. The first of these was money, something in which we are always interested. People asked how statehood might affect future Commonwealth funding, taxation, and mining royalties. Lengthy discussion occurred on this at every forum. While the short answer is there is likely to be no change to the existing arrangements when it comes to the Commonwealth’s funding through the Grants Commission process, and while taxation remains a political matter for each jurisdiction and the mining royalties debate is happening without statehood anyway, it is fair to say these matters remain a significant concern for many Territorians.
There appears to be also a fairly broad perception that, somehow, states finance themselves when the Territory is subsidised. However, the reality is, in our federal system, no state goes it alone. Every one of them, including the Territory, relies on revenue gathered by the Commonwealth from residents within the borders of the states and territories and distributed to the states and territories on a fiscal equalisation formula.
The second emerging theme was equality. This included discussion around equal standing for Territory laws, equality when a national referendum takes place, and equal representation in the federal parliament. Territorians appear to cherish equality, and statehood is a step in that direction.
The third theme was identity. People wanted to discuss what it means to be a Territorian and how being a state might change the rules under which we live. It emerged there is certainly no appetite to change the name of the Northern Territory at all.
Fourth was leadership. Discussions centred on recent Commonwealth activities such as the 2007 emergence response, or the so-called intervention, and people asked: are we ready to lead ourselves? Are our leaders up to the task? Do we have a big enough population? How should our Legislative Assembly operate if we become a state? These are matters which, no doubt, will continue to be discussed in more detail as we move to statehood.
The fifth theme to emerge was about Aboriginal participation. Where do Aboriginal laws and law making fit in? How does Aboriginal participation in our society, our economy, and our political environment flourish under statehood? Would there be any change? What will happen to the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and how will other rights be dealt with? Would the intervention have been any different?
The many Aboriginal participants at the forum spoke on these matters with passion. The involvement of Aboriginal Territorians on the steering committee has meant the committee has been well briefed on concerns such as these, and this has influenced the 10 recommendations in the report.
These five themes have emerged as the major issues which Territorians want to discuss when statehood is raised. These, and other matters raised, have been pivotal in the Statehood Steering Committee’s consideration of the way forward.
The committee’s overarching goal has been inclusiveness. During its existence, the steering committee was clear that any model for statehood had to be adapted to the needs of a majority of Territorians. The committee has, therefore, recommended that delegates to the proposed conventions who will be asked to draft a constitution should be elected through a democratic process. The steering committee was also influenced by the 1999 standing committee report on appropriate measures to facilitate statehood, which was tabled in this Assembly almost 12 years ago; which found that participation was going to be the key to success.
Further, the steering committee believes that to maximise the representation of Territorians, 16- and 17-year-olds on the provisional electoral roll of the Australian Electoral Commission should be allowed to nominate as delegates if they wish, and vote for delegates.
As a result of the work undertaken and the lengthy engagement process under Parts I to 4 of the seven states process, and the five emerging themes outlined today, the steering committee has made 10 well-considered recommendations. It is worthwhile listing each of the 10 recommendations which have been made to the standing committee as each one reflects that inclusive approach. The recommendations, on page 3 of the final report, are:
1. the Statehood Steering Committee, by mutual agreement between the Statehood Steering Committee and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, concludes its work at the end of 2010 and reports to the standing committee on the 2010 year of activities;
2. the standing committee appoints a new advisory committee, the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee (NTCCC) to undertake the planning for a constitutional convention to be held by the end of 2011, and advise the standing committee on the resources and any other requirements needed for a successful convention;
6. the convention should take place in two discrete sessions over an adequate time to ensure the acceptance and understanding of the program by as many Territorians as possible;
7. the first convention should convene in Darwin over approximately 10 days and, with the support of appropriate experts, it should be informed by the views which are expressed by Territory residents contained in the NT 2011 Information Road Show reports gathered from the 50 public forums held across the Territory in 2010;
8. the first convention should produce a draft constitution to be publicly released and consulted upon for a period of approximately 12 months prior to convention delegates reconvening to consider the response of Territorians to the content of the draft constitution;
9. the second convention should convene in Alice Springs over approximately five days to ratify a final draft constitution for presentation to the Legislative Assembly in 2013; and
10. the Territory government must continue to engage the Commonwealth government and parliamentarians on the terms and conditions of statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution, as described in the information paper titled What Might the Terms and Conditions of Northern Territory Statehood Be?, which was tabled and considered alongside this report prior to undertaking any referendum on the question of statehood for the Northern Territory.
These recommendations have been transmitted by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the government. The first two recommendations have been implemented and the standing committee understands the government will be responding in due course to the remainder of the recommendations.
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude and thanks to the dedicated, hard-working Territorians who have been involved in bringing this report to fruition. The members who worked on this report and were with the Statehood Steering Committee at the conclusion of its existence were - and many of these people are here today - the former Mayor of Alice Springs and well-known Centralian, Ms Fran Kilgariff, the Co-Chair - and I should note that her father, the late Bern Kilgariff was a very strong advocate for statehood; Deputy Opposition Leader, the member for Goyder; parliamentary secretary, the member for Arafura; journalist, Mr Daniel Bourchier; Cattlemen’s Association CEO, Mr Luke Bowen; solicitor, Mrs Kathleen Chong-Fong; solicitor, Mr Wayne Connop; former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Hon Brian Martin AO MBE; multicultural specialist, Mrs Jenny Medwell OAM; traditional owner and member of the Central Land Council, Ms Irene Nangala; traditional owner and member of the Central Land Council, Mr Harry Nelson; senior police officer and Police Federation member, Mr Sean Parnell; community representative, Mr Jamey Robertson; Business Council member and Engineers Australia (NT) Branch CEO, Ms Bronwyn Russell; former Deputy Chair of the Central Land Council and political activist, Mr Maurie Ryan Japarta; Alice Springs community representative, Mr Peter Schaefer; president of the Law Society, Mr Matthew Storey; community representative, Mrs Margaret Vigants; Unions NT representative, Mr Bob Wade; Local Government Association of the Northern Territory representative, Mr Ray Wooldridge; and Northern Land Council Chairman, Mr Wali Wunungmurra.
The former members who participated in the formation of the committee and provided the building blocks and a great deal of valuable guidance were: community representative, Mrs Sue Bradley AM, the foundation Co-Chair from 2005 to 2008; broadcaster and now Palmerston alderman, Pete Davies from 2005 to 2009; the existing CEO of the Northern Land Council, Mr Kim Hill, who was a member from 2005 to 2006; former Cattlemen’s Association CEO, Stuart Kenny, from 2005 to 2009; and the current Minister for Statehood, the member for Arnhem, who was my predecessor as Chair from 2006 to 2009.
I thank the Minister for Statehood for her continued passion and support for the process of statehood. Her hard work in the early years of the Statehood Steering Committee is well noted, and congratulations should be given to the minister for that work.
The former Minister for Local Government and member for Barkly, Mr Elliot McAdam, was the foundation Chair from 2005 to 2006; the Leader of the Opposition and member for Blain was a member from 2005 to 2008, and also a former shadow minister for Statehood; a former Central Land Council member and Vietnam War veteran, Geoff Shaw AM, was a member from 2005 to 2006; former Chair of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM was a foundation member in 2005; former Speaker of the Assembly and former member for Braitling, Mrs Loraine Braham was a member from 2005 to 2008; and the member for Fannie Bay was a member from 2009 to 2010.
I thank the committee officers over the years and the committee’s former legal advisor, Graham Nicholson; the Solicitor-General, Mr Michael Grant QC; and Ms Sonia Brownhill, a very experienced lawyer from the Solicitor-General’s Office, who was also a legal advisor to the committee.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the secretary of the committee, our current Deputy Clerk, Mr Michael Tatham, who has worked very hard over five years and has helped put together all the reports presented today. My thanks, in particular, to the Deputy Clerk.
This exhaustive list demonstrates the commitment and talent that has been dedicated to statehood over these past five years.
We should not forget the excellent work undertaken by eminent Territorians during the 1980s and 1990s which laid the groundwork for much of the discussion which continues today. I particularly note the work of former Chief Minister, Mr Steve Hatton, who put in much effort during the 1980s and 1990s.
During November last year, with the Minister for Statehood and other members, I spoke in the Assembly about the 100th year of the Northern Territory coming under the control and administration of the Commonwealth government under Australia’s constitutional arrangements. I also took the opportunity to update the Assembly on some of the activities planned by the standing committee this year. The report we consider today details the Statehood Steering Committee program last year, where the committee conducted 50 public forums in a campaign called Northern Territory 2011 Towards State 7.
Over the past five years, committee representatives spoke to thousands of Territorians at forums, rural shows, festivals and gatherings, in classrooms, at service clubs, breakfasts and dinners, in workplaces, in shopping malls, on the streets, and around the town centres and cities of the Northern Territory. As indicated, the Northern Territory 2011 Towards State 7 part of the campaign was designed over two years to capitalise on awareness that this year, 2011, is the 100th year of being a subordinate territory.
Last year was the first part of a two-year program to consult on the matters people wish to have considered in a constitution, and this year is Stage 2, the holding of a constitutional convention. This year’s program commenced with the standing committee making a visit to Canberra to meet with Commonwealth parliamentarians. With my standing committee colleagues, the members for Arafura, Goyder and Brennan, we visited Canberra on Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 February 2011. These meetings informed Commonwealth government, opposition, Green and Independent members and senators of their key role in determining the terms and conditions of Northern Territory statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution. To assist this, every Commonwealth parliamentarian will receive a copy of the information paper published by the Statehood Steering Committee on 1 January 2011 and tabled in conjunction with the final report we are considering today.
Meetings also took place in Canberra with the two Presiding Officers with whom we held discussions about how the Northern Territory Assembly can connect better with all Commonwealth parliamentarians to inform each other on matters of mutual interest and concern as we move toward statehood. All our meetings were very productive and, after seeing a very broad cross-section of members and senators, I am pleased to inform the Assembly we did not encounter any opposition to the concept of statehood for the Northern Territory.
Of course, we received many questions about the past program and the proposed program for this year. The expressed interest was twofold. For the Commonwealth there is, quite understandably, some interest in what the future representation would be in the Australian parliament, particularly how many senators we might have. But, there was also a great deal of interest in local decision-making and the opportunity statehood provides for more sovereignty over the matters which directly impact upon Territorians ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, if I could just interrupt you for one moment, please, to welcome our visitors?
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 3/4 Parap Primary School students accompanied by Ms Colleen Williams and Mr Trevor Burke. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With regard to the former matter - future Commonwealth representation for the Territory - the Statehood Steering Committee took a position in the information paper tabled in conjunction with this final report that eventual equality must be the ultimate goal. The steering committee deliberately did not set a time frame because this will, no doubt, be a matter for ongoing consideration and discussion in the context of the eventual terms and conditions of statehood as determined under section 121 of the Australian Constitution.
Of most immediate interest to us in the Territory is the latter consequence of statehood; that of increased sovereignty which means we would have more say over the laws passed in this Assembly - laws which are the subject of debate and scrutiny by Territorians and cannot be arbitrarily overturned by those in another parliament where 222 of the 226 members represent Australians living in other jurisdictions.
A week prior to our visit to Canberra, the member for Goyder and I also appeared as witnesses before the Senate Select Committee on Reform of the Australian Federation hearings which were held in Brisbane. We spoke about the Statehood Steering Committee’s submission to that committee, made in August last year, which outlined the opportunities of a new grant of statehood and how, for the first time in Australian history, it might influence consideration of who does what best in the reform of the Australian Federation.
The senators said they were interested in how the Northern Territory was to engage not just the Commonwealth government, but all Commonwealth parliamentarians. In that regard, we have commenced discussions with the federal Presiding Officers about how we might exchange information between the parliaments.
Nearly every Commonwealth parliamentarian has, understandably, asked about Aboriginal matters similar to the issues which were raised during the forums. The steering committee has been fortunate to have a very close engagement with Aboriginal Territorians and the organisations they belong to, providing us an avenue to give further briefings along the way. For example, the steering committee briefed the full council of the Central Land Council three times over the past five years, and the executive on at least one separate occasion.
The first such briefing was when the foundation Chair, Mr Elliot McAdam, attended a meeting at Docker River in 2005; the second was when the foundation Co-Chair spoke to the council at Tennant Creek in 2006 and, most recently, committee member Sean Parnell and the committee secretary briefed the land council at Utopia in late 2010. Aboriginal Territorians have been a constant presence on the committee, and the views of these members are to be found in the final recommendations.
We face an exceptionally exciting year ahead. We have much to do, but the Statehood Steering Committee has more than laid the foundations. I recently wrote an opinion piece published in the National Times section of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age, which was accompanied by a straw poll asking readers, ‘Do you support calls for the Northern Territory to be declared a state?’, which ran over a two-day period. The results from 4348 votes were 74% said yes, 20% said no, and 6% remained unsure. The poll closed on 16 February and, while the website disclaimer makes it clear these polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate, I believe we can take some comfort that our fellow Australians living mainly on the eastern seaboard, where the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age are published, are inclined to support democracy for the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Territorians are always ready and willing to work on improving things and, if we do this right, all Australians will be ready for the Northern Territory to take its place as Australia’s newest, seventh state.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Chair of our Statehood Steering Committee, the member for Nightcliff and our Speaker, who has just very eloquently set out in her contribution the report that is with us today, and the work the steering committee has done over a number of years to bring us to this point where we have a clear path towards eventually becoming Australia’s seventh state.
It is a pity the children from Year 5/6 Batchelor Area School and Year 3/4 Parap Primary School have left, because I was watching those kids in the gallery and thinking it would be a tragedy and a travesty if they get to the age of 18 and do not have the same constitutional rights as all other Australians. We, as this current generation of Territorians, owe it to those kids to ensure we get statehood right, and work together across the political divide, across our community, with a very clear goal. It is a very simple question at the end of the day which, if we get this right, should have a resounding and resolving yes vote at any future vote or plebiscite in the Territory about statehood. It should be yes, we should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other Australians. It is a pretty simple question at the end of the day. It should not be beyond impossibility we can give those students in the gallery today the same rights and responsibilities as all other Australians. It is about the Northern Territory growing up, being recognised, not only within the Northern Territory, but around Australia. It is time, as we have reached the age of 18, to sit around the table and be able to make the same decisions and have the same rights as every other Australian.
In the same way I was very disappointed, as many people were disappointed, that the last referendum did not get up. It is the same level of disappointment I had when Australia voted in a referendum to become a republic. I thought it was a really sad day we were not strong enough, or proud enough of ourselves to say we have respect for the United Kingdom and everything we inherit from that, but it is time to stand alone and be independent. The same question about the Territory becoming a state is all about us saying we are old enough now to have the same rights and responsibilities as all other Australians. It is a pretty simple question.
In the same way our vote in that constitutional referendum about becoming a republic was only worth, essentially, half of the vote of every other Australian who lives in the other states. As Madam Speaker said in her contribution, it will be an absolute travesty when we have a referendum in this country in order to amend the Constitution to recognise the rights of the Indigenous Australians, that the jurisdiction with the largest proportion of Indigenous Australians is only going to have 50% of the vote of other Indigenous Australians about whether they should be recognised in the Constitution. It is an absolute travesty; so we really have to get this right.
I thank the steering committee members, both current and previous. Madam Speaker named all the people who have contributed passionately to this debate over the last few years. Engaging our community across the Northern Territory about the reasons to become a state, I suppose, first and foremost, is an issue that is not at the top of people’s minds most of the time. If I go to a barbecue or the pub, or sit around with family and friends, it is a rare topic of conversation that comes up. People live very busy lives and have many issues on their plate and, when they are relaxing and kicking back, it is normally issues such as family, football, what the kids are up to, and where they are going to go on holiday that tend to dominate those gatherings.
Engaging our community across the Northern Territory on what they think and the type of process to go forward on an issue that is very important, certainly very symbolic, has had to be done in a way that is bipartisan and genuine. The reports I have received are from members on our side of the parliament who have been on this committee and engaged in the forum. Speaking to committee members who have served, current and past, there have been an increasing number of people coming to these forums and gatherings wanting to engage in this debate, which is a great thing.
We need to take this to the grassroots. I said at the beginning of the year, our generation - the generation in this Assembly - probably has one more shot to get this right. If we do not get it right this time through this process, I do not know if I will live long enough to see statehood. We cannot afford to fail the test twice of our own people not having the confidence to vote yes for statehood. We are at a really important time.
I genuinely thank the opposition and our Independent members for their genuine bipartisanship on this, because this is bigger than politics. This is about those kids up there and ensuring those children have the same rights as all other Australians to participate in the national debate and have their votes counted with the same amount of respect and weight as all other citizens, and for this parliament, duly elected by the citizens of this Territory, to be treated with the same respect as other parliaments of Australia. So, it is very important we get this right because, as I said, it is not so much about us, it is about those kids.
The work the current steering committee has done over the last couple of years - I think around 50 communities have been visited across our Territory in the bush, regional areas, our major cities, and schools. I congratulate the committee on the Walking Together historical time line that was put together. Pictures paint a thousand words for those kids up there - the path towards statehood, all the milestones in the evolution of our constitution, both nationally and in the Territory – is fantastic in its simplicity in one way, but also illustrative of what a struggle it has been for our voices to be heard in the Commonwealth parliament for our Territory citizens to have the same rights as other citizens of this great nation.
It was only 42 years ago that the sole member for the Northern Territory was given the same rights as other members in the Commonwealth parliament - the right to vote and debate on issues other than Territory issues. We all know the complexities of federal/state relationships and government policy at the national level. If you just confined to talk to things specific about the Northern Territory you probably would not be participating in much at all. It really has been a fight and a struggle all the way. I pay tribute to all those people down the years, on both sides of parliament, and all those wonderful Territorians who have kicked, screamed, punched, and fought for the rights of Territorians to be heard.
I have only seen this report today, and it is very significant and pretty weighty. There is a lot of good stuff in here. I have been looking through the recommendations and I congratulate the committee on mapping out a clear path for our community to follow. There are recommendations in the body of this which will be considered regarding the elected nature of the constitutional conventions; trying to ensure, through these conventions and the people elected to them, that it really comes from the grassroots and is a representative body of the people of the Northern Territory. I give a commitment that on our side of the House we are not going to play politics with this. We will not run ALP political candidates, and I am confident the other side will not.
I look forward to seeing who is elected as a representative group to the convention from across the Northern Territory. There are some initiatives in the recommendations that young people in the Northern Territory are significantly, if not overwhelmingly, represented at that convention. It is about the future; it is not about us. I hope the convention has very few people of thinning and grey hair and many young, passionate, and vibrant people who are excited about the future of the Northern Territory. That is my hope - it is about the future and about our children.
I am not prepared to commit yet; however, I congratulate the committee for a groundbreaking recommendation: that the election process allow 17-year-old Territorians to vote and nominate to be a candidate. That is what this process is all about. Let us break some new ground; let us kick down the doors. Let us tell young people we want them to be part of this debate. I will take some advice from the constitutional experts; however, this is probably the first time in Australia’s history that 17-year-olds have been allowed to participate in a plebiscite and have equal representation in an elected body. Obviously, we need advice on that. I genuinely congratulate the committee - that is groundbreaking stuff. When you look at our 17-year-olds around the Territory, they are not kids, they are young adults. Those who are working are paying taxes. They are old enough to join the Army and to get married. They are paying taxes and should be entitled to participate in this debate.
The recommendations set out a very clear, bipartisan path. I am pleased with Recommendation 9:
That takes it past the next election to ensure this is not a political exercise or opportunity for political parties to wrap themselves in the flag and pledge undying loyalty and get into government on the back of a push to statehood. Taking it out of the political context is a very wise thing to do. If there is any whiff of politics in this, I fear for the consequences of the final vote. That is very important as well.
Another reason it clearly comes into force today - let us take the politics out of Muckaty Station and the nuclear waste facility. I am not here to debate the politics …
Mr Tollner: I am sure you would love to do that.
Mr HENDERSON: … but the reality is we know, as we have been in this game long enough - and you know, member for Fong Lim, the only reason this facility is coming to the Northern Territory
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Be quiet, member for Fong Lim.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: We know the only reason this facility is coming to the Northern Territory is not because of science. It is because this is such a difficult issue for this nation to grapple with that both sides of federal parliament are imposing this on the Northern Territory because, constitutionally, they can. The only reason it is coming here is, constitutionally, they can, and both sides are too gutless to put it where, geologically and constitutionally, they can put it, which is the ACT. The actual science which evaluated eight sites around Australia that are geologically stable and suitable …
Mr Tollner: Why did you not get down to Canberra and convince Julia about it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting, please.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. I am not trying to be controversial here, but the science that was mapped out for many years identified eight geologically suitable sites for a nuclear waste facility around Australia and one was in the ACT. Of course, they would not put it in Canberra. Constitutionally, they can plonk it in the Northern Territory. That shows very clearly the disadvantage we have comparative to other Australians: if there needs to be a fix somewhere, they will fix it up in the Northern Territory, because they can, because they have the constitutional capacity to do that.
It is the same with the euthanasia debate. As complex and as controversial as that was, our rights were overridden because the Commonwealth parliament has the right to disallow any legislation of the Northern Territory.
This is a comprehensive way forward. It is a substantial document that has come from the diverse people across the Northern Territory who have engaged in this. We owe it, as the current set of community and political leaders in the Northern Territory, to continue to work together on this. This should not be about politics; it should be about those kids. It should be about ensuring our children have the same rights as all other Australians, and have those same responsibilities. When those children vote in constitutional issues or for their members of this parliament, they should have the same rights. It is fundamental; it is a very simple question.
There are complex issues that need to be worked out on the way through but, with goodwill, all of those issues can be worked through, particularly through these constitutional conventions and a representative body elected to them. I would like to see business people, multicultural people, people from across the Northern Territory, particularly young people participating in these debates because us old grey hairs have been around for long enough fighting about the same things - fighting about the repatriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, issues to do with uranium, and all sorts of issues. We should bow out of it and let those young people …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I would love to see a group of 20-year-old Aboriginal people coming together from around the Northern Territory debating the issue about the repatriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. With all due respect, the debate has been going for 30 years and the same people have been participating in this debate for 30 years. Let us get some young people involved in these debates. I really hope people put their hands up and get elected. When I get an opportunity to vote, if there are people standing in my electorate who are young people, I will be looking to support them wherever I can because it is very important.
We are all politicians debating this issue today, and we all know the big sticking issue …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be quick.
We all know the major sticking issue for the Commonwealth parliament, because politics is a numbers game - always has been, always will be - is the number of senators. That is the only thing, at the end of the day, they are going to be interested in: in our eventual equality, and the method of determining that eventual equality to receive the same number of senators as the states, what that does to the balance of power in the Senate. Whoever is government of the day will have that as their political antenna. Possibly, the biggest hurdle we have to overcome is negotiating with the Commonwealth parliament the eventual equality of numbers in the Senate.
Everything else should be, with good will, fairly workable but, when we get to the politics of representation in the Senate, that is when the argy-bargy will really start. I call on all parties represented in the federal parliament - I know I am being nave here – to put aside those thoughts. If they can think about these kids in the Northern Territory and not think about their own political fortunes, then that needs to be the debate we have.
At the end of the day, I commend the steering committee, past and present. They have done an extraordinary job in coming to these recommendations today. It gives us a clear path forward and it is bold.
I thank our Minister for Statehood for her passion and support for this. Every single member of this House - put politics aside - passionately believes in the future of the Northern Territory. All of us believe in those kids in the Northern Territory. We believe they have a very exciting and bright future, and those kids deserve the same rights as all other Australians. It is a pretty simple yes or no question. Let us get behind this and let us become the seventh state in our great nation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate those who have been involved in the Statehood Steering Committee, and whose work has resulted in a report for us to consider. I congratulate minister McCarthy for her passionate involvement for a long period of time, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her involvement. Of greater importance, in some respects, are the members of the community who have been involved in this very important process, which was a challenging process as well. I congratulate you for the effort you have made to be involved in this.
I want to talk a little about the place we are now; that we are perhaps a part of something much greater than we realise. I believe what we are involved in is a nation changer, and I will explain why in a moment. The work of this committee has produced answers to challenging questions, and provided information to allow Territorians to have an informed discussion about these matters. As the Chief Minister rightly pointed out, it is not really a barbecue stopper to talk about constitutional change, but the heart of this is something most Australians are passionate about; that is, constitutional equality and the rights of one citizen compared to another. It evokes a strong response wherever you go.
It has national significance because, not until you have the discussion with those outside the Northern Territory do they realise that our nation is in any respects not complete. That is why the Speaker, in her fine contribution, referenced the response of Australians who have read the article. There is interest in this, and I reckon the interest is because it provides leverage to some considerations of national significance. I will talk about that in a little while.
We are a part of something greater. Most people focus their thinking on what happened at the referendum on 3 October 1998. People look, analyse, consider and debate what went wrong, and what we could have done better.
I arrived, with the member for Wanguri, into this parliament in the middle of 1999 in the aftermath of that failed referendum which was narrowly lost. It was the topic of discussion: how did that occur? There were all sorts of analyses and so on. I became aware, as I was immediately placed on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Now, it seems a long time ago but, when I walked in there as a new member, I was brought into this great story. There were endless publications. All the books have a green cover, there are thick ones and thin ones, and they have all sorts of reports as a result of community consultation and responses to complex legal matters. I have piles of them in my office. A great deal of work had gone on before I arrived. The more I looked around the more I realised this had been going on for a very long time, and this is just one part of a very long story. It is like a slow train coming. In some respects, it is a bit like building the railway – it was a dream; now, we have a railway - being a part of something far greater.
I wondered who my electorate was named after. I found it was named after a bloke called Adair Macalister Blain. I learnt that Mr Blain went to Canberra in 1934 with a mantra. ‘The Territory for Territorians’ was his slogan. What he wanted - and he put his whole career on the line and said: ‘I will resign if I am not given, as a representative of the Northern Territory, full voting rights’. Imagine spending your whole career in parliament and not being allowed to vote and only being able to speak if you have been given special permission. It is challenging enough being in the parliament, let alone just sitting there all that time, coming from a place far from Canberra, and not being able to really participate. You are genuinely a token.
The poor chap did not live up to his promise. He left parliament and still did not have the capacity to vote. Just as an aside, an interesting thing about Adair Blain is that he served in World War I, re-enlisted as a member of parliament on the eve of World War II, and was captured in Singapore. He was an Independent and he had someone from the Country Party look after the electorate whilst he served in Singapore – not that there was much to do, he could not vote on anything! He was captured by the Japanese, spent the duration of the war as a prisoner of the Japanese in Singapore and Borneo. He was repatriated in 1945, marched back into the parliament in his uniform to a standing ovation, and was then ordered to go to hospital. He spent two months in hospital recuperating and continued the battle, ‘The Territory for Territorians’. Even back then he was calling out for this. We are a part of that story.
The next part of the story was in 2008 when we said goodbye to Sam Calder. He took the next stage where he was able to vote. It was a landmark achievement to be able to vote in the parliament and be recognised as a representative of the people of the Northern Territory. A significant gain was made.
Then we had Bern Kilgariff - off he went and added to that. What we had in that whole period with Bern Kilgariff, Sam Calder, and others was that the Territory moved into the place where we could govern our own affairs – a significant achievement. We are a part of that story. I commend those who have made those significant gains which we can look at. We should dwell on them for a second and see that is a part of this story.
An analogy Bern Kilgariff is famous for stuck with me. He told me once this statehood business was the final destination and there was movement in the Territory - just as Adair Macalister Blain wanted - for the people of the Territory to be properly recognised and given some respect and capacity to govern their own affairs. That led to a movement which, ultimately, resulted in the capacity to vote in the federal parliament - which seems like a strange thing now, but a major achievement. Bern said: ‘It was a movement, like a train moving and I decided to get onto it to see where it was going’. We knew its aim; its destination is full statehood.
The train had passed one major destination; it was continuing on and reached self-government. He acknowledged that as a major achievement. However, the train is still going and we are still on the train. For those who have left the train such as Adair Blain, Sam Calder, Bern Kilgariff, and all those others who are represented by those names, we are required to continue to the final destination.
There are some real challenges, make no mistake. It is all very nice to say we want to have equal rights - that is fine, people will agree. What are the financial arrangements? There have been some very good responses to that. I particularly commend the Statehood Steering Committee and the support around that committee to produce those documents which provided tremendous feedback and capacity for people to engage - the education component has been outstanding. I commend you for that.
Those questions have been answered. Equality, of course. I always find it funny when people say: ‘The bottom line is, what are we going to be called? Are we still going to be Territorians?’ That can be answered: ‘Yes, you can be’. ‘Well, that is okay then’. We are proud of our identity.
However, it is the leadership component which is the testing one, because we should not gloss over the immediate, very real challenges. We cannot walk away from the intervention and make comment and then pass; there is a great deal in that we have to respond to.
The issue of storage of nuclear waste in the Territory has a great deal attached to it. We need to reach a new place of engaging those things in a far more mature way. Whatever position we hold on the rights of the terminally ill; the fact that this parliament is a gathering of representatives of the people of the Northern Territory who have had that discussion, and the conclusion of that discussion was disregarded by another parliament, is something we really need to face up to - whatever side of the argument we uphold, by way of interjection and by comment.
The land rights issue is a challenge we must face, and it can only be faced with leadership. It is not going to be easy; we cannot deliver statehood because it is going to give people a good feeling. It is going to be hard work and we are going to have to be honest with each other like a big family with some controversial matters we want to discuss. We can wallpaper over them and manage them out to the side, or we can take them front and centre and deal with them. There will be some passion and some heat in this. We are not going to change as a result of it. We might get to a place; however, we have not changed as a result of the discussion.
In the seven stages to this - the reporting milestones - we have established a committee, which is great, and we have some fine Territorians on that committee. There has been community education, and they have done an outstanding job. It says there has been community consultation. Politicians can become pretty good at that: ‘We have consulted the community’. We have had public meetings and hearings, yes. All of these are relatively easy things. Then comes items five, six and seven – this is where the real work starts. It is like you are getting yourself ready and now we are going to dig deep. We are now going to examine the legal requirements. This is not going to be an academic exercise because those legal requirements are going to cause us to have a serious discussion about a whole range of things, some of which I have already referred to.
The constitutional convention is not going to be just balloons and streamers, it is going to be a very serious discussion. I do not want to be a part of something that is going to be like box ticking; that we are actually going to get out of this and say: ‘Was that not a lovely feeling?’ I went to the 2020 Summit. Its purpose was largely, I believe, to make people feel good ...
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: If you had been there it would have been different, I am sure. However, the 2020 Summit was an exercise to create an impression not a difference. This Northern Territory family has to get involved in this, roll up its sleeves and have a serious discussion about matters we should not gloss over if we are to be taken seriously as leaders. That is what I want to see in that convention.
I commend that endeavour. Yes, it is going to be good to have young people in it, but we want the whole lot - people who have not much hair as well. It is not just young people, to have …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, Gerry, there might be a place for you. What I am saying is the Chief Minister is drawing attention to having young people; that is great, but we have to have the whole lot - all properly represented, sleeves rolled up and get to work.
Then there was the referendum. I was there for the last referendum. There were many issues floating around and it felt like we needed to grab these things and put them on the table and sort them out so we can then be changed as a result, because it is a game changer. If we can do this properly and pull this off, we will not just be changing the Territory, we will be having an effect nationally.
That is where I started and I need to conclude by saying how I believe this is a nation changer. The reason is there is a common wealth, the sharing of wealth. I had a real wake-up call - because you can give speeches in the Territory about statehood and people go: ‘Yes, equality! It is not fair we do not have the same rights’. You can draw a response no matter where you go.
It was a fantastic trip - an eye-opener - when I went with the former Deputy Chief Minister, Syd Stirling to Canberra. We put on a joint face, representing the Territory, and walked into Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock’s office to put our case. It was: ‘Oh! They are not going to say no worries we will find a spot for you’. It was: ‘Here is a table. We are already sitting at this table. So, you blokes want to be a part of this do you?’ ‘Yes’. We knew it is, ultimately, the Commonwealth’s decision. How are we going to get to that table? What did they do? The Commonwealth said: ‘That is very good. You had a referendum, did you not? People did not want it’. ‘No’. ‘Well, go back and have another referendum’.
Right, off we go and talk to people again. We could be busy forever and a day doing stuff here in the Territory to go back and say: ‘Can we come in now?’ We are going to really have to muscle up because, if we just play that game, I know how it works. You go out and have just a bit more community consultation, do this and do that - keep us busy forever and a day. We have a fight on our hands – a serious fight on our hands.
I came away with a complete wake-up call. It is a call to arms, in many respects, because it is going to have an effect on the nation. Yes, full rights of citizenship for Australians who live in the Northern Territory, but it is going to have an effect on the nation. I mentioned the 2020 Summit. In that event there was, in my view, the seeding of a number of ideas. Conversations around the place had carried this idea: what is the future of the Commonwealth? What is the Commonwealth going to look like over the horizon? There is already discussion about the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. What is that relationship going to be? What will it look like in the future? This discussion we are having here can provide - if we take it seriously enough and recognise what is at stake - leverage into that national discussion.
Whilst the status quo remains and we are not at threat in any way - they can just manage us here - things will remain as they are at the Commonwealth level. However, we are going to be providing some leverage and effect on a national issue of what this nation looks like, and how we govern ourselves. This is part of that discussion.
This is what the nation, I believe, would be considering. The nation is not complete if we have one-fifth of the land mass not under the same level of governance. We are rich in resources and we make a magnificent contribution to the country. We are a reminder of the place of this nation within our region. We are a reminder also of the real challenges we face as a nation with our Indigenous population and how we sort that out. It will be sorted out here. We will change the face of the nation by dealing with this business here. These are the sorts of things we bring to the national story. It is not just a feel-good convention we are going to have; this is a game changer, and we have to be involved in that.
I am urging those who are involved in this to keep up the fight, to ensure we provide that leadership that looks at the issues, and recognise them very honestly and see through them. Do not look over them, do not try to talk them out to the side; they are very real, front and centre. All that is contained in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We have to push in there and be able to discuss those things properly, because it has an effect - a significant flow-on effect.
So, we are going somewhere. We are actually on that train I referred to before. It has passed through a number of stations along the way, from Adair Blain spending all that time sitting in the parliament doing nothing. I do not know what he would have done all that time. They did not have laptops; what would they have done? Now, we are at the next stage; we now have this document. I am urging honourable members and all Territorians to take this very seriously. It is a very significant part of our journey, and let us continue. I congratulate the committee.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Madam Speaker, Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee, and the Statehood Steering Committee members for the final report and recommendations, which I know each and every member of this House will read with great enthusiasm as we come towards our March sittings in Alice Springs to discuss and debate it in detail.
I acknowledge all the people who have been, over the past five years, very much a part of this incredibly historic committee regarding the future of the Northern Territory. The names of the committee members have been read. I would like to put the names on the record in my speech, and also to acknowledge not only past and present committee members, but also staff:
Fran Kilgariff, Jane Aagaard MLA, Matthew Storey, Brian Martin, Daniel Bourchier, Jenny Medwell, Kathleen Chong-Fong, Irene Nangala, Margaret Vigants, Kezia Purick, Maurie Ryan Japarta, Jamey Robertson, Luke Bowen, Wayne Connop, Harry Nelson, Peter Schaefer, Ray Wooldridge, Sean Parnell, Wali Wunungmurra, Bronwyn Russell, Bob Wade, and Marion Scrymgour MLA.
Former committee members: Sue Bradley AM, Stuart Kenny, Loraine Braham, Geoff Shaw AM, Kim Hill, Elliot McAdam, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Karl Hampton, Steven Milne, Pete Davies, Terry Mills, and Graham Nicholson.
Secretariat staff: Executive Officer Michael Tatham, Tania Hardy, Nora Kempster, Matthew James, Dennis Meehan; and to former staff, Carolynne James, Marise Riddell, Poppy Lelekis, Brian Lloyd, Pat Hancock, and Sharon McAlear. The current Statehood Steering Committee’s constitutional legal advisors are NT Solicitor-General Michael Grant QC, and Sonia Brownhill.
These people whose names have been mentioned go down in history as being important contributors towards the future of the Northern Territory.
I would like to reflect on an important time for me, as the member for Arnhem, working with each and every member of the Statehood Steering Committee over the five years. In 2005, the Statehood Steering Committee was established by the Northern Territory parliament to educate and inform residents across the Northern Territory about statehood. Eighty-two Territorians put themselves forward to be part of the history-making, new Statehood Steering Committee.
The first meeting of the Statehood Steering Committee was in Alice Springs from 21 to 22 April 2005. Elliot McAdam was appointed as Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee and long-time Territorian, Sue Bradley, was appointed as the Co-Chair. In their first year of existence the Statehood Steering Committee undertook a huge amount of work, including more than 20 community presentations on statehood; asking more than 1500 Territorians, on the 2005 show circuit, about their understanding of statehood; developing an interactive website, www.statehood.nt.gov.au; conducting four public discussion forums on statehood; and visiting Alice Springs, Docker River, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Maningrida, Milingimbi, Daly River, Jabiru and Wadeye to discuss statehood issues with community groups and organisations.
In 2006, I was appointed Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee beside Sue Bradley. In 2006, we launched the Statehood Story Board Series at Parliament House. The story board series was made available to primary school and junior high school students from around Darwin to learn about statehood. Using pictures and storytelling was a great way to spread the statehood message to even more Territorians but, most importantly, our young people of the Northern Territory.
In 2006, the Statehood Steering Committee again had a strong presence at the show circuit which resulted in an increased awareness of statehood. In 2007, the Statehood Steering Committee launched a radio advertising campaign to increase understanding and get Territorians to think a little more about statehood. In that same year, the committee was also actively involved in the Charles Darwin University symposium called Statehood and a Bill of Rights. At the symposium, the Statehood Steering Committee released a community discussion paper titled Constitutional Paths to Statehood. This paper provided a basis for all Territorians to look at how constitutions work, and to make comment to the committee about how they want to be governed in the future.
At the show circuit in 2007, the Statehood Steering Committee linked up with the Australian Electoral Commission to hold a mock referendum on statehood, where 76% of voters answered yes to the question: do you agree the Northern Territory should become a state under the Australian Constitution?
In 2008, Ms Fran Kilgariff was appointed as the new Co-Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee after wide advertising for expressions of interest. In 2008, the committee launched its Walking Together Towards Statehood awareness campaign at Parliament House on the Speaker’s Green. The Chief Minister, the then federal minister for Territories Bob Debus, and Opposition Leader Terry Mills, were guest speakers at the launch where the Chooky Dancers of Arnhem Land performed. The Walking Together Towards Statehood awareness campaign provided an opportunity for people to consider our future on the 30th anniversary of self-government.
It was in that same year, 2007, the federal government intervened in the Northern Territory with the Northern Territory Emergency Act. It was, perhaps, the first time - certainly on my travels across the Arnhem region - Aboriginal people understood the constitutional vulnerability of our place as a people in the Northern Territory. It was certainly a turning point in the constitutional issues and the work of the Statehood Steering Committee. It is not a very sexy subject trying to talk about constitutions; it is an incredibly difficult and complex subject. However, how do we make it practical? How do we bring it back to the everyday life of each person across the Northern Territory?
The federal intervention did exactly that; it impacted directly on the lives of Indigenous Territorians across the Northern Territory. Straightaway, and over time, Indigenous people could see the constitutional vulnerability of their place in the Northern Territory. It is important, as the Chief Minister said, that our nation goes forward to look at the Australian Constitution and how the Australian Constitution needs to address the absence, or otherwise, of the inclusiveness of Indigenous people in this country. The Chief Minister is correct when he said if we go to a referendum in this nation, talking about Indigenous people being reflected in the Australian Constitution, we will not have access to a full vote on that issue, yet that change would impact on a large percentage of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory who will only have half a say. All Territorians in any referendum, on any issue, only have half a say.
In November 2008, as Minister for Statehood, and with my colleague in opposition, Kezia Purick, I travelled to Canberra to update our federal colleagues on the progress on the Northern Territory’s path to statehood. I have to say to each and every member of this House, thank you for the importance of walking together in a bipartisan way on a topic of incredible passion for the members of the Statehood Steering Committee, and all those who can see the inequality in our position as Australians in the Northern Territory. This parliament must maintain its bipartisanship towards becoming the seventh state in the Australian federation. We must maintain that bipartisanship nature. I thank each and every one of you for walking with me over the past five years, despite everything else that has occurred in this parliament - and many things have happened in parliament and across the Northern Territory in other areas of politics. I thank you from the bottom of my heart that you have maintained that walk together with our government to ensure we, as a parliament of the Northern Territory, represent all Territorians and go to Canberra to ask the same thing of federal politicians.
The Leader of the Opposition is correct when he said you go to Canberra and then walk away because you meet the glazed looks: ‘Here they come again; they are trying again’. We have to go with incredible passion, with a fight, a courage and determination which says we want to determine our own destiny in the Northern Territory.
The Statehood Steering Committee has been an incredibly important part of the education process, providing information and awareness to people, answering questions, pushing politicians to keep going, knowing at times there have been stalemates and it has been hard to knock on those doors. The Statehood Steering Committee has been a body of people from all walks of life across the Northern Territory which has reflected the different areas of the Northern Territory. Many times we have sat around tables, having many heated discussions, with different views - the good views, the not-so-good views - the ups and the downs, the laughs, the cries. Maybe I have been the one who has been crying sometimes. However, you have stuck at it; you have stayed together. That is the resilience of Northern Territory people. Despite our differences, we have to stay at the table and walk together if we are determined to become the seventh state in the Australian Federation.
On Wednesday, 7 May 2009, I resigned as Chair of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and as Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee. The Hon Jane Aagaard MLA, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, was elected as the new Chair of the LCAC and Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee, while I maintained the position as Minister for Statehood. The Statehood Steering Committee has done a tremendous job under the leadership of Fran Kilgariff and Jane Aagaard as Co-Chairs.
In the last 12 months, we have seen an incredible amount of work occur across the Northern Territory – over 50 workshops in over 100 Aboriginal languages. Think about that. As if the challenge towards statehood is not enough we need to recognise we have over 100 Aboriginal languages, plus the languages of migrants who have made the Northern Territory home. Again, we have stayed at the table. We have been determined to work with each of the different language groups through the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, recognising the challenges of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the nuclear waste dump, and the national parks - all of these issues that must be debated and discussed in a very mature, responsible, and visionary way.
This year is 100 years since South Australia surrendered us to the Commonwealth. The question in this most important year is: are we to remain a people under surrender? Do we have the vision to fight for what we want to see for the future generations of the Northern Territory? Do we have the courage to pursue the vision on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory? Are we bold enough, brave enough, to continue to persevere on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory?
In this centenary year there will be a series of forums across the Northern Territory - A Working Future in the Seventh State - where we want to see discussion and debate in Alice Springs, Darwin, and at the Garma Festival. I call on all Aboriginal organisations to participate in the centenary grants that will be put out quite soon, and to start talking about their future in their regions and to prepare for the constitutional convention in November of this year.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say this to the federal parliament: if we in the Northern Territory, in our 25-member Assembly, can walk together for five years, and continue to walk together for as long as it takes to become the seventh state in the Federation, I call upon the 226 federal politicians for a bipartisan approach towards the Northern Territory becoming the seventh state in the Australian Federation. I call upon both Houses of the federal parliament to have a bipartisan approach in encouraging the Northern Territory to become the seventh state in the Federation.
I say to each of the Statehood Steering Committee members, both past and present, to all the staff who have been dedicated on this journey in the past five years: thank you so much for the work you have done. Thank you for keeping us here in this parliament on our toes. But do not stop; we all have to remain alert and vigilant and keep reminding each other that we are still walking on this journey and we must still walk together. Well done.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Sacred Heart Primary School students accompanied by Ms Gez Mulvahil. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of former member for Nhulunbuy, former Deputy Chief Minister and former Minister for Statehood, Mr Syd Stirling, and similarly extend a very warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the report this morning and congratulate the current and past members of the Statehood Steering Committee, and the different Chairs who have guided the committee over the last five years. It has been a long road, but we are nowhere near the end of the road or at our destination, which is statehood.
In a previous life, I was one of the original people on the Statehood Steering Committee in the five years of the committee; I was with the Northern Territory Minerals Council. I recall my organisation receiving correspondence regarding the committee. I cannot recall under whose signature, but they were seeking representation on the Statehood Steering Committee.
The executive committee, at the time, believed it was a good idea - and it was a good idea - for the minerals industry to have representation because there are some key items which are relevant to that industry, notably - and they have been referenced before by the previous speakers - the control of uranium, the future of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the offshore waters in regard to Ashmore and Cartier Islands and, of course, our two national parks. There are other issues of significance to other industries and to people in the Northern Territory. However, they were the issues of key interest to the exploration and minerals industry.
Interestingly, in the documentation members have received, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs tabled the federal government response to the Long Road to Statehood report. It identified various things. The Commonwealth has responded accordingly. What I find in this document, which is very heartening, is this paragraph:
It goes on to a couple of others things, but a couple of paragraphs down, they say they still want to have quite a few issues which are unresolved addressed from the Northern Territory’s point of view, which are:
future management and control of Commonwealth land, national parks and world heritage areas within the Territory;
future management of Indigenous issues …
I include the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in that:
future management and control of uranium and mining within the Territory; and
future management of other matters currently reserved to the Commonwealth under existing self-government arrangements.
Madam Deputy Speaker, from the time when I was on the Statehood Steering Committee, you can see my interest in the key issues which will be the most debated. In regard to the path to statehood and the convention, we are planning the items the Commonwealth wants to know about as well. That is not surprising, because we know those issues are complex and complicated, and it will take much goodwill and resolve to get through them.
I acknowledge the past work of previous Northern Territory parliamentarians. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned people from many years back but, in more modern times there was Steve Hatton, who was, and still is, a great supporter of statehood and state rights for the Northern Territory. I also acknowledge the late Dr Alistair Heatley. When he worked in Steve Hatton’s office and was a lecturer at the Northern Territory University he was one of the few academics at the time who was a great supporter of the statehood. Even at that time they were going on road shows throughout the Northern Territory, appearing at the agricultural shows when, really, there was not a great deal of interest in statehood. Some may argue that is still the case today, but I disagree.
We know about the previous convention and the referendum. The Chief Minister referenced the referendum that failed, and the constitutional convention. I was at that convention and I have spoken within the Statehood Steering Committee and elsewhere on why I believe it failed. Primarily, it failed because the foundations were not solid and stable. We all know if you do not have solid and stable foundations, what gets built on top is equally at risk. That is what happened in that case. As the Chief Minister said, this is our last opportunity to get it right; we will not see it in our lifetime if we do not get it right this time.
I have a personal interest in statehood apart from those key issues which will always be there. It is about equality and equity. I listened to the minister’s comments and liked them. We do not count, we only have half a say, and we are not consulted. That probably sums the past up well.
The Northern Territory is being treated pretty much - well, it used to be called the bastard child. No one really wanted to know the child. New South Wales had us and ditched us; South Australia had us and ditched us to the Commonwealth and, finally, we got self-government so we could ditch all of them. Hopefully, when we push and get our grant of statehood, Territorians will be able to stand equal with our fellow Australians.
In regard to a personal interest and passion to move forward to statehood, I want to take members back to a time when, before self-government, the Commonwealth pretty much had control over the Northern Territory. It probably explains my lack of love for the Commonwealth and all things Canberra. It was the acquisition of 32 square miles of land to the east of Darwin under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act in 1973 - some 20 400 acres. For members’ benefit, and those listening, it pretty much went from Berrimah Road through to Howard Springs on the east side of the highway ...
A member: The old Berrimah Road.
Ms PURICK: Oh, yes, the old Berrimah Road. There were some 500 landholders in that area who were to be affected. It was all freehold land, including a number of small blocks and many large blocks. I am quoting from Senate Prowse from the Hansard at the time:
Senator Prowse was from Western Australia. He took up the cudgels for the Northern Territory, along with Senator Drake-Brockman. They received a number of protests. A petition was signed at that time by 346 people. They believed it would have been a much greater number if more people had been able to sign it. The petition was read at the time it was tabled:
It comes back to the rights of the people of the Northern Territory:
1. We do not consider it necessary to abolish all freehold titles in the area to achieve sound future planning.
Which is another issue.
I will quote some more from this Hansard because it fits the picture of the history of the Northern Territory - how we have constantly had to fight for our rights and equality and why the people and the landowners were objecting:
In other words, they gave them no information at all. The decision was taken out of the hands of the Northern Territory and the Legislative Council at that time - which objected to it as well - and put in the hands of the Commonwealth and some unknown faceless people from the various states. Further:
And so on and so forth. There were many people in the Northern Territory Legislative Council at that time who also went in to bat for these many landowners. Mr Kentish said:
Sounds familiar:
So, the Legislative Council, which comprised half elected members of the time, was not even consulted. It goes on.
Mr Bell, whom I mentioned in my speech on the Queensland floods, was a Labor member of the Legislative Council and is on the record as saying:
Of course, there were meetings in regard to the acquisition.
Further, there are quotes by Mrs Lawrie, who we know is the member for Karama’s mother, an Independent member, and Mr Ward, a Labor member, who supported the motion. Mr Withnall commented in regard to the fact that the Territory and the Legislative Council had been ignored.
To highlight further the work which was put in by people on the ground and by the local elected members to protect the interests of people in the Territory, Senator Jessop from South Australia was also a supporter of the Territory and its rights at the time. They tried to discredit the petition and the landholders at the time - that there were not as many affected as they claimed. For the interest of members, there are still many families who were affected by this 32 square mile acquisition. I will list a few which may jog people’s memories:
That was a list of some of the people affected by the legislation the Commonwealth introduced. Suffice to say all the protests and work to stop that legislation did not help; it was passed and the land was acquired.
To cut a long story short, the powers that be at the time decided Darwin would not develop east of the Berrimah Line. Of course, it went west, and Palmerston and the rest is history. However, it left a very sour taste in many people’s mouths. Some of those people, like me, are still here. It probably explains our distrust of the Commonwealth and what is still happening today.
The Chief Minister referred to the forcing of the nuclear waste facility to the Northern Territory. We know only too well what happened following negation of the Northern Territory legislation regarding the rights of the terminally ill. There are probably some other examples back in time where the Commonwealth has forced its view and position on the Northern Territory. However, it is pleasing - and the minister referred to it in her speech – that is behind us and we have learnt from those mistakes - and they were mistakes which affected many people’s lives.
We have strong, bipartisan support in the Northern Territory parliament, and we have strong, tri-partisan support in the Commonwealth parliament. However, we have much more work to do in the Commonwealth parliament. We were well received in our recent visit to talk with Commonwealth parliamentarians, and we have more work to do on that.
In summary, the road to statehood is reaching a crucial time. We have to get the mechanics right; we have to get all the people at the table; and we have to take the people with us, which I believe we are doing. We have much more work to do in the Northern Territory. I believe support from the rest of the country is very good. A recent polling in the Sydney Morning Herald and the National Times indicated over 75% support from people who thought we should become a state.
I believe our biggest challenge will be getting delegates to the convention and getting them to work in a cooperative way to achieve positive outcomes for everyone’s future, and do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
I congratulate all members of the Statehood Steering Committee, past and present, and people who will become involved with the convention. I have already started talking to people in my electorate, and other electorates, about how they should nominate for election, particularly young people, because if they are 17 now, in three or four years time, they will be 24 or 25 and very active members of our community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations to the minister, Madam Speaker, and all involved. I wish everyone well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I regard myself as a very proud Territorian. I have lived here long enough, I believe, to claim that status - married in the Territory, children all raised in the Territory, and love the Territory. I appreciate all the work the Statehood Steering Committee has done in bringing forward this report today.
I will say some things people may not concur with. I am a supporter of statehood, although I have my concerns about the manner in which that is formed. I congratulate the committee on this document, which is a good document for people to look for some of the answers to those questions. The debate around federalism, the numbers of tiers of government we have, is a debate we should still have. It probably does not stop the debate about whether we should be a state, but it is an important debate many people are interested in. You hear, from time to time, people say we are over-governed and that debate also needs to happen.
I take a slightly different point of view. I see, to some extent, statehood as being important, but I still see it as a luxury item. I ask myself, as a member of this parliament and a citizen of the Northern Territory: are we worthy of statehood? That is the question I believe people should ask. I ask that from two levels: should we be equal with other states and other citizens of Australia? I think we should, especially when it comes to the issue of voting in referenda and the right to pass our own laws. I also need to take a reality check in that it really does not have a great personal effect on me. Maybe if it is a law you agree with and it is overturned, it will have more personal effect. However, there has only been one law that has been overridden by the Commonwealth. That is not to say I believe the Commonwealth should override our laws; I am just trying to put things into perspective. We have had a few referenda but we still have our vote counted - we just do not have it counted in the same way as the states. We still vote in referenda.
We should be equal with the rest of Australia. That is why we should be worthy of statehood. Sometimes, though, we need a reality check. We need to show the rest of Australia we are worthy of statehood. I have great difficulty in getting over-exuberant - and I can feel the passion for statehood. I heard the member for Blain talk about the history of people like Bern Kilgariff, a man I loved. I know he was passionate about statehood. But I need a reality check because I look at the Territory today and ask: are we worthy of statehood? Will the rest of Australia say we are worthy of statehood when we have enormous numbers of children in this society who do not go to school, who have very poor literacy and numeracy skills; high unemployment in Aboriginal communities, sometimes hidden by an average unemployment figure in CDP; and 80% of Indigenous people in prison? They are the type of things we need to fix before we can say we are ready for statehood. Those issues concern me. We can get caught up in the hype, in the patriotic fervour for being a state, but are we really missing the point?
I would rather see fewer people in prison, fewer Indigenous people in prison, more Indigenous people working, less child abuse - we talk about that day after day – and better law and order. How much has that been debated in this parliament? I would like to see every Aboriginal kid go to school. As the Chief Minister said in his statement on government priorities in 2011 which he made to parliament the other day, referring to his party, his government:
I put that as the challenge; that is the bottom line for statehood for me. When every child is attending school 90% of the time, then we should be saying we are worthy of statehood. I do not think it is something we should frivolously want because it will make us look good and we will have equal opportunities in voting and passing our laws. I believe we need to deal with the issues before us before we can say, with our hand on our heart, that we deserve to be equal with the rest of Australia.
We should be putting our money not necessarily into statehood conventions - they are nice and we have to have a statehood convention. However, I would find it hard to say I solidly support this move to statehood when I know there are citizens out there who do not have equal rights. We claim on one hand we want to be equal with the rest of the Commonwealth and, on the other hand, we have young people, especially many Indigenous people, who do not have those equal rights. At the present time, they do not have the opportunities many Australians have. We need to work hard to change those things around. That is what I would rather be more passionate about.
I do not want to see a prison full of people, especially 80% Indigenous, I want to see Aboriginal people who are doctors, lawyers, teachers - fully-qualified teachers - and people who stand up to lead the rest of this Territory. I want to see employment in communities. I do not want to see overcrowding in houses. I do not want to see alcohol abuse destroying people’s lives. I want to see the people in the Northern Territory equal, physically, spiritually, and economically, with the rest of the country. When we do that, then I will give my total support to statehood. That is not to say I will not support the concept of statehood, because it is a good thing. However, I will not have my heart in it unless we have change in the Northern Territory for the betterment of all people in the Northern Territory.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the principles of statehood and acknowledge the comments of my colleague, the member for Nelson, because I believe they are absolutely true. If we are talking about equality with other states in this nation, then we need to have equality first and foremost with Territorians - black or white. There are also non-Indigenous Territorians who live below the poverty line, have appalling education standards, are in the prison system, and have poor health.
I have attended many constitutional committees in the past, where, with the Country Liberal Party, we spoke about having statehood in the Northern Territory. The frightening thing for Aboriginal people is the lack of consultation. I know the steering committee has gone to remote Aboriginal communities and met with the 2030 people in remote Aboriginal communities, but the vast majority of the population also needs to be educated. You have taken the steps to have a forum where everyone can be included. However, unless there is equality in good education, good curriculum, good training, and the health standards we have in other states in Australia, like the member for Nelson, I believe it is the airy-fairy stuff we are going for, rather than dealing with antisocial behaviour, poor attendance in education, poor health, and poor housing.
We need people to become involved in economic engagement -- to understand they have the economic ability to participate in society as an educated, healthy Territorian, free of violence, domestic violence, and child abuse. Those are really the things we should be striving for in the Northern Territory, to get that equity of the things we all have in this House. The fact is, as politicians, we have had that good quality of education. I will leave my comments there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I note it is almost 12 noon and my comments may be somewhat longer than that as I would like to respond to each member who has spoken today on this important debate.
I thank the Chief Minister for his contribution. He talked about the referendum in 1999 for Australia to become a republic. I would like to add that it was then that I realised I had moved from Brisbane across the border in 1985, and had become a lesser citizen than I had been before. I was very excited that in the Northern Territory a significant majority of Territorians had voted yes for a republic. However, because it turned out our votes were only counted as part of the majority the referendum for a constitutional monarchy to be overturned did not get up. If we had been a state and we had been counted in that way, it would probably have been that the republic would have been with us.
The Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition referred to statehood not being a barbecue stopping topic. I have to agree with them. That means members in this Chamber and others have to pick up the mantle and discuss this. Constitutional development is not an exciting topic, and it is quite complicated to discuss. If you are talking about the Australian Constitution, the majority of Australians have never seen the document, which is regrettable. If we were Americans, everyone knows what is in their constitution. In fact, if you become an American citizen you have to learn these things by heart and you have to know all the presidents and all sorts of things. Australians do not know much about their history and constitution, and that is a very sad aspect of Australian life.
Much was said about the forums. There were 50 forums across the Northern Territory and 42 of them were held in remote areas. The member for Macdonnell talked about consultation with Aboriginal people. This is one of the most significant aspects of having to get it right for us to become a state. It did not happen the right way the last time, which is why we have spent so much time trying to consult properly with every Territorian.
If you are asking people to come to a forum, the level of interest can be high or low, depending on where you live. The most amazing thing about the process with the forums last year was that in remote parts of the Territory we had very large turn-outs of people. For example, in Elliott, which is a place of only 500 people, more than 100 people came to that meeting. Can you imagine anywhere else in Australia where one-fifth of the population came to a meeting? They engaged in the conversation in a very real way. Similarly, in Yuendumu we had a group of about 60 people. We had the two main families - as we know there are issues at Yuendumu - who came in a spirit of wishing to know more about it. We were originally only going to go for two hours. We were still there five hours later and they have asked us back for more meetings.
We found this to be particularly helpful, and it has made us feel quite positive about the next step towards statehood. I have to agree that the issues dealing with Aboriginal land rights and what would happen there are very significant, and not issues which this Assembly can deal with in a very fast or easy manner ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, as it is midday, you will have the opportunity when we return from the luncheon break to conclude your remarks.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Alice Springs Desert Knowledge Australia Leadership participants accompanied by Mr John Rawnsley. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue summing up the speakers who spoke very eloquently in debate this morning.
The Chief Minister spoke about how important it was to get it right, and there was really only this one chance. That is a very significant thing to say, and was discussed at length by the Statehood Steering Committee. It was also repeated at the forums. Territorians have to get it right, so the process has to be right. The one outlined by the Statehood Steering Committee is a good beginning of a plan.
The Chief Minister also talked about the importance of young people and remarked on the 16- and 17-year-olds and their capacity to vote as delegates at the constitutional convention. He also discussed the possibility that, maybe, there could be some kind of legislative ability to have 16- and 17-year-olds voting in a future referendum. That is a very exciting possibility. In many ways, statehood is about the future of the Northern Territory so we want to include as many younger people as possible.
I take up the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that we should be able to have a full range of people, including bald people! Bald people, of course, will be allowed to be delegates unless they are members of parliament. We were looking at ensuring no politician - federal or Territory - could stand as a delegate in a constitutional convention. Even if you are bald, I am afraid, member for Nelson, or have any other coloured or type of hair, no politician would be part of this because it should be about the people of the Northern Territory. Members of parliament in this Chamber have a capacity, at a later date, to have a say on what happens with the constitution. This is a process about the people of the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister and also the Leader of the Opposition raised eventual equality. These are terms we have been using in all reporting and, as has been mentioned by all speakers, when you speak to parliamentarians in our federal parliament, their interest is more in the number of representatives we might be seeking. At the time of Federation in 1901, we had a population greater than Tasmania, and Tasmania now has only 450 000 people - only about 100 000 people more than we now have. Tasmania has guaranteed in the Australian Constitution five members of the House of Representatives and 12 Senators. When we get to having the same population as Tasmania, there is a very good case for the same level of representation. That should be a significant part of our conversations with the Commonwealth.
The Leader of the Opposition also gave a very interesting history of Mr Macalister Blain. It was fascinating. I believe it shows the Territory really has had little representation for a very long time. It is only since 1978 and self-government we have had proper representation. I remember when we had the condolence debate for the late Mr Sam Calder. He used to be called ‘Silent Sam’. It was not because he did not want to say anything; it was because he was not allowed to say anything.
The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the issue of money; that is, the funding to the Territory. I remind members that since 1988 the Territory has been funded as a state. We had an opinion from the Solicitor-General which suggests there was no reason to believe we would not continue being funded as a state should we change our status.
A key theme that has come up from all speakers has been the respect for our laws. That also came up in the forums. The Leader of the Opposition talked about land rights. I mentioned earlier this is a very significant issue and one which we have to get right. There needs to be an inclusive process.
In relation to the constitutional convention the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, apart from having elected delegates for this, there will also be people there to advise. We have already engaged, as part of the Constitutional Convention Committee, Professor George Williams, who is probably Australia’s pre-eminent constitutional lawyer. We have advice that Professor Anne Toomey and Professor Cheryl Saunders, two other constitutional lawyers, have agreed to be part of the constitutional convention. Obviously, the delegates at the convention are not going to be expected to understand everything, so we will need to have people who know about these things to advise the delegates. We are working very hard on the Constitutional Convention Committee to ensure we have in place significant information and ways of assisting people at that convention so we come up with the right constitution for the people of the Northern Territory.
I thank the Minister for Statehood for the passion in her speech and the history she gave of the Statehood Steering Committee. I thank her for all the work she put in during her many years as the Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee. She spent much time, in the early days, working with our federal counterparts and getting them to realise that, while this is a tough journey, we are still interested.
When I was listening to the minister, it reminded me of Australia and how, as members, we probably remember - or those of you who are a bit older would remember - in 1975 the Whitlam government, for the first time, changed the capacity of the Privy Council in England to look at and overturn our laws. It was not until 1986 that the Australia Act prevented that from happening anymore. When you look back, it seems unbelievable that, in 1976, a law which was passed in our federal parliament could have been overturned by Privy Councillors who were literally men in England. It just seems completely outrageous. For me, the comparison here is our laws should not be overturned either. Maybe the Commonwealth could be reminded of the Privy Councillors.
The Minister for Statehood also talked about the complexity of information in the Northern Territory, and the 100 Aboriginal languages and languages of multicultural groups in the Northern Territory. We spent much time in the forums; we had interpreters at all appropriate forums, and materials were written in other languages.
The member for Goyder, who is an original member of the Statehood Steering Committee, gave a very passionate speech about statehood, quoting interesting historical documents about history and land acquisition, and I thank her for that. I also thank the member for Goyder for her bipartisanship, particularly when we travelled to both Brisbane and Canberra. I can only begin to tell you how important that is. This should not be about any government or any opposition; this is about the whole people of the Northern Territory and how we walk together.
Member for Nelson, while I respect your position, I do not agree with your position in relation to statehood. I am a supporter of statehood for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that I feel offended that I do not have the same rights I had when I lived in Brisbane or Melbourne. As an Australian, I do not think that is acceptable. The argument that we should have fewer people in gaol, poverty should be overcome and all these things, while of course all those things should happen – although I might say that people are only in gaol because they committed crimes and, therefore, should stay in gaol, no matter how many of them there are - the reality is that, in 1901 when the six states became a Federation, there was no suggestion those six states were perfect.
I do not think there is any suggestion that the six states, at the moment, are perfect. Of course, the Northern Territory is not a perfect place either. However, just because we are not perfect we should not move to the next stage. It is possible to do more than one thing as well. While matters to do with health, education, public safety, and any number of things are extraordinarily important, it is also important that you balance that life with recreational things, plus constitutional development. So, I feel that this is a natural progression - something like the train which the Leader of the Opposition referred to from the late Bern Kilgariff.
While I appreciate and respect that position, I do not agree with it. You need to keep doing things, otherwise you will be - I believe the expression is, justice delayed is justice denied, as mentioned by a famous American jurist.
I thank also the member for Macdonnell for her comments. They were similar to the member for Nelson and, once again, I remind her of the significant importance of us doing the right level of consultation with our Aboriginal community, and I invite her to be part of any discussion, should she wish.
As a final comment, I certainly do not agree with the comments that have suggested getting rid of states altogether. My view is that the kind of people who have been making public comments about getting rid of states tend to have been former Prime Ministers not, in fact, the people. You would expect that former Prime Ministers who, perhaps, did not like dealing with states, might say that kind of thing.
I reflect also that the last time we were under the direct control of the Commonwealth - and I refer you to something which would be very familiar to members in this House - in 1976 we had a new hospital built in Darwin by the Commonwealth. I was Health minister from 2001 to 2003, and I went out to the Royal Darwin Hospital - and it is quite different going out as a minister. I remember walking around the property with Dr Len Notaras. I said to him: ‘What are all these ditches around the hospital, Len?’ He said to me: ‘Well, that is the moat, minister’. I said: ‘What do you mean that is the moat?’ He said: ‘Well, you see those snow ledges up there. When the snow melts, it is going to go down into the moat and we will have no issues’. He told me how our hospital was designed on the Woden Hospital in Canberra and also another hospital in Canada. I must say, even the Commonwealth might have noticed we are living in the tropics and it was probably 35oC at the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all speakers today, and particularly thank the Statehood Steering Committee.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House were going to take this matter into committee. Unfortunately, we have only 10 minutes to touch on these things, so I will only touch on one issue. Because of the issues I raised, and the member for Brennan so ably raised yesterday, we will not be required to take this into committee. However, the government has chosen, by its strategic approach to introducing this bill, a perilous approach to the future of container deposit legislation, not only in the Northern Territory but for the nation as a whole.
I do not have time to revisit all the details of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, as I outlined yesterday. Suffice to say the government has now, by its own admission in this place, acknowledged it does not have in its possession the required acquiescence of the other jurisdictions under the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. The consequence of this is that this bill may not yet find its way into Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and, as a consequence of that, the government of the Northern Territory will, in all likelihood, find itself having to fight the legitimacy of this legislation in a court.
The government assures members on this side of the House - and Territorians as a whole - that it has the required legal advice to give it great comfort that it is prepared to take this risk. One thing I know about court cases is that you are never certain of the outcome. Moreover, why would a government set itself on a course of having to spend, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees on a court case which it may or may not win?
The reason I am concerned is because if the requisite permission is not given by all jurisdictions in relation to the introduction of this bill into Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, then they will be committed to that path. The political ramifications are potentially enormous for CDL. The issue is, if this government fails to achieve its objective of winning this matter either in COAG or in a court, and finds itself in the position that this bill and the scheme are suddenly deemed to be in breach of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and, therefore, inoperable, then this government will have made a calamitous mistake in the eyes of Territorians who generally support the CDL scheme.
The reason I call this such a perilous issue at a national level is that any other government which is contemplating going down this path and knows it cannot receive the support of all of its COAG colleagues - therefore being stuck with exactly the same problem this government may find itself stuck with - will not want to suffer the same calamitous embarrassment which would occur for this government. It would be electoral cancer for any other government to advance this if they lose this gamble.
The consequences of this are this government, in its imprudent, perhaps intemperate, haste to advance this policy in defiance of the propositions outlined by the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 - has done so in circumstances which will, ultimately, lead to their embarrassment - then CDL, at a national level, could well be wiped out unless COAG changes its mind. That is an enormous risk to take. There is a parallel example for this government. Cast your minds back to the haste with which it pursued the pool fencing legislation, in spite of warnings to the contrary and, ultimately, found itself back in this place having to readjust that legislation substantially so it could finally take a workable form.
No reason has been given by this government in this House which justifies the risk it is taking. Whilst it has, as part of its policy, advanced a container deposit legislation scheme, it should have tied off on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 aspects of this process. Failure to do so and obtain COAG agreement before introducing it into this House has opened up the potential of the issue I raise.
Third reading speeches are not usual unless some substantial point has to be made. My point is I hope the government knows what it is doing in relation to this issue because, if COAG does not agree universally to adopt this legislation into Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, there will be a court case. On a national level, tens of millions of dollars are riding on this, from the packaging industry’s point of view. It will use everything at its disposal to confront and attempt to defeat this legislation. It will do it in the interests of the industry. When tens of millions of dollars are up for grabs, industries are happy to pay for lawyers. If you do not score the COAG agreement, I find it impossible to imagine the packaging industry would not find a vehicle to put this matter into court and test the legitimacy of this legislative instrument against the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
We have gone beyond the threshold. The gate has closed behind us as a jurisdiction unless the minister chooses not to advance this bill from this point onwards. It is a very difficult thing to imagine. However, he has set himself and the government of the Northern Territory upon this course; he has set CDL in the whole country upon this course.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope and I pray it does not turn into an enormous mess. If it does, the minister who champions this bill as passionately as he does could, by virtue of an error of history and judgment, be the minister who kills off CDL in this country for the next 10 to 15 years.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also realise this is the third reading speech; however, I support the government’s legislation because we need to support it.
The member for Port Darwin talked about the power of the beverage industry. It is time a government stood up to the power of the beverage industry and, if it has to be the Northern Territory, so be it. We have to make a stand - I have had 20 years of bullying from the industry. I know what it is like and believe it is time the little people - in this case represented by the Northern Territory - stood up and said this is what we want for the benefit of the Territory, the environment, local government, and our community. I congratulate the government. There are some issues; however, there comes a time when you have to make that stand. It might have some risks but we still have to take that stand.
For too long the delay in any national CDL scheme has been because of impediments put in place by the beverage industry, through the product stewardship, through the national covenant – they are all deliberate stumbling blocks to stop the introduction of container deposit schemes throughout Australia. I know because I have been down that path.
I would like the industry, instead of being the stumbling block, to come on board. This is the little old Territory. I would like the industry to support what is going on to ensure it works. We use 1% of the total production of beverage containers in Australia. We are chicken feed when it comes to an extra cost for these industries.
You have to realise these industries make enormous profits. In fact, today Coca-Cola Amatil announced their nett profit of $506.6m, up 10% from last year. We all know the products Coca-Cola sell right throughout the Territory. Lion Nathan, beer and flavoured milk manufacturers, had an increase of 7.3% in last year’s profits. Their earnings for 2010 were $597.7m. These industries can pay something towards our environment, our local government costs, and to keep the Territory clean. I do not think that is too much to ask them. It is time they accepted that the majority of people want this system to work.
Alice Springs is the classic example of showing that people will support this scheme – 10 million containers have been collected by the Alice Springs Town Council at only 5 a can. It would be great if the industry now said: ‘Yes, we can see it working. We have seen it working in Alice Springs, at Lajamanu, and at the Freds Pass Show. We know it worked in years gone by. We will come along and do something as a good corporate citizen, and help the Northern Territory be a cleaner, greener, and better place to live’.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I realise this is unusual in the third reading stage of legislation; however, we made a conscious decision yesterday not to take this into committee if the government could provide the answers we would have, no doubt, asked in the committee stage. Other than the Chief Minister’s rhetoric yesterday, the other ministers involved, including ministers Hampton and Burns, actually took the time to answer some of those questions. I thank the ministers for that.
I have enjoyed listening to the debate. I must say I only wish the Chief Minister had taken the time to listen to the debate yesterday. You could read through that debate - and please check Hansard - and, at no time did the Country Liberals say we were going to oppose this legislation. It has just been a political angle from this government to suggest otherwise, to say we were in bed with industry, and to come out with quotes and allegations such as the Coca-Cola company is going to be supporting our next election campaign. For the record, I tell you right now, I can list the people I met with in regard to investigating this legislation. I can tell you that I did not ever meet with the Coca-Cola company. That is one particular company I did not meet with. Let us get that clear right now.
I have a responsibility as the shadow minister with regard to this legislation; that is, to perhaps provide advice, detail, and research I have uncovered. From that point of view, whatever model of recycling or container collection, we want this to work. The research I undertook during this lengthy period uncovered some uncomfortable Commonwealth legislation, and other costs and hidden agendas from different people, and it would have been irresponsible for me not to raise them in this House. That is my job. In fact, I would be derelict in my duty if I had not raised some of the concerns yesterday.
I was very angry at the response. I tried to work out, to unpack, how the Chief Minister, after my debate yesterday, came to be in the frame of mind he was. I can only think that on the fifth floor there has been a perception that the Country Liberals, sometime, were not going to support this legislation. That was their entire tack. In fact, his entire speech and the rhetoric was as if I had said: ‘We are not going to support this legislation because of this, this and this’. Had I done that, that is the response I would have expected. To the credit of the other ministers, though, they did provide decent responses. But it was absolute rhetoric; it was purely political and had nothing to do with what is best for the Northern Territory.
If we are going to have a model of CDL in the Northern Territory it has to work - there is too much at play here, because the rest of the country could fall over. We could put recycling and perhaps CDL, or even the product stewardship program - whatever model is chosen in future - back a decade.
I want to clarify one other thing the Chief Minister said yesterday about me pulling out of an offer to go to South Australia. For the record, the previous minister for the Environment, Alison Anderson, through the member for Nelson, Mr Wood, offered departmental funding for me to visit South Australia to look at the model. I went to the leader, spoke to my colleagues and thought: This may not be a bad idea; I might take them up on the offer. On chasing up the offer, I was informed it had been withdrawn.
That does not stop me using my own parliamentary entitlements for that journey. For other reasons I did not. I looked at the ACT’s waste and recycle program when I was at a CPA conference. I did not go to South Australia, but I did a hell of lot of research. For the Chief Minister to say I had refused to go, or did not want to go, or whatever, is completely wrong. The offer was pulled.
I was criticised yesterday for raising in my debate a question I had not raised in the briefing. Apparently, I have to turn up with a pen. I have a mind; I can listen and respond. It was pretty poor for the department to tell the minister I seemed unprepared for a particular meeting when, at that stage of my journey, I thought I was pretty much 80% through what I needed to know about this legislation. I was disappointed to hear those responses. One step further to the point made yesterday about why I did not raise some of these issues at the briefing that I raised in the debate. I can tell you that the journey had not stopped then. I had only recently had it brought to my attention through research that some of these anomalies were outstanding. There were things brought up in yesterday’s debate that I did not know prior to the meeting with the department. That is the reason I did not raise some of these concerns.
For the record, I want to state this in regard to the trip to New Zealand: an offer was made to both the member for Nelson and me to be funded for a trip to New Zealand to look at the stewardship program in action. I honestly thought we would be debating this legislation in the March sittings; I thought that would be the logical time, the Minister for Central Australia being there debating this legislation. I thought we probably had a little more time. As it turned out, information I received was that it was likely to be debated here.
I spoke to the member for Nelson, who could not take up the offer to go to New Zealand at this time but was going to consider going after these sittings. I decided it was a good idea to go, but felt uncomfortable that industry had offered and they were going to pay. I made a personal choice to pay for the trip so there would be no ambiguity, no thinking we had been bought out or anything like that. Therefore, I self-funded the trip. To say the industry was not involved is not quite correct, because they helped organise a few of the meetings with the minister for Environment, with MPs, and with the department of Environment. I had a meeting with the industry while I was in Wellington. So, there was involvement, but it was not financial. The information I received from an independent government source, was invaluable to this debate.
Some of the things uncovered yesterday still spark some fear in my mind. Both sides want this to work. If the Country Liberals take government at the next election, we would be taking ownership of this legislation and have to drive this, so we want to have the right vehicle to drive. As early as this morning, I still had stalwarts of the CDL legislation telling me the government has chosen the wrong model.
What worries me more is the Commonwealth legislation and what I was told yesterday. I am saying this purely and simply - as the member for Port Darwin did - as a warning, to ensure the government covers everything – that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. What worried me yesterday when I heard the legal advice the government received on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 was they felt comfortable it would not breach that act, but they were still going to COAG in South Australia to seek support. Why would you go to COAG if you were comfortable with that legal advice?
As the member for Port Darwin said, we want to ensure this is done right. We want to ensure the model selected now, once this legislation passes, is the right model for the Northern Territory, and delivers on the outcomes promised for the betterment, not only of the Northern Territory but for Australia. Remember, if you are going to pick a fight make sure of your ground!
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions during the third reading. Touching on the points from the member for Nelson, he has highlighted for us the enormous profits these companies are making – over $1bn of profit for the two companies he mentioned alone - from the products they sell.
I thank the member for Brennan for his contribution as well, and say from the outset we are bringing landmark environmental legislation. This work has been undertaken for such a long time, and it is very important from the outset that government is clear on where it is going and what we want to achieve in environmental protection, particularly with container deposits and the banning of plastic bags.
We looked very carefully at the different models. We sought the advice of one of the most senior constitutional lawyers and law experts in Australia. That is why we are basing our model on the South Australian model, which is run by the beverage industry. We can see why they have put up such a big campaign to have this knocked over.
In the words of the great John Lennon: ‘Power to the people’. We know 80% of Territorians support this; it is what Territorians want. I join the member for Nelson in saying that I call on the beverage industry to be good corporate citizens, not to waste any more of their profits on fighting it, but to put their profits into supporting it.
Regarding the legal issues the member for Port Darwin raised - and we had a bit of a chat about that yesterday - I take on board his expertise in legal matters. As I said, we sought advice from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia. I will again go over the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, and ensure we have on the public record the issues he raised about the legal liability of this scheme we are proposing. Section 9 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 creates the Mutual Recognition Principle, and this is elaborated on in section 10. As I said yesterday, we need to be careful about drawing inferences around the South Australian exemption but, regardless, I point out that sections 9 and 10 are subject to some general exceptions set out in section 11 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
We are confident, on our legal advice, that exceptions in section 11 apply to the container deposit scheme. That section establishes the Mutual Recognition Principle, does not apply to laws that are substantially concerned with the manner of sales of goods, or to laws which target environmental pollution by regulating transportation, storage or handling of goods. Those matters are exactly what the container deposit scheme is all about. On strong legal advice received, and from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia as well, we do not accept the proposition put forward by the opposition which, incidentally, is the argument put forward by the beverage industry.
I will not go over the statistics or some of the issues members have raised because a majority of people in this House support the passing of this landmark environmental legislation. We know how much it is going to clean up our environment; how much it is going to reach all Territorians, and we have the best legal advice in case people want to test it out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, again, power to the people! I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have carriage of this bill which was originally introduced by the Chief Minister. I do not intend to go over the Chief Minister’s second reading speech; it is all about setting the salaries of MLAs in the Northern Territory and linking that to the public service for increases granted through an enterprise bargaining process.
I do not have anything to add to what the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech. I understand there is an amendment in the committee stage to put some more detail in parts of these amendments.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Amendment Bill (Serial 144) together with Schedule of Amendments No 55 circulated by the Chief Minister, Mr Henderson.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 55.1 and invite defeat of clause 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 negatived.
New clause 4:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 55.2. The amendment has been circulated. Basically, the purpose of this committee stage amendment is to reflect government’s commitment to align the basic salary movement of MLAs with Northern Territory public servants.
As members, and the public, is aware, the Northern Territory Public Service recently received a 3% pay increase. The committee stage amendment ensures members’ salaries reflect the same agreed outcome recently negotiated in the enterprise bargaining agreement. This commitment by the Territory government began in 2009 and this amendment delivers on that commitment. I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 55.3. I do not really have any more to add to what I have already said in relation to these amendments, and I recommend that the House agree to them.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we have a speaker from the opposition?
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Sorry, Madam Speaker, I was thinking of a few things. I support this bill ...
Ms Scrymgour: You do think, do you?
Mr BOHLIN: I was just thinking about you – having a lovely thought - sitting back having lattes with you.
Ms Scrymgour: At least you have a smile about it, Ross.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You can have that romantic talk later, please.
Mr BOHLIN: We support this bill. They are logical amendments. To clarify, unlike the confusion which occurred under the CDL, we support this bill, but we have some questions. I will put them simply. There is a reference in proposed new section 31A, the wording ‘just terms compensation’ which, on advice from the NT Solicitor-General, has been worded as such. Can we have that advice from the NT Solicitor-General tabled? If not, please explain why that would be the case. We would like to see that explanation. It would ensure those applying for that compensation under that part of the act have full clarity of what they would be entitled to if they have a decent fight.
Second, the minister has mentioned infringement notices may be issued for offences under section 11. Could we have an indication as to the actual fine that will be imposed upon those traffic infringement notices? Do not take this as a negative because, to me, it is a really efficient way of dealing with people who have breached any laws in regard to closed roads and restricted roads. Having traffic infringement notices is a very effective way of dealing with regulatory-based offences. It would be good to know what that penalty would actually be; if the minister could answer during the third reading.
Under section 11, Part 8, there is an excuse provision which allows a reasonable excuse. The reasonable excuse, from what I can see here, is section 11(8):
(a) to use the road that is closed under the section; or
It goes on further, under Part 9, to deem what is a ‘competent authority’:
I would like to know whether the intent behind this reasonable excuse meant to include such occasions where there is an extreme emergency. For example, there are already reasonable excuses for exceeding the speed limit such as trying to get someone to hospital. So, you understand my intent behind that question. Does that include for such incidences where there may be an extreme emergency? Not all road closures are about the water being 10 feet over the road and rising. There may be other restrictions that still allow a person to travel. They would be in breach simply by being on the road, but could have a reasonable excuse; namely, they are trying to get their family out for medical reasons, or whatever that reasonable excuse may be. I do not think it is an arduous task to see if that is included. You might agree that is a logical question.
I also understand, at the same time, why we want to include it. Once we put the restriction there, you have to try to comply with that restriction, particularly where there are road closures under extreme weather and it is putting other services at risk if someone finds themselves stranded there. When I was a police officer, I found myself dealing with the same crazy behaviour where you have to look for people who are stuck in road closed areas. The same risk is then applied to the police officer trying to rescue that person. We have seen it throughout Queensland in recent times, where people have been swept off the roads. We saw it last week in Darwin where people were swept off the road, or their vehicles were flooded and trapped on McMillans Road and also, I believe, on Trower Road. Emergency Services crews did a very good job responding to ensure people were not in those cars that were swept off the road. It is important we ensure there is a consequence for people who do stupid things, particularly if we are able to install road closures in time.
The other general concern is where we are imposing road closures; that we actually get reported and put on the websites quickly enough. One of the highlights of the cyclone last week was that some of the road closure reports were not accurate; they were not up to date. Whether that was simply overload - people were working extremely hard - but the reality was our main road, our highway, was regularly cut, not cut, cut, and not cut. I checked the website – I cannot quote the precise time, but say at about 8 am on Wednesday morning and the website said the Stuart Highway was open from Darwin to Katherine. So I advised a friend who was in Katherine: ‘The website suggests it is open, take it easy, be careful, come on up’. That person thought wisely and did take it easy, luckily enough, because just beyond Hayes Creek, on the Darwin side, the road was flooded. However, there were people who were not being smart about what they were doing and were testing the limits. The person involved watched someone start to drive in and, then luckily, managed to get back out of that road, open the doors, and the water poured everywhere.
It put many people out. You cannot change the fact that the roads were blocked, but they are just down the road from Darwin and there were no appropriate road closure warnings anywhere. With limited phone services, it made it very difficult. The queue for using the phones at Hayes Creek was extensive - so they could tell people where they were so they did not have worrying families. My advice, at the time, was to head back to Emerald Springs: ‘Get back a little further, settle in there, there are good people there who look after you well’. They make fantastic meals at Emerald Springs; there is good accommodation: ‘Hang out there until you get clearance that the roads are open’.
The clearance came from truck drivers on and off, on and off, on and off. That was the reporting process. We have a big country and we have to set up better systems if we can find better ways to do it. It is about learning different ways we can do things. You may even wish to ask one of your former colleagues, the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, as I believe she was at Emerald Springs for some time, trying to work out ways she could get her car on a truck to get back to Darwin because, in most parts, many of the trucks could get through. They have a heavier load, they have ground clearance, they were getting through, but sedans and light four-wheel drives had no chance. Maybe do some research with old Clare, the former Chief Minister, and see what she has to say about it.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: Chris, it is a problem. You do not have to highlight your age today. It is just one of those things. If we can learn from some of these things - they are very recent and relevant.
As soon as I was advised the Stuart Highway was closed I thought: Right, what should I do? Report the fact it is closed; see if warning signs can be put up so we do not have people pouring down the highway because they are trying to leave the impending threat of a cyclone? We do not want them to go into further trouble. I searched on my iPhone through the website to find a phone number which was difficult to find. Unless you are aware exactly where the phone number is - sometimes when we look at our own systems, because we know where they are we can quickly find them. You have to take a step back and look at it as if you are just another Territorian, an interstate person, or an overseas visitor who has no understanding of our systems. They need a user-friendly system where it is easy to find those numbers to ring.
I found the number, rang it, and it was overloaded - no use. It said ring back another time. So, I could not even include a road closure. I could not add to the system to advise other people to help protect the safety of Territorians. I did the next thing and rang the 131 444 number, the number to ring if you have non-urgent police matters. I rang the police and said: ‘I know this is generically not police but it does have an effect. I want to report the Stuart Highway is closed in the area of X to X. This is what I have been told, I have no greater details than this’. They were very helpful, very grateful and did what they had to do. I believe the road was opened in the late afternoon of Wednesday.
They are little things which can make a big difference. We are in a big Territory; however, when you look at the scope of things we are only talking about 300 km from here to Katherine. The road block was around 100 km from Darwin, so other agencies would have been working there, including police. We should have been looking at what could have been done better. I am sure you have taken note of that, minister, so let us hope we can add a few lessons to the learning book.
We need to talk about some of the longer-term issues regarding these road closures. It is great to see we have brought changes into this House to fix all the various controls of roads; however, we need to be using the control of roads more because we have neglected them for so long. That may mean speed restrictions and warning signs; the reality is we have neglected them. I take a case in point and I would like to table photos.
On 25 November 2009 – and we are in 2011 - during my adjournment debate, I raised the matter of the Arnhem Highway with the minister, the member for Barkly. The Arnhem Highway is still a little wet today - it probably does not effect it today because it is finished; you cannot use it at the moment. However, over a year ago, I mentioned the abhorrent condition of the roads through which, in recent years, we have, unfortunately, lost lives on. Some of those lives may have been lost due to the poor conditions, particularly the shoulders. I table four photographs I took which clearly show the white line is over on the far left edge, but the grass is growing up to a foot on to and inside the road. I advised the minister of this over 12 months ago. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these photos.
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is one of the set of four showing the road has broken away, the white line is obscured by the grass; it is supposed to be a clear white line. This is another one where the white line no longer exists; it is broken away. This is dangerous. You should have signs there, minister; you should be advising the public. You can see on this one ...
A member: How about they fix the road?
Mr BOHLIN: You could fix the road; that would be a novel idea.
In this photo you can see how far the wheel track has to go for the many tourist and transport buses which use this road daily - when the road is open that is. We have a vibrant tourist industry out there; we should, at a minimum, be putting massive warning signs up. You failed to act. I took my laptop across to the minister’s desk, if the minister recalls, and showed him the photos I took. The minister gave some indication - I cannot quote him verbatim - that, yes, it was terrible. I asked: ‘Do you know about it, minister?’ ‘No, but the crews will know about it and will have it in their forward projections’. Forward projection, my big toe! We are talking over 12 months later and about lives being lost in that region where roads are damaged. This is the Arnhem Highway, a major tourist highway. Like the Stuart Highway between Katherine and Darwin, the roads are in a pathetic state and have not had repairs to major damage in the last 12 months - not good enough. It is not about the last 10 years; I have given you 12 months warning on this. I can only imagine how bad they are today - not good enough.
I am supportive of the legislation before parliament, but it was a great opportunity to highlight where control of roads and speed restrictions may be applied - just because we failed to do our job, putting people’s lives at risk. Maybe there are ways you can tweak the budget a bit better, a bit differently, because we have had recent flooding. Maybe you will find some extra funds to fix those shoulders properly.
The irony of some of this is, going back three or four years ago, unfortunately, someone lost their life on the Lasseter Highway. Information from a credible source advised me - I was a police officer at the time - and many other police officers that the accident was a result of the road shoulders being worn away with massive drops. The very next day, road crews were out to fix the 100 m of road where the accident occurred. For the tens and hundreds of kilometres either side, nothing was done, but exactly where the accident was, it was fixed - too late.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it at that. It is good to see a bit of tidy work done - a bit of gardening, perhaps. However, you need to look at some of those other aspects particularly, getting on to our roads and fixing some of those things. I hope you take up some of the comments and investigate some of the points I raised.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, my contribution to this debate will be brief. I want to raise a particular point which has come about by putting a couple of things together regarding the changes in this legislation and one of the most recent government Gazettes.
In the legislation one of the proposed changes is a variation to the penalty applicable to travelling across a road that has a closure on it. I note closures are generally advised through the Gazette and a number of other means. The changes to the penalty regime proposed, per se, I do not have a problem with. I think it is a $50 penalty that has been around for a very long time, and the changes bring the penalty regime up to 100 penalty units, which equates to $13 300. Per se, I do not have a problem with that because, if a road is closed, it is closed for good reason. Of course, the closure is usually because any traffic on a road above a deemed restricted weight or combination of axles could cause significant damage to the road which is extremely costly to repair. I do not have a problem with that side of it.
In the government Gazette, G7, dated 16 February 2011, there are a couple of road closures advised. One of them is the temporary restriction to Edith Farms Road and also to Beasley Road. These two roads are 28 km from the centre of Katherine to the north. Edith Farms Road turns off the Stuart Highway and, then, Beasley Road comes off Edith Farms Road. These roads are within the municipality of Katherine. They are not under the ambit of the Katherine Town Council regarding maintenance. They are Northern Territory government roads. The nature of these particular roads is they service a number of rural blocks and businesses. There are people on Edith Farms Road and Beasley Road who run a few cattle, and there is an organic vegetable farm down that way as well.
This road restriction is going to necessarily affect the capacity of not only the residents, but also people who run businesses on Edith Farms Road from getting their produce out of their farms and into a market. If they were to breach this temporary road restriction, they could face a penalty under the new regime of $13 300. This road is not out in the boondocks or somewhere beyond the black stump. This is a road - in fact, two roads - 28 km from Katherine and within the municipality. Surely to goodness, a road of that nature should be in a fit state that temporary road restrictions should not have to be applied to it.
One then has to look at why these particular roads are in the state they are such that they require temporary road restrictions during the Wet Season. That is the bottom line; it is the amount of water lying around. The rain softens the road and causes it to break up under traffic. Why are these roads in such a state that they need to have temporary road restrictions? The answer is quite simple: the Northern Territory government has not improved those roads to the point they can be used all year round by vehicles heavier than 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. A 4.5 tonne gross mass vehicle is not a big truck ...
A member: Above a troop carrier.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, it is, basically above a troop carrier. A troop carrier weighs about 3 tonnes from memory, or has a GVM of around 3 tonnes. So, you are looking at a light truck. If you were living on Beasley Road or Edith Farms Road, you could not transport cattle out because most cattle crates have a GVM of greater than that. It is going to restrict the capacity of the proprietors of the organic farm from moving produce off their farm as well.
I condemn the Northern Territory government for not investing money in these particular roads. We are not talking about a road that is in the back of the boonies; this is a Katherine road, in the municipality of Katherine. Why in heaven’s name has this government – it has had 10 years to do it - not invested some money in these roads so the people who live in the municipality of Katherine can use that road freely all year around?
When the minister gets to his feet in closing debate, I would like him to tell the House, and me, and the people who live on Edith Farms Road or Beasley Road, what plans he and his government have for investing money in the upgrade of Edith Farms Road and Beasley Road. This has gone on way too long. I wonder how many times either the current minister or his predecessor, or the predecessor before that, has been cajoled, or even had a friendly conversation with some of the residents of that area and taken any of their views on board and done something about it? For example, when was the last time the minister spoke to Jim Forscutt? Jim Forscutt, the former Mayor of Katherine, is extremely vocal - and good on him for getting on his soapbox from time to time and bringing some of these issues to the fore. I would not mind betting the former Mayor, Jim Forscutt, has spoken to the minister and told him of his concerns about the way this government maintains, and does not upgrade, such important roads.
Perhaps the minister would like to answer some of those questions in his closing debate. It is just not good enough.
If you go to - I do not know, where is a road? That is a service road really; it is a road that services an area, a subdivision. It services a number of people who live there. If you drove to Wagait, that also services a living area, it services a subdivision. I guess it is similar in that respect, yet, it has significant …
A member: Fog Bay Road.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, I am not talking - well, there is Fog Bay Road too, that is another story. It is a beautiful bitumen road all the way out to Wagait and, apart from extremely heavy rainfall events, is a 365-day-a-year road. Why then, does a similar road - a road which services a rural subdivision and a number of businesses - not get the same treatment as the Wagait Road? Why is it not bitumen?
This government has been in receipt of significant GST revenue in the last few years. That is discretionary money. They could have found ways to spend it in a fashion which accommodates a very basic need for people to transport themselves and their goods, and run their livelihoods for 365 days of the year ...
Mr Knight: What is the Lajamanu Road like? Do you need a four-wheel drive to go on that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Lajamanu Road? Let me pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. If he was here to listen to what I was saying earlier, he would know that I was referring to roads within the municipality of Katherine, 28 km from the centre of town. I was not talking about the Lajamanu Road, which is hundreds of kilometres from anywhere, in the middle of a shire which does not receive sufficient funding to deal with the road issues it has. A shire which will, no doubt under this government, be handed back a complete basket case of roads in 2013.
You want to talk about the Lajamanu Road? There are a dozen roads; there are tons of roads in the Northern Territory which will be handed back to the shires in a basket case state. The birth of the shires was under the member for Daly when he was the Minister for Local Government. So, for him to start talking about particular roads and draw comparisons or contrasts which have nothing to do with what I am talking about - he should take a look at his own capacity and what he has done for the shires.
People from the Edith Farms and Beasley Roads areas should be afforded the same rights of passage across that road all year around. Again, I condemn government members for not looking beyond their navels. I condemn this government for not looking after the regions.
I remember when Alice Springs turned phones off to people from Darwin. They would not pick up the phone. Why? Because this government treated Alice Springs with contempt, and that was Alice Springs’ way of making a point and fighting back. It is no different in Katherine or across the regions of the Northern Territory. This government is focused only on the northern suburbs of Darwin. It does not do very much elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, I call on the government to invest money in the regional roads of the Northern Territory, and particularly to invest further funds in upgrading the Edith Farms Road and Beasley Road so weight restrictions will not have to be applied into the future, and the people who have businesses there and live there will not, potentially, be subject to a $13 300 fine for trying to live their lives and conduct their business.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this bill, a bill I am interested in from my local government background. However, as said to me during the briefings, this act does not apply to local government roads. It would be interesting to see whether the changes in this act might be taken up by some of the shires because I am unsure whether they have the same issue being addressed by these changes.
One of the issues I raised during the briefing was the definition of roads and the definition of a public street. It seems, under the Motor Vehicles Act you have a definition of a public street and under the Control of Roads Act you have a definition of a road. I understand these two definitions come from two different acts but I am still unsure whether there is any crossover in definitions. Under the Motor Vehicles Act:
It talks about any place open to the public.
Under the definition of roads in section 5(1)(c) of the Control of Roads Act it says a road means:
I have a query. I did not realise the word ‘public street’ appears up in the Control of Roads Act. If that public street definition you get from the Motor Vehicle Act is used in the place of that word, it says the Control of Roads Act can control or stop the use of public land used by anyone. For instance, if there is a track on forestry land, under the Motor Vehicles Act that is a public street. However, when you read the Control of Roads Act, it says that ‘road’ means ‘a public street’.
I am not asking the minister to give me a precise answer at the moment. I thought I understood it until I looked up the definitions again. I am raising this as there needs to be some uniformity in the definitions.
Recently, a person was booked for an unregistered quad bike on Gunn Point Beach – he is not a constituent, it is in my neighbour’s constituency. That is a bit strange as the beach belongs to the Land Corporation. I thought I had better look this up and, under the Motor Vehicles Act, ‘public street’ means ‘a street, road, lane, thoroughfare, footpath or place open to or used by the public’. I see under the definition of ‘road’, which is what we are talking about today, a road actually includes a public street. I just wondered if, technically, you can apply this act to tracks up the road through forestry land or the beach at Gunn Point? It might not be something that happens very often but, getting booked on the Gunn Point Beach does not happen very often. I do not know whether there needs to be some clarification or there is a need for some uniformity of definition.
During the briefing we also discussed closure of roads on Aboriginal land. That highlighted to me where this whole issue of who owns roads comes into being. You have a Control of Roads Act and a Motor Vehicles Act. I presume because the public can use a road on Aboriginal land, therefore, it is regarded as ‘public’ from the point of view of being able to drive on it. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, you can be booked for speeding or having an unregistered car. In fact, under the Control of Roads Act, it is not a public road so you cannot close it. My understanding is the government cannot close that road; only through the traditional owners or the Northern Land Council can you get permission to close those roads. I am looking at the practicalities. If the road has had a bad washout, whose job is it to close the road which is not gazetted and not public?
I highlight these issues because we have to work through this a bit quicker than we are, to get some clarity into the ownership of roads into Aboriginal growth towns. You do not want several people involved. Half of the Central Arnhem Road is public and the other half requires a permit. One half could be closed by the department and the other half has to be closed by contacting the traditional owners or the Northern Land Council, the people who own the road. It is part of the discussions about land that we need to look at otherwise these issues keep coming up all the time. We need some consistency.
I received a good explanation on the land acquisition section of the act. I was concerned we were duplicating what is already in the Lands Acquisition Act about land acquisition. The information I received makes sense: if you acquire land under this act, especially if it is a road, it stays a road. If you acquire it under the Lands Acquisition Act, then you have to turn that land from freehold into a gazetted road, and there is much more bureaucracy required. To acquire it under this particular act is the simpler way if the government wants to acquire land for a road. They were a couple of questions and they may have a simple answer. I did not ask them at the briefing because I thought of it later, which always seems to happen.
In the rural area there are several other types of access to people’s blocks which generally are not used today, and one is rights of way. I presume that is in common private ownership, but because it is on a title, maybe the government has a say in it. The other one is access easements. Not often do you find these things. You find them in battleaxe subdivisions; that is where you have a series of handles - I think they are 5 m handles - that were used as a cheap way of subdividing land, especially in Litchfield. Some of them have on their overall subdivision the words ‘Power and Water’ and ‘access easement’. Again, I suppose the word ‘easement’, in theory, means ‘private’, but is there any ownership over closing that land? Litchfield Council maintains those sorts of roads, so maybe it does not apply to the government. They may not own any of these particular types of strange roads. Hopefully, they do not occur any more because they really have been a pain in the neck for local government. I am not sure whether they apply to the Territory government.
Madam Speaker, I believe the changes are good. They make sense. It is very difficult sometimes to put a sign 300 m down the road on another pothole when you cannot get there because the road before that is flooded. So, it allows for situations which require common sense rather than being exceptionally technical. The changes are good. Some of those issues might be a little technical, but trying to look at some of the definitions, and also coming across someone who, strangely, was booked for an unlicensed vehicle on a beach, got me thinking about definitions. Then, definitions led me to see whether they crossed over - whether the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act would still apply to the definition of a public street under the Control of Roads Act. Maybe in your summing up, minister, you may have an explanation. If not, I am not overly concerned about it. I do not think there is any urgency to that. Even if you do not have an answer today, we might be able to get a briefing on it later.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support the minister and his amendments to this act. Whilst the amendments are quite short, they mainly relate to the control and closure of roads. Some of it also relates to the acquisition of land beside roads in order to expand roads and make them safer and give a better carriageway.
Most of the amendments today relate to the closure of roads, which is a very important element because, as the member for Drysdale pointed out, people put themselves at risk when they drive along roads that have been closed by the police and the authorities, because it is dangerous for people to go there. Not only is it dangerous, but the propensity for damage of those roads is great, even on a sealed road, particularly if the vehicle which goes over is a little heavier. We all know with heavy rain, there is water under the bed of the road, and the surface of the road can be broken up, particularly by heavier vehicles such as trucks.
People who wilfully disobey closure of road signs and directions from police need to be prosecuted. I fully endorse what the minister is doing in raising the fines for those who drive along closed roads for the very reasons I have outlined. These changes are welcome. There is nearly 36 000 km of roads in the Northern Territory and we know the climatic conditions of the Northern Territory can get pretty wild, whether it is in the Top End or in Central Australia. The natural wear and tear on those roads through the force of water, etcetera, makes driving in the Northern Territory problematic. I have been driving around the Territory, particularly the Top End, for a fair time. There have been a couple of times I may have gone through water that may have been even a little too deep for me to go through. I have learnt, particularly since the spread of crocodiles and crocodile warnings, we need to be very careful in our waterways.
I particularly heeded the message from our Police Commissioner. I heard him on the radio during Cyclone Carlos, imploring people if they were not sure they could get across a road or bridge because it was covered in water to not even embark on it. Not only are those people putting their lives in danger, they are also putting rescuers’ lives in danger. We saw, unfortunately, in the Queensland floods where people lost their lives trying to help others, or they were swept away and there was great concern about their safety.
We all need to heed road conditions and we all need to heed the warnings on roads. I suppose we could all have a problem. Who is to say? I may have a problem on a road in the next year or so, or the next 20 years, or however long I have on this mortal coil. I am saying it could happen to anyone. I note with interest that Barnaby Joyce had a slight problem in northern New South Wales. This article in the Courier Mail on 15 February said:
I believe Barnaby is a bit of a bushie; he is a National. It shows even someone as experienced as Barnaby can get caught. The initial information given out by one of his staff members was that the roads were closed at the time, but Barnaby said they were not closed. It underlines the dangers and the challenge of getting through swollen creeks.
Even in our own parliament, the member for Brennan, God bless him - I am not asserting the member for Brennan drove on a road that was closed when he was on the Ernest Giles Road. The information I have was the road was not closed, although there were quite a few signs posted around that time which said the roads were either impassable or could be accessed by four-wheel drive only. I understand there were a large number of signs. I have a map here which shows the points between Alice Springs and the turn-off to the Ernest Giles Road where signs like this one were posted. They were all red - the alarm bells should have been ringing - and there was a phone number quoted: 1800 246 199.
The member for Drysdale, in his contribution to the debate this afternoon, talked about - and I commend the member for Drysdale for the way he rang the police number to report the Stuart Highway should be closed. I am sure his information was very much appreciated. The point I am making is there are avenues for the public to make inquiries. We do not have mobile phone coverage up and down the Stuart Highway; that is another issue. There are substantial areas where there is mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway and you can ring to find out whether roads are passable.
I was very interested to read the article about the member for Brennan. He talked about how he was going along towards Kings Canyon. I am not disputing the fact. As shadow minister for Parks and Wildlife he should be visiting Kings Canyon. It was part of his work, and important work. He talked about the road changing, and then he said:
That just shows things can be deceptive; the speedo was saying 170 km/h but the member for Brennan was doing much less than that. The member for Brennan then recounted in his interview on the radio, how he spent a number of hours with a shovel - which broke - digging himself out until a kind-hearted Victorian tourist came along and pulled him out and he was able to get the vehicle back to Alice Springs.
I understand the cost of repairing that vehicle was – all up, the whole adventure probably cost about $3000. There was about $900 for Peter Kittle Motors which may have included the ordinary service the member was having. There was also about $1900 or $2000 for a replacement vehicle provided to the member for Brennan to enable him to get around and return to Darwin. There was about a $450 cost for the member for Brennan’s car to be shipped back to Darwin where, I assume, there may have been further repairs. I am not quibbling about the cost. I note with interest the member for …
Mr Conlan: It sounds like you are.
Dr BURNS: No, I am not. The member for Brennan had a …
Mr Conlan: Well, what is your point?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The point is we all have to watch signs on the roads and road conditions. I am sure the member for Brennan has learnt a hell of a lot from this. He did say in one of the documents I have here that next time he will fly. Perhaps he has been bitten by road travel, particularly in those areas.
The point I also want to make is roads are a metaphor for life. It is very important - like religion, where the good Lord said he was the way, the truth, and the life. The Buddhists have the noble path. Roads and travelling are a metaphor for life. To some degree, what happened to the member for Brennan in Central Australia is a metaphor for what is happening to the CLP generally. They might think they are doing 170 km/h; however, they are mired down in their leadership problems. Their leader has led them into a very boggy, sticky situation.
How else can it be? You have to have confidence in your driver. Here is a driver who failed once before. When Denis Burke took over; he said he did not have the bottle for it. He has taken over again and the whole party is divided. You can imagine if they were in a car driving on a road like the member for Brennan, the arguments which would occur about which side of the road, what they should do here. Angela and Pamela is a great example of this: ‘Do not go there. Let us go here. No, let us go up the middle’. There is an argument and it is very hard – ‘No, no, no, go up this road. We will go up that road’. The arguments must be incredibly intense.
Not only that, how can a leader survive? How can he survive when the hierarchy of his own party is set against him? I refer to the e-mail by Sue Fraser-Adams to illustrate that …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to direct the minister to relevance. We are discussing the bill. How is this relevant to the bill before the House at the moment?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, if I could speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
As I said before, I am speaking in a metaphor. I am saying to people you must have confidence in the ability of the driver of the car. So many times I have said to my own children: ‘If you think someone is a dangerous driver, does not have the ability to drive or is driving recklessly, I want you to get out of that car. I do not care if they call you a chicken or a wimp or whatever. You have to have confidence in the driver of the car’. That is the metaphor I am talking about today.
I am not trying to impugn the driving ability of the member for Brennan. He has driven in the Territory for many years, and even an experienced driver like the member for Brennan found himself in trouble.
Sue Fraser-Adams said something like: ‘The older heads we now have within the party nameless, faceless, gutless wonders in the most senior positions in management committees who are making every effort to destroy our chances of winning the next election’ ...
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to relevance. The minister has made his metaphorical point. I request you draw him back to the bill before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I remind you of Standing Order 67. Could you come to point pretty quickly?
Dr BURNS: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker. These are very important points I am making about the metaphor between life and driving. I believe the member for Brennan has learnt his lesson and that the issue of confidence is a very important one. How can you have confidence in someone who might be hiding underneath the dashboard while they are driving? If you were driving in a car and someone was not even looking at the road, you would be very worried. So it was with the member for Blain when he hid out for hours in the restaurant down the way here - would not even come out, would not even front up, would not even look at the road ahead, would not even talk about the situation. In fact, the member for Fong Lim called it ‘cowering in a restaurant for hours’.
However, I digress, Madam Speaker. I have made my point. I will finish on this. It is good to see people engaged. It is good to see the member for Greatorex engaged. He has become very animated during these sittings. It has been very interesting to listen to and watch the member for Greatorex today, and other days, raising very important issues in this parliament. I reckon the member for Greatorex is headed for a driver’s seat. I reckon he is headed for the deputy driver’s seat, and it makes sense! I will use the metaphor again: he knows the road conditions of Central Australia. Nicholas ‘Frothwell’ said he knows the lay of the land. He is a good navigator according to ‘Mr Frothwell’. He has shown himself today and a couple of days ago. There is certainly a twinkle back in his eye. The member for Goyder needs to watch out. It makes sense to me that the CLP should have a deputy leader from Alice Springs, which is the birthplace of their party.
Talking about the member for Goyder, she reminded me in Question Time of that little kid in front of the television set. She is squinting and mumbling at the screen, a bit like that kid in Poltergeist. Every now and again, I expect her to jump up and say: ‘They are here, they are here’.
Anyway, I digress. I will finish on this. I commend the minister for introducing this legislation that will protect Territorians and also protect our roads. I am sure in his summing-up speech, the minister will address the issues which have been raised by members opposite.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate, particularly the member for Johnston. We know, as a government, that you can learn something from people. When the member for Johnston does his research - he has visited my office many times to be briefed on this particular bill – he does his research well and is a member you could learn from. He is part of a great, tight team, made up of really dynamic Territorians. Those opposite are probably learning as well. I certainly hope they have learnt something today, as well as the other days they get to share this Chamber and work with a government that is determined and taking the Territory forward.
The members’ contributions have been valuable, and they have raised certain points. I will see if I can address those questions. Let us start with the member for Drysdale. The members for Drysdale and Katherine both exhibit one particular failing in this: I encourage them to seek briefings. As government develops legislation, we get to work with the best people in the Territory on these things - and we like to share that. To share that, all you have to do is pick up the phone and say you would like to learn more about it - you would like to share some of our brilliant public servants as well, and come in and be briefed. That way, you do not suffer that fate of being out in the ether, not quite sure of what you are talking about. It might allay some of your concerns as well. The member for Drysdale, being a shadow minister for Construction, needs to start taking up that offer. Come in, member for Drysdale, and start working with the department.
The first question the member for Drysdale had was about just terms compensation. He used a great word from the other side. He wanted the Solicitor-General to ‘table’ some sort of evidence. That is certainly an interesting question. I will take on all questions and I will ask that question. However, I believe that relates to the Department of Justice. The member for Drysdale could probably withdraw that question, but I will give a summary here of fair and just compensation.
The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 provides that acquisition of property is to be on just terms. Just terms is a constitutionally guaranteed principle that applies to the acquisition of property and, in practice, means the compensation payable to the person with the estate or interest in the land affected by an order to acquire or take land reflects a connection to the value of the benefit acquired. Just terms encompasses a requirement for procedural fairness in the determination of compensation mechanism and is determined by reference to land valuations from the Australian Valuation Office. If the member for Drysdale still is not sure, then I will bring him in for a briefing and we will sort out his fears.
Regarding infringement notices, we will go to the prepared notes. Had the member, or anyone from the CLP, sought a briefing they could easily have received that answer. The answer is three penalty points, or $399, in relation to the member asking about the value of an infringement notice.
The next area of his contribution to the debate related to reasonable excuse. The member was talking about personal experiences on the Stuart Highway, and extreme weather and emergency conditions relating to evacuations. That was an interesting part of the debate. They were relevant issues that relate to the closure of roads. The member raised the question: what is a reasonable excuse for not obeying a road closure direction? One example I will provide for the House is a very practical one and recognises, given the Territory’s vast distances, someone may have been out of radio, Internet and communication networks, unable to receive notification of a closure. This legislation protects people with reasonable excuses. I have full confidence our officials will use discretion as appropriate.
The member for Drysdale talked about examples of the Stuart Highway, intrastate, and used examples - in my speak - of flash flooding. That was an important point. I share some information for the member on notification. I was pleased to hear the member speaking about better ways of notifying people of road closures. The intent of this bill is bringing us forward from the old days of having to erect a sign in order for a road to be declared closed, to being able to declare it closed through the Internet, newspapers, media announcement, gazettal and road signs. That is the essence of it.
In relation to localised flooding and road alerts, updates on closures and restrictions are regularly posted on the road report website as road conditions change. As the member for Johnston outlined to the House, there is also a free-call telephone number people can contact for further information: 1800 246 199. Both of these services operate 24 hours a day. Should a major highway be cut and impacted, further information is issued to all local outlets to ensure the public is kept informed, and appropriate signage is also put in place - as has been displayed in the Barkly electorate office this year with the unusual weather events we have been seeing. We encourage any travellers on the road to get that local knowledge as well.
As the Minister for Transport, I am also committed to continuing to look at ways to improve communications with our transport stakeholders and road users in general, in particular using modern technologies like texting. That work is continuing to see if it is a feasible option. I have been talking to the heavy vehicle industry about that.
In relation to the Arnhem Highway, the member for Drysdale used the opportunity to grandstand on roads. In good faith, and as an ex-teacher, I would like to take the member for Drysdale through a short lesson on the status of upgrading in relation to contracts on the Arnhem Highway. Under the 2009-10 Northern Territory government rural arterials pavement strengthening and widening program for pavement rehabilitation of various sections of the Arnhem Highway, $1m was allocated. The following projects have been undertaken as part of the program: widen and seal section 167.2 km to 175.5 km completed in July 2010; widen and seal section 135 km to 140 km completed in August 2010; and reconditioning shoulders sections 130 km to 135 km completed in July 2010.
A further $2m has been allocated for the Arnhem Highway in the 2010-11 capital works program for targeted upgrading of strength deficient pavements and/or narrow sections. The proposed works for the 2010-11 projects are seal widening of selected sections between 140.5 km and 160.5 km, both sides of the Kakadu National Park boundary. The contract was awarded on 3 November 2010 to Alan King and Sons Pty Ltd for $1.48m. Works commenced in November 2010 but have been suspended because of the Wet Season. Works are due to be completed by August 2011 - and that relates to discussing the Wet Season. From the seat of Drysdale, you might need to get out a bit and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr McCARTHY: For the member’s knowledge, we have a Wet Season every year in the Northern Territory. Maybe you do not get it in Drysdale but we certainly do in every other part of the Territory. The last two Wet Seasons have been cracker Wet Seasons. Central Australia will be for another day, but let us concentrate on the Arnhem Highway and talk about what happens in the Wet Season. The grass grows. I tell you, the grass grows under your feet. I spend a good deal of time on roads and I see the grass grow. Then, I see the grass slashed, because the Department of Construction and Infrastructure has an ongoing slashing program. It is important to also point out it is not very wise slashing shoulders in the Wet Season when you could do considerable damage and also end up bogged.
There are real climatic conditions and, if you want to do a political grandstand, go for your life, but, if you are going to paint yourself into a corner of being parochial about the Territory, then you will stand accountable on the Parliamentary Record. If you want to go out there and grandstand, then go for your life, but this is a serious business of running government and we have great responsibility. That is what we like to get on the public record.
I take the particular areas identified by the member for Drysdale on notice. I thank him for his contributions, particularly the information that can be used in the interest of doing business better in the Territory.
The member for Katherine chose an interesting pathway to contribute to the debate and used a good deal of rhetoric and much political grandstanding to get around to the position of condemning the Northern Territory government. That was interesting but, once again, he tried to grandstand and, I believe, did not acknowledge the challenges and the work the Northern Territory government is doing.
For a little lesson for the member for Katherine, I might just share the Northern Territory government is delivering a record $331m road budget. If we want to talk history, as the member for Katherine was extremely critical about this government’s record, it is an increase of 237% in road spending since 2001. That is not a bad record - a record that should be commended. We are building our road network to support and grow Territory businesses, to improve road safety, and improve access.
This government is committed to improving the road network and access to remote communities within the Territory. We have already invested $124m this financial year in upgrades and improvements to the Territory’s road network. We still have more work to be done; that is the nature of the Territory. We expect to deliver a further $116m worth of roadworks in the first half of this year.
The member for Katherine dealt directly with shire roads. The Territory government is committed to working with the shires on the proposed transfer of 8600 km of local roads from government to the shires. There will be a five- to 10-year transition period and, during this period, the Northern Territory government will continue to have financial responsibility for the relevant roads. Negotiations will commence and continue.
What I took from the member for Katherine was an MLA lobbying for roads funding in the electorate - a very good thing. You had to sift through the political grandstanding and rhetoric, and some pretty left-of-centre comments about marketing of cattle and organic produce. However, what he was doing for his constituents was a good thing. I have taken that on board, and will look into those roads, as I did late last year. I am familiar with those roads, having driven around that country.
The member for Nelson’s contribution was evidence of a thorough briefing from the department. From talking to my colleagues, I know the member for Nelson spends a great deal of time and energy in his research, which involves briefings from the departments in the different portfolio areas.
There are several comments I will provide for the member for Nelson. I thank him for his interest, and acknowledge the work of the department that delivered the briefings for him. The member for Nelson picked up on an interesting point on the definition of a road. The Control of Roads Amendment Bill’s main focus is the integrity and management of the infrastructure. Regarding ownership of roads, this covers the roads under care, control, and management of government. If the roads are under the care, control, and management of shire councils or across Aboriginal freehold, we would work in partnership with the relevant authorities to offer advice and support on the closure of roads.
The member for Nelson is an interesting member, and one you can learn from. He talked about two concepts in relation to access in rural areas: right of way and easements. Those particular access points are generally private easements and not recognised as roads.
That goes to the final comment from the member Johnston, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate. As Territorians, we all understand the importance of our vast road networks in keeping our community centres connected to access health, education, and business. In recent weeks, we have been reminded of the impact Mother Nature has on these important links. As the weather and other conditions demand, decisions are taken to close roads for the protection of road users and to maintain the integrity of the infrastructure.
This bill brings the means of declaring a road closed into the modern age and recognises the challenges the Territory’s vast distances throw at us. Under these changes, roads can now be formally declared closed by a range of methods. We are moving forward from the old way of having to erect a sign, to being able to declare a road closed through a range of practical and sensible means, including by Gazette notice, publication on a website, a recorded telephone message, and media broadcasts.
The fine for those who deliberately ignore a road closure, putting themselves in danger’s way and, potentially, causing real damage to the road, is also boosted. Rather than take a punt and risk the old fine of $50, drivers will now be faced with a $13 300 fine - a real deterrent.
To the other component of the bill, land acquisition, the amendments put forward in this bill provide certainty of a judicial process for landholders whose land is acquired by government to construct a new public road. Importantly, these amendments will apply to the nine retrospective cases on the books dating back to May 2008. Landholders who are unwilling to accept offers of compensation from government will now be able to have their case heard by the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal to determine compensation for land under the Control of Roads Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions, and for your time as well this afternoon. It has been a pleasure working with Territorians, the department and, especially, the staff upstairs in putting this bill forward.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I flag the opposition will be supporting this bill. I had a briefing with the department, and what struck me the most was - I do not think I have ever come across something like this before - this was based on the South Australian legislation from 1898. The Public Health Act in the Northern Territory is 100-odd years old, so it is about time we made these amendments. I thank the minister for the briefing.
As the minister outlined, the purpose of the bill is to repeal the existing Public Health Act and replace it with the new one in order to protect and promote the health of Territorians; prevent emerging environmental conditions from impacting on the health and wellbeing of Territorians; take action to control environmental conditions that may affect the health of Territorians; and to monitor, assess and control services, facilities and products that may affect public and environmental health.
As we can see by reading through the bill, it achieves this in a number of ways: by creating the concept of declared activities to regulate businesses that engage in conduct that may result in the transmission of disease, or otherwise pose a risk to public health; defining what a public health nuisance is and making it an offence to cause a nuisance; and allowing the Chief Health Officer to issue a public health notice or order in relation to contravention of the act or a public health nuisance. It also gives the Chief Health Officer powers to make investigations into issues relating to public or environmental health, or the operation of Part 5 of the act. It also gives sufficient power to the Chief Health Officer and authorised officers to monitor and enforce the provisions of the act.
Some of the definitions in the bill are interesting. Some of the key definitions used are: ‘public health’ means ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’; ‘environmental health’ means ‘the aspects of human health determined by the physical, chemical, biological and social factors in the environment’; and the terms ‘public health risk’ and ‘serious public health risk’ are defined. ‘Public health risk’ means ‘a risk of harm to public health’ and ‘serious public health’ means ‘a public health risk involving significant potential harm to public health that is irreversible, of high impact, or on a wide scale’. That is from a briefing note from the department.
I have to say it is great to see we are debating some real issues here today. I feel we focused on a lot of second-tier issues in this parliament over the last couple of days. When you consider what is taking place across our community, it is good to see we are actually debating something with a bit of substance.
I go to the definition of ‘public health’ - and I hope you will allow me some latitude, Madam Speaker, as a result of this definition – which means the ‘physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. We have some serious issues facing us in the Northern Territory. I suggest that we have had this parliament hijacked by second-tier issues. I believe statehood is a second-tier issue; we spent three hours on that today. We also debated a motion yesterday by the member for Nelson on sheds. The member for Nelson even raised a question in parliament today about birds.
There has been very little focus by the government to address serious issues relating to the mental, physical and social wellbeing of the community, which is defined as public health. That could be law and order, child protection, or housing. Instead, once again, we saw the government refuse to engage on these issues. I heard the minister’s despicable comments on ABC radio this morning suggesting it is the CLP’s fault it cannot recruit doctors to Alice Springs. It is all our fault the government is unable to recruit doctors in Alice Springs, because we have something to do with the law and order problems facing Alice Springs.
The reason you may have trouble recruiting doctors is because of the state you have left Alice Springs in - and you will continue to leave Alice Springs in, with your focus on law and order across the Northern Territory in relation to public health, which means - and I say again – the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community. There is not much physical and social wellbeing in the community of Alice Springs, indeed, across many parts of the Northern Territory. Some would say across most of the major cities in the Northern Territory.
I highlight some of those areas seriously affecting the physical, mental and social wellbeing of Territorians as defined in this bill. We can talk about land release delays, remote housing infrastructure delays, electricity prices, but let us go to some of Labor’s health failures, which are worth mentioning. This is impacting on the community of the Northern Territory and, indeed, the community of Alice Springs.
This government will not admit that it has failed, or at least call to action immediately, we suggest, a task force to Alice Springs to address and stem the acute lawlessness that is facing the town. The town is at breaking point. People are screaming for some leadership from their government and, yet, here we are talking about statehood for three hours. We have no chance of statehood while we are facing such acute lawlessness in Central Australia.
Regarding growing hospital waiting lists, under Labor, there has been an enormous blowout in elective surgery waiting times across the Northern Territory. That means Territorians regularly wait longer than other Australians for routine medical procedures. The situation is going from bad to worse. The number of elective surgery admissions has fallen from 6395 in 2001-02 to 6244 in 2009-10. For those patients finally admitted from waiting lists for elective surgery, 5.9% waited for more than 365 days ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! We have been pretty liberal with the member for Greatorex in his interpretation of physical and social wellbeing of the community. He is really getting into the acute care side of the health system, and this bill is about public health.
Mr CONLAN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The bill clearly defines the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community. I would have thought hospital waiting lists, elective surgery, and getting people through our hospital system would be very relevant to the health and wellbeing of the community.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, whilst there is some latitude within this debate, if you could keep your comments …
Mr CONLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, if …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, I am talking, member for Greatorex. If you could keep your comments directly in relation to the bill, the content of the bill, and the proposals within, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say that these comments are in direct relation to the bill. As I said the definition of ‘public health’ means ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. I do not know how much clearer it has to be that the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community is on its knees as a result of this government’s failure to protect towns like Alice Springs. Out of a community of 29 000, 250 people do not turn up to a meeting for the fun of it, because they like it; they are there because you have done nothing.
Do you think that crime and violence and assaults against the person, sexual assaults, and break-ins have something to do with physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community? Can I ask you, minister? Minister, do you think so? Leader of Government Business, would you like to tell me if you think lawlessness on the streets in Alice Springs has something to do with the mental and social wellbeing of the community …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I was not referring to those elements the member for Greatorex just referred to. What I was referring to is in the acute care sector of the hospital. Most people, and the people in this box here, know what public health is. You have a fair amount of latitude, but I was just calling you back on the acute care side of things, member for Greatorex - as simple as that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, there is no point of order. Member for Greatorex, focus your contribution to the debate on the contents of the bill, please. That would be most helpful, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say, again the bill contains definitions and one of those definitions is of public health. The definition of ‘public health’ is ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. I am sorry if I am wasting people’s time. I am sorry if debating law and order issues, hospital waiting lists, the cost of living, housing blowouts - all this sort of stuff - is a waste of your time, but this, to me, is very important. It is also very important to the community of Alice Springs - damn important - and it is about time we addressed some of these issues.
The Chief Minister wants to talk about FOI requests. The Leader of Government Business thinks it is all very cute to talk about division in particular parties, or whatever it is. The community of Alice Springs is screaming out for some leadership. They want some representation. They want their government - that is you - to step in and do something about what is taking place and unfolding on the streets of Alice Springs.
So, to take up the advice of the Leader of Government Business, let us have a look at some of those law and order issues. If he thinks it is okay to talk about that, let’s talk about that. Alice Springs has felt the brunt of Labor’s failed law and order policy. Since 2004, robbery has increased by 450%; assaults by 87%; sexual assault by 97%; house break-ins by 64%; commercial break-ins by 185%; motor vehicle theft is up by 97%; and property damage by 71%.
There was a question today to the minister for Business about business confidence across the Northern Territory. This is an e-mail I received today from the Chamber of Commerce with a graph on vandalism in Alice Springs since 1 January 2001. I could forward that e-mail on to you; you may have already seen it. This is a graph compiled by the Chamber of Commerce in Alice Springs. Vandalism in Alice Springs, times affected since 1 January - in other words, businesses that have been broken into since 1 January: 52% of businesses in Alice Springs, more than half the businesses in Alice Springs, have been broken into 18 times since 1 January. More than half the business community in Alice Springs has been broken into more than 18 times.
This is hardly a growing confidence in the Labor government’s business policies. Small business confidence continues to fall. Small business confidence across the Northern Territory under the Labor government has fallen significantly in the past 10 years and this is as a result of the acute lawlessness we are facing in Alice Springs. We know you do not particularly like it; you are not massive fans of Alice Springs. However, it does not matter; you have a responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory - all the Northern Territory. We all say when we are elected: ‘I thank those who elected me. It is a great honour to be part of this. I would also like to say for those people who did not vote for me, I am there for you as well’. It is almost the standard which comes from the mouths of politicians when elected. Most of us mean it; you guys do not seem to be very true to that at the moment. You do not seem interested in what is taking place on the streets of Alice Springs.
I will use as much time as allowed to discuss the issues facing Alice Springs; that is why I am here. I am not here to spend four hours talking about ministerial puff pieces, to spend three hours talking about some pipe dream that is statehood; to talk about some shed legislation; or ask questions about a bird. They are second-tier issues. We are experiencing a major problem on the streets in Central Australia and I wish you would step up and admit it - admit you failed, or put something in place to address the issues.
Can someone tell me what is wrong with this motion? This was not conjured up, plucked out of thin air - this was done with consultation. Do you have today’s Notice Paper? It says:
(a) immediately deploy a task force of police in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour; and
This is not an unforeseen situation taking place in Alice Springs; we see it every year. It has been escalating year after year, particularly in the last few years. Any government worth its salt would have some idea there will be serious law and order issues facing Alice Springs around the summer months, around Christmas and into the beginning of the football season. It does not take Einstein to figure that out. A response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duty police officers could respond to an emerging or known law and order issue. We have also asked that an additional 20 police be added to the establishment of police in Alice Springs. That is, in our view, a long-term solution; we need more police on the streets.
We have the 20 able-bodied general duty police response group, we have a bolstering of police numbers to boost the establishment of police, and we have a boot camp for young offenders. That is what we need. We need somewhere for these young people to go once they commit crimes. In other words, there is no end consequence for young children. We are seeing kids on the streets flouting the law. The courts seem hamstrung. The government appears paralysed to do anything. We need an end consequence to rehabilitate those children but also punitive measures. There needs to be an end consequence.
We need mandatory rehabilitation. You are not in favour of mandatory rehabilitation. Your language in the bill before the House is ‘will’ and ‘may’ and ‘can’ be directed to mandatory rehabilitation. Mandatory rehabilitation is a key plank in addressing these bigger issues facing the Northern Territory - these forefront issues facing the people in Alice Springs, in particular. It is a key plank of the Territory opposition’s policy. We have to stem the thirst for alcohol. It is not just about alcohol restrictions; supply will only go so far. What about demand? There is very little focus on demand by the Northern Territory government. There are four issues right there Alice Springs is facing on a daily basis we could be spending time debating, addressing, and solving very quickly.
As I said, the business community of Central Australia is at wits end; families are at wits end. I read out an e-mail the other day about a woman who was beaten within an inch of her life and needed facial reconstruction. There are claims - I withdraw claims. In fact, the police have been made aware of child prostitution. The Chief Minister stood here today and said if you know about these things, why are you not reporting them to the police? Well, indeed, we are reporting them to the police. They have been reported to the police. The police have been made aware of this. You are now aware of this. The Chief Minister has been made aware of this. You, as ministers of the Crown, are now aware of this. So, where is your responsibility? When do you step in to do something about this?
It is like the claim from the Minister for Health on the radio today saying: ‘With the CLP talking about all these law and order problems, how am I supposed to recruit doctors? How can I possibly get doctors to town?’ It is the same as the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call relevance. We have given the member for Greatorex 15 or 20 minutes, and he has come back to where he started. I urge him to get on with the debate on the bill. Fair enough; they are important issues for him but he really should be coming back to the bill.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Greatorex, we do not have a justice bill before the House; we have a bill for an act about public and environmental health. You are taking enormous latitude in the content of what you are talking about. I ask you, for the third time, to come back to the actual bill before the House. Thank you very much.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, I say I am speaking directly to this bill. Part of this bill is public health, and public health means physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community. I have been allotted 45 minutes to talk about this, and I am going to use every single second I have to speak about the issues facing my community when it comes to mental, social, and wellbeing of the community. If the government likes to shut me down, go for it. Go for your life! Once again, the people in the community of Alice Springs will see that you just do not want to face up to the problems facing the town. You never have. You have never faced up to those problems. You have left the place just about on its knees. I cannot believe the agenda of deniability from you people. It is staggering and it is shameful.
This is the second biggest town in the Northern Territory. It is a massive economic driver for tourism and yet you allow it to disintegrate before our very eyes, and say we are talking it down and making this up and embellishing it: ‘Gee, I cannot get any doctors there because the CLP members are just talking about these sorts of things …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member has the capacity, say, through an MPI. No one is trying to shut him down. It is about relevance and the business of the House. He has had a pretty good run and he seems to be ignoring what you are telling him regarding relevance.
Mr CONLAN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if I can just respond to the point of order. The member is quite right to call you on the order of relevance. I now ask you for the fourth time. You have strayed way beyond the bill that is in front of us. You are being repetitious …
Mr Conlan: They do not like hearing it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I instruct you that you need to address the content of this bill in front of us.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so sorry to waste your time. Alice Springs is such a waste of time in your eyes, isn’t it? Such a waste of time. It is not on the radar. So not on the radar that you cannot sit here and cop it for another 20 minutes. You could allow me to speak for the next 20 minutes and put these concerns on the Parliamentary Record. But, oh no, you do not want to hear it once again. Use another vehicle, use an MPI, use an adjournment …
Dr Burns: If the second 20 minutes is going to be the same as the first 20 minutes.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: I tell you what, I will use an MPI and I will use an adjournment, and I will use every single second I have here ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex, please address your comments through the Chair.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: And if you could be relevant in your contribution to this debate.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come back to the bill. As you can see, the definition of ‘pubic health’ means ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. I did not write this, this is in the bill. I do not understand how this is straying from the bill. It is in the bill. How can I stray from the bill when it is in the bill? It is a definition in the bill. It is a definition of public health. It says here: ‘mental, physical, social wellbeing of the community’. Well, there is not much of that going on in Central Australia or Alice Springs. But, you do not care. There is 20 minutes to go in this particular debate, but ‘Shut him down, do not want to hear it. It does not suit our agenda of deniability at all’.
I would love to hear the minister’s response to the people of Central Australia, and go down there and face them. Face the people of Central Australia and tell them that you spent three hours in parliament talking about statehood today. You spoke about sheds, and answered a couple of dorothy dixers about leadership. You made a couple of funny jokes about roads being a metaphor for life. That is a wonderful use of taxpayers’ money. Meanwhile, businesses are being broken into, people are being assaulted, people are being raped, and children are prostituting themselves on the streets.
We have demonstrated that government members have no idea; they are completely bereft of any will to sort out the issues in Alice Springs. They, no doubt, will pay the price. As a politician, it is not healthy to speak with such hubris. I will try to avoid that as much as possible. However, sitting on the sidelines, how could a government that has ignored and neglected a town which has been screaming out to it for leadership for so long possibly hope to be endorsed at the next poll? If there was ever an opportunity to win the confidence of the community of Alice Springs, surely the last 10 years has been it – surely? But, no. No wonder people are so angry, and at their wits end with regard to your approach to this sort of thing.
I am appalled at the way the priority of our debates is being conducted in this parliament. People travel from all over the place to represent their communities. That is why we got into this job, and yet, in debates, people are gagged and shut down. There are irrelevant, pathetic dorothy dixer questions. You could simply lean over and ask your mate. But no, major issues such as law and order, and the public health of that community, are ignored. The mental and social wellbeing of that community is completely ignored.
I could read the crime stats all over again - we could do that. We could talk about the anger in the community. I do not know how or what it is going to take for this government to appreciate what is taking place in Alice Springs and how desperate people are. They just want help and, yet, there seems to be no solution from the Northern Territory government, and we are accused of using crime as a political punching bag. We would much rather live in a community without crime and campaign on something else. You know it is a reality, and you guys have just dropped the ball.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to push the boundaries here. I would love to list a whole stack of areas this government has failed and collapsed on. I believe there are plenty. There are education failures, health failures and the child protection issue is completely shameful. You have not done anything with child protection. What you have done is cover-up; ignore it; and use it as a political punching bag in the Chamber today saying: ‘If you know about it, why not report it to the police? Do not come to us about it’. Well, you know about it now. I hope that you, Minister for Health, will go to the police or act on it. I hope the Attorney-General steps in and investigates this, or rings the police to find out what the hell is going on down there. It is happening. For God’s sake, do you not believe me because I am a Country Liberal? Is that why? You have some built-in distrust or something?
I am a resident of Alice Springs. I am a taxpayer of this country. I have a say, and I am telling you it is taking place. Crime is through the roof. People’s homes have been broken into. As I said, I have been broken into twice in the last three months. In fact, one of the times they stole a carton of beer from my fridge. That is what happens when you start clamping down on alcohol restrictions; people will find another way to get it. That is what they do.
The alcohol restrictions are not working. If they did, people would support them. People in Alice Springs are not stupid. Sure, it might be an impost to show my ID to get some grog and I can only do it after 2 pm. I tell you, if people saw results, they would not care; they would do it. Personally, it goes against some of my ideologies – why do we have to dumb it right down? However, if that is what you have to do to live in such a wonderful community to keep the peace, to provide law and order then, fine, you have to do it. They are some of the trade-offs for living in remote and unique parts of Australia such as Alice Springs. People would cop that on the chin if they could see that it is working. However, it is not working.
You can have all your stats and whatever it is spun any way you like. Have someone pump it out, spin it this way and spin it that way. We could do the same; say it is not working and look at 10 years of hard Labor, and it is not working. You could do the same: 27 years of the CLP and look how bad that was.
Just go to Alice Springs. I said to the member for Johnston as the Attorney-General, a long time ago in a previous life: spend some time on the streets of Alice Springs. I do not know if he has done that. Come down for a week; holiday down there. Take your family down there and just see what is happening. If you did, you would implement something and address the issues immediately. The Youth Action Plan - for crying out loud! The Alice Springs transformation plan and all this stuff - we are talking about program after program and long-term vision. There is no long term at the moment. It feels like there is no long term in Alice Springs; everything is short term. People cannot see beyond because they are swamped, they are blinded, by what is happening on the street, in their homes - the invasions; the personal attacks.
We need an emergency response. Unfortunately, that word takes on other connotations these days, doesn’t it? Essentially, that is what it is. There has to be a response straightaway, and then we can improve the social and mental wellbeing of the community. We can go to the heart of public health and what it really is - the health of the public: the mental health and wellbeing, the social health, and the physical health of the community.
We will be supporting this bill and I thank the department for the briefing. I thank the minister for freely providing briefings to me from his department; always quick with a phone call to say: ‘I have a new bill coming on, would you like a briefing on it?’ I appreciate it, and thank the staff for their time.
We have a long way to go with the mental health and physical wellbeing of Alice Springs. I do not know if you guys can fix it - I believe it is beyond you. The people suffering are the people in Alice Springs, the second biggest town in the Territory - probably the most iconic town in the country. It is a massive generator for tourism, not only on the Territory scale, a national scale. It has a huge number of Defence personnel at Pine Gap and RAAF at Jindalee, and is a massive public sector employer, both Territory and Commonwealth.
We will support the bill. That is all I have to say on the definition. I was going to add a few things. The Territory government has been quite critical of some public health warnings and campaigns, particularly the mosquito control after deaths due to the outbreak of Murray Valley Encephalitis. Also, the government’s failure to notify the public that counts of Legionella in the Parliament House cooling towers last year exceeded safe levels. Another issue we were concerned about was the E. coli contamination in Darwin waters last year and, more recently, the issue of Darwin streets being used as public toilets.
The government says there was no opposition by stakeholders. I wonder where the stakeholder consultations can be found. I have not seen too many. This bill is a bit of a no-brainer, to be honest, so I would not expect too much opposition from those stakeholders.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not offer any amendments to this bill, and support it as it stands.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I extend my thanks to the minister for having Mr Schobben come to my electorate office to brief businesses in the caravan industry, the motel industry, and the bed and breakfast industry, because this legislation covers their activities. We had eight people in my electorate office who appreciated the briefing and the frankness from Mr Schobben. He acknowledged it has been a long time coming, and they welcomed it. All I ask is, once it is implemented, there is follow-up information, particularly for some of the smaller businesses.
Some of the caravan park people out there, as you know, do not get out very often so, if the information comes via electorate offices or normal channels of communication that would be appreciated. I know the businesses in my electorate would appreciate it as well. Thank you, minister, for allowing a senior member to come out to my electorate.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Minister for Health on the introduction of this important reform initiative, and support this important bill.
The object of this bill is: to protect and promote the health of individuals and communities in the Northern Territory; provide flexible capacity to protect the health of particular individuals and communities in the Territory from emerging environmental conditions of public and environmental health issues that may impact on their health and wellbeing; enable special action to be taken to protect the health, particularly of individuals in the communities in the Territory who are public health risks or facing particular health problems; to improve the public environmental health outcomes of all Territorians in partnership with individuals and the community; and, lastly, to monitor, assess and control environmental conditions, factors and agents’ facilities and equipment and activities, services, and products that may impact on public environmental health.
I recognise the Health Minister’s personal knowledge, experience, and passionate interest in the areas covered by this bill from his earlier experience in the environmental health profession. Public health improvements underpin the development of a modern society and provide a foundation for a strong and healthier Territory community. I also acknowledge the need to modernise the current legislation, and the valuable contribution made by stakeholders during the development period to yield a sound bill which will serve Territorians well into the future.
It is important to recognise the basis for the proposed act is providing a comprehensive framework including appropriate measures, guidelines, and standards through specific regulations that will provide additional flexibility, more certainty, and opportunity for timely responses and the subsequent reduction of health risks to the Territory. Key to this approach is the development of new public health guidelines, measures, and standards in consultation with industry and the cooperative implementation of these guidelines for 12 months without penalties applying. This approach allows business and operational experience to be fully taken into account and incorporated before the new measures are finalised and adopted formally by the minister.
I understand all new standards and regulations will also be subject to a comprehensive regulatory impact assessment analysis which incorporates a business impact assessment. This means the business cost impacts and compliance criteria for each new standard or regulation will be examined at the point when the information on how they work and what their result has been for firms in the sector can be properly understood. This provides assurance that business needs and issues are properly considered within the framework. The framework approach is also based on a risk approach, so the public health effort is focused on the opportunities and circumstances that pose higher risks to the public health of Territorians as the priority for attention and action.
The risk activities identified include: beauty therapy treatments including waxing, manicure or pedicure; colonic irrigation or similar activities not covered by other legislation; skin penetration including ear and body piercing, acupuncture, and tattooing; aquatic facilities including public swimming pools and spas, including pools and spas in hotels, motels and resorts, wave pools and community pools. In the commercial area: commercial visitor public accommodation such as backpackers, hotels, motels, roadhouses, caravan parks, and bed and breakfast accommodation.
This risk identification approach will extend public health control to some 330 firms currently not covered by specific public health measures. This will, in turn, reduce public health risks and be fairer to responsible businesses providing those health services. It may require less responsible operators to raise standards and improve their practices. This is a good way to deal with these issues. It will result in a more equitable business operating environment. It will result in all firms engaging in risky activities being covered, rather than the uneven coverage under the old act, which reflected the public health practices and priorities of the last century.
My department’s Territory Business Centres are the initial contact and referral point for starting a business, business and industry licensing information, business planning assistance, and links to business assistance programs. The centres are well placed to provide support to firms with their business licensing requirements. Their experience with the development of e-business, online processing, and smart forms will also be of assistance to ensure the bill’s operational arrangements can be implemented with maximum efficiency and minimum effort by the businesses involved.
The Public Environmental Health Bill sets up a framework to achieve public health improvements through appropriate and enhanced controls to better manage and reduce public health risks and provide a more equitable business environment, while taking business needs and experiences fully into account.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and commend the minister for bringing it forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. I also thank the department for the briefing. I suppose the department knows I could not let it go, but one of the objects of the bill is to provide a flexible capacity to protect the health of particular individuals in communities in the Territory. I like that word ‘flexible’, because I keep thinking of the Howard Springs pools that are absolutely overflowing at the moment. One side of the dam wall the other day was nearly equal to the other side, and I would love to know if the department went down there and took a reading. If there was something wrong with that water then we ought to ban the entire Litchfield National Park water supply. It was pouring over that area.
When we are dealing with this issue of environment health, people have to make judgments. I suppose there is a certain amount of risk involved. Governments tend to err on the side of caution but, as I said before, under the recreational guidelines, it talks about how you must take into account the benefits of some of these areas we use for recreation. I will not go on about that, but at least say that one of the objects of the bill is to provide a flexible capacity to protect health. Maybe my reading of that is slightly biased, but it is just one of those things that stood out for me.
The bill is one that most of us do not look at unless we are a plumber or require a health inspector to come out to our premises. It is a very important area because it is all about public health. I was interested to see the bill introduced the concept of declared activities. I might be wrong but it says here, ‘examples of these activities could include commercial business or accommodation, tattooing, body piercing or hairdressing’. I must admit, I thought that hairdressing would automatically be covered already. In other states I used to see, when I was a kid, some sort of certificate up on the wall to say Joe Blow was an approved hairdresser. So, I was surprised to know that hairdressing was not covered by the present act. I stand corrected if that is the case, minister. When you think of all the nits in this world, especially those that float around with kids at school, I would have thought that activity would have been already covered.
I was looking at the changes to regulations; that is probably long overdue. I had a good time looking through the regulations, especially the Public Health (General Sanitation, Mosquito Prevention, Rat Exclusion and Prevention) Regulations. That is something that should be debated in this House. I notice, under section 7, Keeping of animals and domestic birds:
It would be interesting to see how many people in the rural area have a horse in the front yard. The member for Goyder and I will be going around doorknocking people asking whether they have written permission of the inspector.
There is a whole heap of those things. Section 7(5) is:
There is a section which deals with the cleansing of stables. It was not until some issues about stables being built in the rural area were raised that I realised it was not necessarily a planning matter, it was actually department of Health or an environmental health matter. When it came to stables, the person with the most power was the director. Because these are fairly old regulations, how do they match in with planning regulations? Should some of these be planning regulations or health regulations?
I like section 18(1):
It goes on and on.
Yes, there are many others. Protection of drinking fountains - I did not know this one existed. I heard the drinking fountain at the new Palmerston jetty was pinched the other day. Section 20 says:
(a) break or damage, or remove a part of, a drinking fountain;
(c) place any offensive or obnoxious substance in or on a drinking fountain.
Some of them, I suppose, make some sense, but some of them have to be updated because they are past their use-by date, or they need to be reworded so they relate more to today’s language. I am not sure how many people still require night soil to be removed, but there is a whole section on night soil.
I notice you are going to change the regulations, although I was not sure whether I saw something which said that these regulations will have a limitation; they will only last for a few more years. I am presuming, in the meantime, they will be replaced with new regulations. Obviously, you have to have some regulations. It makes sense that there are some changes. This particular bill is the foundation, and the regulations are the practical application of this bill. It is an important document.
In a briefing, we had discussions about septic tanks. This is an area that needs to be more widely publicised within a public arena. I have one of those pump-out septics; I do not think it works as well as it should. The company that put it in has gone broke. In theory, the companies that put them in are supposed to maintain them. What do I do to keep maintaining it? There are issues that have come up recently, where I saw three blocks of land near the Beddington Road estate in Herbert. Of the three houses, two of them are in water and one is just out, but their septic tanks are now under water. I know there is a requirement under the Planning Act that you do not build within a flood line, and that plumbers are self-certified. You are hoping the self-certification gives them enough knowledge to say: ‘You cannot put the septic tank there’.
I presume there are two matters in regard to that. One is the Planning Regulations, but I also presume those regulations come under this particular act. Maybe there has to be a little more publicity about what is required because these three places out in Herbert, technically, should not have their septic tanks there. They cannot use their toilets because they are full of water. Some of that information is for the public. If the public is aware there are regulations about septic tanks such as they should not be in a wet area, they can also ask the plumber to check he is building a septic in an area allowed. They cost a fair amount of money today. A pump-out system will cost you at least $6000 or $7000, and a normal septic will cost about the same amount. That area needs looking at. It is an important area, and is definitely an environmental health matter because these three septic tanks are in a lagoon, which means the lagoon is being polluted. Residents who might want to paddle around the lagoon in their boat may be doing so with a certain amount of risk because the septic tanks of some neighbours are now under water.
I imagine there has been much consultation around this bill. It will update not only the language of the bill, it will ensure it covers new areas such as tattooing and hairdressing - those areas that may not have been covered before. It also brings it into a language more understandable in this day and age.
There are quite a number of regulations in relation to this bill. The one I mentioned is not the only regulation; however, you can see from a glance through this act it is quite old and certainly needs upgrading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. I am interested to see what comes out in the regulations, especially for rural people such as keeping of horses, keeping of chooks - which also applies to Darwin. There is a special ...
Ms Purick: Do not forget the goats.
Mr WOOD: Goats actually do not come under the definition, I am sorry. It is good to see the most important animal does – a domestic bird. Obviously, domestic birds are far more important than goats.
Dr Burns: Has it got sea-eagles?
Mr WOOD: Sea-eagles, no. They are not domestic unless they have been brought up in a cage from Larrimah and kept in a cage at Berry Springs.
Things like ventilation of chemical closets is probably up-to-date. It is probably a more modern one because I presume that happens in caravans. I do not know whether that is covered as well. I am unsure what a dangerous septic tank is; it sounds …
Ms Purick: They are all dangerous; especially if you fall into them.
Mr WOOD: That could be a worry if you fall in, yes. The previous owner of my residence had a piggery. Do not tell the building people but it is a terrible shed. It has trees growing on top of it; that it how old the roof is. He built it in pre-cyclone days, I am sure. He had a large septic tank at the bottom for the effluent. It was a concrete pig sty and he would hose all the effluent in and pump it out on the pasture for the horses. He had long gone and we took over. He had bits of tin over the top of it. My good friend, Jo Selby, asked if she could run her horse on my property. I said it was fine. I received a message one day that this poor horse had fallen through and was stuck in the septic tank ...
Ms Purick: I remember that.
Mr WOOD: You remember that? It ended up in the paper. We got a crane, put a sling around it and got it out. That might be the definition of a dangerous septic tank. However, I digress.
Minister, it is an important bill. Environmental health is an important issue. The minister and I have had the odd word about certain landfill sites. We hope we get a regional land use site. If there is a regional land use site does this act cover it? Will this set up the licensing procedures for landfill? Maybe you could let us know if this is the one that would do that.
It is an important act; the regulations are also important. When they are being developed I would like to see some public consultation on it, from not only the specialists but also rural people. People who want to keep animals would like to see what those regulations are.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, the regulation is a long time coming. I recall it started being drafted in 1994 when I worked as Manager Darwin Urban. It is very good to see it took only 17 years to bring it to parliament - for me to be in parliament in a different capacity.
In this closing debate, I pay special tribute to the Environmental Health staff who did an excellent, marvellous job - Xavier Schobben was the Director of Environmental Health – but, in particular, a person who worked very hard in the Territory, the late Phil Donohoe, who died in a tragic accident in December 2006. Phil worked in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Nhulunbuy. Xavier and Phil drafted the discussion paper in 2000. My understanding is it is the only public health discussion paper ever to be printed in purple/pink. I do not know the significance of the colour. We progressed from that discussion paper to very good legislation to replace an antiquated health act that was drafted in 1952.
I thank very much the member for her support. I have even forgiven the member for Greatorex for his vitriolic attack. He started saying he could not understand why we spent so much time talking about sheds and statehood. For one simple reason: if sheds are not properly constructed and comply with the environmental health status, they can pose a danger to people’s health. As for statehood, since we are only a Territory, Canberra always has the ability and the power to overrule our legislation, be it the terminally-ill or even our environmental health legislation if they do not like it or we step on some toes.
The member for Greatorex accused me of being despicable for what I said on the radio today about not recruiting doctors. What I said yesterday in my adjournment was you can run your town down but, if you do that, how can we attract workers and people to live there? It will be very difficult for us to argue about Alice Springs.
We know there are problems in Alice Springs. Of course, there are problems in Alice Springs. Most of the problems arise from alcohol. Of course, alcohol is not new. Alice Springs has always been known as the drinking capital of the Northern Territory. The problems which have been exacerbated recently have not arisen just since 18 August 2001 when the Labor government came to power. Most of the problems in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and in Katherine arise from the fact that the John Howard government implemented the intervention in the Northern Territory.
One of the first things done was to close wet canteens and restrict alcohol availability in the communities. It does not take many brains to know what will happen if the people want to drink. Where are they going to drift? They are going to drift to places where they can access alcohol; that is, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, and Alice Springs. That is what happened. With the influx of people from the communities into Alice Springs, more of them come, they stay longer and, of course, we have the results of excessive alcohol consumption with families falling apart. Families do not look after their children and they are roaming the streets.
I am critical that the opposition makes wild allegations about children prostituting themselves with not one piece of evidence to provide to the police or to the department of Child Protection. I have twice asked my department if any evidence was provided to the department so we can investigate and take action. We could not find any.
We also have to remember that it is not only police action that will make Alice Springs a better place, it is action by the community to do something about the young people. It is very sad because I well remember when we started implementing the Clontarf Academy in Alice Spring and were looking for assistance from the business community and we received very little. The same business community is now very quick to raise $10 000 to start the television campaign to highlight the problems they have in Alice Springs. It is better to prevent the problem rather than to treat it. If the business community, the whole community, and the government worked together constructively, some of these problems might not have arisen in Alice Springs.
He went on to talk about hospitals and how bad health is in the Territory, and how bad the elective surgery list is in the Territory. Let me tell you something: you come here and open your mouth to make wild allegations which are copied by the media. I will give you some facts and figures about the elective surgery waiting list. In July 2003, there were 3046 people waiting. In July 2004, there were 3488 people waiting. The highest number was in July 2005 with 3610 people on the waiting list. Then, we started going down: July 2007 – 2666; July 2008 – 2409; July 2009 – 2753; July 2010 – 2266; and in November 2010 - 2202. That shows the elective surgery waiting list does not grow, but comes down.
Where the Commonwealth government provided money for elective surgery to be undertaken in the Northern Territory and the other states, the Territory performed the best. We did an extra 300 surgeries with the money in order to cap the waiting list. We have continued to do so, despite the fact we do not have our own home-trained doctors, and we have to rely upon people coming from other states, such as anaesthetists and surgeons. We are battling.
You have to remember we have some of the sickest population, and much of this sickness is a result of public health issues. People do not have access to good water. They do not have access to safe houses, or their housing is substandard. People live in areas where the septic tank is broken or is not functional and the sewage runs down the yard. People do not have hot water to wash their clothes, or electricity or a washing machine. These are public health issues. What we are trying to address with this Public Environmental Health Bill is exactly these issues. Again, it is not going to be done by the Health department only, it has to be done by a number of departments working together.
This legislation provides the road map to how we are going to address these issues. Of course, it does not only provide for nuisance, or about environmental health issues in communities, but in our own urban centres. I was surprised when I first came here and I realised our act, at the time, would not address issues in tattoo parlours, or if you go to have an ear pierced with an earring. We could not do much about this. We could not control them, despite that, in other states, it has been the norm for many years.
Madam Speaker, it is a very substantial bill; a very modern bill. It is not prescriptive like the old bill. It is actually a bill that has received praise from experts in the field. Dr Christopher Reynolds, who is a national authority on public health, law and policy - and who has a book coming out on public health law to be published next month - has been very positive in his comments on the provisions contained in this bill, particularly with respect to the continuation of the use and the wide definition of public health nuisances, which includes condition, state or conduct that puts at risk or damages public health. When someone like Dr Christopher Reynolds praises our environmental health, we must be on the right track. We must have done something really good here.
As I said before, it took us 17 years. Yes, things do not move very quickly in the Territory but, in the past few years we have seen significant improvements in public and environmental health. The number of environmental health officers when I came here was 15 in the whole Territory. It has now risen to 25 and, as our population increases, it will increase further. The Territory is one of the few jurisdictions where environmental health officers work for the government. My intention is - and I will discuss this with my colleagues - in the next few years the environmental health officers will be working with the shires, with the local councils, with the communities, because they have to be very close to the grassroots. They have to work with the population as they do in other states.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is very good legislation. I feel particularly proud that when I first started working in the Territory we started thinking about this kind of legislation. Today, as the Minister for Health for the Northern Territory, I am introducing this Public Environmental Health Bill 2010.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the Northern Territory government’s response to the Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, dated February 2011.
MOTION
Note paper - Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated February 2011
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to reply to the third progress report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, dated November 2010. There are a number of recommendations made within the CTC’s report and those have been debated earlier in this session of parliament. It is now time for government to respond in a formal way to the CTC.
I will be covering matters related to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program or SIHIP, and my colleague, the member for Arnhem who is Minister for Local Government and Minister for Indigenous Development, will reply to the other recommendations relevant to her portfolio. I am sure the House realises there will be some overlap on some of them. Anyway, we will endeavour to do our best in relation to government’s response to the CTC.
I will preface our response to the report of the CTC by saying that I commend the CTC. It is a very hard-working committee and is covering a great deal of terrain, not just geographically, but also in the areas I have mentioned before, amongst others.
SIHIP is a heavily scrutinised program. It has been scrutinised by our own Auditor-General. It is currently being scrutinised by the Commonwealth Auditor-General and, parallel to that, there are also questions being asked by the council.
I understand the department, namely the CEO Mr Ken Davies, and Mr Andrew Kirkman, amongst others, have appeared before the CTC a number of times. I hope the CTC is satisfied with the level of cooperation they are getting from the department and the flow of information. I know the CEO of the department and Mr Kirkman endeavour to place as much information as they can before the CTC.
There will always be some tension, I believe, in the evidence departmental officers can give to a parliamentary committee like the CTC, particularly when, understandably, the CTC is inquiring into the financial aspects of SIHIP, some of which are commercial-in-confidence. I know the committee respects those commercial-in-confidence issues. However, I am sure the committee probably also, at times, feels a little frustrated. They would like to go that little extra with some of the information. That is an understandable tension and, hopefully, we can work through those issues. As I understand it, the committee has been given a number of undertakings by the department about the provision of information.
The other partner in all of this is the Commonwealth. The committee also understands there are some processes and discussions that have to be undertaken with our Commonwealth partners before information can be released, remembering that SIHIP is under the control of a joint steering committee. That is a partnership between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government. It is a very public program.
As I have said publicly, it did not get off to a very good start in life and there is much scrutiny. Basically, the media is always on the lookout for a SIHIP story, not necessarily always a positive story. I must say, though, when the media came out to Wadeye with minister Macklin and me recently, they were impressed by the houses they saw. They were impressed by the workmanship and the rate at which the houses have been turned out and, of course, the Indigenous employment that is associated with SIHIP.
Whilst there were initial problems with SIHIP, the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory pointed to the logistics of this program; it is one of the largest programs ever to be rolled out in remote Australia. Even if it was in a mainstream capital city, the very logistics of building 750 houses, 2500 refurbishments, and 230 rebuilds would be immense.
Underlying SIHIP is the alliance method of contracting. The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory, once again, pointed to some of the positives and negatives associated with the alliance method of contracting. Whilst it has flexibility and the capacity for negotiation at a community level, and also between government and the alliance contractors, as the Auditor-General said, it is somewhat difficult to ascertain exact direct costs because of the nature of alliance contracting. I understand the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, AHURI, is putting out a paper shortly about various contracting methods in Indigenous housing, including SIHIP. It will be interesting to read their review of the alliance contracting model. It is an academic approach to this important issue. I do not know if they have spoken to the member for Nelson. I am sure he, as well as other members of the committee, would be almost Australian experts on the alliance method of contracting.
I lay some of those things on the record before I start specifically speaking in relation to the government’s responses to the council. I also have to say - and I am not trying to politicise this too much - I am disappointed the opposition has walked away from the Council of Territory Cooperation. It was a blind move, driven by ideology. Whoever the strategist was behind it, it was not a very good idea at a whole range of levels. The opposition will work out its own strategy; far be it for me to suggest what strategy they should have employed.
My school motto was ‘Knowledge is power’. The council, in their deliberations - some of which have been made public and some of which is commercial-in-confidence - has been privy to detail the opposition does not now have ready access to, as well as the direct contact with senior public servants to ask direct questions. In some ways, the opposition is starving itself of information. If I wanted to think in a negative way, I might think it suits some members of the opposition because they can say whatever they like about SIHIP, not based on fact or what they have been told within the briefing. When you are not encumbered by what is occurring, you are more or less free to say whatever you like. The opposition has not done itself any favours by being critical of the council.
The very presence of the council, the lines of questioning, and the fact they are going on location seeing things for themselves - it is obvious government’s focus is on delivering these houses and listening to what is coming out of the CTC in the public arena. We are trying, wherever possible, to take on board the constructive recommendations of the CTC and change some of the things occurring. There is a political imperative for government to listen carefully to what the CTC says. Our members of the CTC are bush members and are very direct in what they have to say. That is very good because not only do we have the member for Nelson, who spent a fair bit of time here and there, but we have bush members from our side who are also very intent on seeing SIHIP and local government issues work. It is a very constructive way of doing business.
I will turn now to government’s response. Nine of the recommendations refer to SIHIP, and I will try to address those, albeit it fairly briefly. I am advised, members of the CTC, that quite a number of recommendations have been fulfilled. I will listen carefully if you feel they have not been fulfilled as far as they should be. When you make a request, we are trying, as far as possible, to meet those requests. I will table our response after I have finished what I have to say.
Recommendation 1 says:
I am advised all new houses delivered under SIHIP are designed to achieve a built life of 30 to 40 years. I know some of these houses come under quite extreme conditions, some of them have been attacked with steel implements, and some very unfortunate incidents have happened. It really depends where that house is situated, whether you can expect a 30- to 40-year life out of it. However, that is the expectation. There is another recommendation about malicious damage. My instruction to the department has been that those who maliciously damage this property are to be pursued and repayments are to be made.
Turning again to the 30 to 40 years, the program has aligned with the department’s remote housing asset management strategy to ensure all fixtures and fittings in all community housing assets are robust, fit for purpose, and standardised. Solid wall solutions will be the preferred solution in communities where new house designs are yet to be finalised. That is our undertaking: to move down that path of solid walls. With the houses we have built to date in some of the locations, it has been a learning curve about the way we should be building in future.
I digress a little. As minister for Housing, I am regularly approached – as I am sure the member for Nelson and others are approached – by someone, usually from interstate, sometimes from the Northern Territory - who has the solution for Indigenous housing. It is always something that can be built within two weeks and there are a whole lot of things. However, most of us who have been around for a while know these houses we are building have to be of very robust construction. While many of the products showcased to me are wonderful products, I have question marks about their longevity in the situations we just talked about. However, it is good that people are coming forward, and we need to continue to listen to people with new ideas.
Recommendation 2 says:
I thoroughly endorse this recommendation. I have had discussions with minister Macklin about this. I believe the Australian and Northern Territory governments are moving down that track. There are some models- for example, on Groote Eylandt - where that sharing relationship happens. I say to the House - and I am sure the council is already aware - the alliances have made some of their costings and their commitments based on the work that was showcased and made available to them. To make it economical, there is a certain amount of work the alliances have to undertake. I am all for, in those packages, where it is possible, to put it out to a local organisation with the capacity to do it, and I am pushing that with the Commonwealth. That is a very important and constructive recommendation made by the council.
Recommendation 3:
It really depends on what you mean by ‘complete’; the definition of ‘complete’. Obviously, the scope of works the Commonwealth has given the alliances has been well publicised regarding painting. Certainly, if there is some way we can utilise some local capacity to undertake painting on some of those houses, I believe we should be doing it. So, it depends exactly what you mean by ‘complete’.
I will read the response:
On that issue of painting, I am all for trying to engage at that local level to get people involved in the painting and refreshing of those houses so people have a stake in the house in their effort. We are already seeing that in Wadeye, in particular with many of the new houses; that people are very house proud. They are planting gardens and whatever, and their houses are very neat, albeit many of them do not have much furniture in them. It is interesting to be at the shop there and see people leaving the shop with all sorts of house wares for their new houses. That is to be commended. I believe there is a change in the way people are thinking.
Recommendation 4:
I am advised that details on condition and service requirements of housing and repairs and maintenance funding paid to shires has been provided to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Recommendation 5:
Infrastructure works in Tennant Creek and community living areas are to an urban subdivisional standard. I assume the CTC has been to Tennant Creek and seen those buildings and the civil works being carried out there. It has been a few months since I have been there, but I was very impressed by the standard of work, the civil works, and the general cleanup. I also have to remark that there was a bit of scaremongering going on in the media - I think some members of the opposition were involved in it - saying the alliance contractor was withdrawing from Tennant Creek. That was not true. There is much misinformation of SIHIP. I suppose that is what I have to contend with as minister.
Recommendation 6:
I am advised SIHIP infrastructure, planning and approval processes currently include standard design and approval processes, including the Department of Lands and Planning and the Power and Water Corporation. Remote shire councils do not have subdivision guidelines, and SIHIP is utilising guidelines developed specifically for the program. Program managers will consult with and involve shire councils in future works planning. Most members of this House would appreciate there are many new subdivisions going on, but the location of those subdivisions and what they comprise is often, at a very local community level, very highly politicised. You have the land councils and others involved. It is a difficult process, but I commend the departments for negotiating with the various entities and, in a number of cases, getting some pretty good results.
I visited the subdivision at Maningrida, I would say maybe October/November last year, and was very impressed by what I saw there. It was still very much a work in progress but it is a major subdivision. I was accompanied by my old friend, Mr Reggie Wurridjal, one of the traditional owners, and he is very happy with the subdivision and the way it is all shaping up. It was great to receive that feedback from local people.
Recommendation 7:
As I said earlier, that has certainly been my direction to the department. In some cases, the Commonwealth, where there are lease negotiations still going on, is actually the landlord. Wherever the Northern Territory government is the landlord, the instruction from me, as minister, has been explicit. I know the Chief Minister is red hot on this also; that if there is malicious damage to any of our assets it is to be reported and investigated by police, and we will institute processes to get that money paid back.
That is our policy, member for Nelson. I will just repeat from the response to the report:
Recommendation 8:
The response is:
I know there are still discussions about individual packages, and some undertakings have been made by Ken Davies and Andrew Kirkman about the provision of information on completion of packages. When those details are provided, the average house for these packages is being built within a reasonable ballpark average indicated by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory government. Some are a little more and some will be a little less, as one would expect.
Recommendation 9:
That is a pretty important recommendation. The outcomes of delivering healthy homes will be monitored and evaluated by the Healthy Homes Working Group with regular reporting to the board of management, and ongoing monitoring through the local implementation plans tracker. What we are looking at here, as I said on the public record a number of times, is a journey. Many people living in remote communities are, for a whole range of reasons, probably not aware of their obligations as a tenant and, equally, of the obligations of government as the landlord. I believe it is important we go on that process of education with people, and give people every opportunity to understand what is involved in a tenancy, looking after a house, and ensuring a healthy environment. It is a large challenge. That was a very short response. It is probably easier said than done, but it is something, as a government, we are committed to.
In closing, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table government’s response to the CTC. I commend the work of the CTC. Sometimes, you make it a little difficult for government, but that is your role. I wish you all the best and believe it is good you are there inquiring into some very important projects and challenges that face the Northern Territory. Obviously, we will not always come up to the expectations of the CTC, but we are giving it a red hot go in the interest of Territorians to deliver better housing and local government services across the length and breadth of the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not going to talk on the CTC third report, however, given some of the issues raised by the member for Johnston I need to respond. I shall not be long; I need to ensure the record remains clear.
The member for Johnston expressed concerns about the fact that opposition members left the CTC. All things being equal, I would have liked to stay on the CTC for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the issue the member for Johnston pointed out - the fact we had an opportunity to learn. We were on a committee with a broad-ranging mandate; we could go virtually anywhere and do anything. We were a self-referencing committee, and that is useful for the members involved. I found my time on the CTC to be useful; I learnt much, I was exposed to things I would not normally be in opposition, and had access to people through the inquiry process I would not ordinarily have access to as a member of the opposition. For that, it was a useful and good committee. It was a great education, and I learnt much.
However, edification was not the purpose of the CTC. In my view, it was having a committee structure which made government more accountable. When I say ‘government’, I mean the ministers of this government. When you look at the relationship between the Chief Minister and the CTC, one has to assess the seriousness with which the Chief Minister takes that committee, given its unique role.
I quickly refer to one particular issue which, for me, was the straw that broke the camel’s back: the issue of compelling ministers to appear before the CTC. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as a committee member yourself, you and the other committee members would understand and know there was a recommendation in the CTC’s second report with respect to getting ministers to appear before the CTC. That recommendation was agreed to by all members of the CTC. It was agreed to by the CLP members, the Labor Party members, and the Independent member for Nelson. When that recommendation went to the Chief Minister, it was batted back with some disdain. In my mind, it cemented that the Chief Minister was not taking the CTC seriously enough to warrant my inclusion and, by extension, the member for Port Darwin’s inclusion, in that committee.
As far as the member for Johnston asserting ‘a strategist’ had hold of this and made the call to remove us from the committee, I can only repeat what I have said: in my view, the Chief Minister did not take the CTC seriously enough. I felt my time could be better spent, rather than sitting on a committee that was largely there, in my view, in name only.
I satisfy, I hope, the member for Johnston that there was no conspiracy or strategy in place. Those other members who were on the CTC could vouch for this particular fact. Both the member for Port Darwin and I - and I am not saying us exclusively; all the members of the CTC - put in a lot of hard work. We approached our work with the CTC in good faith, expecting there would be some result from the hard work we put in. Of course, when that did not materialise, it made me wonder whether it was worthwhile to remain there. Clearly, the decision was made not to.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to clarify that point, and to stress to the member for Johnston who raised it, the reason for the departure of the CLP members from the committee.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to expand on the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations that relate to my portfolio responsibilities in Local Government and Indigenous Development.
The council’s work provides an important means for local government councils, Indigenous and other organisations, and individuals to present their viewpoints on programs operated by the three levels of government. I pick up on the comments made by the member for Katherine regarding the many opportunities he received as a committee member, travelling with the CTC across the Northern Territory, and the exposure he received in being able to have access to important government officials in the departments, important information, scrutinising the many areas the CTC has, in particular with SIHIP and the local government region.
I have to say it is an absolute disappointment the opposition pulled out of the CTC and continue to stay out of it, simply because one of the fundamental goals of any of the committees of the parliament – but, in particular, the CTC under the leadership of the member for Nelson - is to scrutinise and be vigilant about the many reforms going on across the Northern Territory. It is a shame the CLP continues to remain absent in that forum, especially given the comments by the member for Katherine of how beneficial it was to both him and his colleagues.
I pick up on that point and highlight also that, even at the very beginning, it was always indicated there would be a fair process of access to the many departmental heads and their staff throughout this. The opposition has the perfect opportunity in the estimates process to scrutinise each and every minister for hours on end, armed with terrific information that is coming from what they were learning through the CTC. Now, they do not have that and they are worse off for it. They knew when they entered into that arrangement that that was the case. So, to be on it for nearly a year and, then, to suddenly spit the dummy and walk off with their bat and ball, was disappointing, no doubt, for their constituencies. I maintain regular contact with my peak bodies in regard to local government and to others who are relevant to my portfolio.
The Council of Territory Cooperation has provided a considered response to the issues presented to it, and I turn to the recommendations that apply to my ministerial portfolio. I have five recommendations.
Recommendation 10 - the council has recommended that:
The department of Housing and Local Government has undertaken a functional assessment that has increased the capacity of regional offices to provide a first response to council issues, both municipal and shire. This recognises regional staff are most acquainted with local issues and are best positioned to understand the operating environment and issues faced by local government councils.
For issues that may not be resolved at a regional level, the department has created a single point of contact for all local government councils, shire and municipal. This is the Senior Executive Director of Local Government and Regional Services, the position occupied by Fran Kilgariff, former Mayor of the Alice Springs Town Council, who has vast experience in local government and is well known to many people in the third tier of government.
In regard to communication with shire councils, the department has established a regional shires forum, which includes mayors and presidents of shire councils, together with their council CEO, and CEO and Senior Executive Director of the Department of Local Government and Regional Services, together with the Northern Territory State Manager for FaHCSIA. Councils submit agenda items they want discussed around their priorities at these meetings, which are held three or four times a year. This is a great forum for discussion of cross-agency and cross-government issues. It is important to note, at the request of the councils, the meeting agenda provides as much time as possible for open discussion, rather than focusing on presentations from government agencies.
Recommendation 11:
I totally agree with the member for Nelson and the team with the CTC. We know how important it is to have that dialogue. In fact, I was in Canberra a couple of weeks ago pushing that very issue with the federal minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin. The Commonwealth government’s stated intention is to end CDEP as a wage program in 2012 and, effectively, the Commonwealth’s current planning is to reduce CDEP in scale and to develop other new work-readiness and Indigenous employment programs.
Like the Australian government, we have been concerned about CDEP becoming a destination rather than a transition to mainstream employment. Having said that, the Northern Territory government also recognises the real value that well-managed CDEP programs can provide in supporting community development and providing people with work-ready skills where there are limited mainstream employment opportunities.
There is also real scope for developing a revised and enhanced CDEP program in the local government area, but with real jobs as outcomes for participants. My department is partnering with the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory and the shire councils to further develop workforce planning capacity in shire councils. The aim of this is to help support long-term strategic planning for the development of existing and potential remote Indigenous staff. This will increase the workforce capacity of shire councils and enhance career pathway planning and support for employees.
Recommendation 11 is absolutely crucial in ensuring what we are doing with A Working Future. What I appreciate about the CTC in this regard is that you cannot have enough people vigilant about wanting to see thorough and solid long-term employment across our regions, especially given the many reforms that come under my portfolio. I will be very keen to see further work done in this area in CDEP and Indigenous employment.
One of the other people I saw in Canberra in regard to Indigenous employment was Mark Arbib. Given that under his leadership they are looking at Indigenous employment, naturally, the conversation goes to people like him in what we can do to ensure there is solid, long-term, ongoing employment in these programs reforms, not only in the shires but under the banner of A Working Future.
Recommendation 12:
I believe this is a particularly important recommendation and, again, goes to the heart of my response on Recommendation 11; that is, our constant vigilance about how we are performing, and how we compare to how things were before.
Improved employment and development opportunities for local people was a major objective of the 2008 reform of local government. The reform included a requirement for shire councils that the employment and training of local people in delivering local government services was a core function. It is a high priority objective for the council mayors and presidents, as reflected in their annual reports. I agree there is a need for more regular reporting on local government workforce data in the department, together with LGANT and shire councils. They will develop a template and reporting framework to deliver consistent workforce data. Data collected from shire councils will be reported by the department.
The only reliable data for the pre-2008 local government councils available at this time comes from preliminary doctorate research conducted through Charles Darwin University. This research was based on a detailed assessment of council records pre-July 2008, and in the first half of 2009. The research shows a significant growth in council employment, from 1660 people with the former community government councils to 2300 people with shire councils in 2009. The data includes employment in both core and agency-related services. The analysis concludes the employment growth was most likely due to the increased funding provided to move former CDEP positions into fully-paid jobs in aged care, childcare, community patrols and similar, as well as the introduction of the matching funding scheme for transition of former CDEP participants to paid jobs in council core services.
I certainly agree with the recommendation that there should be more consistent reporting of employment in the shire councils to monitor trends and provide appropriate responses, if needed. The department is working with LGANT and councils to achieve this objective.
Recommendation 13:
As we all know, shire councils in the Northern Territory have limited revenue-raising capacity due to the small population base and the significant area of land administered. The shire councils are very dependent on ongoing operational subsidies from the Northern Territory government. Our government continues to work with shire councils and LGANT to strengthen the capacity of shires to provide services. While provision of additional funding is subject to budget development, the department will negotiate for the development of shared understanding of service levels and standards, and seek agreement on the costs of the required level of service delivery to ensure there is a realistic expectation of service standards within financial resources available to shire councils.
To go to the heart of that issue with regard to ongoing additional funding for shires, this clearly is the important challenge in the reforms because we want to see that our shires across the Northern Territory look very much at own source revenue. We know the reality of how difficult that is but, again, this is about a journey, a process that is not going to happen overnight. We are clearly tackling a situation in the Northern Territory which was not met, not dealt with in previous decades, recognising when we embarked on the shire reforms we did so in the firm belief we had to create a future where there was far more scrutiny of how local government worked across the regions. We recognised the serious challenge of additional funding was ahead of us, and is clearly there today.
Recommendation 14:
Believe me, member for Nelson, this is an area we most definitely will look into and discuss at length. Whole-of-township leasing for our growth towns is a key priority for both the Northern Territory and Australian governments. There is a need for more progress in this area when we look at the reforms taking place across the Northern Territory. The long-term future we envisage has to be built on strong foundations, so we need robust and long-lasting lease agreements, enjoying strong support of landowners and land councils. Without their cooperation we cannot move ahead.
In this House, we have heard on numerous occasions, and as recently as last night, talk about leasing across the Northern Territory. We know almost half the Northern Territory land mass is Aboriginal land. That is an obvious challenge in front of us, and we want to ensure the way we grow these regions is based firmly on a strong foundation. That is why the Northern Territory government is seeking to develop, in close cooperation with the Commonwealth, land councils, and shire councils, a detailed implementation plan for all 20 Territory growth towns, and to have them in place by 30 June 2012 - long-term leasing arrangements which secure government assets and facilitate private investment. A bold vision! We are moving ahead and working towards a goal. This will continue to be considered by government but it is in the Territory’s interest to cut red tape where possible and have a seamless intersection with other planning and land-leasing arrangements across the Territory.
We believe the agreed plan should deal with the future role of the EDTL, including options for the Commonwealth EDTL to be replaced by a Northern Territory entity under section 19A of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We also believe this plan should include options for the creation of a joint Commonwealth/Territory Office of Leasing Coordination with the capacity to negotiate leases on Aboriginal land on behalf of all Northern Territory and Australian government agencies.
In summary of Recommendation 14, the government broadly agrees to the Council of Territory Cooperation recommendation, and has commenced processes to implement the recommendation in cooperation with the Commonwealth, land councils, traditional owners, and shire councils.
Recommendation 15:
There is a fine balance to be achieved in reaching agreement on leasing arrangements in remote towns on Aboriginal land. First, the rights and interests of traditional owners have to be respected. Second, the appropriate level of government involvement to guide development has to be determined. Third, we need to ensure leases can operate in a similar way to freehold property interests and enable local people to build wealth and ultimately reinvest in their own communities.
The Northern Territory government agrees with the Council of Territory Cooperation that the current arrangements in town areas leased to the Executive Director of Township Leasing do not yet achieve the right balance. The head lease terms are still complicated and onerous, particularly on commercial leases. Investors should be required to respect sacred sites, cultural imperatives, and strict environmental standards. They should not be subject to arrangements requiring constant approval and oversight by the EDTL which, amongst other things, makes accessing finance more difficult.
In relation to access and permits, the government believes lease terms should ensure leaseholders and their families, staff, visitors, and customers are able to freely access leased areas for the agreed permitted uses. This includes being able to travel on roads to and from leased areas of land. In fact, there are already provisions in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to ensure this kind of open access. As such, changes to legislation of effective permit arrangements are not required.
The government agrees with the intent of Recommendation 15 of the Council of Territory Cooperation, and looks forward to implementing it in cooperation with the Commonwealth government, land councils, and traditional owners.
In closing, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I put on the Parliamentary Record a heartfelt thanks to you, the member for Arafura, and the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson, for your vigilance in this area. I appreciate that these are terrific reforms across the Northern Territory. I do not mean ‘terrific’ as in they are fantastic. I mean they are just huge. We have an enormous body of work ahead of us. We have been going through stages of social reform with the local government shires and, of course, with A Working Future and the leasing. I firmly believe the effectiveness of this parliament in the use of the parliamentary system and the mechanisms within it to be vigilant about these kinds of reforms is very helpful for me, as the minister, and I appreciate that.
Debate adjourned.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly adjourn until 29 March 2011 at 10 am in Alice Springs, or such other time and/or date as may be ordered by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on the last of our sitting days for this session I talk about police, crime, law and order and, particularly, raise my concern with hearing recently that the Operational Superintendent for the Palmerston Region, who has been for some time based in Palmerston Police Station, has been called back to the Darwin Police Station to base his operation from there.
Palmerston is a city in its own right nowadays. It deserves the respect and dignity of having its own police commander - in fact, police superintendent - on-site, on the ground, to support the community. When I heard the Palmerston superintendent had been relocated to Darwin city, it really offended me. We have seen so many occasions where organisations have been withdrawn from the best place they should be, which is on the ground, and brought back to a central location.
The officers on the ground appreciate the fact that, day in, day out, they get to see their direct commanding officer. They get to touch their commanding officer and feel the direct support of having one of the hierarchy who determines how their work will be conducted available to them. If that superintendent is a good superintendent they get to hear that superintendent say: ‘Guys, you are doing a great job out there, keep going’, or ‘Guys, I know it is tough, but keep going’. However, that has been taken away from them. That ability, that extra layer of support that gives them the drive to go out there, day in, day out, and stand that thin line - that most cannot stand - has been taken away from them. They have had it ripped out from under them.
I call upon the government to have that superintendent returned to the Palmerston district where that superintendent belongs, to be on the ground in the city of Palmerston; the city that deserves to have a superintendent, to have management’s finger literally on the pulse so the key, local issues are heard firsthand. So, when the superintendent, just like a politician, walks down the local corner store for a coffee, the community can see and touch that brass, and say: ‘I like what your boys are doing’, or, in reverse, ‘I have a problem with your boys. I am not happy with this’. He can have that direct feedback. The community can have that direct contact, the confidence in the force, knowing they are able to reach out and touch their force, be in communication with the hierarchy of this force, particularly at a time when the troubles of Alice Springs are very arduous – they are horrendous, in fact.
It is vital we get back to the base roots of community policing; being in contact with the community. Ripping out the Palmerston super from the Palmerston Police Station and pushing that superintendent into the higher levels of Darwin city is ludicrous. It is madness. It may serve the benefits of commanders above - make it a little easier for the brass to talk to him or her - but the reality is, that officer should be in contact with the troops they represent, on the ground, and in contact with the community they represent.
I am sure you appreciate, when you all have senior police visit your communities and you see them walk around your communities, the feeling they are out there doing their job; it is good to see the boss is getting in touch. It is ludicrous to think we have allowed the force to do the opposite and withdraw that community support and put it in the Darwin station. I find that absurd, and I do not support it in any way or form for the simple benefit, predominantly, of having better control of management. How about we get the management on the ground where the people can be in contact with the person; can get the support of the Palmerston people? He can pass the support up to the commissioner, having been in contact with the people.
I have heard another rumour which causes me some concern; some of our general duties police have, over time, been whittled away from the ranks within Palmerston station as well. I do not expect the Chief Minister to come here any time soon and grandstand and say: ‘We have recruited more police, we have done this, we have done that’. I am hearing that police officers from within Palmerston Police Station have been reallocated, either on a temporary or permanent basis, to other areas to do jobs. That means the staffing level in the Palmerston Police Station would, without doubt, be down from what it should be. I am not asking to hear the rhetoric and the grandstanding: ‘We have recruited more police’. I want to know the numbers on the ground. I want to know that what you said they should have out there, and the books say they should have out there, they actually have out there, and they have not been whittled away to some other far corner of some dark policing room. I want them on the beat in Palmerston, keeping my bus stops and shopping centres safe. I want them there so people can have confidence their police are supporting them.
It is a strange environment we currently live in, where we have outbreaks of lawlessness in Alice Springs. I do not want to see that happen in Palmerston. I want to ensure we have our officers where they are needed, so they are there to support each other and our community, so our officers do not get overworked and buried under the burden they carry.
I call on the government to immediately have the Palmerston superintendent returned to Palmerston where he can give direct support to his community. I call on the government - as we have in the past on this side of the Chamber - for a complete, open and transparent review into actual numbers of police officers on the ground: what their actual current location is. I do not want to hear a PIPS positional numbers representation of where those police are. I want to know if they do a head count of the station. Let us say we have 45 or 55 police officers in the Palmerston Police Station. I want to have a representation against the fact that we should have 70-something police officers in that station. I want to know how many officers are in those stations: in the Darwin station, in CIB. I want to know where those officers are.
That is how we find out exactly where our resources are. Do not go to your computer and pull off the PIPS numbers, because PIPS numbers can be replicated, and do not show you a physical representation of that person at the time. Show us; tell us; have a review into it. Have a consideration that we might actually know some of what we are talking about. Have a consideration, if you are looking for a way to find out where your resources are, that this is what you have to do. Do not be ashamed; do not be afraid, Chief Minister and your various ministers, to give us on this side a call and say: ‘Hey, Ross, come in. We want to have a chat to see if we can work out a few things. Let us talk’. I do not have a problem, ministers. I do not have a problem helping you to help the community.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak about the loss to the Territory last year of a great Territorian, a gentleman known to us as Bill Wong, also affectionately known as Uncle Bill. He was a foundation member of the Chung Wah Society when it started in 1949, and held a general secretary’s position there for some 40 years, from 1955 to 1994. Shortly after that, he became known as the Temple Affairs Officer. He was the first Temple Affairs Officer and held that position from 1996 to 2006.
I place on the public record that Bill Wong was presented an Order of Australia Medal for his contribution to his community and to the Territory. This was read out by Roland Chin on behalf of his Aunty Rosemary, Bill’s wife. I quote from the document I have received from the family which reads:
That was done quite some years ago, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the rest of the speech be noted and included in the Parliamentary Record.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you cannot ask that the remainder of the speech be put into the Parliamentary Record. Under the standing order, it is to accommodate lists of winners and results. You are actually required to produce that to the Speaker by 10 pm the night before.
Mr STYLES: Perhaps I will move that the speech be tabled, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I guess in those circumstances you can have it tabled, but that does not necessarily mean it will be recorded in the Parliamentary Record, only what you have said in your 10 minutes. You can approach me afterwards, member for Sanderson and I will explain the details to you.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the schools in my electorate first tonight.
I thank and congratulate long-term finance administrator, Di Scally, who has left Leanyer school. Di was part of the school intimately. She was an exceptional administrator who made a major contribution to the school and the community. All of us in and around Leanyer school thank you, Di, for your extraordinary efforts over the years, and we wish you all the best down south.
Thank you also to long-term teachers, Katrina Bartholomew, Lindy Maddock and Annie Mangohig, who will also be greatly missed.
The BER work at Leanyer is nearing completion. There have been some delays because of rain, but I am looking forward to opening those facilities this year. Student numbers have increased by 32, the largest increase coming from the preschool. Leanyer keeps going from strength to strength.
At Wanguri, a number of staff left the school at the end of the last year. Leah Crockford successfully secured a six-month acting principal position at Berry Springs. Thanks, Leah, for all your work at Wanguri. Sharon Grant, Robert Joyce, Laura Ayres and Michelle Fraser, the canteen manager - thank you all for your great contributions; you are all going to be missed at Wanguri.
The BER multipurpose building at Wanguri school is due to be completed by April. I drive past it every night on my way home; it is looking fantastic.
At Holy Spirit, the new library and multimedia centre is now completed. It is open for students and community use. I had a tour towards the end of last year - another great BER project that has been completed and we look forward to the opening soon.
I thank the Darwin Lord Mayor, Graeme Sawyer, and the Town Clerk of the Darwin City Council for their prompt response to my constituents in Leanyer by installing a gate on the laneway close to Murrabibbi Street, and also working with us on street lighting in the area, after an exceptionally traumatic period in Leanyer. I thank the mayor for his response and for working with me in alleviating some of the concerns of the community.
I bid farewell to a long-term Territorian and a fellow St Kilda supporter and a great man. After 35 years in the Territory, Duncan Beggs heads to Perth tomorrow. Duncan has made an enormous contribution to the Territory in both his professional and community roles. He first came to Darwin in 1973 to work as a maintenance engineer for Darwin City Council. Twenty-eight years later, Duncan was working on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project. In his most recent role, Duncan was the community relations coordinator for INPEX in Darwin. Duncan has held an extensive array of community positions over the last 30 years, including Chairman of Darwin Regional Development Board; Board of Directors Northern Territory Football League; President of Southern Districts Football Club; Chairman of Taminmin High School Council; and Chairman Darwin and Districts Alcohol and Drug Dependence Foundation. Duncan is currently the president of the YMCA in the Top End.
I am sure other members will agree, with such an outstanding contribution to community, the Territory is losing a truly community-minded citizen. I know it is with sadness that Duncan and his wife, Jenny, say farewell to family and friends in the Territory, and to the place they called home for so long. I understand they are both excited to be spending more time with their four adult children and their families who are now all living in Perth, particularly their grandchildren. All the best, Duncan. Thank you for all you have contributed to the Territory. I look forward to seeing you at the MCG later this year for St Kilda winning the flag that has eluded them for so long.
On Australia Day, the Northern Territory Public Service farewelled an icon who everyone in this House knows. After 45 years of trusted service, VIP Fleet Manager, Garry Wilkshire, hung up his keys for the final time after 45 years service to the Northern Territory. The professionalism, integrity and commitment with which Garry undertook his duties are widely recognised and appreciated by me, my Cabinet, parliamentary colleagues and, I am sure, all past CLP ministers and every Chief Minister going back to Paul Everingham whom Garry served. If he was to write a book, it would certainly be a best seller around here, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The awarding of the Public Service Medal to Garry in 1999 was testament to this. Following self-government in 1978, Garry was the driver for the first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham and, as I said, has driven for every Chief Minister since then. Garry also transported former Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Harold Holt, Gough Whitlam and Billy McMahon, and ambassadors from around the globe.
The Wilkshire name has a long history in transport throughout the Northern Territory. Garry’s brothers, Kenny and Barry, have 86 years between them with Darwin Bus Service. Garry’s nephew, Bradley, is currently employed with the Darwin Bus Service. Garry and I have had much to talk about in a few years in the car, and I am really sad to see him go. He was someone who, regardless of the mood, you could have a bit of banter with. He always had a good, wry sense of humour. Stacey and I came to know Garry very well and will certainly miss him. We thank him for everything he has done. Many people would have no idea what the job entails. Only a handful of people would understand some of the issues, scenarios, and characters Garry had to deal with over the years. Garry was an exemplar public servant. What is told in the car, stays in the car. I do not know that he will ever write his book, but it would make an interesting read.
I first met Garry when I came to the Territory in the early 1980s because I was not a bad darts player in those days, and Garry and Barry were part of the scene. They are still part of the scene; I think they still play A Grade. I have known him, as I said, for nearly all my time in the Territory before I entered politics.
Garry, best wishes in your retirement. I hope your retirement is as good to you as you have been good to everyone you have worked with over the years. I know I speak for everyone in this House and wish you a very happy retirement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to touch on a couple of subjects tonight. One is in relation to signage. Most people in the tourism industry realise signage is important.
I have raised this already with the department and I have not yet received any tangible results. With the changes to the Stuart Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive some of our tourism facilities, such as caravan parks, are not named anymore in the sense that there are no directions given for people coming in from south to find those places. Freespirit caravan park is a classic example. Now, with the way the signage has been erected directing people to either Darwin or Casuarina, newcomers to Darwin are going to find it difficult to know how to get to the caravan parks. There are a number of caravan parks on the Stuart Highway - Shady Glen and Freespirit - and there are also a number in the northern suburbs.
It is important, with the changes to Tiger Brennan Drive, that the government does not wait till the Dry Season hits, but puts up those tourism brown signs to ensure people coming to Darwin can find caravan parks without getting themselves lost by going down Tiger Brennan Drive instead of the Stuart Highway.
For places such as Crocodylus Park, there were some signs on Tiger Brennan Drive coming from the Darwin end but, now, with the changes to the road, those signs are required to send people in the right direction. I believe those type of signs need to be put up now before the tourists start to come in. It is important for the tourism industry.
The tourism industry in the Territory is, generally speaking, a seasonal industry, especially for the grey nomads. They need to find those caravan parks without getting lost. If you get unhappy grey nomads, it does not take long to get around via the grey nomad telecommunications system that things are not easy to find in Darwin.
Also on the issue of signage, the department is meant to have a policy in relation to signage, especially advertising signage. I believe it has become too hard for them because advertising signage for businesses is always controversial. They need to rationalise where signs can go and how many signs can go up if we are to make our highways neat and tidy. The Arnhem and Stuart Highways in the Top End are places tourists frequent. They do not want to see the sides of our roads look like Rafferty’s rules when it comes to signage.
I refer to the 11 Mile. There are rules which allow signage for tourism development. There are rules which allow for some temporary signage; however, there are parts of the Stuart Highway where I know one company has three signs permanently in concrete, blocking the name of Holtze, the suburb sign. Where is the department? It is meant to look after our highways. I am sure some departmental people go past these signs. Are they too frightened to act on their own rules and regulations?
On the Arnhem Highway in front of the Humpty Doo Shopping Centre, there are a massive number of signs. You can have signage and advertising signage; however, we have to look at ways of doing it. They put signage in arches which the government allows, but in many cases they are very hard for people to read. If someone can tell me what the signs on the arch on Temple Terrace say, I will go he. The government needs to be realistic. There needs to be some advertising for businesses, especially those which do not have frontage to the highway. However, we need to do it in a progressive, neat and tidy way so our highways do not look like anything goes.
The other issue I am concerned about and have raised earlier in the sittings is solar panels and the requirement by the Building Advisory Services to have technical data to allow those solar panels to be installed without having to get certification which could cost up to $1500. I do not know if the government believes there is an issue. However, a number of people are not going to have any work if these solar panels are not approved for installation in Alice Springs and Darwin. I have a letter from Brian Elmer, the General Manager of Alice Solar City, to Fabio Finocchiaro from Building Advisory Services:
The question which needs to be answered by the department is: why are these standards not enough to allow solar panels to be put on the roof? The minister said it is a concern whether the solar panels can withstand cyclonic conditions. The industry is saying they already come up to those standards. What is the government doing to push this issue? We have customers waiting for solar panels on roofs. We have installers who have no work because everything has come to a standstill. We now have people who have been thinking about putting solar panels on their roof who are saying: ‘This is all going to become too expensive; I cannot be bothered doing it’.
Alice Springs has been promoted as a solar city. Alice Springs is the centre focus of these photovoltaic panels that have been put on many houses in Alice Springs. Both the Commonwealth and the Territory governments are promoting renewable energy, yet, all of a sudden out of the blue, it has come to a standstill. I am not saying it is all the government’s fault or issue, but why are the industry and the governments not working at speed to try to fix this particular issue when people’s livelihoods are at stake and the promotion of renewable energy is one of these key things government likes to promote? Why is something not happening a bit quicker than it is? Surely, someone in the department can ring up BP, SunPower - any of these companies making these solar panels - and ask them if they have the information required? You would not think that would be too hard. If they have that information, surely they can pass it on quickly. If they do not have the information then maybe the government has a point and they need to be bringing them up to standard.
As it is at the moment, I have not heard much about where this is at, and I hope the minister can let us know where we are with this particular matter. It is an important industry for the Territory and the government should be doing something about ensuring it is a success and is operating as quickly as possible.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have an extremely serious matter to raise tonight which involves the Minister for Children and Families.
This afternoon, I asked the minister about a question put to him on Wednesday, 22 February, regarding changes to the powers of the Ombudsman in respect of child protection. He informed the media he had spoken to the Ombudsman on Wednesday, 22 February, and claimed he had fully informed the Ombudsman of proposed changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act that affected the role of the Ombudsman. He informed the media on Wednesday, 22 February, the Ombudsman did not object to them.
I questioned him this afternoon, as you will recall, during Question Time. I asked him if that was, in fact, the case; if his statement was truthful and correct. I warn the minister that deliberately misleading the House is a very serious offence.
On ABC television this evening the Ombudsman was interviewed, and said that not at any point did she support the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act gagging her and curtailing her powers to investigate to matters pertaining to services and vulnerable children. We have a huge discrepancy here between what the Northern Territory Ombudsman and the Minister for Children and Families are saying in regard to this matter.
I call upon the minister to return to the Chamber tonight and sort this matter out here and now, because …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, any reference to the presence or absence of a member is not permitted under standing orders. I ask you to rephrase that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I call upon the Minister for Central Australia to bring his colleague back into the Chamber …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Araluen, you cannot make reference to the presence or absence of a member. You cannot refer to a member who is not present. I ask you to withdraw and rephrase, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I invite the minister to get to his feet and explain this matter; it needs to be resolved tonight. It is of a very serious nature, and I am sure the people of the Northern Territory would like this matter to be resolved as soon as possible.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Health in the Northern Territory walked into this place today and I heard him assure Territorians he has met with the Ombudsman and it is all squeaky clean and wonderful, and there were no issues and, obviously, the member for Araluen was misleading the House with her spurious allegations that sufficient had not been done.
What we have here is an example of a minister whose looseness with the truth would invite me to use the word ‘lie’ other than the fact that I cannot in this House. This minister should be in this House explaining to Territorians how he could possibly and outrageously, in this place, assure people he had spoken to the Ombudsman, and everything was sweetness and light, when the Ombudsman herself, in a letter to the ABC news tonight, indicated she did not support – did not support - the changes. For him to stand up in this House and suggest that she had said that to him is an indictment on this minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of these two people is a liar, and the question I have is: which one?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have made no allegation of anyone being a liar. I am asking a question. So, one of these two people - I do not know which one - is a liar, and I would like to know which one. Is the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to temper your language - actually I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I do not think he actually called anyone a liar; he suggested someone is lying. He has not made the allegation. It is not a …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Resume your seat. There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, as I heard it, you are accusing one of two people of being a liar. I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I withdraw ‘liars’, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of getting through this obfuscation.
The point is, someone in the Northern Territory has not been telling the truth, and it is either the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory or the minister who resides in that chair over there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can tell you, this is a disgrace. This is very serious ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … you guys are trying to cut the throat of open, transparent government.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as you well know, when the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker stands, members are to resume their seats. I ask you to address your comments through the Chair, please. There is no need to shout, member for Port Darwin. Your microphone means you can …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, they are shouting to try to shut me down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am talking, member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: I ask the clock be stopped, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am talking. I am simply asking you to address your comments through the Chair. There is no need to shout across the Chamber. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will always shout loud enough to shout down those people who would try to cut the throat of openness and transparency in this jurisdiction. I will always protect the rights of Territorians to know, and I will protect the rights of the Ombudsmen, in the face of charlatan ministers, to be able to do their job.
Yesterday, I listened to the Attorney-General in her second reading debate say: ‘We are going to take powers away from the Ombudsman’. We were told it was supported by the Ombudsman. Clearly, it is not supported by the Ombudsman and, as far as this side of the House is concerned, this Health Minister - who will be getting to his feet, no doubt, to give us some weasel words about all the great things he has done to weave his way through this particular issue, and do other things to try to convince us of how innocent he is in this whole process - should stand condemned for placing the Ombudsman in such an embarrassing position for his own tawdry ends. I look forward to the minister climbing to his feet and trying to explain this away without either him, or the Ombudsman in this case, being revealed as a liar.
The other issue I speak on is the matter of the carbon tax. Treachery, thy name is Labor! I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I sat there today dismayed watching the television set during the news. I listened to the Prime Minister of this country saying: ‘There will be no carbon tax’. Now, we have, coming down the pipeline, a carbon tax because of the coalition government between The Greens and the reds in this country. What does that make, maroon? I cannot imagine how a Prime Minister - or any person with any sense of dignity - could possibly, with their hand on their heart during an election campaign say: ‘I am not going to introduce a carbon tax’, then waltz in within a few months of that election campaign, shortly after nearly losing it and forming a coalition with The Greens, suddenly introduce a carbon tax. The Greens said it themselves on the television tonight: this is part of their power sharing arrangement with the Labor Party ...
Mr Bohlin: Lying to the public.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you the only conditions that I would apply to supporting a …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, pause, please. Member for Drysdale, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, reference to, you know exactly what. You have used the word ‘lied’.
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, but that was to the Labor Party.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, withdraw, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Port Darwin, you have the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: The only conditions in which I would ever support such a tax would be that it does not affect industry, it does not affect any Territorian negatively, and it does not affect anyone in Australia negatively. Of course, those conditions could never be met by this Prime Minister and her intended tax.
I can tell you that what we get with the Labor government every time is more tax, more tax, more spend. There is a cyclone in Queensland, there is a flood in Queensland and the answer is: we get a tax. If there is a carbon issue or a government issue they have to maintain their little coalition with The Greens with - what is their answer? More tax. What is the hallmark of Labor governments historically, both in this country and overseas …
Members: Tax, tax, tax.
Mr ELFERINK: Tax, tax, tax. They are into taxation ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: They are going to try to tax this country out of any economic usefulness in the future. ...
Mr Styles: Boat tax, carbon tax, mining tax.
Mr ELFERINK: This Territory government does the same thing: boat registration tax. They are going to bring it in. They just love to spend money. They have learnt to spend money in ways you would not believe and, now, we are going to have a carbon tax. Why? Because it is for our own good.
This is the government that lied to us about it. The federal government has been dishonest and lied to Territorians and to Australians as a whole about the carbon tax. But, that is all right because it is a conscionable lie, because it is for your own good. Mate, with friends like the Labor Party, who needs enemies? That is all I can say.
I am astonished the Prime Minister would have the audacity to do this. This will directly affect and challenge businesses in the Northern Territory. We talked about the INPEX project. This is an issue for INPEX, as it is for every other company and business in the Territory. I urge the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to state on the record in this House tonight his refusal to support the federal government on the carbon tax. He has done it before. He has done it in relation to the Muckaty site for the U-dump, so why will he not do it again? Why will he not, in this place, condemn the federal government for launching a tax which will, ultimately, negatively affect the conditions under which Territorian businesses operate?
When I heard that Tony Abbott was going to resist this great, new, big tax, he got my support. He got my support because it is the right thing to do. If this government wants to tax carbon, then it should be honest about its intent during the election campaign.
What they have done is simply lied and, as far as this side of the House is concerned, there are very few conditions under which we would support a carbon tax . Those conditions will not be met by any carbon tax this Prime Minister intends to introduce with her tawdry little unofficial - well, official now - coalition with The Greens. The Prime Minister of this country should hang her head in shame. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should defend Territory businesses and Territory jobs.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute tonight to a great Centralian, William Arthur van Dijk, known to friends and family and locals in Alice Springs as Bill van Dijk. I attended the funeral service to celebrate the life of Bill van Dijk at the old Alice Springs Town Hall youth centre at ANZAC Hill on Saturday, 12 February at 10.30 am. It was a well-attended service, packed to the rafters. Many people spoke very highly of Bill. It was great to see his family, some from the Netherlands, in attendance.
A little about Bill and his life history. He was born in Arnhem, The Netherlands, on 9 December 1936. He lived through World War II of 1939 to 1945. He completed tertiary education in physical education and was employed as a recreation officer. He cruised the world on a Dutch liner bringing migrants to Australia; the ship returning to Holland as a luxury cruise ship.
Bill married Patricia Lorraine Eaton, an Australian, in Holland in 1961. He arrived in New Zealand and worked at Wellington Boys High School and Dargaville High School from 1961 to 1967. He arrived in Victoria and worked at Greythorn High School in 1967, and accepted a post at Alice Springs High School in 1974.
He met Trish in 1983, and formed a 28-year partnership. He was Deputy Principal at Tennant Creek High School from 1984 to 1986, and Deputy Principal at Nhulunbuy High School in 1989. He was founding Principal of the Alice Springs Language Centre from 1990 to1994. He formally married Trish in 1992.
Bill retired in 1994, but did not retire from his community service. In the acknowledgements at the service, that was one thing about Bill which really stood out to me and the people who have known him. He made some outstanding contributions, particularly with the Northern Territory Department of Education in 1994 as founding Principal of the Alice Springs Language Centre. He was also involved in the Rotary Club of Alice Springs, and involved in the Henley-on-Todd in 2000. He was awarded a Paul Harris Fellow. He was also very much part of the Henley-on-Todd when they won the Brolga Award in 2000, and was also involved in the Alice Springs Hockey Association. I know, from my mother-in-law, Bill was a very much respected member of the association. He was Northern Territory Volunteer of the Year in 2007, Coordinator of the Masters Games in 2004 to 2010, and made a life member of the Alice Springs Hockey Association in 1998. He was also made a life member of the NT Hockey Association in 2010.
In relation to his involvement with the Alice Springs Town Council, Bill was part of the Alice Springs Town Council Sports Facilities Advisory Committee and received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Alice Springs Town Council in 2010 for supporting the community. He was also awarded the Commonwealth Recognition Award for Senior Australians in 2001 by the then Prime Minister, John Howard.
It was a beautiful service. It was packed to the rafters. I acknowledge Lindsay Wright, the Master of Ceremonies. Other speakers at the service included Mayor Damien Ryan; Mark Goode, Treasurer of the Alice Springs Hockey Association and a personal friend; Eleanor Dennis, Chair of the Rotary Club of Alice Springs; Dominic Miller, Rotarian and friend, and Sue Crowe, Principal of Braitling school and a close friend.
I also acknowledge Bill’s family; particularly Trish who is a great worker for the Labor Party Branch in Alice Springs and a tireless worker for the community of Alice Springs; Bill’s children, Karena, Pieter and John; his step-children, Susan, Michael, Steven and Lisa, and grandchildren Michael, Matthew, Sarah, Joshua, Samuel, Steven, Mark, Samuel, Simon, Goshen, Richard, Rose, Stevie, Anyupa, Sherriff, Crystal, Harry, Zachary, Milo, Ranger, Cosmo and Shiloh. He was also great-grandfather to Hayley, Naomi, Nathaniel, Ethan, Colby and Asher.
I quote other acknowledgements from the Alice Springs community which really summed up who Bill was:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I pass on my best wishes to Trish, all of Bill’s family, and also thank him for his strong commitment to the Masters Games as part of the Masters Games Committee.
I respond also to some of the comments made in the House this week about my home town of Alice Springs. As I said before and I will say again, the crime and antisocial behaviour that is happening is totally unacceptable. What are just as unacceptable are the wild fictions that have been tossed around as facts by some members opposite. I have to be frank and say I am extremely concerned with the effects these wild claims and divisive advertisements are having in the community.
For the member for Braitling to stand up in this House, as he did last night, and try to draw a parallel with what is happening in the Middle East and Alice Springs is astonishing. For him to stand up in this House and say we are lucky in Alice Springs that we do not have riots, that people are not ‘donning hoods made of sheets’ is just gobsmacking and completely irresponsible. The exaggerations, the intemperate language, the fear and loathing they are stirring up for purely political reasons is disgraceful.
Again, I say crime is totally unacceptable. It is easy to beat your chest and raise a lot of headline grabbing allegations. I say to those members: if you have any evidence, any information whatsoever about crime - especially crimes against children - take it to the police.
I also call on them to show some responsibility, some real leadership, in the community and stop this grandstanding. They would like to pretend that racism is not playing a part in this. Why, then, the reference to hoods? Member for Braitling, why are the advertisements portraying Aboriginal people as being responsible for all the crime and antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs?
I would like to know how much backing members opposite have given to this current advertising campaign. Since these ads have been running, I have received some pretty unsavoury phone calls and messages. Okay, I am a politician, I am a big boy, and I can take on board the criticism. I know not everyone is going to agree with what I say or do, and I would not expect them to. However, there are others out there who are much more vulnerable than I am, and I am deeply concerned at the antagonism and hate that has been directed to people, purely because of their race. I call on the members opposite to take a deep breath and play the part of responsible leaders in the community.
You claim nothing has been done. You know it is just not true. We are committing the resources, developing the policies, putting in the hard yards to tackle these issues. You scoff at programs such as the Youth Action Plan and the transformation plan. It is easy to sit back in opposition, stir it up, throw rocks, and come up with knee-jerk responses they know very well will not be followed through if they are ever in a position to implement their scant policies.
I am meeting with Aboriginal leaders and representatives tomorrow to start trying to find a way forward as a community to stop the divisive, harmful approach pushed by the elected members from Alice Springs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have faith in the community; that the community will realise the harm the current approach taken by some is having and, by acting together, we will make a difference.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, that speech by the Minister for Central Australia reminds me of the story of the two men who were sent to the Tower of London to be executed. They said to the executioner: ‘Can you place us in a good spot so when we fall we fall with dignity?’ One bloke turned around to the other guy and said: ‘Why would you care how you fall when you have been beheaded?’ He said: ‘Well, when the fall is all you have left, it does matter’.
That is where you are at, minister. You have, essentially, capitulated. It is your last cry for help, trying to shut us all down and keep us all quiet. I am sorry the truth hurts, and I am sorry that what is taking place in Alice Springs is taking place. It is ridiculous to suggest we are embellishing this and using this as a political punching bag. But, whatever; I see that as a final plea.
I will run through some of the culture of cover-up by the Martin/Henderson governments in the past 10 years; the culture of cover-up to mask the government’s poor performance: design and safety concerns over Tiger Brennan Drive upgrade; the location for the new prison for the Top End; the costs and number of houses delivered through SIHIP; the impact of shire amalgamation and failure to properly assist shires to prepare for the transition; the Montara oil spill; the future of the RAAF Base houses; high pollution levels at Vesteys and Mindil Beaches; and the death of 800 cattle at the Mataranka Station; and, of course, the terrible state of our child protection.
Over the last 10 years, we have seen the musical chairs or the revolving door of ministers. Since August 2001, there have been 17 ministerial reshuffles and 141 ministerial appointments. Most portfolio appointments, including the Attorney-General, Health, Education, Transport, Planning, Child Protection, Housing and Local Government have had four ministers in the past 10 years. Among those ministerial changes, we have seen: the member for Nightcliff sacked from Health and Child Protection for her inept handling of the portfolio; the member for Arafura moved from Education over her sacking of the then Education head, Margaret Banks; the member for Daly moved from the portfolios of Housing and Local Government over his scandalous handling of SIHIP and local government reform; the member for Johnston - of course, who can forget that? - moved from Health over the nursing staffing crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital and his failure to table annual reports; and the member for Arnhem moved over the shocking injuries to an orphaned infant known to Child Protection. These are just some of the revolving door of Labor ministers and the culture of cover-up.
Then we go to Labor’s freedom from information. In 2001, the then Chief Minister promised ‘the Territory’s freedom of information laws would be a pillar of open and accountable government’, and would ‘enhance the decision-making and discussion’. Ten years on, Labor has used the legislation to deny access and public debate on numerous important reports produced using taxpayers’ money - reports to which the public have been denied access, including: the two Cornish reports into the aeromedical service; the review of St John Ambulance; the review into the Health and Community Services Complaints Act; and the original Bath report into child protection. It is failure after failure after failure.
A review of the Territory’s FOI laws was promised in 2009, with a discussion paper to be released to the public for comment. As of February 2011, the government has not released the promised paper and FOI laws are used to stymie public debate and protect the government from exposing its failures. It is failure after failure after failure, and the culture of cover-up is alive and well.
We see today, again, the Minister for Health has managed to duck and weave. He has done pretty well. I believe he was appointed Health Minister in 2009. He has done pretty well - nearly coming up to two years; almost a record in the Martin/Henderson government, particularly for the Health portfolio. I highlighted how many Health ministers we have had since 2001. He may have met his match today, or just gone a little too far. He has dodged and weaved, and ducked over the course of the last two years, scraped by just by a whisker on many occasions. However, today we heard him saying in the House - and I will quote from this if I can just have this, member for Araluen, thank you. When asked by the Leader of the Opposition, the minister said …
Mr Elferink: The Ombudsman supported the changes.
Mr CONLAN: Yes. He said:
I say that again, Madam Deputy Speaker:
Thank you, member for Araluen. Clearly, we have a situation where the minister has said, on the Parliamentary Record in Question Time, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, that the Ombudsman supported the changes. Yet, tonight, we saw on ABC television the Ombudsman denying any such claim. So, who is telling the truth, minister? Is the Ombudsman telling the truth, or are you telling the truth? I believe you owe it to the people of the Northern Territory, to the reputation of the distinguished Ombudsman in the NT, to provide a clear and accurate account of exactly what took place. The culture of cover-up continues and I fear it will continue as long as this bereft, hopeless, Northern Territory Labor government remains in power.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a bit rich to listen to this kind of comment from the member for Greatorex, who actually discovered after a year and a month that we have an oncology centre. He managed to visit it after he repeatedly declined to visit it.
Also, it is very rich to come from the member for Araluen. She is, obviously, not Jodeen Carney. The member for Araluen yesterday picked up the publication and said: ‘This is a really nice publication. You did not have to reprint the recommendations’. She missed the 49 pages that actually say what we are going to do for the next five years; how we are going to address the recommendations. The member for Araluen did not even bother to read the act that specifically states no one can direct the Children’s Commissioner, and the Children’s Commissioner is independent and can do whatever he wants in order to resolve the complaints he receives.
I am here tonight because I am not a person to hide away like the Leader of the Opposition did for several hours, as the member for Fong Lim said, cowering – that is what you used, cowering - inside a restaurant to avoid being interviewed by the media.
The Ombudsman was briefed on 4 February 2011 in relation to the proposed changes to give the Children’s Commissioner capacity to investigate complaints into vulnerable children. There were another three people in the room who were witnesses to this briefing she received. At the meeting, the proposed changes were outlined to the Ombudsman. This included that complaints related to vulnerable children be transferred to the Children’s Commissioner and subsequently expanded. The Ombudsman would still retain her jurisdiction in relation to police, and the changes did not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating other administrative actions of any agency, including the Department of Children and Families.
The Ombudsman advised me that she agreed that one agency should deal with complaints relating to vulnerable children, and that it is the government’s prerogative as to who that person will be. I assured the Ombudsman she would be able to complete her current investigation. I have also invited the Ombudsman, if she had any concern, I am very happy to discuss the advice from the Solicitor-General on the best way forward. I said that because I have no intention of gagging the Ombudsman. I find the function of the Ombudsman vital and fundamental for a democracy, and I always maintain a good relationship with the Ombudsman.
We believe the best way forward is one person only to deal with complaints related to children, and I have advised the Ombudsman of that fact. She agreed it is our prerogative who that person will be, and it is the government’s decision who that person will be ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Despite the rhetoric, and the vitriolic and hysterical attack from the other side, one thing, at least, I can say of our government is that we are united. This is the party the Leader of the Opposition uses the freedom of information legislation to find out who, amongst his colleagues, leaked an e-mail ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr VATSKALIS: Was it you? Was it you? He uses freedom of information to spy on his own colleagues ...
Mr Elferink: You verballed the Ombudsman.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr VATSKALIS: We know it was not you. But who of you others leaked it? He will find out - he thinks, he believes, he wants.
I have to tell you, whatever hysterical and vitriolic attacks, they do not resonate with me or the community. People know who is united and who is divided.
Despite your attack, and your unsubstantiated allegations about events in Alice Springs, I invite and call you, if you have evidence about prostitution of children in Alice Springs, advise me, advise the Police Commissioner, advise my department …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: None of you have provided any notification, any advice, either to the police or to Children’s Services. Either you break the law, or there is no substantiated information.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday the Minister for Children and Families informed the media that the Ombudsman had been informed of the proposed changes to the act and did not object to them.
The minister was then questioned. In fact, it was the Chief Minister who was questioned today in Question Time. It was a matter that related to child protection matters. The Chief Minister started answering the question and, foolishly, deferred the question to the Minister for Children and Families, who said - and I quote from Hansard, as has been quoted already tonight: ‘the Ombudsman supported the changes’ ...
Mr Chandler: I heard it, it was there; it is in Hansard.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We were all here, listening to Question Time. That is a quote from Hansard today.
Tonight on the ABC news, we saw a report of a letter written by the Ombudsman denying she supported changes to this legislation. Tonight, the Minister for Children and Families - I honestly expected him to withdraw the comments he made or offer some explanation as to why he made them. No, he weaselled around the issue. Without a doubt, he verballed the Ombudsman. You can intimate from what the minister said tonight that he was calling the Ombudsman a liar; that the statement she produced for the ABC news tonight was incorrect.
I find that to be quite reprehensible. The Ombudsman is an honourable person working hard under trying circumstances. Now she is having some of her powers stripped from her. When you read through the answers from this government to questions asked about this issue, clearly the Ombudsman is not happy at losing those powers. Everything in those answers which relate to this says she is not happy.
The minister said the Ombudsman supported the changes, and the Ombudsman has denied that is the case. I would have expected the Minister for Children and Families to offer an explanation tonight; however, there was nothing. There was no explanation, no apology; no ‘I am sorry. I made a mistake’. There was nothing of the kind.
The integrity of the Minister for Children and Families is now seriously in question. And do not forget this is the same minister who presided over the worst oil spill in Australia’s history, the Montara disaster. He is a minister who is incompetent and cannot handle the responsibilities of the portfolio of Resources. Now, we find through statements made by him and the rebuttal by the Ombudsman, his integrity is seriously in question. His position as a minister in this government is compromised.
It is a shame because, if I were Chief Minister, I would be a little upset and worried because the minister, the member for Casuarina, is without a doubt one of the better performers on that side of the House. We now have one of their better performers with his integrity seriously in question. His position as a minister is seriously compromised. I call upon the Chief Minister to discipline this minister. The Chief Minister must deal with this integrity issue. He has stood in this House and made statements, and those statements have been rebutted by a person who has great standing in the community. I call on the Chief Minister to deal with this minister. He must find a way.
It is a very shallow talent pool from which they are drawing, and another ministerial reshuffle on their part would spell disaster for the Henderson Labor government. However, as a minister of the government, his integrity was questioned or brought into question. He then came into this House after the fact and did not offer up any semblance of a reasonable explanation or an admission that maybe he said the wrong thing; that it was a slip of the tongue. We could all understand and accept those sorts of explanations. But no, what he did was come in here, weasel around it, and intimate the Ombudsman was not telling the truth. I believe that is absolutely reprehensible behaviour. The Chief Minister must discipline this minister, must deal with him tonight, and come out tomorrow in the media and tell the people of the Northern Territory what he has done to correct this offensive, reprehensible behaviour by the Minister for Children and Families. He must do that tomorrow; it must be done as a matter of urgency.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been listening carefully to what has been said on the other side - the pious indignation, the anger and outrage that has been expressed here by members opposite. I will tell you what I heard in Question Time today. I heard the Health Minister say he had a discussion with the Ombudsman, and the issue with the Ombudsman was around whether the legislation would be retrospective or not. What I heard - and I am yet to check the Hansard record - was the minister saying there was a recognition and an agreement by the Ombudsman that, basically, he could determine who would be the single channel for complaints. That is what I heard the minister say. It is too cute by half for members of the opposition here …
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is coming across - the words exactly.
Dr BURNS: I am focusing on what I have to say. I am telling you what I heard in the Chamber here today, and I will …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Oh, no, you will not like those words, because that is the quote from the Hansard.
Mr Chandler: The culture of cover-up. Don’t want Hansard.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brennan, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I have risen to my feet and I am explaining what I heard today on the floor of this parliament. It is too cute by half for the word ‘integrity’ to be bandied around by members opposite. For goodness sake, you have a leader who has not directly answered the question in public of whether he offered Leo Abbott a job or not. You have a leader who hid away for hour upon hour at a restaurant just down the road here, and did not want to face the media. Here is a leader who is unable to stand up and answer a very simple yes or no question …
Mr Chandler: He answered it.
Dr BURNS: He has not answered that question. He has not answered that question with a yes or no. All he said is it was a personal conversation.
The member for Casuarina has come down here and explained himself to this parliament. I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition do that. I get a bit alarmed when I hear the words ‘integrity’ and ‘fraud’ which was bandied around by the member for Katherine. He used the word ‘fraud’ in relation to the Northern Territory government budget. Yet, today he reacted very strongly when the Chief Minister raised the issue of a used car he allegedly bought in Katherine. It is in the newspaper here, and I will just read the end bit first. It says …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Westra van Holthe: Why don’t you just read the newspaper article and forget about the truth?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: It says: ‘Mr van Holthe could not be contacted yesterday’. This is the NT News of 6 December. I would have expected, if this allegation was so repugnant to you, member for Katherine, and so out of line, you would have waltzed up there and given a personal explanation before this parliament. Yet, the minister came in here and gave his explanation …
Mr Westra van Holthe: I do not need to give a personal explanation to you or anyone else, you goose!
Dr BURNS: … and you are just trying to heap a lot of abuse on him. The minister has integrity because he did come in here; he faced this parliament and made a statement. However, you are still yet to comment …
Mr Elferink: Which proves he verballed the Ombudsman.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: As far as I am aware - and I could be wrong, member for Katherine, about this allegation that you bought this car for $12 500, then sold it to an Aboriginal organisation for $17 000. This used car dealer is alleging you went there and said: ‘I am out money, I am new to town, can you give us a break?’ You put down a deposit of $1000, you agreed to repayments, you made one repayment, and then you sold the car. He is saying you sold the car that was not yours to someone else. That is the allegation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You laboured with me the fact that my comments should go through the Chair. I ask you to extend the same invitation to the Leader of Government Business whilst he continues his slander.
Dr BURNS: I will. Thank you for that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin, you are quite correct. Member for Johnston, if you could direct your comments through the Chair?
Dr BURNS: I understand that this is one side of the story. This is the used car salesman’s side of the story about what has happened. He seems pretty fired up about it. I suppose I was a bit alarmed when I read at the end that the member for Katherine could not be contacted. Well, he has been contacted here today in this place, and he can make a personal explanation regarding these allegations of fraud; that he sold the car which was not registered in his name; he did not own it, and that he pulled a swift one on a used car dealer. There are probably other things I do not want to talk about here tonight in relation to the member for Katherine. Here is one for a start.
Let us get back to the CLP and their woes here today. Our minister has come in here and explained himself. The Leader of the Opposition has never done that, and has caused so much trouble. I mean, to the fact …
Mr Conlan: Yes, he has.
Dr BURNS: Well, you say he has. He has not.
Mr Conlan: He has.
Dr BURNS: He has not given a yes or no answer.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Johnston, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Dr BURNS: Okay, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are saying, member for Port Darwin, the Leader of the Opposition has come in here and said: ‘No, I did not offer Leo Abbott a job’. Is that what you are saying?
Mr Elferink: There was no evidence he ever did – not even in the so-called transcript.
Dr BURNS: Oh, the transcript says: ‘I will look after you, mate’. Then he talked about conversations with the Prime Minister. As you said, one of two people has to be lying here, either Tony Abbott or Terry Mills. Which one is it, to use your own words?
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: All I am trying to illustrate here, member for Port Darwin, is you come in here, work yourself into a frenzy - but look in your own back yard first. Look at the division on your own side. Look at the member for Fong Lim, who talked about your own leader cowering in a restaurant - and that is what he did. The media was outside for about six or seven hours, and the bloke would not even come out and face them. What sort of a leader is that? What sort of a leader has led this party, as you have said so many times, from the brink of oblivion to the brink of government …
Mr Elferink: A good one.
Dr BURNS: Yes? So you say!
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: So you say, but here is a leader who has led you into such incredible trouble, first with division within your own ranks and, second, incredible division within your party hierarchy, which has been acknowledged by Sue Fraser-Adams. She said in her e-mail, the one they are trying to search out who sent - if I can just lay my hands on it. Here we go. She said:
In other words, they are trying to bring Terry Mills to heel; they do not support him; they think he is a disaster zone. Then, this is a beauty from Fraser-Adams:
This is the vengeful party, the CLP. Here is the other one with Mr Lantry when he left under a cloud. How you wanted to vent your spleen on him! This is a vengeful, divided party desperately looking for a target. You are desperately trying to pin down the member for Casuarina; you are trying to throw spears at him but, really, it is just showing how disunited you are.
Here is the challenge; I will reiterate the challenge: if any member opposite has details - you are talking about conversations with cab drivers - you waltz into the police station and tell them who that cab driver is ...
Mrs Lambley: All right.
Dr BURNS: You do that. Have you done that yet? No, of course you have not. Similarly with the member for Macdonnell and her allegations. I understand from what the Police minister said today that the police have been trying to contact her and interview her for a number of weeks now. I hope both the members for Araluen and Macdonnell take up the suggestion by the Police minister that they should talk with police if they have serious allegations of child abuse.
Our minister has come into this place, stood up in this parliament and given straight answers to the questions asked of him. We have not had the same from the Leader of the Opposition, nor have we from the member for Katherine - specifically, as I am aware, about this allegation that is in the newspaper. He should be up here making a personal explanation if he feels so slighted about it. That is all I have to say this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
I remind members of the opposition of Standing Order 51:
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I now feel like a real spoiltsport. I just have some local issues I would like to talk about ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure they are very important, member for Brennan.
Mr CHANDLER: They are very important, but it feels as though I am breaking the spirit of this wonderful theatrical event we have seen here tonight between government and the opposition and the way they have used theatrics, flotsam, jetsam - any other thing that you want to throw at this side - to deflect the real issue tonight.
The real issue tonight is the fact that we have a minister who has said one thing in this House and a very senior and important person in our society does not agree with it and has a different opinion. One way or another, it has to come out. We have all heard it today, and seen it in Hansard. Yet, the minister just came out with a lot of verbal diarrhoea, as did the member for Johnston.
I will talk, though, on a couple of things. The Bakewell Primary School is a school I am extremely proud of - all the teachers, students, and the community. It is a wonderful facility; a wonderful school. Tonight, they would have had their AGM and I wish them all the best and trust either the existing Chair or a new Chair has taken on the role and leads that school as it has been in the past.
The other week, I had the chance to visit the school as I do regularly. I listened to the candidates who were running for the Student Leadership Council. It was about a two-hour event, listening to each of these young children. I will read their names out tonight because it is important: Abbey Chalker, Abbey Larner, Ciara Hogg, Elly Hudson, Emma-Rae Wadwell, Grace Fletcher, Grace Mayfield, Isabel Palmer, Jemma Fosdick, Jessika Lewis, Kimberley Fitzgerald, Maddison Banks, Maria Mousellis, Montanna Wright, Paige Jacka, Samantha Smart, Taylor Hall – I know her as Swifty - Theresia Gebran, Vanessa Kaewtoon, Zoe Carrier, Aiden Shaw, Blake Latimore, Cameron Dubbeld, Connar Bridgeford, Darrien Friend, Jacob Terawsky, Jake Batista, Jarrod Hovland, Jerome Trono, Jonathan Almada-Boucadas, Jordan Winston, Joseph Wilson-Stanton, Kelvin Thompson, Ryan Rashid, and Zachary Rigby.
Although it was two hours of sitting down listening to these young children, I was blown away with their presentations. From being associated with the school for so long, I have been impressed, week in and week out, with the manner and way the students take to a microphone, get up on stage, and talk with confidence. I can remember at school only few people had the ability to stand and use the microphone. We were scared to do something like that. Yet, week in and week out - not the same kids - different kids get up every week in front of their class in the assembly and speak with clarity and confidence. The way they get the chance to use a microphone today will pay dividends into the future for their confidence and the way they manage their own lives.
Each one of these young children provided such a presentation I thought not only the students, but the teachers and senior teachers in the school, are going to have a difficult time choosing which one of these young children would lead their school in the Student Leadership Council - a very hard decision to make. One of the things in school which often happens is there is a populist vote. Sometimes, the most popular students are not the best and do not show the correct leadership attributes, even though they are well liked. That plays out in politics sometimes too.
The reality is these young children blew me away with the quality and, more importantly, content of their speeches, and impressed me greatly. That two hours flew by like you would not believe, given the quality of what I was listening to. There might be a few good speech writers there later in life.
Tonight I wish Bakewell Primary all the best with their AGM.
There are two other issues I will talk about. First, Maluka Drive in Gunn. Without any consultation whatsoever - this is a not a large road - government has chosen to put a new bus stop in front of residential properties. In fact, where they have placed this particular bus stop on Maluka Drive is right in front of a resident who runs a business - not from the house – and often has vehicles that park on the street, and have done for the many years they have lived there. All of a sudden, without any consultation whatsoever, a blue pole went up out the front and they have a bus stop. Now they are forced to park on the other side of the road, which makes it a very dangerous situation, particularly around the times the buses are going up and down that area.
We all know we want to improve our bus services in and around the suburbs, but I would like to know what kind of consultation the government entered into before choosing that particular street and exactly where they have put that particular bus stop. The residents I have spoken to in that street did not hear anything, did not receive a letter, did not know anything. The first they knew was the light pole was painted blue on the bottom four or five feet and, now, it is a bus stop. There has been no single yellow line placed in the gutter to prevent people parking there but, here we have this blue bus stop.
While we are talking about buses, the very same lady who was involved in a dreadful incident at the Palmerston Bus Interchange had another horrible situation happen to her - I believe it was on the way to Casuarina on a bus - where a very drunk itinerant lady on the bus was very abusive, with much swearing and carrying on, to the extent she was going to be kicked off the bus. In doing so, she actually hit this young lady in the back of the head rather severely and, as she was being ejected from the bus, spat on the bus driver, swore abuse, and so forth.
The question this young lady asked me was: ‘How does someone get on the bus in the first place in that intoxicated state?’ It goes to show the type of society we appear to be becoming, where there is no respect for each other, no respect for community property - just a non-caring attitude we seem to be developing. However, it is not everyone. The truth is there is a small percentage of society who just seem to think they rule the roost and can get away with anything.
That is the sad reality. They can get away with anything because we have a government that is soft on crime, with no real answers to any of the issues we are facing today. They have had 10 years to get this right and, every time another situation is raised - whether it be in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Palmerston, Darwin or the wider Territory - their best answer is: ‘We have a review’, or ‘We are going to have another program, or some other system, or process’ that does not deliver real results. The problem is society is now paying the dividends for this soft approach this government entered into when taking government 10 years ago. We need to harden up as a society. We need to get tough, and we need to make the tough decisions.
I know there will be people who will accuse me and others of being racist, and accuse us of all manner of things, but the reality is whoever it is - whether they are black, white, brindle, any colour of person in this society - it does not matter. If they treat society with contempt, then society should treat them with contempt and lock the buggers up.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Batchelor Area School students accompanied by Ms Tanya Bollinger and Ms Kristy Williams. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 152)
(Serial 152)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Administrative Arrangements Order made by the Administrator on 9 December 2010 transfers responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act to the Department of Justice. Under the previous Administrative Arrangements Order of February 2010, no agency had responsibility for the act; the responsibility rested solely with me as the minister. Under the new Administrative Arrangements Order, I retain ministerial responsibility as the Minister for Health. This is appropriate because the act deals with health complaints.
For the period from the commencement of the act on 10 June 1998 until 29 August 2010, the Ombudsman had the position as commissioner. This also meant the Ombudsman had responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the act. During 2010, the current Ombudsman indicated she did not want to be reappointed when her current appointment expired. The former commissioner also suggested in her annual report for 2008-09 that, in view of the commission’s significantly increased role, a review of the dual positions of commissioner and Ombudsman was desirable.
The commissioner noted that separate appointments would: first, remove actual conflicts of interest as well as public perceptions of conflicts; second, provide the public with a more equitable health complaints service given that one person cannot adequately perform the duties of both functionaries during this period of reform in the delivery of health services; and third, enable greater and more effective participation in national initiatives.
It is generally agreed that the function of Ombudsman and Health and Community Complaints Commissioner are potentially incompatible given that the commissioner, like many other independent statutory officers, is potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman concerning some administrative actions. It was also decided, as a matter of policy and governance, that the office of the commissioner should not be administered by the department of Health, given the department is a provider of services that are subject to the commissioner’s complaint jurisdiction. Accordingly, administration of the act has been brought into the Department of Justice.
The act has a number of provisions that reflect the policy positions taken in 1998; namely, the commissioner’s position be held by the Ombudsman. These include provisions consequent to the very special relationship between the Legislative Assembly and the Ombudsman concerning appointing and suspending the Ombudsman. This special relationship does not exist between the Assembly and other important and independent statutory office holders such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Registrar-General, Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner and Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. Indeed, involving the Assembly in the appointment and suspension processes potentially introduces political overtones.
This bill seeks to amend the act so the Administrator, in appointing or suspending the commissioner, is no longer required to act on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly. The bill also clarifies some ambiguities regarding the employment relationships and status of the staff of the commission. As with the Ombudsman’s staff and the staff of most other independent officers, the employees of the commission are to be public sector employees as defined in the Interpretation Act. This, in fact, maintains the status quo.
The bill also amends the act so it is plainer that statutory powers are exercised separately from employment powers derived from the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The bill also puts in statutory form the commissioner’s capacity to hire as consultants persons such as lawyers and medical experts. Consultants provide independent advice and are not employees for the purpose of the act.
The bill also makes amendments of a statute law revision nature as identified by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Penalties amendments are being dealt with in a separate bill.
I also formally advise members that I intend to finalise the statutory review of the operation of the act. This will involve the Department of Justice and the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints providing me with an updated report on the act. It is intended the department and the commissioner will, in developing this report, engage in significant public consultation. I anticipate being in a position to introduce any necessary amendments to the act by the end of 2011.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Final Report and Recommendations
Note Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Final Report and Recommendations
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to the final report of the Statehood Steering Committee. It is timely we debate this report today, as this week we have seen again that our rights as Territorians are less than those of other Australians.
In 2005, this parliament, with bipartisan support, passed a bill preventing the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth had a different view and passed laws that will now allow a nuclear waste facility in the Territory. This is the second intrusion into our rights as Territorians; the first being the earlier overturning of the euthanasia laws. Notwithstanding the controversial nature of both of these issues, surely Territorians have a right to have the laws passed by their parliament respected in the same way that states’ laws are respected? We are all elected in the same way.
Few Territorians would realise that our laws can be overturned by a Commonwealth minister within six months of assent by our Administrator or, after that, by an act of the federal parliament. And few would understand that at national referenda our votes do not really count. We are only counted in the mass of all Australian electors whereas, for a referendum to pass to change the Australian Constitution, it requires a majority of electors to agree, as well as the majority of states to vote yes.
The Commonwealth government has committed to holding a referendum on recognition of Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution in the next few years. This will be significant for us in the Northern Territory because more than 30% of our population is made up of Aboriginal Australians. Yet, when they and all other Territory electors are asked to vote on this important question, as long as we are not a state, our vote will not have the same weight as that of an elector resident in a state. I believe this is unjust and, after 100 years of being a Territory, it is time for us to reclaim our rights.
This is what the members of the Statehood Steering Committee have been working on for the past five years. These are dedicated Territorians and Australians who believe passionately in the Territory becoming the seventh state of Australia, and we are here today to discuss the work which they have produced over that time.
The Statehood Steering Committee was a creature of this Assembly which came into existence in early 2005, holding its first meeting in Alice Springs on 20 April of that year. With a mix of community representatives and members of the Assembly, it was a truly representative arrangement which has worked long and hard to achieve important goals.
On Monday, 6 December last year, the Statehood Steering Committee met for the 27th and final time. After 27 formal meetings over five years and 50 community consultation forums held last year, as well as more than 200 other meetings and information sessions during its life, the Statehood Steering Committee members can be very proud of what they have achieved. I draw your attention to many members of the former Statehood Steering Committee who have come here today - I will name them later in my speech.
In its first year the Statehood Steering Committee, in conjunction with the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, set seven major reporting milestones. These were:
establishing the Statehood Steering Committee;
community education;
public meetings and hearings;
examining the legal requirements;
a constitutional convention; and
a referendum.
The report we consider today covers the first four milestones focused on community engagement and education. Parts five and six of the program are being developed in further detail now by the standing committee, and part seven remains the ultimate goal which would occur as a consequence of any recommendations received, if made by the delegates at a proposed constitutional convention.
The Statehood Steering Committee’s status was that of an advisory body to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am the Chair. To fulfil its advisory role, the steering committee undertook an extensive program of education and consultation. The outcomes of the program are documented in both this report and in the previous reports to the Assembly.
The activities the Statehood Steering Committee reports on include:
community visits across the Territory;
school visits and establishing a Statehood Teachers Advisory Group;
participation in the Charles Darwin symposia;
establishment of Friends of Statehood;
submissions to two separate federal parliamentary inquiries, and communications with the Northern Territory government;
production and dissemination of fact sheets, discussion papers, and information papers;
the 2008 Walking Together Towards Statehood campaign in conjunction with celebrating 30 years of self-government; and
the creation of the Northern Territory 2011 Towards State 7 campaign designed to culminate in a people’s constitutional convention.
In January last year, the steering committee launched the NT 2011 Towards State 7 campaign. The key feature of this campaign was 50 information road show forums. These forums were held around the Territory from the Centre to the Top End and from east to west - and I note that 42 of those forums were held in remote areas.
They provided an opportunity for members of the steering committee to discuss statehood with the people of the Northern Territory. Five things arose from these important community discussions and were raised fairly consistently. The first of these was money, something in which we are always interested. People asked how statehood might affect future Commonwealth funding, taxation, and mining royalties. Lengthy discussion occurred on this at every forum. While the short answer is there is likely to be no change to the existing arrangements when it comes to the Commonwealth’s funding through the Grants Commission process, and while taxation remains a political matter for each jurisdiction and the mining royalties debate is happening without statehood anyway, it is fair to say these matters remain a significant concern for many Territorians.
There appears to be also a fairly broad perception that, somehow, states finance themselves when the Territory is subsidised. However, the reality is, in our federal system, no state goes it alone. Every one of them, including the Territory, relies on revenue gathered by the Commonwealth from residents within the borders of the states and territories and distributed to the states and territories on a fiscal equalisation formula.
The second emerging theme was equality. This included discussion around equal standing for Territory laws, equality when a national referendum takes place, and equal representation in the federal parliament. Territorians appear to cherish equality, and statehood is a step in that direction.
The third theme was identity. People wanted to discuss what it means to be a Territorian and how being a state might change the rules under which we live. It emerged there is certainly no appetite to change the name of the Northern Territory at all.
Fourth was leadership. Discussions centred on recent Commonwealth activities such as the 2007 emergence response, or the so-called intervention, and people asked: are we ready to lead ourselves? Are our leaders up to the task? Do we have a big enough population? How should our Legislative Assembly operate if we become a state? These are matters which, no doubt, will continue to be discussed in more detail as we move to statehood.
The fifth theme to emerge was about Aboriginal participation. Where do Aboriginal laws and law making fit in? How does Aboriginal participation in our society, our economy, and our political environment flourish under statehood? Would there be any change? What will happen to the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and how will other rights be dealt with? Would the intervention have been any different?
The many Aboriginal participants at the forum spoke on these matters with passion. The involvement of Aboriginal Territorians on the steering committee has meant the committee has been well briefed on concerns such as these, and this has influenced the 10 recommendations in the report.
These five themes have emerged as the major issues which Territorians want to discuss when statehood is raised. These, and other matters raised, have been pivotal in the Statehood Steering Committee’s consideration of the way forward.
The committee’s overarching goal has been inclusiveness. During its existence, the steering committee was clear that any model for statehood had to be adapted to the needs of a majority of Territorians. The committee has, therefore, recommended that delegates to the proposed conventions who will be asked to draft a constitution should be elected through a democratic process. The steering committee was also influenced by the 1999 standing committee report on appropriate measures to facilitate statehood, which was tabled in this Assembly almost 12 years ago; which found that participation was going to be the key to success.
Further, the steering committee believes that to maximise the representation of Territorians, 16- and 17-year-olds on the provisional electoral roll of the Australian Electoral Commission should be allowed to nominate as delegates if they wish, and vote for delegates.
As a result of the work undertaken and the lengthy engagement process under Parts I to 4 of the seven states process, and the five emerging themes outlined today, the steering committee has made 10 well-considered recommendations. It is worthwhile listing each of the 10 recommendations which have been made to the standing committee as each one reflects that inclusive approach. The recommendations, on page 3 of the final report, are:
1. the Statehood Steering Committee, by mutual agreement between the Statehood Steering Committee and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, concludes its work at the end of 2010 and reports to the standing committee on the 2010 year of activities;
2. the standing committee appoints a new advisory committee, the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee (NTCCC) to undertake the planning for a constitutional convention to be held by the end of 2011, and advise the standing committee on the resources and any other requirements needed for a successful convention;
6. the convention should take place in two discrete sessions over an adequate time to ensure the acceptance and understanding of the program by as many Territorians as possible;
7. the first convention should convene in Darwin over approximately 10 days and, with the support of appropriate experts, it should be informed by the views which are expressed by Territory residents contained in the NT 2011 Information Road Show reports gathered from the 50 public forums held across the Territory in 2010;
8. the first convention should produce a draft constitution to be publicly released and consulted upon for a period of approximately 12 months prior to convention delegates reconvening to consider the response of Territorians to the content of the draft constitution;
9. the second convention should convene in Alice Springs over approximately five days to ratify a final draft constitution for presentation to the Legislative Assembly in 2013; and
10. the Territory government must continue to engage the Commonwealth government and parliamentarians on the terms and conditions of statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution, as described in the information paper titled What Might the Terms and Conditions of Northern Territory Statehood Be?, which was tabled and considered alongside this report prior to undertaking any referendum on the question of statehood for the Northern Territory.
These recommendations have been transmitted by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the government. The first two recommendations have been implemented and the standing committee understands the government will be responding in due course to the remainder of the recommendations.
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude and thanks to the dedicated, hard-working Territorians who have been involved in bringing this report to fruition. The members who worked on this report and were with the Statehood Steering Committee at the conclusion of its existence were - and many of these people are here today - the former Mayor of Alice Springs and well-known Centralian, Ms Fran Kilgariff, the Co-Chair - and I should note that her father, the late Bern Kilgariff was a very strong advocate for statehood; Deputy Opposition Leader, the member for Goyder; parliamentary secretary, the member for Arafura; journalist, Mr Daniel Bourchier; Cattlemen’s Association CEO, Mr Luke Bowen; solicitor, Mrs Kathleen Chong-Fong; solicitor, Mr Wayne Connop; former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Hon Brian Martin AO MBE; multicultural specialist, Mrs Jenny Medwell OAM; traditional owner and member of the Central Land Council, Ms Irene Nangala; traditional owner and member of the Central Land Council, Mr Harry Nelson; senior police officer and Police Federation member, Mr Sean Parnell; community representative, Mr Jamey Robertson; Business Council member and Engineers Australia (NT) Branch CEO, Ms Bronwyn Russell; former Deputy Chair of the Central Land Council and political activist, Mr Maurie Ryan Japarta; Alice Springs community representative, Mr Peter Schaefer; president of the Law Society, Mr Matthew Storey; community representative, Mrs Margaret Vigants; Unions NT representative, Mr Bob Wade; Local Government Association of the Northern Territory representative, Mr Ray Wooldridge; and Northern Land Council Chairman, Mr Wali Wunungmurra.
The former members who participated in the formation of the committee and provided the building blocks and a great deal of valuable guidance were: community representative, Mrs Sue Bradley AM, the foundation Co-Chair from 2005 to 2008; broadcaster and now Palmerston alderman, Pete Davies from 2005 to 2009; the existing CEO of the Northern Land Council, Mr Kim Hill, who was a member from 2005 to 2006; former Cattlemen’s Association CEO, Stuart Kenny, from 2005 to 2009; and the current Minister for Statehood, the member for Arnhem, who was my predecessor as Chair from 2006 to 2009.
I thank the Minister for Statehood for her continued passion and support for the process of statehood. Her hard work in the early years of the Statehood Steering Committee is well noted, and congratulations should be given to the minister for that work.
The former Minister for Local Government and member for Barkly, Mr Elliot McAdam, was the foundation Chair from 2005 to 2006; the Leader of the Opposition and member for Blain was a member from 2005 to 2008, and also a former shadow minister for Statehood; a former Central Land Council member and Vietnam War veteran, Geoff Shaw AM, was a member from 2005 to 2006; former Chair of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM was a foundation member in 2005; former Speaker of the Assembly and former member for Braitling, Mrs Loraine Braham was a member from 2005 to 2008; and the member for Fannie Bay was a member from 2009 to 2010.
I thank the committee officers over the years and the committee’s former legal advisor, Graham Nicholson; the Solicitor-General, Mr Michael Grant QC; and Ms Sonia Brownhill, a very experienced lawyer from the Solicitor-General’s Office, who was also a legal advisor to the committee.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the secretary of the committee, our current Deputy Clerk, Mr Michael Tatham, who has worked very hard over five years and has helped put together all the reports presented today. My thanks, in particular, to the Deputy Clerk.
This exhaustive list demonstrates the commitment and talent that has been dedicated to statehood over these past five years.
We should not forget the excellent work undertaken by eminent Territorians during the 1980s and 1990s which laid the groundwork for much of the discussion which continues today. I particularly note the work of former Chief Minister, Mr Steve Hatton, who put in much effort during the 1980s and 1990s.
During November last year, with the Minister for Statehood and other members, I spoke in the Assembly about the 100th year of the Northern Territory coming under the control and administration of the Commonwealth government under Australia’s constitutional arrangements. I also took the opportunity to update the Assembly on some of the activities planned by the standing committee this year. The report we consider today details the Statehood Steering Committee program last year, where the committee conducted 50 public forums in a campaign called Northern Territory 2011 Towards State 7.
Over the past five years, committee representatives spoke to thousands of Territorians at forums, rural shows, festivals and gatherings, in classrooms, at service clubs, breakfasts and dinners, in workplaces, in shopping malls, on the streets, and around the town centres and cities of the Northern Territory. As indicated, the Northern Territory 2011 Towards State 7 part of the campaign was designed over two years to capitalise on awareness that this year, 2011, is the 100th year of being a subordinate territory.
Last year was the first part of a two-year program to consult on the matters people wish to have considered in a constitution, and this year is Stage 2, the holding of a constitutional convention. This year’s program commenced with the standing committee making a visit to Canberra to meet with Commonwealth parliamentarians. With my standing committee colleagues, the members for Arafura, Goyder and Brennan, we visited Canberra on Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 February 2011. These meetings informed Commonwealth government, opposition, Green and Independent members and senators of their key role in determining the terms and conditions of Northern Territory statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution. To assist this, every Commonwealth parliamentarian will receive a copy of the information paper published by the Statehood Steering Committee on 1 January 2011 and tabled in conjunction with the final report we are considering today.
Meetings also took place in Canberra with the two Presiding Officers with whom we held discussions about how the Northern Territory Assembly can connect better with all Commonwealth parliamentarians to inform each other on matters of mutual interest and concern as we move toward statehood. All our meetings were very productive and, after seeing a very broad cross-section of members and senators, I am pleased to inform the Assembly we did not encounter any opposition to the concept of statehood for the Northern Territory.
Of course, we received many questions about the past program and the proposed program for this year. The expressed interest was twofold. For the Commonwealth there is, quite understandably, some interest in what the future representation would be in the Australian parliament, particularly how many senators we might have. But, there was also a great deal of interest in local decision-making and the opportunity statehood provides for more sovereignty over the matters which directly impact upon Territorians ...
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, if I could just interrupt you for one moment, please, to welcome our visitors?
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 3/4 Parap Primary School students accompanied by Ms Colleen Williams and Mr Trevor Burke. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With regard to the former matter - future Commonwealth representation for the Territory - the Statehood Steering Committee took a position in the information paper tabled in conjunction with this final report that eventual equality must be the ultimate goal. The steering committee deliberately did not set a time frame because this will, no doubt, be a matter for ongoing consideration and discussion in the context of the eventual terms and conditions of statehood as determined under section 121 of the Australian Constitution.
Of most immediate interest to us in the Territory is the latter consequence of statehood; that of increased sovereignty which means we would have more say over the laws passed in this Assembly - laws which are the subject of debate and scrutiny by Territorians and cannot be arbitrarily overturned by those in another parliament where 222 of the 226 members represent Australians living in other jurisdictions.
A week prior to our visit to Canberra, the member for Goyder and I also appeared as witnesses before the Senate Select Committee on Reform of the Australian Federation hearings which were held in Brisbane. We spoke about the Statehood Steering Committee’s submission to that committee, made in August last year, which outlined the opportunities of a new grant of statehood and how, for the first time in Australian history, it might influence consideration of who does what best in the reform of the Australian Federation.
The senators said they were interested in how the Northern Territory was to engage not just the Commonwealth government, but all Commonwealth parliamentarians. In that regard, we have commenced discussions with the federal Presiding Officers about how we might exchange information between the parliaments.
Nearly every Commonwealth parliamentarian has, understandably, asked about Aboriginal matters similar to the issues which were raised during the forums. The steering committee has been fortunate to have a very close engagement with Aboriginal Territorians and the organisations they belong to, providing us an avenue to give further briefings along the way. For example, the steering committee briefed the full council of the Central Land Council three times over the past five years, and the executive on at least one separate occasion.
The first such briefing was when the foundation Chair, Mr Elliot McAdam, attended a meeting at Docker River in 2005; the second was when the foundation Co-Chair spoke to the council at Tennant Creek in 2006 and, most recently, committee member Sean Parnell and the committee secretary briefed the land council at Utopia in late 2010. Aboriginal Territorians have been a constant presence on the committee, and the views of these members are to be found in the final recommendations.
We face an exceptionally exciting year ahead. We have much to do, but the Statehood Steering Committee has more than laid the foundations. I recently wrote an opinion piece published in the National Times section of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age, which was accompanied by a straw poll asking readers, ‘Do you support calls for the Northern Territory to be declared a state?’, which ran over a two-day period. The results from 4348 votes were 74% said yes, 20% said no, and 6% remained unsure. The poll closed on 16 February and, while the website disclaimer makes it clear these polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate, I believe we can take some comfort that our fellow Australians living mainly on the eastern seaboard, where the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age are published, are inclined to support democracy for the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Territorians are always ready and willing to work on improving things and, if we do this right, all Australians will be ready for the Northern Territory to take its place as Australia’s newest, seventh state.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Chair of our Statehood Steering Committee, the member for Nightcliff and our Speaker, who has just very eloquently set out in her contribution the report that is with us today, and the work the steering committee has done over a number of years to bring us to this point where we have a clear path towards eventually becoming Australia’s seventh state.
It is a pity the children from Year 5/6 Batchelor Area School and Year 3/4 Parap Primary School have left, because I was watching those kids in the gallery and thinking it would be a tragedy and a travesty if they get to the age of 18 and do not have the same constitutional rights as all other Australians. We, as this current generation of Territorians, owe it to those kids to ensure we get statehood right, and work together across the political divide, across our community, with a very clear goal. It is a very simple question at the end of the day which, if we get this right, should have a resounding and resolving yes vote at any future vote or plebiscite in the Territory about statehood. It should be yes, we should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other Australians. It is a pretty simple question at the end of the day. It should not be beyond impossibility we can give those students in the gallery today the same rights and responsibilities as all other Australians. It is about the Northern Territory growing up, being recognised, not only within the Northern Territory, but around Australia. It is time, as we have reached the age of 18, to sit around the table and be able to make the same decisions and have the same rights as every other Australian.
In the same way I was very disappointed, as many people were disappointed, that the last referendum did not get up. It is the same level of disappointment I had when Australia voted in a referendum to become a republic. I thought it was a really sad day we were not strong enough, or proud enough of ourselves to say we have respect for the United Kingdom and everything we inherit from that, but it is time to stand alone and be independent. The same question about the Territory becoming a state is all about us saying we are old enough now to have the same rights and responsibilities as all other Australians. It is a pretty simple question.
In the same way our vote in that constitutional referendum about becoming a republic was only worth, essentially, half of the vote of every other Australian who lives in the other states. As Madam Speaker said in her contribution, it will be an absolute travesty when we have a referendum in this country in order to amend the Constitution to recognise the rights of the Indigenous Australians, that the jurisdiction with the largest proportion of Indigenous Australians is only going to have 50% of the vote of other Indigenous Australians about whether they should be recognised in the Constitution. It is an absolute travesty; so we really have to get this right.
I thank the steering committee members, both current and previous. Madam Speaker named all the people who have contributed passionately to this debate over the last few years. Engaging our community across the Northern Territory about the reasons to become a state, I suppose, first and foremost, is an issue that is not at the top of people’s minds most of the time. If I go to a barbecue or the pub, or sit around with family and friends, it is a rare topic of conversation that comes up. People live very busy lives and have many issues on their plate and, when they are relaxing and kicking back, it is normally issues such as family, football, what the kids are up to, and where they are going to go on holiday that tend to dominate those gatherings.
Engaging our community across the Northern Territory on what they think and the type of process to go forward on an issue that is very important, certainly very symbolic, has had to be done in a way that is bipartisan and genuine. The reports I have received are from members on our side of the parliament who have been on this committee and engaged in the forum. Speaking to committee members who have served, current and past, there have been an increasing number of people coming to these forums and gatherings wanting to engage in this debate, which is a great thing.
We need to take this to the grassroots. I said at the beginning of the year, our generation - the generation in this Assembly - probably has one more shot to get this right. If we do not get it right this time through this process, I do not know if I will live long enough to see statehood. We cannot afford to fail the test twice of our own people not having the confidence to vote yes for statehood. We are at a really important time.
I genuinely thank the opposition and our Independent members for their genuine bipartisanship on this, because this is bigger than politics. This is about those kids up there and ensuring those children have the same rights as all other Australians to participate in the national debate and have their votes counted with the same amount of respect and weight as all other citizens, and for this parliament, duly elected by the citizens of this Territory, to be treated with the same respect as other parliaments of Australia. So, it is very important we get this right because, as I said, it is not so much about us, it is about those kids.
The work the current steering committee has done over the last couple of years - I think around 50 communities have been visited across our Territory in the bush, regional areas, our major cities, and schools. I congratulate the committee on the Walking Together historical time line that was put together. Pictures paint a thousand words for those kids up there - the path towards statehood, all the milestones in the evolution of our constitution, both nationally and in the Territory – is fantastic in its simplicity in one way, but also illustrative of what a struggle it has been for our voices to be heard in the Commonwealth parliament for our Territory citizens to have the same rights as other citizens of this great nation.
It was only 42 years ago that the sole member for the Northern Territory was given the same rights as other members in the Commonwealth parliament - the right to vote and debate on issues other than Territory issues. We all know the complexities of federal/state relationships and government policy at the national level. If you just confined to talk to things specific about the Northern Territory you probably would not be participating in much at all. It really has been a fight and a struggle all the way. I pay tribute to all those people down the years, on both sides of parliament, and all those wonderful Territorians who have kicked, screamed, punched, and fought for the rights of Territorians to be heard.
I have only seen this report today, and it is very significant and pretty weighty. There is a lot of good stuff in here. I have been looking through the recommendations and I congratulate the committee on mapping out a clear path for our community to follow. There are recommendations in the body of this which will be considered regarding the elected nature of the constitutional conventions; trying to ensure, through these conventions and the people elected to them, that it really comes from the grassroots and is a representative body of the people of the Northern Territory. I give a commitment that on our side of the House we are not going to play politics with this. We will not run ALP political candidates, and I am confident the other side will not.
I look forward to seeing who is elected as a representative group to the convention from across the Northern Territory. There are some initiatives in the recommendations that young people in the Northern Territory are significantly, if not overwhelmingly, represented at that convention. It is about the future; it is not about us. I hope the convention has very few people of thinning and grey hair and many young, passionate, and vibrant people who are excited about the future of the Northern Territory. That is my hope - it is about the future and about our children.
I am not prepared to commit yet; however, I congratulate the committee for a groundbreaking recommendation: that the election process allow 17-year-old Territorians to vote and nominate to be a candidate. That is what this process is all about. Let us break some new ground; let us kick down the doors. Let us tell young people we want them to be part of this debate. I will take some advice from the constitutional experts; however, this is probably the first time in Australia’s history that 17-year-olds have been allowed to participate in a plebiscite and have equal representation in an elected body. Obviously, we need advice on that. I genuinely congratulate the committee - that is groundbreaking stuff. When you look at our 17-year-olds around the Territory, they are not kids, they are young adults. Those who are working are paying taxes. They are old enough to join the Army and to get married. They are paying taxes and should be entitled to participate in this debate.
The recommendations set out a very clear, bipartisan path. I am pleased with Recommendation 9:
- the second convention should convene in Alice Springs over approximately five days to ratify a final draft constitution for presentation to the Assembly in 2013;
That takes it past the next election to ensure this is not a political exercise or opportunity for political parties to wrap themselves in the flag and pledge undying loyalty and get into government on the back of a push to statehood. Taking it out of the political context is a very wise thing to do. If there is any whiff of politics in this, I fear for the consequences of the final vote. That is very important as well.
Another reason it clearly comes into force today - let us take the politics out of Muckaty Station and the nuclear waste facility. I am not here to debate the politics …
Mr Tollner: I am sure you would love to do that.
Mr HENDERSON: … but the reality is we know, as we have been in this game long enough - and you know, member for Fong Lim, the only reason this facility is coming to the Northern Territory
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Be quiet, member for Fong Lim.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: We know the only reason this facility is coming to the Northern Territory is not because of science. It is because this is such a difficult issue for this nation to grapple with that both sides of federal parliament are imposing this on the Northern Territory because, constitutionally, they can. The only reason it is coming here is, constitutionally, they can, and both sides are too gutless to put it where, geologically and constitutionally, they can put it, which is the ACT. The actual science which evaluated eight sites around Australia that are geologically stable and suitable …
Mr Tollner: Why did you not get down to Canberra and convince Julia about it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting, please.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. I am not trying to be controversial here, but the science that was mapped out for many years identified eight geologically suitable sites for a nuclear waste facility around Australia and one was in the ACT. Of course, they would not put it in Canberra. Constitutionally, they can plonk it in the Northern Territory. That shows very clearly the disadvantage we have comparative to other Australians: if there needs to be a fix somewhere, they will fix it up in the Northern Territory, because they can, because they have the constitutional capacity to do that.
It is the same with the euthanasia debate. As complex and as controversial as that was, our rights were overridden because the Commonwealth parliament has the right to disallow any legislation of the Northern Territory.
This is a comprehensive way forward. It is a substantial document that has come from the diverse people across the Northern Territory who have engaged in this. We owe it, as the current set of community and political leaders in the Northern Territory, to continue to work together on this. This should not be about politics; it should be about those kids. It should be about ensuring our children have the same rights as all other Australians, and have those same responsibilities. When those children vote in constitutional issues or for their members of this parliament, they should have the same rights. It is fundamental; it is a very simple question.
There are complex issues that need to be worked out on the way through but, with goodwill, all of those issues can be worked through, particularly through these constitutional conventions and a representative body elected to them. I would like to see business people, multicultural people, people from across the Northern Territory, particularly young people participating in these debates because us old grey hairs have been around for long enough fighting about the same things - fighting about the repatriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, issues to do with uranium, and all sorts of issues. We should bow out of it and let those young people …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I would love to see a group of 20-year-old Aboriginal people coming together from around the Northern Territory debating the issue about the repatriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. With all due respect, the debate has been going for 30 years and the same people have been participating in this debate for 30 years. Let us get some young people involved in these debates. I really hope people put their hands up and get elected. When I get an opportunity to vote, if there are people standing in my electorate who are young people, I will be looking to support them wherever I can because it is very important.
We are all politicians debating this issue today, and we all know the big sticking issue …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be quick.
We all know the major sticking issue for the Commonwealth parliament, because politics is a numbers game - always has been, always will be - is the number of senators. That is the only thing, at the end of the day, they are going to be interested in: in our eventual equality, and the method of determining that eventual equality to receive the same number of senators as the states, what that does to the balance of power in the Senate. Whoever is government of the day will have that as their political antenna. Possibly, the biggest hurdle we have to overcome is negotiating with the Commonwealth parliament the eventual equality of numbers in the Senate.
Everything else should be, with good will, fairly workable but, when we get to the politics of representation in the Senate, that is when the argy-bargy will really start. I call on all parties represented in the federal parliament - I know I am being nave here – to put aside those thoughts. If they can think about these kids in the Northern Territory and not think about their own political fortunes, then that needs to be the debate we have.
At the end of the day, I commend the steering committee, past and present. They have done an extraordinary job in coming to these recommendations today. It gives us a clear path forward and it is bold.
I thank our Minister for Statehood for her passion and support for this. Every single member of this House - put politics aside - passionately believes in the future of the Northern Territory. All of us believe in those kids in the Northern Territory. We believe they have a very exciting and bright future, and those kids deserve the same rights as all other Australians. It is a pretty simple yes or no question. Let us get behind this and let us become the seventh state in our great nation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate those who have been involved in the Statehood Steering Committee, and whose work has resulted in a report for us to consider. I congratulate minister McCarthy for her passionate involvement for a long period of time, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her involvement. Of greater importance, in some respects, are the members of the community who have been involved in this very important process, which was a challenging process as well. I congratulate you for the effort you have made to be involved in this.
I want to talk a little about the place we are now; that we are perhaps a part of something much greater than we realise. I believe what we are involved in is a nation changer, and I will explain why in a moment. The work of this committee has produced answers to challenging questions, and provided information to allow Territorians to have an informed discussion about these matters. As the Chief Minister rightly pointed out, it is not really a barbecue stopper to talk about constitutional change, but the heart of this is something most Australians are passionate about; that is, constitutional equality and the rights of one citizen compared to another. It evokes a strong response wherever you go.
It has national significance because, not until you have the discussion with those outside the Northern Territory do they realise that our nation is in any respects not complete. That is why the Speaker, in her fine contribution, referenced the response of Australians who have read the article. There is interest in this, and I reckon the interest is because it provides leverage to some considerations of national significance. I will talk about that in a little while.
We are a part of something greater. Most people focus their thinking on what happened at the referendum on 3 October 1998. People look, analyse, consider and debate what went wrong, and what we could have done better.
I arrived, with the member for Wanguri, into this parliament in the middle of 1999 in the aftermath of that failed referendum which was narrowly lost. It was the topic of discussion: how did that occur? There were all sorts of analyses and so on. I became aware, as I was immediately placed on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Now, it seems a long time ago but, when I walked in there as a new member, I was brought into this great story. There were endless publications. All the books have a green cover, there are thick ones and thin ones, and they have all sorts of reports as a result of community consultation and responses to complex legal matters. I have piles of them in my office. A great deal of work had gone on before I arrived. The more I looked around the more I realised this had been going on for a very long time, and this is just one part of a very long story. It is like a slow train coming. In some respects, it is a bit like building the railway – it was a dream; now, we have a railway - being a part of something far greater.
I wondered who my electorate was named after. I found it was named after a bloke called Adair Macalister Blain. I learnt that Mr Blain went to Canberra in 1934 with a mantra. ‘The Territory for Territorians’ was his slogan. What he wanted - and he put his whole career on the line and said: ‘I will resign if I am not given, as a representative of the Northern Territory, full voting rights’. Imagine spending your whole career in parliament and not being allowed to vote and only being able to speak if you have been given special permission. It is challenging enough being in the parliament, let alone just sitting there all that time, coming from a place far from Canberra, and not being able to really participate. You are genuinely a token.
The poor chap did not live up to his promise. He left parliament and still did not have the capacity to vote. Just as an aside, an interesting thing about Adair Blain is that he served in World War I, re-enlisted as a member of parliament on the eve of World War II, and was captured in Singapore. He was an Independent and he had someone from the Country Party look after the electorate whilst he served in Singapore – not that there was much to do, he could not vote on anything! He was captured by the Japanese, spent the duration of the war as a prisoner of the Japanese in Singapore and Borneo. He was repatriated in 1945, marched back into the parliament in his uniform to a standing ovation, and was then ordered to go to hospital. He spent two months in hospital recuperating and continued the battle, ‘The Territory for Territorians’. Even back then he was calling out for this. We are a part of that story.
The next part of the story was in 2008 when we said goodbye to Sam Calder. He took the next stage where he was able to vote. It was a landmark achievement to be able to vote in the parliament and be recognised as a representative of the people of the Northern Territory. A significant gain was made.
Then we had Bern Kilgariff - off he went and added to that. What we had in that whole period with Bern Kilgariff, Sam Calder, and others was that the Territory moved into the place where we could govern our own affairs – a significant achievement. We are a part of that story. I commend those who have made those significant gains which we can look at. We should dwell on them for a second and see that is a part of this story.
An analogy Bern Kilgariff is famous for stuck with me. He told me once this statehood business was the final destination and there was movement in the Territory - just as Adair Macalister Blain wanted - for the people of the Territory to be properly recognised and given some respect and capacity to govern their own affairs. That led to a movement which, ultimately, resulted in the capacity to vote in the federal parliament - which seems like a strange thing now, but a major achievement. Bern said: ‘It was a movement, like a train moving and I decided to get onto it to see where it was going’. We knew its aim; its destination is full statehood.
The train had passed one major destination; it was continuing on and reached self-government. He acknowledged that as a major achievement. However, the train is still going and we are still on the train. For those who have left the train such as Adair Blain, Sam Calder, Bern Kilgariff, and all those others who are represented by those names, we are required to continue to the final destination.
There are some real challenges, make no mistake. It is all very nice to say we want to have equal rights - that is fine, people will agree. What are the financial arrangements? There have been some very good responses to that. I particularly commend the Statehood Steering Committee and the support around that committee to produce those documents which provided tremendous feedback and capacity for people to engage - the education component has been outstanding. I commend you for that.
Those questions have been answered. Equality, of course. I always find it funny when people say: ‘The bottom line is, what are we going to be called? Are we still going to be Territorians?’ That can be answered: ‘Yes, you can be’. ‘Well, that is okay then’. We are proud of our identity.
However, it is the leadership component which is the testing one, because we should not gloss over the immediate, very real challenges. We cannot walk away from the intervention and make comment and then pass; there is a great deal in that we have to respond to.
The issue of storage of nuclear waste in the Territory has a great deal attached to it. We need to reach a new place of engaging those things in a far more mature way. Whatever position we hold on the rights of the terminally ill; the fact that this parliament is a gathering of representatives of the people of the Northern Territory who have had that discussion, and the conclusion of that discussion was disregarded by another parliament, is something we really need to face up to - whatever side of the argument we uphold, by way of interjection and by comment.
The land rights issue is a challenge we must face, and it can only be faced with leadership. It is not going to be easy; we cannot deliver statehood because it is going to give people a good feeling. It is going to be hard work and we are going to have to be honest with each other like a big family with some controversial matters we want to discuss. We can wallpaper over them and manage them out to the side, or we can take them front and centre and deal with them. There will be some passion and some heat in this. We are not going to change as a result of it. We might get to a place; however, we have not changed as a result of the discussion.
In the seven stages to this - the reporting milestones - we have established a committee, which is great, and we have some fine Territorians on that committee. There has been community education, and they have done an outstanding job. It says there has been community consultation. Politicians can become pretty good at that: ‘We have consulted the community’. We have had public meetings and hearings, yes. All of these are relatively easy things. Then comes items five, six and seven – this is where the real work starts. It is like you are getting yourself ready and now we are going to dig deep. We are now going to examine the legal requirements. This is not going to be an academic exercise because those legal requirements are going to cause us to have a serious discussion about a whole range of things, some of which I have already referred to.
The constitutional convention is not going to be just balloons and streamers, it is going to be a very serious discussion. I do not want to be a part of something that is going to be like box ticking; that we are actually going to get out of this and say: ‘Was that not a lovely feeling?’ I went to the 2020 Summit. Its purpose was largely, I believe, to make people feel good ...
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: If you had been there it would have been different, I am sure. However, the 2020 Summit was an exercise to create an impression not a difference. This Northern Territory family has to get involved in this, roll up its sleeves and have a serious discussion about matters we should not gloss over if we are to be taken seriously as leaders. That is what I want to see in that convention.
I commend that endeavour. Yes, it is going to be good to have young people in it, but we want the whole lot - people who have not much hair as well. It is not just young people, to have …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, Gerry, there might be a place for you. What I am saying is the Chief Minister is drawing attention to having young people; that is great, but we have to have the whole lot - all properly represented, sleeves rolled up and get to work.
Then there was the referendum. I was there for the last referendum. There were many issues floating around and it felt like we needed to grab these things and put them on the table and sort them out so we can then be changed as a result, because it is a game changer. If we can do this properly and pull this off, we will not just be changing the Territory, we will be having an effect nationally.
That is where I started and I need to conclude by saying how I believe this is a nation changer. The reason is there is a common wealth, the sharing of wealth. I had a real wake-up call - because you can give speeches in the Territory about statehood and people go: ‘Yes, equality! It is not fair we do not have the same rights’. You can draw a response no matter where you go.
It was a fantastic trip - an eye-opener - when I went with the former Deputy Chief Minister, Syd Stirling to Canberra. We put on a joint face, representing the Territory, and walked into Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock’s office to put our case. It was: ‘Oh! They are not going to say no worries we will find a spot for you’. It was: ‘Here is a table. We are already sitting at this table. So, you blokes want to be a part of this do you?’ ‘Yes’. We knew it is, ultimately, the Commonwealth’s decision. How are we going to get to that table? What did they do? The Commonwealth said: ‘That is very good. You had a referendum, did you not? People did not want it’. ‘No’. ‘Well, go back and have another referendum’.
Right, off we go and talk to people again. We could be busy forever and a day doing stuff here in the Territory to go back and say: ‘Can we come in now?’ We are going to really have to muscle up because, if we just play that game, I know how it works. You go out and have just a bit more community consultation, do this and do that - keep us busy forever and a day. We have a fight on our hands – a serious fight on our hands.
I came away with a complete wake-up call. It is a call to arms, in many respects, because it is going to have an effect on the nation. Yes, full rights of citizenship for Australians who live in the Northern Territory, but it is going to have an effect on the nation. I mentioned the 2020 Summit. In that event there was, in my view, the seeding of a number of ideas. Conversations around the place had carried this idea: what is the future of the Commonwealth? What is the Commonwealth going to look like over the horizon? There is already discussion about the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. What is that relationship going to be? What will it look like in the future? This discussion we are having here can provide - if we take it seriously enough and recognise what is at stake - leverage into that national discussion.
Whilst the status quo remains and we are not at threat in any way - they can just manage us here - things will remain as they are at the Commonwealth level. However, we are going to be providing some leverage and effect on a national issue of what this nation looks like, and how we govern ourselves. This is part of that discussion.
This is what the nation, I believe, would be considering. The nation is not complete if we have one-fifth of the land mass not under the same level of governance. We are rich in resources and we make a magnificent contribution to the country. We are a reminder of the place of this nation within our region. We are a reminder also of the real challenges we face as a nation with our Indigenous population and how we sort that out. It will be sorted out here. We will change the face of the nation by dealing with this business here. These are the sorts of things we bring to the national story. It is not just a feel-good convention we are going to have; this is a game changer, and we have to be involved in that.
I am urging those who are involved in this to keep up the fight, to ensure we provide that leadership that looks at the issues, and recognise them very honestly and see through them. Do not look over them, do not try to talk them out to the side; they are very real, front and centre. All that is contained in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We have to push in there and be able to discuss those things properly, because it has an effect - a significant flow-on effect.
So, we are going somewhere. We are actually on that train I referred to before. It has passed through a number of stations along the way, from Adair Blain spending all that time sitting in the parliament doing nothing. I do not know what he would have done all that time. They did not have laptops; what would they have done? Now, we are at the next stage; we now have this document. I am urging honourable members and all Territorians to take this very seriously. It is a very significant part of our journey, and let us continue. I congratulate the committee.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Madam Speaker, Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee, and the Statehood Steering Committee members for the final report and recommendations, which I know each and every member of this House will read with great enthusiasm as we come towards our March sittings in Alice Springs to discuss and debate it in detail.
I acknowledge all the people who have been, over the past five years, very much a part of this incredibly historic committee regarding the future of the Northern Territory. The names of the committee members have been read. I would like to put the names on the record in my speech, and also to acknowledge not only past and present committee members, but also staff:
Fran Kilgariff, Jane Aagaard MLA, Matthew Storey, Brian Martin, Daniel Bourchier, Jenny Medwell, Kathleen Chong-Fong, Irene Nangala, Margaret Vigants, Kezia Purick, Maurie Ryan Japarta, Jamey Robertson, Luke Bowen, Wayne Connop, Harry Nelson, Peter Schaefer, Ray Wooldridge, Sean Parnell, Wali Wunungmurra, Bronwyn Russell, Bob Wade, and Marion Scrymgour MLA.
Former committee members: Sue Bradley AM, Stuart Kenny, Loraine Braham, Geoff Shaw AM, Kim Hill, Elliot McAdam, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Karl Hampton, Steven Milne, Pete Davies, Terry Mills, and Graham Nicholson.
Secretariat staff: Executive Officer Michael Tatham, Tania Hardy, Nora Kempster, Matthew James, Dennis Meehan; and to former staff, Carolynne James, Marise Riddell, Poppy Lelekis, Brian Lloyd, Pat Hancock, and Sharon McAlear. The current Statehood Steering Committee’s constitutional legal advisors are NT Solicitor-General Michael Grant QC, and Sonia Brownhill.
These people whose names have been mentioned go down in history as being important contributors towards the future of the Northern Territory.
I would like to reflect on an important time for me, as the member for Arnhem, working with each and every member of the Statehood Steering Committee over the five years. In 2005, the Statehood Steering Committee was established by the Northern Territory parliament to educate and inform residents across the Northern Territory about statehood. Eighty-two Territorians put themselves forward to be part of the history-making, new Statehood Steering Committee.
The first meeting of the Statehood Steering Committee was in Alice Springs from 21 to 22 April 2005. Elliot McAdam was appointed as Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee and long-time Territorian, Sue Bradley, was appointed as the Co-Chair. In their first year of existence the Statehood Steering Committee undertook a huge amount of work, including more than 20 community presentations on statehood; asking more than 1500 Territorians, on the 2005 show circuit, about their understanding of statehood; developing an interactive website, www.statehood.nt.gov.au; conducting four public discussion forums on statehood; and visiting Alice Springs, Docker River, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Maningrida, Milingimbi, Daly River, Jabiru and Wadeye to discuss statehood issues with community groups and organisations.
In 2006, I was appointed Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee beside Sue Bradley. In 2006, we launched the Statehood Story Board Series at Parliament House. The story board series was made available to primary school and junior high school students from around Darwin to learn about statehood. Using pictures and storytelling was a great way to spread the statehood message to even more Territorians but, most importantly, our young people of the Northern Territory.
In 2006, the Statehood Steering Committee again had a strong presence at the show circuit which resulted in an increased awareness of statehood. In 2007, the Statehood Steering Committee launched a radio advertising campaign to increase understanding and get Territorians to think a little more about statehood. In that same year, the committee was also actively involved in the Charles Darwin University symposium called Statehood and a Bill of Rights. At the symposium, the Statehood Steering Committee released a community discussion paper titled Constitutional Paths to Statehood. This paper provided a basis for all Territorians to look at how constitutions work, and to make comment to the committee about how they want to be governed in the future.
At the show circuit in 2007, the Statehood Steering Committee linked up with the Australian Electoral Commission to hold a mock referendum on statehood, where 76% of voters answered yes to the question: do you agree the Northern Territory should become a state under the Australian Constitution?
In 2008, Ms Fran Kilgariff was appointed as the new Co-Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee after wide advertising for expressions of interest. In 2008, the committee launched its Walking Together Towards Statehood awareness campaign at Parliament House on the Speaker’s Green. The Chief Minister, the then federal minister for Territories Bob Debus, and Opposition Leader Terry Mills, were guest speakers at the launch where the Chooky Dancers of Arnhem Land performed. The Walking Together Towards Statehood awareness campaign provided an opportunity for people to consider our future on the 30th anniversary of self-government.
It was in that same year, 2007, the federal government intervened in the Northern Territory with the Northern Territory Emergency Act. It was, perhaps, the first time - certainly on my travels across the Arnhem region - Aboriginal people understood the constitutional vulnerability of our place as a people in the Northern Territory. It was certainly a turning point in the constitutional issues and the work of the Statehood Steering Committee. It is not a very sexy subject trying to talk about constitutions; it is an incredibly difficult and complex subject. However, how do we make it practical? How do we bring it back to the everyday life of each person across the Northern Territory?
The federal intervention did exactly that; it impacted directly on the lives of Indigenous Territorians across the Northern Territory. Straightaway, and over time, Indigenous people could see the constitutional vulnerability of their place in the Northern Territory. It is important, as the Chief Minister said, that our nation goes forward to look at the Australian Constitution and how the Australian Constitution needs to address the absence, or otherwise, of the inclusiveness of Indigenous people in this country. The Chief Minister is correct when he said if we go to a referendum in this nation, talking about Indigenous people being reflected in the Australian Constitution, we will not have access to a full vote on that issue, yet that change would impact on a large percentage of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory who will only have half a say. All Territorians in any referendum, on any issue, only have half a say.
In November 2008, as Minister for Statehood, and with my colleague in opposition, Kezia Purick, I travelled to Canberra to update our federal colleagues on the progress on the Northern Territory’s path to statehood. I have to say to each and every member of this House, thank you for the importance of walking together in a bipartisan way on a topic of incredible passion for the members of the Statehood Steering Committee, and all those who can see the inequality in our position as Australians in the Northern Territory. This parliament must maintain its bipartisanship towards becoming the seventh state in the Australian federation. We must maintain that bipartisanship nature. I thank each and every one of you for walking with me over the past five years, despite everything else that has occurred in this parliament - and many things have happened in parliament and across the Northern Territory in other areas of politics. I thank you from the bottom of my heart that you have maintained that walk together with our government to ensure we, as a parliament of the Northern Territory, represent all Territorians and go to Canberra to ask the same thing of federal politicians.
The Leader of the Opposition is correct when he said you go to Canberra and then walk away because you meet the glazed looks: ‘Here they come again; they are trying again’. We have to go with incredible passion, with a fight, a courage and determination which says we want to determine our own destiny in the Northern Territory.
The Statehood Steering Committee has been an incredibly important part of the education process, providing information and awareness to people, answering questions, pushing politicians to keep going, knowing at times there have been stalemates and it has been hard to knock on those doors. The Statehood Steering Committee has been a body of people from all walks of life across the Northern Territory which has reflected the different areas of the Northern Territory. Many times we have sat around tables, having many heated discussions, with different views - the good views, the not-so-good views - the ups and the downs, the laughs, the cries. Maybe I have been the one who has been crying sometimes. However, you have stuck at it; you have stayed together. That is the resilience of Northern Territory people. Despite our differences, we have to stay at the table and walk together if we are determined to become the seventh state in the Australian Federation.
On Wednesday, 7 May 2009, I resigned as Chair of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and as Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee. The Hon Jane Aagaard MLA, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, was elected as the new Chair of the LCAC and Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee, while I maintained the position as Minister for Statehood. The Statehood Steering Committee has done a tremendous job under the leadership of Fran Kilgariff and Jane Aagaard as Co-Chairs.
In the last 12 months, we have seen an incredible amount of work occur across the Northern Territory – over 50 workshops in over 100 Aboriginal languages. Think about that. As if the challenge towards statehood is not enough we need to recognise we have over 100 Aboriginal languages, plus the languages of migrants who have made the Northern Territory home. Again, we have stayed at the table. We have been determined to work with each of the different language groups through the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, recognising the challenges of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the nuclear waste dump, and the national parks - all of these issues that must be debated and discussed in a very mature, responsible, and visionary way.
This year is 100 years since South Australia surrendered us to the Commonwealth. The question in this most important year is: are we to remain a people under surrender? Do we have the vision to fight for what we want to see for the future generations of the Northern Territory? Do we have the courage to pursue the vision on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory? Are we bold enough, brave enough, to continue to persevere on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory?
In this centenary year there will be a series of forums across the Northern Territory - A Working Future in the Seventh State - where we want to see discussion and debate in Alice Springs, Darwin, and at the Garma Festival. I call on all Aboriginal organisations to participate in the centenary grants that will be put out quite soon, and to start talking about their future in their regions and to prepare for the constitutional convention in November of this year.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say this to the federal parliament: if we in the Northern Territory, in our 25-member Assembly, can walk together for five years, and continue to walk together for as long as it takes to become the seventh state in the Federation, I call upon the 226 federal politicians for a bipartisan approach towards the Northern Territory becoming the seventh state in the Australian Federation. I call upon both Houses of the federal parliament to have a bipartisan approach in encouraging the Northern Territory to become the seventh state in the Federation.
I say to each of the Statehood Steering Committee members, both past and present, to all the staff who have been dedicated on this journey in the past five years: thank you so much for the work you have done. Thank you for keeping us here in this parliament on our toes. But do not stop; we all have to remain alert and vigilant and keep reminding each other that we are still walking on this journey and we must still walk together. Well done.
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Sacred Heart Primary School students accompanied by Ms Gez Mulvahil. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Syd Stirling
Hon Syd Stirling
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of former member for Nhulunbuy, former Deputy Chief Minister and former Minister for Statehood, Mr Syd Stirling, and similarly extend a very warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the report this morning and congratulate the current and past members of the Statehood Steering Committee, and the different Chairs who have guided the committee over the last five years. It has been a long road, but we are nowhere near the end of the road or at our destination, which is statehood.
In a previous life, I was one of the original people on the Statehood Steering Committee in the five years of the committee; I was with the Northern Territory Minerals Council. I recall my organisation receiving correspondence regarding the committee. I cannot recall under whose signature, but they were seeking representation on the Statehood Steering Committee.
The executive committee, at the time, believed it was a good idea - and it was a good idea - for the minerals industry to have representation because there are some key items which are relevant to that industry, notably - and they have been referenced before by the previous speakers - the control of uranium, the future of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the offshore waters in regard to Ashmore and Cartier Islands and, of course, our two national parks. There are other issues of significance to other industries and to people in the Northern Territory. However, they were the issues of key interest to the exploration and minerals industry.
Interestingly, in the documentation members have received, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs tabled the federal government response to the Long Road to Statehood report. It identified various things. The Commonwealth has responded accordingly. What I find in this document, which is very heartening, is this paragraph:
- The Commonwealth government supports in principle the granting of statehood to the Northern Territory, subject to the resolution of outstanding policy and constitutional issues by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments, and the Commonwealth parliament’s consideration of any proposed terms and conditions of statehood.
It goes on to a couple of others things, but a couple of paragraphs down, they say they still want to have quite a few issues which are unresolved addressed from the Northern Territory’s point of view, which are:
future management and control of Commonwealth land, national parks and world heritage areas within the Territory;
future management of Indigenous issues …
I include the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in that:
future management and control of uranium and mining within the Territory; and
future management of other matters currently reserved to the Commonwealth under existing self-government arrangements.
Madam Deputy Speaker, from the time when I was on the Statehood Steering Committee, you can see my interest in the key issues which will be the most debated. In regard to the path to statehood and the convention, we are planning the items the Commonwealth wants to know about as well. That is not surprising, because we know those issues are complex and complicated, and it will take much goodwill and resolve to get through them.
I acknowledge the past work of previous Northern Territory parliamentarians. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned people from many years back but, in more modern times there was Steve Hatton, who was, and still is, a great supporter of statehood and state rights for the Northern Territory. I also acknowledge the late Dr Alistair Heatley. When he worked in Steve Hatton’s office and was a lecturer at the Northern Territory University he was one of the few academics at the time who was a great supporter of the statehood. Even at that time they were going on road shows throughout the Northern Territory, appearing at the agricultural shows when, really, there was not a great deal of interest in statehood. Some may argue that is still the case today, but I disagree.
We know about the previous convention and the referendum. The Chief Minister referenced the referendum that failed, and the constitutional convention. I was at that convention and I have spoken within the Statehood Steering Committee and elsewhere on why I believe it failed. Primarily, it failed because the foundations were not solid and stable. We all know if you do not have solid and stable foundations, what gets built on top is equally at risk. That is what happened in that case. As the Chief Minister said, this is our last opportunity to get it right; we will not see it in our lifetime if we do not get it right this time.
I have a personal interest in statehood apart from those key issues which will always be there. It is about equality and equity. I listened to the minister’s comments and liked them. We do not count, we only have half a say, and we are not consulted. That probably sums the past up well.
The Northern Territory is being treated pretty much - well, it used to be called the bastard child. No one really wanted to know the child. New South Wales had us and ditched us; South Australia had us and ditched us to the Commonwealth and, finally, we got self-government so we could ditch all of them. Hopefully, when we push and get our grant of statehood, Territorians will be able to stand equal with our fellow Australians.
In regard to a personal interest and passion to move forward to statehood, I want to take members back to a time when, before self-government, the Commonwealth pretty much had control over the Northern Territory. It probably explains my lack of love for the Commonwealth and all things Canberra. It was the acquisition of 32 square miles of land to the east of Darwin under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act in 1973 - some 20 400 acres. For members’ benefit, and those listening, it pretty much went from Berrimah Road through to Howard Springs on the east side of the highway ...
A member: The old Berrimah Road.
Ms PURICK: Oh, yes, the old Berrimah Road. There were some 500 landholders in that area who were to be affected. It was all freehold land, including a number of small blocks and many large blocks. I am quoting from Senate Prowse from the Hansard at the time:
- The nature of the action taken aroused considerable resentment not only on the part of the people involved directly but also on the part of the other people in the Northern Territory who believe that the Commonwealth is endangering the whole question of freehold rights and titles which up to this time had been honoured and respected.
Senator Prowse was from Western Australia. He took up the cudgels for the Northern Territory, along with Senator Drake-Brockman. They received a number of protests. A petition was signed at that time by 346 people. They believed it would have been a much greater number if more people had been able to sign it. The petition was read at the time it was tabled:
- We the undersigned landowners and occupiers in the Northern Territory respectfully seek your support in disallowing the acquisition notice tabled in the Senate on 29 May ...
It comes back to the rights of the people of the Northern Territory:
1. We do not consider it necessary to abolish all freehold titles in the area to achieve sound future planning.
- To do so is in fact predetermining the recommendations of the recently appointed Elsey Mitchell Royal Commission.
Which is another issue.
- It is also suggestive of an exercise in socialistic control of people’s lands and lives, which could have future implication for the States.
I will quote some more from this Hansard because it fits the picture of the history of the Northern Territory - how we have constantly had to fight for our rights and equality and why the people and the landowners were objecting:
- … government has not provided sufficient reasons for acquiring the whole 32 square miles. The people object to the manner of carrying out the acquisition by gazettal rather than by the customary means of dealing with individual landowners. Most importantly, they object to the almost complete lack of information to the people affected regarding the consequences of the acquisition. They object particularly to the basis of compensation and the absence of plans upon which landowners could decide whether to cease lease back arrangements.
In other words, they gave them no information at all. The decision was taken out of the hands of the Northern Territory and the Legislative Council at that time - which objected to it as well - and put in the hands of the Commonwealth and some unknown faceless people from the various states. Further:
- They object to the arbitrary nature of the proposal which ignores the opinion of the Legislative Council. They object because the government failed to allow for expression of opinion.
And so on and so forth. There were many people in the Northern Territory Legislative Council at that time who also went in to bat for these many landowners. Mr Kentish said:
- The battlers out there, many of whom have spent half a lifetime in the Territory, are to be chased off their land to provide cheap land for people coming from the south.
Sounds familiar:
- The method of this acquisition is unique .. the method of going about it is a threat to the whole of Australia ... The majority of these people are anxious to retain their holdings and their homes.
- Mr Kilgariff pointed out that, in this particular case the Legislative Council was not even consulted.
So, the Legislative Council, which comprised half elected members of the time, was not even consulted. It goes on.
- Mr Withnall, an Independent member, said:
- The people of the Northern Territory suffer from two disabilities. The first is that the Commonwealth may not acquire any land in any State unless it is for Commonwealth purposes. In the Northern Territory, the purpose is for any purpose at all for which the parliament has the power to make laws ... Thus, the Commonwealth is no longer limited in acquisition. The other disability is that there is no constitutional guarantee in the Northern Territory that just terms will be provided ...
Mr Bell, whom I mentioned in my speech on the Queensland floods, was a Labor member of the Legislative Council and is on the record as saying:
- The attitude of some members of the bureaucracy at the meeting was to be deplored.
Of course, there were meetings in regard to the acquisition.
Further, there are quotes by Mrs Lawrie, who we know is the member for Karama’s mother, an Independent member, and Mr Ward, a Labor member, who supported the motion. Mr Withnall commented in regard to the fact that the Territory and the Legislative Council had been ignored.
To highlight further the work which was put in by people on the ground and by the local elected members to protect the interests of people in the Territory, Senator Jessop from South Australia was also a supporter of the Territory and its rights at the time. They tried to discredit the petition and the landholders at the time - that there were not as many affected as they claimed. For the interest of members, there are still many families who were affected by this 32 square mile acquisition. I will list a few which may jog people’s memories:
- Ross Ainsworth; Albert Albany, who passed away recently, was one of the major landholders in this area; Angliss Abattoirs was affected; Charles Barclay, our neighbour; John Buscall, who is related to the Barden family, was affected; Heather Gillies, a neighbour; Terrence Hand; Joondana Investments - people would know that name; Jean MacKenzie and her husband, Alex, who set up the first Yarrawonga Zoo; John and Lorna McNamee - the McNamee family is well known for the funeral services; Shirley Osgood; Anthony John and Judith Anne Pickering - we know that name; Port Darwin Motors; some dodgy characters called Phillipus Purich and Cecilia Noel Purich; Randazzo Holdings; Erich Rheinlander; the Scaturchios - Giuseppe, Euginio and Dominic; Georgina Schombacher - we have the Schombacher Building; and Peter Spillett.
That was a list of some of the people affected by the legislation the Commonwealth introduced. Suffice to say all the protests and work to stop that legislation did not help; it was passed and the land was acquired.
To cut a long story short, the powers that be at the time decided Darwin would not develop east of the Berrimah Line. Of course, it went west, and Palmerston and the rest is history. However, it left a very sour taste in many people’s mouths. Some of those people, like me, are still here. It probably explains our distrust of the Commonwealth and what is still happening today.
The Chief Minister referred to the forcing of the nuclear waste facility to the Northern Territory. We know only too well what happened following negation of the Northern Territory legislation regarding the rights of the terminally ill. There are probably some other examples back in time where the Commonwealth has forced its view and position on the Northern Territory. However, it is pleasing - and the minister referred to it in her speech – that is behind us and we have learnt from those mistakes - and they were mistakes which affected many people’s lives.
We have strong, bipartisan support in the Northern Territory parliament, and we have strong, tri-partisan support in the Commonwealth parliament. However, we have much more work to do in the Commonwealth parliament. We were well received in our recent visit to talk with Commonwealth parliamentarians, and we have more work to do on that.
In summary, the road to statehood is reaching a crucial time. We have to get the mechanics right; we have to get all the people at the table; and we have to take the people with us, which I believe we are doing. We have much more work to do in the Northern Territory. I believe support from the rest of the country is very good. A recent polling in the Sydney Morning Herald and the National Times indicated over 75% support from people who thought we should become a state.
I believe our biggest challenge will be getting delegates to the convention and getting them to work in a cooperative way to achieve positive outcomes for everyone’s future, and do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
I congratulate all members of the Statehood Steering Committee, past and present, and people who will become involved with the convention. I have already started talking to people in my electorate, and other electorates, about how they should nominate for election, particularly young people, because if they are 17 now, in three or four years time, they will be 24 or 25 and very active members of our community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations to the minister, Madam Speaker, and all involved. I wish everyone well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I regard myself as a very proud Territorian. I have lived here long enough, I believe, to claim that status - married in the Territory, children all raised in the Territory, and love the Territory. I appreciate all the work the Statehood Steering Committee has done in bringing forward this report today.
I will say some things people may not concur with. I am a supporter of statehood, although I have my concerns about the manner in which that is formed. I congratulate the committee on this document, which is a good document for people to look for some of the answers to those questions. The debate around federalism, the numbers of tiers of government we have, is a debate we should still have. It probably does not stop the debate about whether we should be a state, but it is an important debate many people are interested in. You hear, from time to time, people say we are over-governed and that debate also needs to happen.
I take a slightly different point of view. I see, to some extent, statehood as being important, but I still see it as a luxury item. I ask myself, as a member of this parliament and a citizen of the Northern Territory: are we worthy of statehood? That is the question I believe people should ask. I ask that from two levels: should we be equal with other states and other citizens of Australia? I think we should, especially when it comes to the issue of voting in referenda and the right to pass our own laws. I also need to take a reality check in that it really does not have a great personal effect on me. Maybe if it is a law you agree with and it is overturned, it will have more personal effect. However, there has only been one law that has been overridden by the Commonwealth. That is not to say I believe the Commonwealth should override our laws; I am just trying to put things into perspective. We have had a few referenda but we still have our vote counted - we just do not have it counted in the same way as the states. We still vote in referenda.
We should be equal with the rest of Australia. That is why we should be worthy of statehood. Sometimes, though, we need a reality check. We need to show the rest of Australia we are worthy of statehood. I have great difficulty in getting over-exuberant - and I can feel the passion for statehood. I heard the member for Blain talk about the history of people like Bern Kilgariff, a man I loved. I know he was passionate about statehood. But I need a reality check because I look at the Territory today and ask: are we worthy of statehood? Will the rest of Australia say we are worthy of statehood when we have enormous numbers of children in this society who do not go to school, who have very poor literacy and numeracy skills; high unemployment in Aboriginal communities, sometimes hidden by an average unemployment figure in CDP; and 80% of Indigenous people in prison? They are the type of things we need to fix before we can say we are ready for statehood. Those issues concern me. We can get caught up in the hype, in the patriotic fervour for being a state, but are we really missing the point?
I would rather see fewer people in prison, fewer Indigenous people in prison, more Indigenous people working, less child abuse - we talk about that day after day – and better law and order. How much has that been debated in this parliament? I would like to see every Aboriginal kid go to school. As the Chief Minister said in his statement on government priorities in 2011 which he made to parliament the other day, referring to his party, his government:
- We will not rest until we have every child attending school at least 90% of the time ...
I put that as the challenge; that is the bottom line for statehood for me. When every child is attending school 90% of the time, then we should be saying we are worthy of statehood. I do not think it is something we should frivolously want because it will make us look good and we will have equal opportunities in voting and passing our laws. I believe we need to deal with the issues before us before we can say, with our hand on our heart, that we deserve to be equal with the rest of Australia.
We should be putting our money not necessarily into statehood conventions - they are nice and we have to have a statehood convention. However, I would find it hard to say I solidly support this move to statehood when I know there are citizens out there who do not have equal rights. We claim on one hand we want to be equal with the rest of the Commonwealth and, on the other hand, we have young people, especially many Indigenous people, who do not have those equal rights. At the present time, they do not have the opportunities many Australians have. We need to work hard to change those things around. That is what I would rather be more passionate about.
I do not want to see a prison full of people, especially 80% Indigenous, I want to see Aboriginal people who are doctors, lawyers, teachers - fully-qualified teachers - and people who stand up to lead the rest of this Territory. I want to see employment in communities. I do not want to see overcrowding in houses. I do not want to see alcohol abuse destroying people’s lives. I want to see the people in the Northern Territory equal, physically, spiritually, and economically, with the rest of the country. When we do that, then I will give my total support to statehood. That is not to say I will not support the concept of statehood, because it is a good thing. However, I will not have my heart in it unless we have change in the Northern Territory for the betterment of all people in the Northern Territory.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the principles of statehood and acknowledge the comments of my colleague, the member for Nelson, because I believe they are absolutely true. If we are talking about equality with other states in this nation, then we need to have equality first and foremost with Territorians - black or white. There are also non-Indigenous Territorians who live below the poverty line, have appalling education standards, are in the prison system, and have poor health.
I have attended many constitutional committees in the past, where, with the Country Liberal Party, we spoke about having statehood in the Northern Territory. The frightening thing for Aboriginal people is the lack of consultation. I know the steering committee has gone to remote Aboriginal communities and met with the 2030 people in remote Aboriginal communities, but the vast majority of the population also needs to be educated. You have taken the steps to have a forum where everyone can be included. However, unless there is equality in good education, good curriculum, good training, and the health standards we have in other states in Australia, like the member for Nelson, I believe it is the airy-fairy stuff we are going for, rather than dealing with antisocial behaviour, poor attendance in education, poor health, and poor housing.
We need people to become involved in economic engagement -- to understand they have the economic ability to participate in society as an educated, healthy Territorian, free of violence, domestic violence, and child abuse. Those are really the things we should be striving for in the Northern Territory, to get that equity of the things we all have in this House. The fact is, as politicians, we have had that good quality of education. I will leave my comments there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I note it is almost 12 noon and my comments may be somewhat longer than that as I would like to respond to each member who has spoken today on this important debate.
I thank the Chief Minister for his contribution. He talked about the referendum in 1999 for Australia to become a republic. I would like to add that it was then that I realised I had moved from Brisbane across the border in 1985, and had become a lesser citizen than I had been before. I was very excited that in the Northern Territory a significant majority of Territorians had voted yes for a republic. However, because it turned out our votes were only counted as part of the majority the referendum for a constitutional monarchy to be overturned did not get up. If we had been a state and we had been counted in that way, it would probably have been that the republic would have been with us.
The Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition referred to statehood not being a barbecue stopping topic. I have to agree with them. That means members in this Chamber and others have to pick up the mantle and discuss this. Constitutional development is not an exciting topic, and it is quite complicated to discuss. If you are talking about the Australian Constitution, the majority of Australians have never seen the document, which is regrettable. If we were Americans, everyone knows what is in their constitution. In fact, if you become an American citizen you have to learn these things by heart and you have to know all the presidents and all sorts of things. Australians do not know much about their history and constitution, and that is a very sad aspect of Australian life.
Much was said about the forums. There were 50 forums across the Northern Territory and 42 of them were held in remote areas. The member for Macdonnell talked about consultation with Aboriginal people. This is one of the most significant aspects of having to get it right for us to become a state. It did not happen the right way the last time, which is why we have spent so much time trying to consult properly with every Territorian.
If you are asking people to come to a forum, the level of interest can be high or low, depending on where you live. The most amazing thing about the process with the forums last year was that in remote parts of the Territory we had very large turn-outs of people. For example, in Elliott, which is a place of only 500 people, more than 100 people came to that meeting. Can you imagine anywhere else in Australia where one-fifth of the population came to a meeting? They engaged in the conversation in a very real way. Similarly, in Yuendumu we had a group of about 60 people. We had the two main families - as we know there are issues at Yuendumu - who came in a spirit of wishing to know more about it. We were originally only going to go for two hours. We were still there five hours later and they have asked us back for more meetings.
We found this to be particularly helpful, and it has made us feel quite positive about the next step towards statehood. I have to agree that the issues dealing with Aboriginal land rights and what would happen there are very significant, and not issues which this Assembly can deal with in a very fast or easy manner ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, as it is midday, you will have the opportunity when we return from the luncheon break to conclude your remarks.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Alice Springs Desert Knowledge Australia Leadership participants accompanied by Mr John Rawnsley. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Final Report and Recommendations
Note Paper – Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee – Final Report and Recommendations
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue summing up the speakers who spoke very eloquently in debate this morning.
The Chief Minister spoke about how important it was to get it right, and there was really only this one chance. That is a very significant thing to say, and was discussed at length by the Statehood Steering Committee. It was also repeated at the forums. Territorians have to get it right, so the process has to be right. The one outlined by the Statehood Steering Committee is a good beginning of a plan.
The Chief Minister also talked about the importance of young people and remarked on the 16- and 17-year-olds and their capacity to vote as delegates at the constitutional convention. He also discussed the possibility that, maybe, there could be some kind of legislative ability to have 16- and 17-year-olds voting in a future referendum. That is a very exciting possibility. In many ways, statehood is about the future of the Northern Territory so we want to include as many younger people as possible.
I take up the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that we should be able to have a full range of people, including bald people! Bald people, of course, will be allowed to be delegates unless they are members of parliament. We were looking at ensuring no politician - federal or Territory - could stand as a delegate in a constitutional convention. Even if you are bald, I am afraid, member for Nelson, or have any other coloured or type of hair, no politician would be part of this because it should be about the people of the Northern Territory. Members of parliament in this Chamber have a capacity, at a later date, to have a say on what happens with the constitution. This is a process about the people of the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister and also the Leader of the Opposition raised eventual equality. These are terms we have been using in all reporting and, as has been mentioned by all speakers, when you speak to parliamentarians in our federal parliament, their interest is more in the number of representatives we might be seeking. At the time of Federation in 1901, we had a population greater than Tasmania, and Tasmania now has only 450 000 people - only about 100 000 people more than we now have. Tasmania has guaranteed in the Australian Constitution five members of the House of Representatives and 12 Senators. When we get to having the same population as Tasmania, there is a very good case for the same level of representation. That should be a significant part of our conversations with the Commonwealth.
The Leader of the Opposition also gave a very interesting history of Mr Macalister Blain. It was fascinating. I believe it shows the Territory really has had little representation for a very long time. It is only since 1978 and self-government we have had proper representation. I remember when we had the condolence debate for the late Mr Sam Calder. He used to be called ‘Silent Sam’. It was not because he did not want to say anything; it was because he was not allowed to say anything.
The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the issue of money; that is, the funding to the Territory. I remind members that since 1988 the Territory has been funded as a state. We had an opinion from the Solicitor-General which suggests there was no reason to believe we would not continue being funded as a state should we change our status.
A key theme that has come up from all speakers has been the respect for our laws. That also came up in the forums. The Leader of the Opposition talked about land rights. I mentioned earlier this is a very significant issue and one which we have to get right. There needs to be an inclusive process.
In relation to the constitutional convention the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, apart from having elected delegates for this, there will also be people there to advise. We have already engaged, as part of the Constitutional Convention Committee, Professor George Williams, who is probably Australia’s pre-eminent constitutional lawyer. We have advice that Professor Anne Toomey and Professor Cheryl Saunders, two other constitutional lawyers, have agreed to be part of the constitutional convention. Obviously, the delegates at the convention are not going to be expected to understand everything, so we will need to have people who know about these things to advise the delegates. We are working very hard on the Constitutional Convention Committee to ensure we have in place significant information and ways of assisting people at that convention so we come up with the right constitution for the people of the Northern Territory.
I thank the Minister for Statehood for the passion in her speech and the history she gave of the Statehood Steering Committee. I thank her for all the work she put in during her many years as the Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee. She spent much time, in the early days, working with our federal counterparts and getting them to realise that, while this is a tough journey, we are still interested.
When I was listening to the minister, it reminded me of Australia and how, as members, we probably remember - or those of you who are a bit older would remember - in 1975 the Whitlam government, for the first time, changed the capacity of the Privy Council in England to look at and overturn our laws. It was not until 1986 that the Australia Act prevented that from happening anymore. When you look back, it seems unbelievable that, in 1976, a law which was passed in our federal parliament could have been overturned by Privy Councillors who were literally men in England. It just seems completely outrageous. For me, the comparison here is our laws should not be overturned either. Maybe the Commonwealth could be reminded of the Privy Councillors.
The Minister for Statehood also talked about the complexity of information in the Northern Territory, and the 100 Aboriginal languages and languages of multicultural groups in the Northern Territory. We spent much time in the forums; we had interpreters at all appropriate forums, and materials were written in other languages.
The member for Goyder, who is an original member of the Statehood Steering Committee, gave a very passionate speech about statehood, quoting interesting historical documents about history and land acquisition, and I thank her for that. I also thank the member for Goyder for her bipartisanship, particularly when we travelled to both Brisbane and Canberra. I can only begin to tell you how important that is. This should not be about any government or any opposition; this is about the whole people of the Northern Territory and how we walk together.
Member for Nelson, while I respect your position, I do not agree with your position in relation to statehood. I am a supporter of statehood for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that I feel offended that I do not have the same rights I had when I lived in Brisbane or Melbourne. As an Australian, I do not think that is acceptable. The argument that we should have fewer people in gaol, poverty should be overcome and all these things, while of course all those things should happen – although I might say that people are only in gaol because they committed crimes and, therefore, should stay in gaol, no matter how many of them there are - the reality is that, in 1901 when the six states became a Federation, there was no suggestion those six states were perfect.
I do not think there is any suggestion that the six states, at the moment, are perfect. Of course, the Northern Territory is not a perfect place either. However, just because we are not perfect we should not move to the next stage. It is possible to do more than one thing as well. While matters to do with health, education, public safety, and any number of things are extraordinarily important, it is also important that you balance that life with recreational things, plus constitutional development. So, I feel that this is a natural progression - something like the train which the Leader of the Opposition referred to from the late Bern Kilgariff.
While I appreciate and respect that position, I do not agree with it. You need to keep doing things, otherwise you will be - I believe the expression is, justice delayed is justice denied, as mentioned by a famous American jurist.
I thank also the member for Macdonnell for her comments. They were similar to the member for Nelson and, once again, I remind her of the significant importance of us doing the right level of consultation with our Aboriginal community, and I invite her to be part of any discussion, should she wish.
As a final comment, I certainly do not agree with the comments that have suggested getting rid of states altogether. My view is that the kind of people who have been making public comments about getting rid of states tend to have been former Prime Ministers not, in fact, the people. You would expect that former Prime Ministers who, perhaps, did not like dealing with states, might say that kind of thing.
I reflect also that the last time we were under the direct control of the Commonwealth - and I refer you to something which would be very familiar to members in this House - in 1976 we had a new hospital built in Darwin by the Commonwealth. I was Health minister from 2001 to 2003, and I went out to the Royal Darwin Hospital - and it is quite different going out as a minister. I remember walking around the property with Dr Len Notaras. I said to him: ‘What are all these ditches around the hospital, Len?’ He said to me: ‘Well, that is the moat, minister’. I said: ‘What do you mean that is the moat?’ He said: ‘Well, you see those snow ledges up there. When the snow melts, it is going to go down into the moat and we will have no issues’. He told me how our hospital was designed on the Woden Hospital in Canberra and also another hospital in Canada. I must say, even the Commonwealth might have noticed we are living in the tropics and it was probably 35oC at the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all speakers today, and particularly thank the Statehood Steering Committee.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS) BILL
(Serial 136)
(Serial 136)
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House were going to take this matter into committee. Unfortunately, we have only 10 minutes to touch on these things, so I will only touch on one issue. Because of the issues I raised, and the member for Brennan so ably raised yesterday, we will not be required to take this into committee. However, the government has chosen, by its strategic approach to introducing this bill, a perilous approach to the future of container deposit legislation, not only in the Northern Territory but for the nation as a whole.
I do not have time to revisit all the details of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, as I outlined yesterday. Suffice to say the government has now, by its own admission in this place, acknowledged it does not have in its possession the required acquiescence of the other jurisdictions under the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. The consequence of this is that this bill may not yet find its way into Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and, as a consequence of that, the government of the Northern Territory will, in all likelihood, find itself having to fight the legitimacy of this legislation in a court.
The government assures members on this side of the House - and Territorians as a whole - that it has the required legal advice to give it great comfort that it is prepared to take this risk. One thing I know about court cases is that you are never certain of the outcome. Moreover, why would a government set itself on a course of having to spend, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees on a court case which it may or may not win?
The reason I am concerned is because if the requisite permission is not given by all jurisdictions in relation to the introduction of this bill into Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, then they will be committed to that path. The political ramifications are potentially enormous for CDL. The issue is, if this government fails to achieve its objective of winning this matter either in COAG or in a court, and finds itself in the position that this bill and the scheme are suddenly deemed to be in breach of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and, therefore, inoperable, then this government will have made a calamitous mistake in the eyes of Territorians who generally support the CDL scheme.
The reason I call this such a perilous issue at a national level is that any other government which is contemplating going down this path and knows it cannot receive the support of all of its COAG colleagues - therefore being stuck with exactly the same problem this government may find itself stuck with - will not want to suffer the same calamitous embarrassment which would occur for this government. It would be electoral cancer for any other government to advance this if they lose this gamble.
The consequences of this are this government, in its imprudent, perhaps intemperate, haste to advance this policy in defiance of the propositions outlined by the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 - has done so in circumstances which will, ultimately, lead to their embarrassment - then CDL, at a national level, could well be wiped out unless COAG changes its mind. That is an enormous risk to take. There is a parallel example for this government. Cast your minds back to the haste with which it pursued the pool fencing legislation, in spite of warnings to the contrary and, ultimately, found itself back in this place having to readjust that legislation substantially so it could finally take a workable form.
No reason has been given by this government in this House which justifies the risk it is taking. Whilst it has, as part of its policy, advanced a container deposit legislation scheme, it should have tied off on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 aspects of this process. Failure to do so and obtain COAG agreement before introducing it into this House has opened up the potential of the issue I raise.
Third reading speeches are not usual unless some substantial point has to be made. My point is I hope the government knows what it is doing in relation to this issue because, if COAG does not agree universally to adopt this legislation into Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, there will be a court case. On a national level, tens of millions of dollars are riding on this, from the packaging industry’s point of view. It will use everything at its disposal to confront and attempt to defeat this legislation. It will do it in the interests of the industry. When tens of millions of dollars are up for grabs, industries are happy to pay for lawyers. If you do not score the COAG agreement, I find it impossible to imagine the packaging industry would not find a vehicle to put this matter into court and test the legitimacy of this legislative instrument against the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
We have gone beyond the threshold. The gate has closed behind us as a jurisdiction unless the minister chooses not to advance this bill from this point onwards. It is a very difficult thing to imagine. However, he has set himself and the government of the Northern Territory upon this course; he has set CDL in the whole country upon this course.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope and I pray it does not turn into an enormous mess. If it does, the minister who champions this bill as passionately as he does could, by virtue of an error of history and judgment, be the minister who kills off CDL in this country for the next 10 to 15 years.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also realise this is the third reading speech; however, I support the government’s legislation because we need to support it.
The member for Port Darwin talked about the power of the beverage industry. It is time a government stood up to the power of the beverage industry and, if it has to be the Northern Territory, so be it. We have to make a stand - I have had 20 years of bullying from the industry. I know what it is like and believe it is time the little people - in this case represented by the Northern Territory - stood up and said this is what we want for the benefit of the Territory, the environment, local government, and our community. I congratulate the government. There are some issues; however, there comes a time when you have to make that stand. It might have some risks but we still have to take that stand.
For too long the delay in any national CDL scheme has been because of impediments put in place by the beverage industry, through the product stewardship, through the national covenant – they are all deliberate stumbling blocks to stop the introduction of container deposit schemes throughout Australia. I know because I have been down that path.
I would like the industry, instead of being the stumbling block, to come on board. This is the little old Territory. I would like the industry to support what is going on to ensure it works. We use 1% of the total production of beverage containers in Australia. We are chicken feed when it comes to an extra cost for these industries.
You have to realise these industries make enormous profits. In fact, today Coca-Cola Amatil announced their nett profit of $506.6m, up 10% from last year. We all know the products Coca-Cola sell right throughout the Territory. Lion Nathan, beer and flavoured milk manufacturers, had an increase of 7.3% in last year’s profits. Their earnings for 2010 were $597.7m. These industries can pay something towards our environment, our local government costs, and to keep the Territory clean. I do not think that is too much to ask them. It is time they accepted that the majority of people want this system to work.
Alice Springs is the classic example of showing that people will support this scheme – 10 million containers have been collected by the Alice Springs Town Council at only 5 a can. It would be great if the industry now said: ‘Yes, we can see it working. We have seen it working in Alice Springs, at Lajamanu, and at the Freds Pass Show. We know it worked in years gone by. We will come along and do something as a good corporate citizen, and help the Northern Territory be a cleaner, greener, and better place to live’.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I realise this is unusual in the third reading stage of legislation; however, we made a conscious decision yesterday not to take this into committee if the government could provide the answers we would have, no doubt, asked in the committee stage. Other than the Chief Minister’s rhetoric yesterday, the other ministers involved, including ministers Hampton and Burns, actually took the time to answer some of those questions. I thank the ministers for that.
I have enjoyed listening to the debate. I must say I only wish the Chief Minister had taken the time to listen to the debate yesterday. You could read through that debate - and please check Hansard - and, at no time did the Country Liberals say we were going to oppose this legislation. It has just been a political angle from this government to suggest otherwise, to say we were in bed with industry, and to come out with quotes and allegations such as the Coca-Cola company is going to be supporting our next election campaign. For the record, I tell you right now, I can list the people I met with in regard to investigating this legislation. I can tell you that I did not ever meet with the Coca-Cola company. That is one particular company I did not meet with. Let us get that clear right now.
I have a responsibility as the shadow minister with regard to this legislation; that is, to perhaps provide advice, detail, and research I have uncovered. From that point of view, whatever model of recycling or container collection, we want this to work. The research I undertook during this lengthy period uncovered some uncomfortable Commonwealth legislation, and other costs and hidden agendas from different people, and it would have been irresponsible for me not to raise them in this House. That is my job. In fact, I would be derelict in my duty if I had not raised some of the concerns yesterday.
I was very angry at the response. I tried to work out, to unpack, how the Chief Minister, after my debate yesterday, came to be in the frame of mind he was. I can only think that on the fifth floor there has been a perception that the Country Liberals, sometime, were not going to support this legislation. That was their entire tack. In fact, his entire speech and the rhetoric was as if I had said: ‘We are not going to support this legislation because of this, this and this’. Had I done that, that is the response I would have expected. To the credit of the other ministers, though, they did provide decent responses. But it was absolute rhetoric; it was purely political and had nothing to do with what is best for the Northern Territory.
If we are going to have a model of CDL in the Northern Territory it has to work - there is too much at play here, because the rest of the country could fall over. We could put recycling and perhaps CDL, or even the product stewardship program - whatever model is chosen in future - back a decade.
I want to clarify one other thing the Chief Minister said yesterday about me pulling out of an offer to go to South Australia. For the record, the previous minister for the Environment, Alison Anderson, through the member for Nelson, Mr Wood, offered departmental funding for me to visit South Australia to look at the model. I went to the leader, spoke to my colleagues and thought: This may not be a bad idea; I might take them up on the offer. On chasing up the offer, I was informed it had been withdrawn.
That does not stop me using my own parliamentary entitlements for that journey. For other reasons I did not. I looked at the ACT’s waste and recycle program when I was at a CPA conference. I did not go to South Australia, but I did a hell of lot of research. For the Chief Minister to say I had refused to go, or did not want to go, or whatever, is completely wrong. The offer was pulled.
I was criticised yesterday for raising in my debate a question I had not raised in the briefing. Apparently, I have to turn up with a pen. I have a mind; I can listen and respond. It was pretty poor for the department to tell the minister I seemed unprepared for a particular meeting when, at that stage of my journey, I thought I was pretty much 80% through what I needed to know about this legislation. I was disappointed to hear those responses. One step further to the point made yesterday about why I did not raise some of these issues at the briefing that I raised in the debate. I can tell you that the journey had not stopped then. I had only recently had it brought to my attention through research that some of these anomalies were outstanding. There were things brought up in yesterday’s debate that I did not know prior to the meeting with the department. That is the reason I did not raise some of these concerns.
For the record, I want to state this in regard to the trip to New Zealand: an offer was made to both the member for Nelson and me to be funded for a trip to New Zealand to look at the stewardship program in action. I honestly thought we would be debating this legislation in the March sittings; I thought that would be the logical time, the Minister for Central Australia being there debating this legislation. I thought we probably had a little more time. As it turned out, information I received was that it was likely to be debated here.
I spoke to the member for Nelson, who could not take up the offer to go to New Zealand at this time but was going to consider going after these sittings. I decided it was a good idea to go, but felt uncomfortable that industry had offered and they were going to pay. I made a personal choice to pay for the trip so there would be no ambiguity, no thinking we had been bought out or anything like that. Therefore, I self-funded the trip. To say the industry was not involved is not quite correct, because they helped organise a few of the meetings with the minister for Environment, with MPs, and with the department of Environment. I had a meeting with the industry while I was in Wellington. So, there was involvement, but it was not financial. The information I received from an independent government source, was invaluable to this debate.
Some of the things uncovered yesterday still spark some fear in my mind. Both sides want this to work. If the Country Liberals take government at the next election, we would be taking ownership of this legislation and have to drive this, so we want to have the right vehicle to drive. As early as this morning, I still had stalwarts of the CDL legislation telling me the government has chosen the wrong model.
What worries me more is the Commonwealth legislation and what I was told yesterday. I am saying this purely and simply - as the member for Port Darwin did - as a warning, to ensure the government covers everything – that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. What worried me yesterday when I heard the legal advice the government received on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 was they felt comfortable it would not breach that act, but they were still going to COAG in South Australia to seek support. Why would you go to COAG if you were comfortable with that legal advice?
As the member for Port Darwin said, we want to ensure this is done right. We want to ensure the model selected now, once this legislation passes, is the right model for the Northern Territory, and delivers on the outcomes promised for the betterment, not only of the Northern Territory but for Australia. Remember, if you are going to pick a fight make sure of your ground!
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions during the third reading. Touching on the points from the member for Nelson, he has highlighted for us the enormous profits these companies are making – over $1bn of profit for the two companies he mentioned alone - from the products they sell.
I thank the member for Brennan for his contribution as well, and say from the outset we are bringing landmark environmental legislation. This work has been undertaken for such a long time, and it is very important from the outset that government is clear on where it is going and what we want to achieve in environmental protection, particularly with container deposits and the banning of plastic bags.
We looked very carefully at the different models. We sought the advice of one of the most senior constitutional lawyers and law experts in Australia. That is why we are basing our model on the South Australian model, which is run by the beverage industry. We can see why they have put up such a big campaign to have this knocked over.
In the words of the great John Lennon: ‘Power to the people’. We know 80% of Territorians support this; it is what Territorians want. I join the member for Nelson in saying that I call on the beverage industry to be good corporate citizens, not to waste any more of their profits on fighting it, but to put their profits into supporting it.
Regarding the legal issues the member for Port Darwin raised - and we had a bit of a chat about that yesterday - I take on board his expertise in legal matters. As I said, we sought advice from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia. I will again go over the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, and ensure we have on the public record the issues he raised about the legal liability of this scheme we are proposing. Section 9 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 creates the Mutual Recognition Principle, and this is elaborated on in section 10. As I said yesterday, we need to be careful about drawing inferences around the South Australian exemption but, regardless, I point out that sections 9 and 10 are subject to some general exceptions set out in section 11 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
We are confident, on our legal advice, that exceptions in section 11 apply to the container deposit scheme. That section establishes the Mutual Recognition Principle, does not apply to laws that are substantially concerned with the manner of sales of goods, or to laws which target environmental pollution by regulating transportation, storage or handling of goods. Those matters are exactly what the container deposit scheme is all about. On strong legal advice received, and from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia as well, we do not accept the proposition put forward by the opposition which, incidentally, is the argument put forward by the beverage industry.
I will not go over the statistics or some of the issues members have raised because a majority of people in this House support the passing of this landmark environmental legislation. We know how much it is going to clean up our environment; how much it is going to reach all Territorians, and we have the best legal advice in case people want to test it out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, again, power to the people! I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 144)
(Serial 144)
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have carriage of this bill which was originally introduced by the Chief Minister. I do not intend to go over the Chief Minister’s second reading speech; it is all about setting the salaries of MLAs in the Northern Territory and linking that to the public service for increases granted through an enterprise bargaining process.
I do not have anything to add to what the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech. I understand there is an amendment in the committee stage to put some more detail in parts of these amendments.
- Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Amendment Bill (Serial 144) together with Schedule of Amendments No 55 circulated by the Chief Minister, Mr Henderson.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 55.1 and invite defeat of clause 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 negatived.
New clause 4:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 55.2. The amendment has been circulated. Basically, the purpose of this committee stage amendment is to reflect government’s commitment to align the basic salary movement of MLAs with Northern Territory public servants.
As members, and the public, is aware, the Northern Territory Public Service recently received a 3% pay increase. The committee stage amendment ensures members’ salaries reflect the same agreed outcome recently negotiated in the enterprise bargaining agreement. This commitment by the Territory government began in 2009 and this amendment delivers on that commitment. I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 55.3. I do not really have any more to add to what I have already said in relation to these amendments, and I recommend that the House agree to them.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CONTROL OF ROADS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 142)
(Serial 142)
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we have a speaker from the opposition?
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Sorry, Madam Speaker, I was thinking of a few things. I support this bill ...
Ms Scrymgour: You do think, do you?
Mr BOHLIN: I was just thinking about you – having a lovely thought - sitting back having lattes with you.
Ms Scrymgour: At least you have a smile about it, Ross.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You can have that romantic talk later, please.
Mr BOHLIN: We support this bill. They are logical amendments. To clarify, unlike the confusion which occurred under the CDL, we support this bill, but we have some questions. I will put them simply. There is a reference in proposed new section 31A, the wording ‘just terms compensation’ which, on advice from the NT Solicitor-General, has been worded as such. Can we have that advice from the NT Solicitor-General tabled? If not, please explain why that would be the case. We would like to see that explanation. It would ensure those applying for that compensation under that part of the act have full clarity of what they would be entitled to if they have a decent fight.
Second, the minister has mentioned infringement notices may be issued for offences under section 11. Could we have an indication as to the actual fine that will be imposed upon those traffic infringement notices? Do not take this as a negative because, to me, it is a really efficient way of dealing with people who have breached any laws in regard to closed roads and restricted roads. Having traffic infringement notices is a very effective way of dealing with regulatory-based offences. It would be good to know what that penalty would actually be; if the minister could answer during the third reading.
Under section 11, Part 8, there is an excuse provision which allows a reasonable excuse. The reasonable excuse, from what I can see here, is section 11(8):
- Without limiting subsection 7, it is a reasonable excuse if the person has consent from the competent authority for the road,
(a) to use the road that is closed under the section; or
It goes on further, under Part 9, to deem what is a ‘competent authority’:
- … for a road, means the person, body or authority (including the Territory) having the care, control and management of the road.
I would like to know whether the intent behind this reasonable excuse meant to include such occasions where there is an extreme emergency. For example, there are already reasonable excuses for exceeding the speed limit such as trying to get someone to hospital. So, you understand my intent behind that question. Does that include for such incidences where there may be an extreme emergency? Not all road closures are about the water being 10 feet over the road and rising. There may be other restrictions that still allow a person to travel. They would be in breach simply by being on the road, but could have a reasonable excuse; namely, they are trying to get their family out for medical reasons, or whatever that reasonable excuse may be. I do not think it is an arduous task to see if that is included. You might agree that is a logical question.
I also understand, at the same time, why we want to include it. Once we put the restriction there, you have to try to comply with that restriction, particularly where there are road closures under extreme weather and it is putting other services at risk if someone finds themselves stranded there. When I was a police officer, I found myself dealing with the same crazy behaviour where you have to look for people who are stuck in road closed areas. The same risk is then applied to the police officer trying to rescue that person. We have seen it throughout Queensland in recent times, where people have been swept off the roads. We saw it last week in Darwin where people were swept off the road, or their vehicles were flooded and trapped on McMillans Road and also, I believe, on Trower Road. Emergency Services crews did a very good job responding to ensure people were not in those cars that were swept off the road. It is important we ensure there is a consequence for people who do stupid things, particularly if we are able to install road closures in time.
The other general concern is where we are imposing road closures; that we actually get reported and put on the websites quickly enough. One of the highlights of the cyclone last week was that some of the road closure reports were not accurate; they were not up to date. Whether that was simply overload - people were working extremely hard - but the reality was our main road, our highway, was regularly cut, not cut, cut, and not cut. I checked the website – I cannot quote the precise time, but say at about 8 am on Wednesday morning and the website said the Stuart Highway was open from Darwin to Katherine. So I advised a friend who was in Katherine: ‘The website suggests it is open, take it easy, be careful, come on up’. That person thought wisely and did take it easy, luckily enough, because just beyond Hayes Creek, on the Darwin side, the road was flooded. However, there were people who were not being smart about what they were doing and were testing the limits. The person involved watched someone start to drive in and, then luckily, managed to get back out of that road, open the doors, and the water poured everywhere.
It put many people out. You cannot change the fact that the roads were blocked, but they are just down the road from Darwin and there were no appropriate road closure warnings anywhere. With limited phone services, it made it very difficult. The queue for using the phones at Hayes Creek was extensive - so they could tell people where they were so they did not have worrying families. My advice, at the time, was to head back to Emerald Springs: ‘Get back a little further, settle in there, there are good people there who look after you well’. They make fantastic meals at Emerald Springs; there is good accommodation: ‘Hang out there until you get clearance that the roads are open’.
The clearance came from truck drivers on and off, on and off, on and off. That was the reporting process. We have a big country and we have to set up better systems if we can find better ways to do it. It is about learning different ways we can do things. You may even wish to ask one of your former colleagues, the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, as I believe she was at Emerald Springs for some time, trying to work out ways she could get her car on a truck to get back to Darwin because, in most parts, many of the trucks could get through. They have a heavier load, they have ground clearance, they were getting through, but sedans and light four-wheel drives had no chance. Maybe do some research with old Clare, the former Chief Minister, and see what she has to say about it.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: Chris, it is a problem. You do not have to highlight your age today. It is just one of those things. If we can learn from some of these things - they are very recent and relevant.
As soon as I was advised the Stuart Highway was closed I thought: Right, what should I do? Report the fact it is closed; see if warning signs can be put up so we do not have people pouring down the highway because they are trying to leave the impending threat of a cyclone? We do not want them to go into further trouble. I searched on my iPhone through the website to find a phone number which was difficult to find. Unless you are aware exactly where the phone number is - sometimes when we look at our own systems, because we know where they are we can quickly find them. You have to take a step back and look at it as if you are just another Territorian, an interstate person, or an overseas visitor who has no understanding of our systems. They need a user-friendly system where it is easy to find those numbers to ring.
I found the number, rang it, and it was overloaded - no use. It said ring back another time. So, I could not even include a road closure. I could not add to the system to advise other people to help protect the safety of Territorians. I did the next thing and rang the 131 444 number, the number to ring if you have non-urgent police matters. I rang the police and said: ‘I know this is generically not police but it does have an effect. I want to report the Stuart Highway is closed in the area of X to X. This is what I have been told, I have no greater details than this’. They were very helpful, very grateful and did what they had to do. I believe the road was opened in the late afternoon of Wednesday.
They are little things which can make a big difference. We are in a big Territory; however, when you look at the scope of things we are only talking about 300 km from here to Katherine. The road block was around 100 km from Darwin, so other agencies would have been working there, including police. We should have been looking at what could have been done better. I am sure you have taken note of that, minister, so let us hope we can add a few lessons to the learning book.
We need to talk about some of the longer-term issues regarding these road closures. It is great to see we have brought changes into this House to fix all the various controls of roads; however, we need to be using the control of roads more because we have neglected them for so long. That may mean speed restrictions and warning signs; the reality is we have neglected them. I take a case in point and I would like to table photos.
On 25 November 2009 – and we are in 2011 - during my adjournment debate, I raised the matter of the Arnhem Highway with the minister, the member for Barkly. The Arnhem Highway is still a little wet today - it probably does not effect it today because it is finished; you cannot use it at the moment. However, over a year ago, I mentioned the abhorrent condition of the roads through which, in recent years, we have, unfortunately, lost lives on. Some of those lives may have been lost due to the poor conditions, particularly the shoulders. I table four photographs I took which clearly show the white line is over on the far left edge, but the grass is growing up to a foot on to and inside the road. I advised the minister of this over 12 months ago. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these photos.
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is one of the set of four showing the road has broken away, the white line is obscured by the grass; it is supposed to be a clear white line. This is another one where the white line no longer exists; it is broken away. This is dangerous. You should have signs there, minister; you should be advising the public. You can see on this one ...
A member: How about they fix the road?
Mr BOHLIN: You could fix the road; that would be a novel idea.
In this photo you can see how far the wheel track has to go for the many tourist and transport buses which use this road daily - when the road is open that is. We have a vibrant tourist industry out there; we should, at a minimum, be putting massive warning signs up. You failed to act. I took my laptop across to the minister’s desk, if the minister recalls, and showed him the photos I took. The minister gave some indication - I cannot quote him verbatim - that, yes, it was terrible. I asked: ‘Do you know about it, minister?’ ‘No, but the crews will know about it and will have it in their forward projections’. Forward projection, my big toe! We are talking over 12 months later and about lives being lost in that region where roads are damaged. This is the Arnhem Highway, a major tourist highway. Like the Stuart Highway between Katherine and Darwin, the roads are in a pathetic state and have not had repairs to major damage in the last 12 months - not good enough. It is not about the last 10 years; I have given you 12 months warning on this. I can only imagine how bad they are today - not good enough.
I am supportive of the legislation before parliament, but it was a great opportunity to highlight where control of roads and speed restrictions may be applied - just because we failed to do our job, putting people’s lives at risk. Maybe there are ways you can tweak the budget a bit better, a bit differently, because we have had recent flooding. Maybe you will find some extra funds to fix those shoulders properly.
The irony of some of this is, going back three or four years ago, unfortunately, someone lost their life on the Lasseter Highway. Information from a credible source advised me - I was a police officer at the time - and many other police officers that the accident was a result of the road shoulders being worn away with massive drops. The very next day, road crews were out to fix the 100 m of road where the accident occurred. For the tens and hundreds of kilometres either side, nothing was done, but exactly where the accident was, it was fixed - too late.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it at that. It is good to see a bit of tidy work done - a bit of gardening, perhaps. However, you need to look at some of those other aspects particularly, getting on to our roads and fixing some of those things. I hope you take up some of the comments and investigate some of the points I raised.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, my contribution to this debate will be brief. I want to raise a particular point which has come about by putting a couple of things together regarding the changes in this legislation and one of the most recent government Gazettes.
In the legislation one of the proposed changes is a variation to the penalty applicable to travelling across a road that has a closure on it. I note closures are generally advised through the Gazette and a number of other means. The changes to the penalty regime proposed, per se, I do not have a problem with. I think it is a $50 penalty that has been around for a very long time, and the changes bring the penalty regime up to 100 penalty units, which equates to $13 300. Per se, I do not have a problem with that because, if a road is closed, it is closed for good reason. Of course, the closure is usually because any traffic on a road above a deemed restricted weight or combination of axles could cause significant damage to the road which is extremely costly to repair. I do not have a problem with that side of it.
In the government Gazette, G7, dated 16 February 2011, there are a couple of road closures advised. One of them is the temporary restriction to Edith Farms Road and also to Beasley Road. These two roads are 28 km from the centre of Katherine to the north. Edith Farms Road turns off the Stuart Highway and, then, Beasley Road comes off Edith Farms Road. These roads are within the municipality of Katherine. They are not under the ambit of the Katherine Town Council regarding maintenance. They are Northern Territory government roads. The nature of these particular roads is they service a number of rural blocks and businesses. There are people on Edith Farms Road and Beasley Road who run a few cattle, and there is an organic vegetable farm down that way as well.
This road restriction is going to necessarily affect the capacity of not only the residents, but also people who run businesses on Edith Farms Road from getting their produce out of their farms and into a market. If they were to breach this temporary road restriction, they could face a penalty under the new regime of $13 300. This road is not out in the boondocks or somewhere beyond the black stump. This is a road - in fact, two roads - 28 km from Katherine and within the municipality. Surely to goodness, a road of that nature should be in a fit state that temporary road restrictions should not have to be applied to it.
One then has to look at why these particular roads are in the state they are such that they require temporary road restrictions during the Wet Season. That is the bottom line; it is the amount of water lying around. The rain softens the road and causes it to break up under traffic. Why are these roads in such a state that they need to have temporary road restrictions? The answer is quite simple: the Northern Territory government has not improved those roads to the point they can be used all year round by vehicles heavier than 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. A 4.5 tonne gross mass vehicle is not a big truck ...
A member: Above a troop carrier.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, it is, basically above a troop carrier. A troop carrier weighs about 3 tonnes from memory, or has a GVM of around 3 tonnes. So, you are looking at a light truck. If you were living on Beasley Road or Edith Farms Road, you could not transport cattle out because most cattle crates have a GVM of greater than that. It is going to restrict the capacity of the proprietors of the organic farm from moving produce off their farm as well.
I condemn the Northern Territory government for not investing money in these particular roads. We are not talking about a road that is in the back of the boonies; this is a Katherine road, in the municipality of Katherine. Why in heaven’s name has this government – it has had 10 years to do it - not invested some money in these roads so the people who live in the municipality of Katherine can use that road freely all year around?
When the minister gets to his feet in closing debate, I would like him to tell the House, and me, and the people who live on Edith Farms Road or Beasley Road, what plans he and his government have for investing money in the upgrade of Edith Farms Road and Beasley Road. This has gone on way too long. I wonder how many times either the current minister or his predecessor, or the predecessor before that, has been cajoled, or even had a friendly conversation with some of the residents of that area and taken any of their views on board and done something about it? For example, when was the last time the minister spoke to Jim Forscutt? Jim Forscutt, the former Mayor of Katherine, is extremely vocal - and good on him for getting on his soapbox from time to time and bringing some of these issues to the fore. I would not mind betting the former Mayor, Jim Forscutt, has spoken to the minister and told him of his concerns about the way this government maintains, and does not upgrade, such important roads.
Perhaps the minister would like to answer some of those questions in his closing debate. It is just not good enough.
If you go to - I do not know, where is a road? That is a service road really; it is a road that services an area, a subdivision. It services a number of people who live there. If you drove to Wagait, that also services a living area, it services a subdivision. I guess it is similar in that respect, yet, it has significant …
A member: Fog Bay Road.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, I am not talking - well, there is Fog Bay Road too, that is another story. It is a beautiful bitumen road all the way out to Wagait and, apart from extremely heavy rainfall events, is a 365-day-a-year road. Why then, does a similar road - a road which services a rural subdivision and a number of businesses - not get the same treatment as the Wagait Road? Why is it not bitumen?
This government has been in receipt of significant GST revenue in the last few years. That is discretionary money. They could have found ways to spend it in a fashion which accommodates a very basic need for people to transport themselves and their goods, and run their livelihoods for 365 days of the year ...
Mr Knight: What is the Lajamanu Road like? Do you need a four-wheel drive to go on that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Lajamanu Road? Let me pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. If he was here to listen to what I was saying earlier, he would know that I was referring to roads within the municipality of Katherine, 28 km from the centre of town. I was not talking about the Lajamanu Road, which is hundreds of kilometres from anywhere, in the middle of a shire which does not receive sufficient funding to deal with the road issues it has. A shire which will, no doubt under this government, be handed back a complete basket case of roads in 2013.
You want to talk about the Lajamanu Road? There are a dozen roads; there are tons of roads in the Northern Territory which will be handed back to the shires in a basket case state. The birth of the shires was under the member for Daly when he was the Minister for Local Government. So, for him to start talking about particular roads and draw comparisons or contrasts which have nothing to do with what I am talking about - he should take a look at his own capacity and what he has done for the shires.
People from the Edith Farms and Beasley Roads areas should be afforded the same rights of passage across that road all year around. Again, I condemn government members for not looking beyond their navels. I condemn this government for not looking after the regions.
I remember when Alice Springs turned phones off to people from Darwin. They would not pick up the phone. Why? Because this government treated Alice Springs with contempt, and that was Alice Springs’ way of making a point and fighting back. It is no different in Katherine or across the regions of the Northern Territory. This government is focused only on the northern suburbs of Darwin. It does not do very much elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, I call on the government to invest money in the regional roads of the Northern Territory, and particularly to invest further funds in upgrading the Edith Farms Road and Beasley Road so weight restrictions will not have to be applied into the future, and the people who have businesses there and live there will not, potentially, be subject to a $13 300 fine for trying to live their lives and conduct their business.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this bill, a bill I am interested in from my local government background. However, as said to me during the briefings, this act does not apply to local government roads. It would be interesting to see whether the changes in this act might be taken up by some of the shires because I am unsure whether they have the same issue being addressed by these changes.
One of the issues I raised during the briefing was the definition of roads and the definition of a public street. It seems, under the Motor Vehicles Act you have a definition of a public street and under the Control of Roads Act you have a definition of a road. I understand these two definitions come from two different acts but I am still unsure whether there is any crossover in definitions. Under the Motor Vehicles Act:
- public street means any street, road, lane, thoroughfare, footpath or place open to, or used by, the public and includes a road on land leased under the Special Purposes Lease Act for use as a road …
It talks about any place open to the public.
Under the definition of roads in section 5(1)(c) of the Control of Roads Act it says a road means:
- land which, whether before or after the date when this Act comes into operation and whether within the limits of a mineral or gold field proclaimed under the Mining Act, or otherwise
(i) is proclaimed, dedicated, resumed or otherwise established as a public street, road or thoroughfare;
I have a query. I did not realise the word ‘public street’ appears up in the Control of Roads Act. If that public street definition you get from the Motor Vehicle Act is used in the place of that word, it says the Control of Roads Act can control or stop the use of public land used by anyone. For instance, if there is a track on forestry land, under the Motor Vehicles Act that is a public street. However, when you read the Control of Roads Act, it says that ‘road’ means ‘a public street’.
I am not asking the minister to give me a precise answer at the moment. I thought I understood it until I looked up the definitions again. I am raising this as there needs to be some uniformity in the definitions.
Recently, a person was booked for an unregistered quad bike on Gunn Point Beach – he is not a constituent, it is in my neighbour’s constituency. That is a bit strange as the beach belongs to the Land Corporation. I thought I had better look this up and, under the Motor Vehicles Act, ‘public street’ means ‘a street, road, lane, thoroughfare, footpath or place open to or used by the public’. I see under the definition of ‘road’, which is what we are talking about today, a road actually includes a public street. I just wondered if, technically, you can apply this act to tracks up the road through forestry land or the beach at Gunn Point? It might not be something that happens very often but, getting booked on the Gunn Point Beach does not happen very often. I do not know whether there needs to be some clarification or there is a need for some uniformity of definition.
During the briefing we also discussed closure of roads on Aboriginal land. That highlighted to me where this whole issue of who owns roads comes into being. You have a Control of Roads Act and a Motor Vehicles Act. I presume because the public can use a road on Aboriginal land, therefore, it is regarded as ‘public’ from the point of view of being able to drive on it. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, you can be booked for speeding or having an unregistered car. In fact, under the Control of Roads Act, it is not a public road so you cannot close it. My understanding is the government cannot close that road; only through the traditional owners or the Northern Land Council can you get permission to close those roads. I am looking at the practicalities. If the road has had a bad washout, whose job is it to close the road which is not gazetted and not public?
I highlight these issues because we have to work through this a bit quicker than we are, to get some clarity into the ownership of roads into Aboriginal growth towns. You do not want several people involved. Half of the Central Arnhem Road is public and the other half requires a permit. One half could be closed by the department and the other half has to be closed by contacting the traditional owners or the Northern Land Council, the people who own the road. It is part of the discussions about land that we need to look at otherwise these issues keep coming up all the time. We need some consistency.
I received a good explanation on the land acquisition section of the act. I was concerned we were duplicating what is already in the Lands Acquisition Act about land acquisition. The information I received makes sense: if you acquire land under this act, especially if it is a road, it stays a road. If you acquire it under the Lands Acquisition Act, then you have to turn that land from freehold into a gazetted road, and there is much more bureaucracy required. To acquire it under this particular act is the simpler way if the government wants to acquire land for a road. They were a couple of questions and they may have a simple answer. I did not ask them at the briefing because I thought of it later, which always seems to happen.
In the rural area there are several other types of access to people’s blocks which generally are not used today, and one is rights of way. I presume that is in common private ownership, but because it is on a title, maybe the government has a say in it. The other one is access easements. Not often do you find these things. You find them in battleaxe subdivisions; that is where you have a series of handles - I think they are 5 m handles - that were used as a cheap way of subdividing land, especially in Litchfield. Some of them have on their overall subdivision the words ‘Power and Water’ and ‘access easement’. Again, I suppose the word ‘easement’, in theory, means ‘private’, but is there any ownership over closing that land? Litchfield Council maintains those sorts of roads, so maybe it does not apply to the government. They may not own any of these particular types of strange roads. Hopefully, they do not occur any more because they really have been a pain in the neck for local government. I am not sure whether they apply to the Territory government.
Madam Speaker, I believe the changes are good. They make sense. It is very difficult sometimes to put a sign 300 m down the road on another pothole when you cannot get there because the road before that is flooded. So, it allows for situations which require common sense rather than being exceptionally technical. The changes are good. Some of those issues might be a little technical, but trying to look at some of the definitions, and also coming across someone who, strangely, was booked for an unlicensed vehicle on a beach, got me thinking about definitions. Then, definitions led me to see whether they crossed over - whether the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act would still apply to the definition of a public street under the Control of Roads Act. Maybe in your summing up, minister, you may have an explanation. If not, I am not overly concerned about it. I do not think there is any urgency to that. Even if you do not have an answer today, we might be able to get a briefing on it later.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support the minister and his amendments to this act. Whilst the amendments are quite short, they mainly relate to the control and closure of roads. Some of it also relates to the acquisition of land beside roads in order to expand roads and make them safer and give a better carriageway.
Most of the amendments today relate to the closure of roads, which is a very important element because, as the member for Drysdale pointed out, people put themselves at risk when they drive along roads that have been closed by the police and the authorities, because it is dangerous for people to go there. Not only is it dangerous, but the propensity for damage of those roads is great, even on a sealed road, particularly if the vehicle which goes over is a little heavier. We all know with heavy rain, there is water under the bed of the road, and the surface of the road can be broken up, particularly by heavier vehicles such as trucks.
People who wilfully disobey closure of road signs and directions from police need to be prosecuted. I fully endorse what the minister is doing in raising the fines for those who drive along closed roads for the very reasons I have outlined. These changes are welcome. There is nearly 36 000 km of roads in the Northern Territory and we know the climatic conditions of the Northern Territory can get pretty wild, whether it is in the Top End or in Central Australia. The natural wear and tear on those roads through the force of water, etcetera, makes driving in the Northern Territory problematic. I have been driving around the Territory, particularly the Top End, for a fair time. There have been a couple of times I may have gone through water that may have been even a little too deep for me to go through. I have learnt, particularly since the spread of crocodiles and crocodile warnings, we need to be very careful in our waterways.
I particularly heeded the message from our Police Commissioner. I heard him on the radio during Cyclone Carlos, imploring people if they were not sure they could get across a road or bridge because it was covered in water to not even embark on it. Not only are those people putting their lives in danger, they are also putting rescuers’ lives in danger. We saw, unfortunately, in the Queensland floods where people lost their lives trying to help others, or they were swept away and there was great concern about their safety.
We all need to heed road conditions and we all need to heed the warnings on roads. I suppose we could all have a problem. Who is to say? I may have a problem on a road in the next year or so, or the next 20 years, or however long I have on this mortal coil. I am saying it could happen to anyone. I note with interest that Barnaby Joyce had a slight problem in northern New South Wales. This article in the Courier Mail on 15 February said:
- Outspoken National Senator Barnaby Joyce is in hot water after writing off a $95 000 taxpayer-funded four-wheel drive as he tried to drive through a flooded New South Wales creek.
I believe Barnaby is a bit of a bushie; he is a National. It shows even someone as experienced as Barnaby can get caught. The initial information given out by one of his staff members was that the roads were closed at the time, but Barnaby said they were not closed. It underlines the dangers and the challenge of getting through swollen creeks.
Even in our own parliament, the member for Brennan, God bless him - I am not asserting the member for Brennan drove on a road that was closed when he was on the Ernest Giles Road. The information I have was the road was not closed, although there were quite a few signs posted around that time which said the roads were either impassable or could be accessed by four-wheel drive only. I understand there were a large number of signs. I have a map here which shows the points between Alice Springs and the turn-off to the Ernest Giles Road where signs like this one were posted. They were all red - the alarm bells should have been ringing - and there was a phone number quoted: 1800 246 199.
The member for Drysdale, in his contribution to the debate this afternoon, talked about - and I commend the member for Drysdale for the way he rang the police number to report the Stuart Highway should be closed. I am sure his information was very much appreciated. The point I am making is there are avenues for the public to make inquiries. We do not have mobile phone coverage up and down the Stuart Highway; that is another issue. There are substantial areas where there is mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway and you can ring to find out whether roads are passable.
I was very interested to read the article about the member for Brennan. He talked about how he was going along towards Kings Canyon. I am not disputing the fact. As shadow minister for Parks and Wildlife he should be visiting Kings Canyon. It was part of his work, and important work. He talked about the road changing, and then he said:
- I spun out three times in the mud. The speedo was saying 170 km/h, but I was only going about 40km/h.
That just shows things can be deceptive; the speedo was saying 170 km/h but the member for Brennan was doing much less than that. The member for Brennan then recounted in his interview on the radio, how he spent a number of hours with a shovel - which broke - digging himself out until a kind-hearted Victorian tourist came along and pulled him out and he was able to get the vehicle back to Alice Springs.
I understand the cost of repairing that vehicle was – all up, the whole adventure probably cost about $3000. There was about $900 for Peter Kittle Motors which may have included the ordinary service the member was having. There was also about $1900 or $2000 for a replacement vehicle provided to the member for Brennan to enable him to get around and return to Darwin. There was about a $450 cost for the member for Brennan’s car to be shipped back to Darwin where, I assume, there may have been further repairs. I am not quibbling about the cost. I note with interest the member for …
Mr Conlan: It sounds like you are.
Dr BURNS: No, I am not. The member for Brennan had a …
Mr Conlan: Well, what is your point?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The point is we all have to watch signs on the roads and road conditions. I am sure the member for Brennan has learnt a hell of a lot from this. He did say in one of the documents I have here that next time he will fly. Perhaps he has been bitten by road travel, particularly in those areas.
The point I also want to make is roads are a metaphor for life. It is very important - like religion, where the good Lord said he was the way, the truth, and the life. The Buddhists have the noble path. Roads and travelling are a metaphor for life. To some degree, what happened to the member for Brennan in Central Australia is a metaphor for what is happening to the CLP generally. They might think they are doing 170 km/h; however, they are mired down in their leadership problems. Their leader has led them into a very boggy, sticky situation.
How else can it be? You have to have confidence in your driver. Here is a driver who failed once before. When Denis Burke took over; he said he did not have the bottle for it. He has taken over again and the whole party is divided. You can imagine if they were in a car driving on a road like the member for Brennan, the arguments which would occur about which side of the road, what they should do here. Angela and Pamela is a great example of this: ‘Do not go there. Let us go here. No, let us go up the middle’. There is an argument and it is very hard – ‘No, no, no, go up this road. We will go up that road’. The arguments must be incredibly intense.
Not only that, how can a leader survive? How can he survive when the hierarchy of his own party is set against him? I refer to the e-mail by Sue Fraser-Adams to illustrate that …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to direct the minister to relevance. We are discussing the bill. How is this relevant to the bill before the House at the moment?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, if I could speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
As I said before, I am speaking in a metaphor. I am saying to people you must have confidence in the ability of the driver of the car. So many times I have said to my own children: ‘If you think someone is a dangerous driver, does not have the ability to drive or is driving recklessly, I want you to get out of that car. I do not care if they call you a chicken or a wimp or whatever. You have to have confidence in the driver of the car’. That is the metaphor I am talking about today.
I am not trying to impugn the driving ability of the member for Brennan. He has driven in the Territory for many years, and even an experienced driver like the member for Brennan found himself in trouble.
Sue Fraser-Adams said something like: ‘The older heads we now have within the party nameless, faceless, gutless wonders in the most senior positions in management committees who are making every effort to destroy our chances of winning the next election’ ...
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to relevance. The minister has made his metaphorical point. I request you draw him back to the bill before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I remind you of Standing Order 67. Could you come to point pretty quickly?
Dr BURNS: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker. These are very important points I am making about the metaphor between life and driving. I believe the member for Brennan has learnt his lesson and that the issue of confidence is a very important one. How can you have confidence in someone who might be hiding underneath the dashboard while they are driving? If you were driving in a car and someone was not even looking at the road, you would be very worried. So it was with the member for Blain when he hid out for hours in the restaurant down the way here - would not even come out, would not even front up, would not even look at the road ahead, would not even talk about the situation. In fact, the member for Fong Lim called it ‘cowering in a restaurant for hours’.
However, I digress, Madam Speaker. I have made my point. I will finish on this. It is good to see people engaged. It is good to see the member for Greatorex engaged. He has become very animated during these sittings. It has been very interesting to listen to and watch the member for Greatorex today, and other days, raising very important issues in this parliament. I reckon the member for Greatorex is headed for a driver’s seat. I reckon he is headed for the deputy driver’s seat, and it makes sense! I will use the metaphor again: he knows the road conditions of Central Australia. Nicholas ‘Frothwell’ said he knows the lay of the land. He is a good navigator according to ‘Mr Frothwell’. He has shown himself today and a couple of days ago. There is certainly a twinkle back in his eye. The member for Goyder needs to watch out. It makes sense to me that the CLP should have a deputy leader from Alice Springs, which is the birthplace of their party.
Talking about the member for Goyder, she reminded me in Question Time of that little kid in front of the television set. She is squinting and mumbling at the screen, a bit like that kid in Poltergeist. Every now and again, I expect her to jump up and say: ‘They are here, they are here’.
Anyway, I digress. I will finish on this. I commend the minister for introducing this legislation that will protect Territorians and also protect our roads. I am sure in his summing-up speech, the minister will address the issues which have been raised by members opposite.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate, particularly the member for Johnston. We know, as a government, that you can learn something from people. When the member for Johnston does his research - he has visited my office many times to be briefed on this particular bill – he does his research well and is a member you could learn from. He is part of a great, tight team, made up of really dynamic Territorians. Those opposite are probably learning as well. I certainly hope they have learnt something today, as well as the other days they get to share this Chamber and work with a government that is determined and taking the Territory forward.
The members’ contributions have been valuable, and they have raised certain points. I will see if I can address those questions. Let us start with the member for Drysdale. The members for Drysdale and Katherine both exhibit one particular failing in this: I encourage them to seek briefings. As government develops legislation, we get to work with the best people in the Territory on these things - and we like to share that. To share that, all you have to do is pick up the phone and say you would like to learn more about it - you would like to share some of our brilliant public servants as well, and come in and be briefed. That way, you do not suffer that fate of being out in the ether, not quite sure of what you are talking about. It might allay some of your concerns as well. The member for Drysdale, being a shadow minister for Construction, needs to start taking up that offer. Come in, member for Drysdale, and start working with the department.
The first question the member for Drysdale had was about just terms compensation. He used a great word from the other side. He wanted the Solicitor-General to ‘table’ some sort of evidence. That is certainly an interesting question. I will take on all questions and I will ask that question. However, I believe that relates to the Department of Justice. The member for Drysdale could probably withdraw that question, but I will give a summary here of fair and just compensation.
The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 provides that acquisition of property is to be on just terms. Just terms is a constitutionally guaranteed principle that applies to the acquisition of property and, in practice, means the compensation payable to the person with the estate or interest in the land affected by an order to acquire or take land reflects a connection to the value of the benefit acquired. Just terms encompasses a requirement for procedural fairness in the determination of compensation mechanism and is determined by reference to land valuations from the Australian Valuation Office. If the member for Drysdale still is not sure, then I will bring him in for a briefing and we will sort out his fears.
Regarding infringement notices, we will go to the prepared notes. Had the member, or anyone from the CLP, sought a briefing they could easily have received that answer. The answer is three penalty points, or $399, in relation to the member asking about the value of an infringement notice.
The next area of his contribution to the debate related to reasonable excuse. The member was talking about personal experiences on the Stuart Highway, and extreme weather and emergency conditions relating to evacuations. That was an interesting part of the debate. They were relevant issues that relate to the closure of roads. The member raised the question: what is a reasonable excuse for not obeying a road closure direction? One example I will provide for the House is a very practical one and recognises, given the Territory’s vast distances, someone may have been out of radio, Internet and communication networks, unable to receive notification of a closure. This legislation protects people with reasonable excuses. I have full confidence our officials will use discretion as appropriate.
The member for Drysdale talked about examples of the Stuart Highway, intrastate, and used examples - in my speak - of flash flooding. That was an important point. I share some information for the member on notification. I was pleased to hear the member speaking about better ways of notifying people of road closures. The intent of this bill is bringing us forward from the old days of having to erect a sign in order for a road to be declared closed, to being able to declare it closed through the Internet, newspapers, media announcement, gazettal and road signs. That is the essence of it.
In relation to localised flooding and road alerts, updates on closures and restrictions are regularly posted on the road report website as road conditions change. As the member for Johnston outlined to the House, there is also a free-call telephone number people can contact for further information: 1800 246 199. Both of these services operate 24 hours a day. Should a major highway be cut and impacted, further information is issued to all local outlets to ensure the public is kept informed, and appropriate signage is also put in place - as has been displayed in the Barkly electorate office this year with the unusual weather events we have been seeing. We encourage any travellers on the road to get that local knowledge as well.
As the Minister for Transport, I am also committed to continuing to look at ways to improve communications with our transport stakeholders and road users in general, in particular using modern technologies like texting. That work is continuing to see if it is a feasible option. I have been talking to the heavy vehicle industry about that.
In relation to the Arnhem Highway, the member for Drysdale used the opportunity to grandstand on roads. In good faith, and as an ex-teacher, I would like to take the member for Drysdale through a short lesson on the status of upgrading in relation to contracts on the Arnhem Highway. Under the 2009-10 Northern Territory government rural arterials pavement strengthening and widening program for pavement rehabilitation of various sections of the Arnhem Highway, $1m was allocated. The following projects have been undertaken as part of the program: widen and seal section 167.2 km to 175.5 km completed in July 2010; widen and seal section 135 km to 140 km completed in August 2010; and reconditioning shoulders sections 130 km to 135 km completed in July 2010.
A further $2m has been allocated for the Arnhem Highway in the 2010-11 capital works program for targeted upgrading of strength deficient pavements and/or narrow sections. The proposed works for the 2010-11 projects are seal widening of selected sections between 140.5 km and 160.5 km, both sides of the Kakadu National Park boundary. The contract was awarded on 3 November 2010 to Alan King and Sons Pty Ltd for $1.48m. Works commenced in November 2010 but have been suspended because of the Wet Season. Works are due to be completed by August 2011 - and that relates to discussing the Wet Season. From the seat of Drysdale, you might need to get out a bit and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr McCARTHY: For the member’s knowledge, we have a Wet Season every year in the Northern Territory. Maybe you do not get it in Drysdale but we certainly do in every other part of the Territory. The last two Wet Seasons have been cracker Wet Seasons. Central Australia will be for another day, but let us concentrate on the Arnhem Highway and talk about what happens in the Wet Season. The grass grows. I tell you, the grass grows under your feet. I spend a good deal of time on roads and I see the grass grow. Then, I see the grass slashed, because the Department of Construction and Infrastructure has an ongoing slashing program. It is important to also point out it is not very wise slashing shoulders in the Wet Season when you could do considerable damage and also end up bogged.
There are real climatic conditions and, if you want to do a political grandstand, go for your life, but, if you are going to paint yourself into a corner of being parochial about the Territory, then you will stand accountable on the Parliamentary Record. If you want to go out there and grandstand, then go for your life, but this is a serious business of running government and we have great responsibility. That is what we like to get on the public record.
I take the particular areas identified by the member for Drysdale on notice. I thank him for his contributions, particularly the information that can be used in the interest of doing business better in the Territory.
The member for Katherine chose an interesting pathway to contribute to the debate and used a good deal of rhetoric and much political grandstanding to get around to the position of condemning the Northern Territory government. That was interesting but, once again, he tried to grandstand and, I believe, did not acknowledge the challenges and the work the Northern Territory government is doing.
For a little lesson for the member for Katherine, I might just share the Northern Territory government is delivering a record $331m road budget. If we want to talk history, as the member for Katherine was extremely critical about this government’s record, it is an increase of 237% in road spending since 2001. That is not a bad record - a record that should be commended. We are building our road network to support and grow Territory businesses, to improve road safety, and improve access.
This government is committed to improving the road network and access to remote communities within the Territory. We have already invested $124m this financial year in upgrades and improvements to the Territory’s road network. We still have more work to be done; that is the nature of the Territory. We expect to deliver a further $116m worth of roadworks in the first half of this year.
The member for Katherine dealt directly with shire roads. The Territory government is committed to working with the shires on the proposed transfer of 8600 km of local roads from government to the shires. There will be a five- to 10-year transition period and, during this period, the Northern Territory government will continue to have financial responsibility for the relevant roads. Negotiations will commence and continue.
What I took from the member for Katherine was an MLA lobbying for roads funding in the electorate - a very good thing. You had to sift through the political grandstanding and rhetoric, and some pretty left-of-centre comments about marketing of cattle and organic produce. However, what he was doing for his constituents was a good thing. I have taken that on board, and will look into those roads, as I did late last year. I am familiar with those roads, having driven around that country.
The member for Nelson’s contribution was evidence of a thorough briefing from the department. From talking to my colleagues, I know the member for Nelson spends a great deal of time and energy in his research, which involves briefings from the departments in the different portfolio areas.
There are several comments I will provide for the member for Nelson. I thank him for his interest, and acknowledge the work of the department that delivered the briefings for him. The member for Nelson picked up on an interesting point on the definition of a road. The Control of Roads Amendment Bill’s main focus is the integrity and management of the infrastructure. Regarding ownership of roads, this covers the roads under care, control, and management of government. If the roads are under the care, control, and management of shire councils or across Aboriginal freehold, we would work in partnership with the relevant authorities to offer advice and support on the closure of roads.
The member for Nelson is an interesting member, and one you can learn from. He talked about two concepts in relation to access in rural areas: right of way and easements. Those particular access points are generally private easements and not recognised as roads.
That goes to the final comment from the member Johnston, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate. As Territorians, we all understand the importance of our vast road networks in keeping our community centres connected to access health, education, and business. In recent weeks, we have been reminded of the impact Mother Nature has on these important links. As the weather and other conditions demand, decisions are taken to close roads for the protection of road users and to maintain the integrity of the infrastructure.
This bill brings the means of declaring a road closed into the modern age and recognises the challenges the Territory’s vast distances throw at us. Under these changes, roads can now be formally declared closed by a range of methods. We are moving forward from the old way of having to erect a sign, to being able to declare a road closed through a range of practical and sensible means, including by Gazette notice, publication on a website, a recorded telephone message, and media broadcasts.
The fine for those who deliberately ignore a road closure, putting themselves in danger’s way and, potentially, causing real damage to the road, is also boosted. Rather than take a punt and risk the old fine of $50, drivers will now be faced with a $13 300 fine - a real deterrent.
To the other component of the bill, land acquisition, the amendments put forward in this bill provide certainty of a judicial process for landholders whose land is acquired by government to construct a new public road. Importantly, these amendments will apply to the nine retrospective cases on the books dating back to May 2008. Landholders who are unwilling to accept offers of compensation from government will now be able to have their case heard by the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal to determine compensation for land under the Control of Roads Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions, and for your time as well this afternoon. It has been a pleasure working with Territorians, the department and, especially, the staff upstairs in putting this bill forward.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BILL
(Serial 135)
(Serial 135)
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I flag the opposition will be supporting this bill. I had a briefing with the department, and what struck me the most was - I do not think I have ever come across something like this before - this was based on the South Australian legislation from 1898. The Public Health Act in the Northern Territory is 100-odd years old, so it is about time we made these amendments. I thank the minister for the briefing.
As the minister outlined, the purpose of the bill is to repeal the existing Public Health Act and replace it with the new one in order to protect and promote the health of Territorians; prevent emerging environmental conditions from impacting on the health and wellbeing of Territorians; take action to control environmental conditions that may affect the health of Territorians; and to monitor, assess and control services, facilities and products that may affect public and environmental health.
As we can see by reading through the bill, it achieves this in a number of ways: by creating the concept of declared activities to regulate businesses that engage in conduct that may result in the transmission of disease, or otherwise pose a risk to public health; defining what a public health nuisance is and making it an offence to cause a nuisance; and allowing the Chief Health Officer to issue a public health notice or order in relation to contravention of the act or a public health nuisance. It also gives the Chief Health Officer powers to make investigations into issues relating to public or environmental health, or the operation of Part 5 of the act. It also gives sufficient power to the Chief Health Officer and authorised officers to monitor and enforce the provisions of the act.
Some of the definitions in the bill are interesting. Some of the key definitions used are: ‘public health’ means ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’; ‘environmental health’ means ‘the aspects of human health determined by the physical, chemical, biological and social factors in the environment’; and the terms ‘public health risk’ and ‘serious public health risk’ are defined. ‘Public health risk’ means ‘a risk of harm to public health’ and ‘serious public health’ means ‘a public health risk involving significant potential harm to public health that is irreversible, of high impact, or on a wide scale’. That is from a briefing note from the department.
I have to say it is great to see we are debating some real issues here today. I feel we focused on a lot of second-tier issues in this parliament over the last couple of days. When you consider what is taking place across our community, it is good to see we are actually debating something with a bit of substance.
I go to the definition of ‘public health’ - and I hope you will allow me some latitude, Madam Speaker, as a result of this definition – which means the ‘physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. We have some serious issues facing us in the Northern Territory. I suggest that we have had this parliament hijacked by second-tier issues. I believe statehood is a second-tier issue; we spent three hours on that today. We also debated a motion yesterday by the member for Nelson on sheds. The member for Nelson even raised a question in parliament today about birds.
There has been very little focus by the government to address serious issues relating to the mental, physical and social wellbeing of the community, which is defined as public health. That could be law and order, child protection, or housing. Instead, once again, we saw the government refuse to engage on these issues. I heard the minister’s despicable comments on ABC radio this morning suggesting it is the CLP’s fault it cannot recruit doctors to Alice Springs. It is all our fault the government is unable to recruit doctors in Alice Springs, because we have something to do with the law and order problems facing Alice Springs.
The reason you may have trouble recruiting doctors is because of the state you have left Alice Springs in - and you will continue to leave Alice Springs in, with your focus on law and order across the Northern Territory in relation to public health, which means - and I say again – the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community. There is not much physical and social wellbeing in the community of Alice Springs, indeed, across many parts of the Northern Territory. Some would say across most of the major cities in the Northern Territory.
I highlight some of those areas seriously affecting the physical, mental and social wellbeing of Territorians as defined in this bill. We can talk about land release delays, remote housing infrastructure delays, electricity prices, but let us go to some of Labor’s health failures, which are worth mentioning. This is impacting on the community of the Northern Territory and, indeed, the community of Alice Springs.
This government will not admit that it has failed, or at least call to action immediately, we suggest, a task force to Alice Springs to address and stem the acute lawlessness that is facing the town. The town is at breaking point. People are screaming for some leadership from their government and, yet, here we are talking about statehood for three hours. We have no chance of statehood while we are facing such acute lawlessness in Central Australia.
Regarding growing hospital waiting lists, under Labor, there has been an enormous blowout in elective surgery waiting times across the Northern Territory. That means Territorians regularly wait longer than other Australians for routine medical procedures. The situation is going from bad to worse. The number of elective surgery admissions has fallen from 6395 in 2001-02 to 6244 in 2009-10. For those patients finally admitted from waiting lists for elective surgery, 5.9% waited for more than 365 days ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! We have been pretty liberal with the member for Greatorex in his interpretation of physical and social wellbeing of the community. He is really getting into the acute care side of the health system, and this bill is about public health.
Mr CONLAN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The bill clearly defines the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community. I would have thought hospital waiting lists, elective surgery, and getting people through our hospital system would be very relevant to the health and wellbeing of the community.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, whilst there is some latitude within this debate, if you could keep your comments …
Mr CONLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, if …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, I am talking, member for Greatorex. If you could keep your comments directly in relation to the bill, the content of the bill, and the proposals within, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say that these comments are in direct relation to the bill. As I said the definition of ‘public health’ means ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. I do not know how much clearer it has to be that the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community is on its knees as a result of this government’s failure to protect towns like Alice Springs. Out of a community of 29 000, 250 people do not turn up to a meeting for the fun of it, because they like it; they are there because you have done nothing.
Do you think that crime and violence and assaults against the person, sexual assaults, and break-ins have something to do with physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community? Can I ask you, minister? Minister, do you think so? Leader of Government Business, would you like to tell me if you think lawlessness on the streets in Alice Springs has something to do with the mental and social wellbeing of the community …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I was not referring to those elements the member for Greatorex just referred to. What I was referring to is in the acute care sector of the hospital. Most people, and the people in this box here, know what public health is. You have a fair amount of latitude, but I was just calling you back on the acute care side of things, member for Greatorex - as simple as that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, there is no point of order. Member for Greatorex, focus your contribution to the debate on the contents of the bill, please. That would be most helpful, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say, again the bill contains definitions and one of those definitions is of public health. The definition of ‘public health’ is ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. I am sorry if I am wasting people’s time. I am sorry if debating law and order issues, hospital waiting lists, the cost of living, housing blowouts - all this sort of stuff - is a waste of your time, but this, to me, is very important. It is also very important to the community of Alice Springs - damn important - and it is about time we addressed some of these issues.
The Chief Minister wants to talk about FOI requests. The Leader of Government Business thinks it is all very cute to talk about division in particular parties, or whatever it is. The community of Alice Springs is screaming out for some leadership. They want some representation. They want their government - that is you - to step in and do something about what is taking place and unfolding on the streets of Alice Springs.
So, to take up the advice of the Leader of Government Business, let us have a look at some of those law and order issues. If he thinks it is okay to talk about that, let’s talk about that. Alice Springs has felt the brunt of Labor’s failed law and order policy. Since 2004, robbery has increased by 450%; assaults by 87%; sexual assault by 97%; house break-ins by 64%; commercial break-ins by 185%; motor vehicle theft is up by 97%; and property damage by 71%.
There was a question today to the minister for Business about business confidence across the Northern Territory. This is an e-mail I received today from the Chamber of Commerce with a graph on vandalism in Alice Springs since 1 January 2001. I could forward that e-mail on to you; you may have already seen it. This is a graph compiled by the Chamber of Commerce in Alice Springs. Vandalism in Alice Springs, times affected since 1 January - in other words, businesses that have been broken into since 1 January: 52% of businesses in Alice Springs, more than half the businesses in Alice Springs, have been broken into 18 times since 1 January. More than half the business community in Alice Springs has been broken into more than 18 times.
This is hardly a growing confidence in the Labor government’s business policies. Small business confidence continues to fall. Small business confidence across the Northern Territory under the Labor government has fallen significantly in the past 10 years and this is as a result of the acute lawlessness we are facing in Alice Springs. We know you do not particularly like it; you are not massive fans of Alice Springs. However, it does not matter; you have a responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory - all the Northern Territory. We all say when we are elected: ‘I thank those who elected me. It is a great honour to be part of this. I would also like to say for those people who did not vote for me, I am there for you as well’. It is almost the standard which comes from the mouths of politicians when elected. Most of us mean it; you guys do not seem to be very true to that at the moment. You do not seem interested in what is taking place on the streets of Alice Springs.
I will use as much time as allowed to discuss the issues facing Alice Springs; that is why I am here. I am not here to spend four hours talking about ministerial puff pieces, to spend three hours talking about some pipe dream that is statehood; to talk about some shed legislation; or ask questions about a bird. They are second-tier issues. We are experiencing a major problem on the streets in Central Australia and I wish you would step up and admit it - admit you failed, or put something in place to address the issues.
Can someone tell me what is wrong with this motion? This was not conjured up, plucked out of thin air - this was done with consultation. Do you have today’s Notice Paper? It says:
- To move – That, the Northern Territory government direct the Commissioner of Police to –
(a) immediately deploy a task force of police in Alice Springs with a mandate to address hot spots of acute lawlessness and antisocial behaviour; and
This is not an unforeseen situation taking place in Alice Springs; we see it every year. It has been escalating year after year, particularly in the last few years. Any government worth its salt would have some idea there will be serious law and order issues facing Alice Springs around the summer months, around Christmas and into the beginning of the football season. It does not take Einstein to figure that out. A response group made up of 20 able-bodied general duty police officers could respond to an emerging or known law and order issue. We have also asked that an additional 20 police be added to the establishment of police in Alice Springs. That is, in our view, a long-term solution; we need more police on the streets.
We have the 20 able-bodied general duty police response group, we have a bolstering of police numbers to boost the establishment of police, and we have a boot camp for young offenders. That is what we need. We need somewhere for these young people to go once they commit crimes. In other words, there is no end consequence for young children. We are seeing kids on the streets flouting the law. The courts seem hamstrung. The government appears paralysed to do anything. We need an end consequence to rehabilitate those children but also punitive measures. There needs to be an end consequence.
We need mandatory rehabilitation. You are not in favour of mandatory rehabilitation. Your language in the bill before the House is ‘will’ and ‘may’ and ‘can’ be directed to mandatory rehabilitation. Mandatory rehabilitation is a key plank in addressing these bigger issues facing the Northern Territory - these forefront issues facing the people in Alice Springs, in particular. It is a key plank of the Territory opposition’s policy. We have to stem the thirst for alcohol. It is not just about alcohol restrictions; supply will only go so far. What about demand? There is very little focus on demand by the Northern Territory government. There are four issues right there Alice Springs is facing on a daily basis we could be spending time debating, addressing, and solving very quickly.
As I said, the business community of Central Australia is at wits end; families are at wits end. I read out an e-mail the other day about a woman who was beaten within an inch of her life and needed facial reconstruction. There are claims - I withdraw claims. In fact, the police have been made aware of child prostitution. The Chief Minister stood here today and said if you know about these things, why are you not reporting them to the police? Well, indeed, we are reporting them to the police. They have been reported to the police. The police have been made aware of this. You are now aware of this. The Chief Minister has been made aware of this. You, as ministers of the Crown, are now aware of this. So, where is your responsibility? When do you step in to do something about this?
It is like the claim from the Minister for Health on the radio today saying: ‘With the CLP talking about all these law and order problems, how am I supposed to recruit doctors? How can I possibly get doctors to town?’ It is the same as the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call relevance. We have given the member for Greatorex 15 or 20 minutes, and he has come back to where he started. I urge him to get on with the debate on the bill. Fair enough; they are important issues for him but he really should be coming back to the bill.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Greatorex, we do not have a justice bill before the House; we have a bill for an act about public and environmental health. You are taking enormous latitude in the content of what you are talking about. I ask you, for the third time, to come back to the actual bill before the House. Thank you very much.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, I say I am speaking directly to this bill. Part of this bill is public health, and public health means physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community. I have been allotted 45 minutes to talk about this, and I am going to use every single second I have to speak about the issues facing my community when it comes to mental, social, and wellbeing of the community. If the government likes to shut me down, go for it. Go for your life! Once again, the people in the community of Alice Springs will see that you just do not want to face up to the problems facing the town. You never have. You have never faced up to those problems. You have left the place just about on its knees. I cannot believe the agenda of deniability from you people. It is staggering and it is shameful.
This is the second biggest town in the Northern Territory. It is a massive economic driver for tourism and yet you allow it to disintegrate before our very eyes, and say we are talking it down and making this up and embellishing it: ‘Gee, I cannot get any doctors there because the CLP members are just talking about these sorts of things …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member has the capacity, say, through an MPI. No one is trying to shut him down. It is about relevance and the business of the House. He has had a pretty good run and he seems to be ignoring what you are telling him regarding relevance.
Mr CONLAN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if I can just respond to the point of order. The member is quite right to call you on the order of relevance. I now ask you for the fourth time. You have strayed way beyond the bill that is in front of us. You are being repetitious …
Mr Conlan: They do not like hearing it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I instruct you that you need to address the content of this bill in front of us.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so sorry to waste your time. Alice Springs is such a waste of time in your eyes, isn’t it? Such a waste of time. It is not on the radar. So not on the radar that you cannot sit here and cop it for another 20 minutes. You could allow me to speak for the next 20 minutes and put these concerns on the Parliamentary Record. But, oh no, you do not want to hear it once again. Use another vehicle, use an MPI, use an adjournment …
Dr Burns: If the second 20 minutes is going to be the same as the first 20 minutes.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: I tell you what, I will use an MPI and I will use an adjournment, and I will use every single second I have here ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex, please address your comments through the Chair.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: And if you could be relevant in your contribution to this debate.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come back to the bill. As you can see, the definition of ‘pubic health’ means ‘the physical, mental and social wellbeing of the community’. I did not write this, this is in the bill. I do not understand how this is straying from the bill. It is in the bill. How can I stray from the bill when it is in the bill? It is a definition in the bill. It is a definition of public health. It says here: ‘mental, physical, social wellbeing of the community’. Well, there is not much of that going on in Central Australia or Alice Springs. But, you do not care. There is 20 minutes to go in this particular debate, but ‘Shut him down, do not want to hear it. It does not suit our agenda of deniability at all’.
I would love to hear the minister’s response to the people of Central Australia, and go down there and face them. Face the people of Central Australia and tell them that you spent three hours in parliament talking about statehood today. You spoke about sheds, and answered a couple of dorothy dixers about leadership. You made a couple of funny jokes about roads being a metaphor for life. That is a wonderful use of taxpayers’ money. Meanwhile, businesses are being broken into, people are being assaulted, people are being raped, and children are prostituting themselves on the streets.
We have demonstrated that government members have no idea; they are completely bereft of any will to sort out the issues in Alice Springs. They, no doubt, will pay the price. As a politician, it is not healthy to speak with such hubris. I will try to avoid that as much as possible. However, sitting on the sidelines, how could a government that has ignored and neglected a town which has been screaming out to it for leadership for so long possibly hope to be endorsed at the next poll? If there was ever an opportunity to win the confidence of the community of Alice Springs, surely the last 10 years has been it – surely? But, no. No wonder people are so angry, and at their wits end with regard to your approach to this sort of thing.
I am appalled at the way the priority of our debates is being conducted in this parliament. People travel from all over the place to represent their communities. That is why we got into this job, and yet, in debates, people are gagged and shut down. There are irrelevant, pathetic dorothy dixer questions. You could simply lean over and ask your mate. But no, major issues such as law and order, and the public health of that community, are ignored. The mental and social wellbeing of that community is completely ignored.
I could read the crime stats all over again - we could do that. We could talk about the anger in the community. I do not know how or what it is going to take for this government to appreciate what is taking place in Alice Springs and how desperate people are. They just want help and, yet, there seems to be no solution from the Northern Territory government, and we are accused of using crime as a political punching bag. We would much rather live in a community without crime and campaign on something else. You know it is a reality, and you guys have just dropped the ball.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to push the boundaries here. I would love to list a whole stack of areas this government has failed and collapsed on. I believe there are plenty. There are education failures, health failures and the child protection issue is completely shameful. You have not done anything with child protection. What you have done is cover-up; ignore it; and use it as a political punching bag in the Chamber today saying: ‘If you know about it, why not report it to the police? Do not come to us about it’. Well, you know about it now. I hope that you, Minister for Health, will go to the police or act on it. I hope the Attorney-General steps in and investigates this, or rings the police to find out what the hell is going on down there. It is happening. For God’s sake, do you not believe me because I am a Country Liberal? Is that why? You have some built-in distrust or something?
I am a resident of Alice Springs. I am a taxpayer of this country. I have a say, and I am telling you it is taking place. Crime is through the roof. People’s homes have been broken into. As I said, I have been broken into twice in the last three months. In fact, one of the times they stole a carton of beer from my fridge. That is what happens when you start clamping down on alcohol restrictions; people will find another way to get it. That is what they do.
The alcohol restrictions are not working. If they did, people would support them. People in Alice Springs are not stupid. Sure, it might be an impost to show my ID to get some grog and I can only do it after 2 pm. I tell you, if people saw results, they would not care; they would do it. Personally, it goes against some of my ideologies – why do we have to dumb it right down? However, if that is what you have to do to live in such a wonderful community to keep the peace, to provide law and order then, fine, you have to do it. They are some of the trade-offs for living in remote and unique parts of Australia such as Alice Springs. People would cop that on the chin if they could see that it is working. However, it is not working.
You can have all your stats and whatever it is spun any way you like. Have someone pump it out, spin it this way and spin it that way. We could do the same; say it is not working and look at 10 years of hard Labor, and it is not working. You could do the same: 27 years of the CLP and look how bad that was.
Just go to Alice Springs. I said to the member for Johnston as the Attorney-General, a long time ago in a previous life: spend some time on the streets of Alice Springs. I do not know if he has done that. Come down for a week; holiday down there. Take your family down there and just see what is happening. If you did, you would implement something and address the issues immediately. The Youth Action Plan - for crying out loud! The Alice Springs transformation plan and all this stuff - we are talking about program after program and long-term vision. There is no long term at the moment. It feels like there is no long term in Alice Springs; everything is short term. People cannot see beyond because they are swamped, they are blinded, by what is happening on the street, in their homes - the invasions; the personal attacks.
We need an emergency response. Unfortunately, that word takes on other connotations these days, doesn’t it? Essentially, that is what it is. There has to be a response straightaway, and then we can improve the social and mental wellbeing of the community. We can go to the heart of public health and what it really is - the health of the public: the mental health and wellbeing, the social health, and the physical health of the community.
We will be supporting this bill and I thank the department for the briefing. I thank the minister for freely providing briefings to me from his department; always quick with a phone call to say: ‘I have a new bill coming on, would you like a briefing on it?’ I appreciate it, and thank the staff for their time.
We have a long way to go with the mental health and physical wellbeing of Alice Springs. I do not know if you guys can fix it - I believe it is beyond you. The people suffering are the people in Alice Springs, the second biggest town in the Territory - probably the most iconic town in the country. It is a massive generator for tourism, not only on the Territory scale, a national scale. It has a huge number of Defence personnel at Pine Gap and RAAF at Jindalee, and is a massive public sector employer, both Territory and Commonwealth.
We will support the bill. That is all I have to say on the definition. I was going to add a few things. The Territory government has been quite critical of some public health warnings and campaigns, particularly the mosquito control after deaths due to the outbreak of Murray Valley Encephalitis. Also, the government’s failure to notify the public that counts of Legionella in the Parliament House cooling towers last year exceeded safe levels. Another issue we were concerned about was the E. coli contamination in Darwin waters last year and, more recently, the issue of Darwin streets being used as public toilets.
The government says there was no opposition by stakeholders. I wonder where the stakeholder consultations can be found. I have not seen too many. This bill is a bit of a no-brainer, to be honest, so I would not expect too much opposition from those stakeholders.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not offer any amendments to this bill, and support it as it stands.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I extend my thanks to the minister for having Mr Schobben come to my electorate office to brief businesses in the caravan industry, the motel industry, and the bed and breakfast industry, because this legislation covers their activities. We had eight people in my electorate office who appreciated the briefing and the frankness from Mr Schobben. He acknowledged it has been a long time coming, and they welcomed it. All I ask is, once it is implemented, there is follow-up information, particularly for some of the smaller businesses.
Some of the caravan park people out there, as you know, do not get out very often so, if the information comes via electorate offices or normal channels of communication that would be appreciated. I know the businesses in my electorate would appreciate it as well. Thank you, minister, for allowing a senior member to come out to my electorate.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Minister for Health on the introduction of this important reform initiative, and support this important bill.
The object of this bill is: to protect and promote the health of individuals and communities in the Northern Territory; provide flexible capacity to protect the health of particular individuals and communities in the Territory from emerging environmental conditions of public and environmental health issues that may impact on their health and wellbeing; enable special action to be taken to protect the health, particularly of individuals in the communities in the Territory who are public health risks or facing particular health problems; to improve the public environmental health outcomes of all Territorians in partnership with individuals and the community; and, lastly, to monitor, assess and control environmental conditions, factors and agents’ facilities and equipment and activities, services, and products that may impact on public environmental health.
I recognise the Health Minister’s personal knowledge, experience, and passionate interest in the areas covered by this bill from his earlier experience in the environmental health profession. Public health improvements underpin the development of a modern society and provide a foundation for a strong and healthier Territory community. I also acknowledge the need to modernise the current legislation, and the valuable contribution made by stakeholders during the development period to yield a sound bill which will serve Territorians well into the future.
It is important to recognise the basis for the proposed act is providing a comprehensive framework including appropriate measures, guidelines, and standards through specific regulations that will provide additional flexibility, more certainty, and opportunity for timely responses and the subsequent reduction of health risks to the Territory. Key to this approach is the development of new public health guidelines, measures, and standards in consultation with industry and the cooperative implementation of these guidelines for 12 months without penalties applying. This approach allows business and operational experience to be fully taken into account and incorporated before the new measures are finalised and adopted formally by the minister.
I understand all new standards and regulations will also be subject to a comprehensive regulatory impact assessment analysis which incorporates a business impact assessment. This means the business cost impacts and compliance criteria for each new standard or regulation will be examined at the point when the information on how they work and what their result has been for firms in the sector can be properly understood. This provides assurance that business needs and issues are properly considered within the framework. The framework approach is also based on a risk approach, so the public health effort is focused on the opportunities and circumstances that pose higher risks to the public health of Territorians as the priority for attention and action.
The risk activities identified include: beauty therapy treatments including waxing, manicure or pedicure; colonic irrigation or similar activities not covered by other legislation; skin penetration including ear and body piercing, acupuncture, and tattooing; aquatic facilities including public swimming pools and spas, including pools and spas in hotels, motels and resorts, wave pools and community pools. In the commercial area: commercial visitor public accommodation such as backpackers, hotels, motels, roadhouses, caravan parks, and bed and breakfast accommodation.
This risk identification approach will extend public health control to some 330 firms currently not covered by specific public health measures. This will, in turn, reduce public health risks and be fairer to responsible businesses providing those health services. It may require less responsible operators to raise standards and improve their practices. This is a good way to deal with these issues. It will result in a more equitable business operating environment. It will result in all firms engaging in risky activities being covered, rather than the uneven coverage under the old act, which reflected the public health practices and priorities of the last century.
My department’s Territory Business Centres are the initial contact and referral point for starting a business, business and industry licensing information, business planning assistance, and links to business assistance programs. The centres are well placed to provide support to firms with their business licensing requirements. Their experience with the development of e-business, online processing, and smart forms will also be of assistance to ensure the bill’s operational arrangements can be implemented with maximum efficiency and minimum effort by the businesses involved.
The Public Environmental Health Bill sets up a framework to achieve public health improvements through appropriate and enhanced controls to better manage and reduce public health risks and provide a more equitable business environment, while taking business needs and experiences fully into account.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and commend the minister for bringing it forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. I also thank the department for the briefing. I suppose the department knows I could not let it go, but one of the objects of the bill is to provide a flexible capacity to protect the health of particular individuals in communities in the Territory. I like that word ‘flexible’, because I keep thinking of the Howard Springs pools that are absolutely overflowing at the moment. One side of the dam wall the other day was nearly equal to the other side, and I would love to know if the department went down there and took a reading. If there was something wrong with that water then we ought to ban the entire Litchfield National Park water supply. It was pouring over that area.
When we are dealing with this issue of environment health, people have to make judgments. I suppose there is a certain amount of risk involved. Governments tend to err on the side of caution but, as I said before, under the recreational guidelines, it talks about how you must take into account the benefits of some of these areas we use for recreation. I will not go on about that, but at least say that one of the objects of the bill is to provide a flexible capacity to protect health. Maybe my reading of that is slightly biased, but it is just one of those things that stood out for me.
The bill is one that most of us do not look at unless we are a plumber or require a health inspector to come out to our premises. It is a very important area because it is all about public health. I was interested to see the bill introduced the concept of declared activities. I might be wrong but it says here, ‘examples of these activities could include commercial business or accommodation, tattooing, body piercing or hairdressing’. I must admit, I thought that hairdressing would automatically be covered already. In other states I used to see, when I was a kid, some sort of certificate up on the wall to say Joe Blow was an approved hairdresser. So, I was surprised to know that hairdressing was not covered by the present act. I stand corrected if that is the case, minister. When you think of all the nits in this world, especially those that float around with kids at school, I would have thought that activity would have been already covered.
I was looking at the changes to regulations; that is probably long overdue. I had a good time looking through the regulations, especially the Public Health (General Sanitation, Mosquito Prevention, Rat Exclusion and Prevention) Regulations. That is something that should be debated in this House. I notice, under section 7, Keeping of animals and domestic birds:
- (1) A person shall not, without the written permission of an Inspector, keep or permit an animal, other than a cat or dog, to be kept within a distance of 12 metres from a dwelling house, hospital or school building.
It would be interesting to see how many people in the rural area have a horse in the front yard. The member for Goyder and I will be going around doorknocking people asking whether they have written permission of the inspector.
There is a whole heap of those things. Section 7(5) is:
- A house, shelter or erection for the keeping of a domestic bird or birds, shall not be erected or placed within 15 metres of a dwelling house, hospital or school.
There is a section which deals with the cleansing of stables. It was not until some issues about stables being built in the rural area were raised that I realised it was not necessarily a planning matter, it was actually department of Health or an environmental health matter. When it came to stables, the person with the most power was the director. Because these are fairly old regulations, how do they match in with planning regulations? Should some of these be planning regulations or health regulations?
I like section 18(1):
- A person shall not cast or place a dead animal, or any animal with intent to drown the animal, into any watercourse, reservoir, storage tank, dam, sewer, waterhole, river …
It goes on and on.
Yes, there are many others. Protection of drinking fountains - I did not know this one existed. I heard the drinking fountain at the new Palmerston jetty was pinched the other day. Section 20 says:
- A person shall not:
(a) break or damage, or remove a part of, a drinking fountain;
(c) place any offensive or obnoxious substance in or on a drinking fountain.
Some of them, I suppose, make some sense, but some of them have to be updated because they are past their use-by date, or they need to be reworded so they relate more to today’s language. I am not sure how many people still require night soil to be removed, but there is a whole section on night soil.
I notice you are going to change the regulations, although I was not sure whether I saw something which said that these regulations will have a limitation; they will only last for a few more years. I am presuming, in the meantime, they will be replaced with new regulations. Obviously, you have to have some regulations. It makes sense that there are some changes. This particular bill is the foundation, and the regulations are the practical application of this bill. It is an important document.
In a briefing, we had discussions about septic tanks. This is an area that needs to be more widely publicised within a public arena. I have one of those pump-out septics; I do not think it works as well as it should. The company that put it in has gone broke. In theory, the companies that put them in are supposed to maintain them. What do I do to keep maintaining it? There are issues that have come up recently, where I saw three blocks of land near the Beddington Road estate in Herbert. Of the three houses, two of them are in water and one is just out, but their septic tanks are now under water. I know there is a requirement under the Planning Act that you do not build within a flood line, and that plumbers are self-certified. You are hoping the self-certification gives them enough knowledge to say: ‘You cannot put the septic tank there’.
I presume there are two matters in regard to that. One is the Planning Regulations, but I also presume those regulations come under this particular act. Maybe there has to be a little more publicity about what is required because these three places out in Herbert, technically, should not have their septic tanks there. They cannot use their toilets because they are full of water. Some of that information is for the public. If the public is aware there are regulations about septic tanks such as they should not be in a wet area, they can also ask the plumber to check he is building a septic in an area allowed. They cost a fair amount of money today. A pump-out system will cost you at least $6000 or $7000, and a normal septic will cost about the same amount. That area needs looking at. It is an important area, and is definitely an environmental health matter because these three septic tanks are in a lagoon, which means the lagoon is being polluted. Residents who might want to paddle around the lagoon in their boat may be doing so with a certain amount of risk because the septic tanks of some neighbours are now under water.
I imagine there has been much consultation around this bill. It will update not only the language of the bill, it will ensure it covers new areas such as tattooing and hairdressing - those areas that may not have been covered before. It also brings it into a language more understandable in this day and age.
There are quite a number of regulations in relation to this bill. The one I mentioned is not the only regulation; however, you can see from a glance through this act it is quite old and certainly needs upgrading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. I am interested to see what comes out in the regulations, especially for rural people such as keeping of horses, keeping of chooks - which also applies to Darwin. There is a special ...
Ms Purick: Do not forget the goats.
Mr WOOD: Goats actually do not come under the definition, I am sorry. It is good to see the most important animal does – a domestic bird. Obviously, domestic birds are far more important than goats.
Dr Burns: Has it got sea-eagles?
Mr WOOD: Sea-eagles, no. They are not domestic unless they have been brought up in a cage from Larrimah and kept in a cage at Berry Springs.
Things like ventilation of chemical closets is probably up-to-date. It is probably a more modern one because I presume that happens in caravans. I do not know whether that is covered as well. I am unsure what a dangerous septic tank is; it sounds …
Ms Purick: They are all dangerous; especially if you fall into them.
Mr WOOD: That could be a worry if you fall in, yes. The previous owner of my residence had a piggery. Do not tell the building people but it is a terrible shed. It has trees growing on top of it; that it how old the roof is. He built it in pre-cyclone days, I am sure. He had a large septic tank at the bottom for the effluent. It was a concrete pig sty and he would hose all the effluent in and pump it out on the pasture for the horses. He had long gone and we took over. He had bits of tin over the top of it. My good friend, Jo Selby, asked if she could run her horse on my property. I said it was fine. I received a message one day that this poor horse had fallen through and was stuck in the septic tank ...
Ms Purick: I remember that.
Mr WOOD: You remember that? It ended up in the paper. We got a crane, put a sling around it and got it out. That might be the definition of a dangerous septic tank. However, I digress.
Minister, it is an important bill. Environmental health is an important issue. The minister and I have had the odd word about certain landfill sites. We hope we get a regional land use site. If there is a regional land use site does this act cover it? Will this set up the licensing procedures for landfill? Maybe you could let us know if this is the one that would do that.
It is an important act; the regulations are also important. When they are being developed I would like to see some public consultation on it, from not only the specialists but also rural people. People who want to keep animals would like to see what those regulations are.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, the regulation is a long time coming. I recall it started being drafted in 1994 when I worked as Manager Darwin Urban. It is very good to see it took only 17 years to bring it to parliament - for me to be in parliament in a different capacity.
In this closing debate, I pay special tribute to the Environmental Health staff who did an excellent, marvellous job - Xavier Schobben was the Director of Environmental Health – but, in particular, a person who worked very hard in the Territory, the late Phil Donohoe, who died in a tragic accident in December 2006. Phil worked in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Nhulunbuy. Xavier and Phil drafted the discussion paper in 2000. My understanding is it is the only public health discussion paper ever to be printed in purple/pink. I do not know the significance of the colour. We progressed from that discussion paper to very good legislation to replace an antiquated health act that was drafted in 1952.
I thank very much the member for her support. I have even forgiven the member for Greatorex for his vitriolic attack. He started saying he could not understand why we spent so much time talking about sheds and statehood. For one simple reason: if sheds are not properly constructed and comply with the environmental health status, they can pose a danger to people’s health. As for statehood, since we are only a Territory, Canberra always has the ability and the power to overrule our legislation, be it the terminally-ill or even our environmental health legislation if they do not like it or we step on some toes.
The member for Greatorex accused me of being despicable for what I said on the radio today about not recruiting doctors. What I said yesterday in my adjournment was you can run your town down but, if you do that, how can we attract workers and people to live there? It will be very difficult for us to argue about Alice Springs.
We know there are problems in Alice Springs. Of course, there are problems in Alice Springs. Most of the problems arise from alcohol. Of course, alcohol is not new. Alice Springs has always been known as the drinking capital of the Northern Territory. The problems which have been exacerbated recently have not arisen just since 18 August 2001 when the Labor government came to power. Most of the problems in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and in Katherine arise from the fact that the John Howard government implemented the intervention in the Northern Territory.
One of the first things done was to close wet canteens and restrict alcohol availability in the communities. It does not take many brains to know what will happen if the people want to drink. Where are they going to drift? They are going to drift to places where they can access alcohol; that is, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, and Alice Springs. That is what happened. With the influx of people from the communities into Alice Springs, more of them come, they stay longer and, of course, we have the results of excessive alcohol consumption with families falling apart. Families do not look after their children and they are roaming the streets.
I am critical that the opposition makes wild allegations about children prostituting themselves with not one piece of evidence to provide to the police or to the department of Child Protection. I have twice asked my department if any evidence was provided to the department so we can investigate and take action. We could not find any.
We also have to remember that it is not only police action that will make Alice Springs a better place, it is action by the community to do something about the young people. It is very sad because I well remember when we started implementing the Clontarf Academy in Alice Spring and were looking for assistance from the business community and we received very little. The same business community is now very quick to raise $10 000 to start the television campaign to highlight the problems they have in Alice Springs. It is better to prevent the problem rather than to treat it. If the business community, the whole community, and the government worked together constructively, some of these problems might not have arisen in Alice Springs.
He went on to talk about hospitals and how bad health is in the Territory, and how bad the elective surgery list is in the Territory. Let me tell you something: you come here and open your mouth to make wild allegations which are copied by the media. I will give you some facts and figures about the elective surgery waiting list. In July 2003, there were 3046 people waiting. In July 2004, there were 3488 people waiting. The highest number was in July 2005 with 3610 people on the waiting list. Then, we started going down: July 2007 – 2666; July 2008 – 2409; July 2009 – 2753; July 2010 – 2266; and in November 2010 - 2202. That shows the elective surgery waiting list does not grow, but comes down.
Where the Commonwealth government provided money for elective surgery to be undertaken in the Northern Territory and the other states, the Territory performed the best. We did an extra 300 surgeries with the money in order to cap the waiting list. We have continued to do so, despite the fact we do not have our own home-trained doctors, and we have to rely upon people coming from other states, such as anaesthetists and surgeons. We are battling.
You have to remember we have some of the sickest population, and much of this sickness is a result of public health issues. People do not have access to good water. They do not have access to safe houses, or their housing is substandard. People live in areas where the septic tank is broken or is not functional and the sewage runs down the yard. People do not have hot water to wash their clothes, or electricity or a washing machine. These are public health issues. What we are trying to address with this Public Environmental Health Bill is exactly these issues. Again, it is not going to be done by the Health department only, it has to be done by a number of departments working together.
This legislation provides the road map to how we are going to address these issues. Of course, it does not only provide for nuisance, or about environmental health issues in communities, but in our own urban centres. I was surprised when I first came here and I realised our act, at the time, would not address issues in tattoo parlours, or if you go to have an ear pierced with an earring. We could not do much about this. We could not control them, despite that, in other states, it has been the norm for many years.
Madam Speaker, it is a very substantial bill; a very modern bill. It is not prescriptive like the old bill. It is actually a bill that has received praise from experts in the field. Dr Christopher Reynolds, who is a national authority on public health, law and policy - and who has a book coming out on public health law to be published next month - has been very positive in his comments on the provisions contained in this bill, particularly with respect to the continuation of the use and the wide definition of public health nuisances, which includes condition, state or conduct that puts at risk or damages public health. When someone like Dr Christopher Reynolds praises our environmental health, we must be on the right track. We must have done something really good here.
As I said before, it took us 17 years. Yes, things do not move very quickly in the Territory but, in the past few years we have seen significant improvements in public and environmental health. The number of environmental health officers when I came here was 15 in the whole Territory. It has now risen to 25 and, as our population increases, it will increase further. The Territory is one of the few jurisdictions where environmental health officers work for the government. My intention is - and I will discuss this with my colleagues - in the next few years the environmental health officers will be working with the shires, with the local councils, with the communities, because they have to be very close to the grassroots. They have to work with the population as they do in other states.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is very good legislation. I feel particularly proud that when I first started working in the Territory we started thinking about this kind of legislation. Today, as the Minister for Health for the Northern Territory, I am introducing this Public Environmental Health Bill 2010.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated February 2011
Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated February 2011
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the Northern Territory government’s response to the Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, dated February 2011.
MOTION
Note paper - Northern Territory Government Response to Third Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated February 2011
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to reply to the third progress report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, dated November 2010. There are a number of recommendations made within the CTC’s report and those have been debated earlier in this session of parliament. It is now time for government to respond in a formal way to the CTC.
I will be covering matters related to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program or SIHIP, and my colleague, the member for Arnhem who is Minister for Local Government and Minister for Indigenous Development, will reply to the other recommendations relevant to her portfolio. I am sure the House realises there will be some overlap on some of them. Anyway, we will endeavour to do our best in relation to government’s response to the CTC.
I will preface our response to the report of the CTC by saying that I commend the CTC. It is a very hard-working committee and is covering a great deal of terrain, not just geographically, but also in the areas I have mentioned before, amongst others.
SIHIP is a heavily scrutinised program. It has been scrutinised by our own Auditor-General. It is currently being scrutinised by the Commonwealth Auditor-General and, parallel to that, there are also questions being asked by the council.
I understand the department, namely the CEO Mr Ken Davies, and Mr Andrew Kirkman, amongst others, have appeared before the CTC a number of times. I hope the CTC is satisfied with the level of cooperation they are getting from the department and the flow of information. I know the CEO of the department and Mr Kirkman endeavour to place as much information as they can before the CTC.
There will always be some tension, I believe, in the evidence departmental officers can give to a parliamentary committee like the CTC, particularly when, understandably, the CTC is inquiring into the financial aspects of SIHIP, some of which are commercial-in-confidence. I know the committee respects those commercial-in-confidence issues. However, I am sure the committee probably also, at times, feels a little frustrated. They would like to go that little extra with some of the information. That is an understandable tension and, hopefully, we can work through those issues. As I understand it, the committee has been given a number of undertakings by the department about the provision of information.
The other partner in all of this is the Commonwealth. The committee also understands there are some processes and discussions that have to be undertaken with our Commonwealth partners before information can be released, remembering that SIHIP is under the control of a joint steering committee. That is a partnership between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government. It is a very public program.
As I have said publicly, it did not get off to a very good start in life and there is much scrutiny. Basically, the media is always on the lookout for a SIHIP story, not necessarily always a positive story. I must say, though, when the media came out to Wadeye with minister Macklin and me recently, they were impressed by the houses they saw. They were impressed by the workmanship and the rate at which the houses have been turned out and, of course, the Indigenous employment that is associated with SIHIP.
Whilst there were initial problems with SIHIP, the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory pointed to the logistics of this program; it is one of the largest programs ever to be rolled out in remote Australia. Even if it was in a mainstream capital city, the very logistics of building 750 houses, 2500 refurbishments, and 230 rebuilds would be immense.
Underlying SIHIP is the alliance method of contracting. The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory, once again, pointed to some of the positives and negatives associated with the alliance method of contracting. Whilst it has flexibility and the capacity for negotiation at a community level, and also between government and the alliance contractors, as the Auditor-General said, it is somewhat difficult to ascertain exact direct costs because of the nature of alliance contracting. I understand the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, AHURI, is putting out a paper shortly about various contracting methods in Indigenous housing, including SIHIP. It will be interesting to read their review of the alliance contracting model. It is an academic approach to this important issue. I do not know if they have spoken to the member for Nelson. I am sure he, as well as other members of the committee, would be almost Australian experts on the alliance method of contracting.
I lay some of those things on the record before I start specifically speaking in relation to the government’s responses to the council. I also have to say - and I am not trying to politicise this too much - I am disappointed the opposition has walked away from the Council of Territory Cooperation. It was a blind move, driven by ideology. Whoever the strategist was behind it, it was not a very good idea at a whole range of levels. The opposition will work out its own strategy; far be it for me to suggest what strategy they should have employed.
My school motto was ‘Knowledge is power’. The council, in their deliberations - some of which have been made public and some of which is commercial-in-confidence - has been privy to detail the opposition does not now have ready access to, as well as the direct contact with senior public servants to ask direct questions. In some ways, the opposition is starving itself of information. If I wanted to think in a negative way, I might think it suits some members of the opposition because they can say whatever they like about SIHIP, not based on fact or what they have been told within the briefing. When you are not encumbered by what is occurring, you are more or less free to say whatever you like. The opposition has not done itself any favours by being critical of the council.
The very presence of the council, the lines of questioning, and the fact they are going on location seeing things for themselves - it is obvious government’s focus is on delivering these houses and listening to what is coming out of the CTC in the public arena. We are trying, wherever possible, to take on board the constructive recommendations of the CTC and change some of the things occurring. There is a political imperative for government to listen carefully to what the CTC says. Our members of the CTC are bush members and are very direct in what they have to say. That is very good because not only do we have the member for Nelson, who spent a fair bit of time here and there, but we have bush members from our side who are also very intent on seeing SIHIP and local government issues work. It is a very constructive way of doing business.
I will turn now to government’s response. Nine of the recommendations refer to SIHIP, and I will try to address those, albeit it fairly briefly. I am advised, members of the CTC, that quite a number of recommendations have been fulfilled. I will listen carefully if you feel they have not been fulfilled as far as they should be. When you make a request, we are trying, as far as possible, to meet those requests. I will table our response after I have finished what I have to say.
Recommendation 1 says:
… SIHIP construction only be of housing designs that will deliver the longest possible useful life and low maintenance requirements.
I am advised all new houses delivered under SIHIP are designed to achieve a built life of 30 to 40 years. I know some of these houses come under quite extreme conditions, some of them have been attacked with steel implements, and some very unfortunate incidents have happened. It really depends where that house is situated, whether you can expect a 30- to 40-year life out of it. However, that is the expectation. There is another recommendation about malicious damage. My instruction to the department has been that those who maliciously damage this property are to be pursued and repayments are to be made.
Turning again to the 30 to 40 years, the program has aligned with the department’s remote housing asset management strategy to ensure all fixtures and fittings in all community housing assets are robust, fit for purpose, and standardised. Solid wall solutions will be the preferred solution in communities where new house designs are yet to be finalised. That is our undertaking: to move down that path of solid walls. With the houses we have built to date in some of the locations, it has been a learning curve about the way we should be building in future.
I digress a little. As minister for Housing, I am regularly approached – as I am sure the member for Nelson and others are approached – by someone, usually from interstate, sometimes from the Northern Territory - who has the solution for Indigenous housing. It is always something that can be built within two weeks and there are a whole lot of things. However, most of us who have been around for a while know these houses we are building have to be of very robust construction. While many of the products showcased to me are wonderful products, I have question marks about their longevity in the situations we just talked about. However, it is good that people are coming forward, and we need to continue to listen to people with new ideas.
Recommendation 2 says:
- … the Northern Territory and Australian governments urgently consider transferring SIHIP refurbishment funding from alliances to shires or other local organisations to undertake refurbishments.
I thoroughly endorse this recommendation. I have had discussions with minister Macklin about this. I believe the Australian and Northern Territory governments are moving down that track. There are some models- for example, on Groote Eylandt - where that sharing relationship happens. I say to the House - and I am sure the council is already aware - the alliances have made some of their costings and their commitments based on the work that was showcased and made available to them. To make it economical, there is a certain amount of work the alliances have to undertake. I am all for, in those packages, where it is possible, to put it out to a local organisation with the capacity to do it, and I am pushing that with the Commonwealth. That is a very important and constructive recommendation made by the council.
Recommendation 3:
- … SIHIP program managers provide the CTC with details of the ‘programmed way’ DHLGRS repairs and maintenance funding is being used to complete SIHIP refurbishments.
It really depends on what you mean by ‘complete’; the definition of ‘complete’. Obviously, the scope of works the Commonwealth has given the alliances has been well publicised regarding painting. Certainly, if there is some way we can utilise some local capacity to undertake painting on some of those houses, I believe we should be doing it. So, it depends exactly what you mean by ‘complete’.
I will read the response:
- The Remote Housing program covers both construction and repairs and maintenance works in remote communities. Scoping is carried out on each package of works to identify which works are refurbishments and which should be managed by via the repairs and maintenance program. Works are then coordinated with repairs and maintenance service providers to achieve best results to meet community housing needs.
To gain the best outcomes for remote housing, construction under SIHIP and repairs and maintenance and tenancy management need to be coordinated and integrated to the highest possible degree.
On that issue of painting, I am all for trying to engage at that local level to get people involved in the painting and refreshing of those houses so people have a stake in the house in their effort. We are already seeing that in Wadeye, in particular with many of the new houses; that people are very house proud. They are planting gardens and whatever, and their houses are very neat, albeit many of them do not have much furniture in them. It is interesting to be at the shop there and see people leaving the shop with all sorts of house wares for their new houses. That is to be commended. I believe there is a change in the way people are thinking.
Recommendation 4:
- The CTC recommends that it be provided with the full details of all conditions and service requirements of housing repairs and maintenance funding paid to shires.
I am advised that details on condition and service requirements of housing and repairs and maintenance funding paid to shires has been provided to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Recommendation 5:
- … a scope of works be published for the three Tennant Creek town camps where infrastructure works are under way.
Infrastructure works in Tennant Creek and community living areas are to an urban subdivisional standard. I assume the CTC has been to Tennant Creek and seen those buildings and the civil works being carried out there. It has been a few months since I have been there, but I was very impressed by the standard of work, the civil works, and the general cleanup. I also have to remark that there was a bit of scaremongering going on in the media - I think some members of the opposition were involved in it - saying the alliance contractor was withdrawing from Tennant Creek. That was not true. There is much misinformation of SIHIP. I suppose that is what I have to contend with as minister.
Recommendation 6:
- The CTC recommends:
- (a) a greater level of consultation occur with shires on how SIHIP subdivisions are planned;
(b) details be provided of the planning processes followed for designing SIHIP subdivisions and who participates in the processes.
I am advised SIHIP infrastructure, planning and approval processes currently include standard design and approval processes, including the Department of Lands and Planning and the Power and Water Corporation. Remote shire councils do not have subdivision guidelines, and SIHIP is utilising guidelines developed specifically for the program. Program managers will consult with and involve shire councils in future works planning. Most members of this House would appreciate there are many new subdivisions going on, but the location of those subdivisions and what they comprise is often, at a very local community level, very highly politicised. You have the land councils and others involved. It is a difficult process, but I commend the departments for negotiating with the various entities and, in a number of cases, getting some pretty good results.
I visited the subdivision at Maningrida, I would say maybe October/November last year, and was very impressed by what I saw there. It was still very much a work in progress but it is a major subdivision. I was accompanied by my old friend, Mr Reggie Wurridjal, one of the traditional owners, and he is very happy with the subdivision and the way it is all shaping up. It was great to receive that feedback from local people.
Recommendation 7:
- … all cases of apparent malicious and wilful damage to public housing be reported to police, as part of tenancy and asset management ...
As I said earlier, that has certainly been my direction to the department. In some cases, the Commonwealth, where there are lease negotiations still going on, is actually the landlord. Wherever the Northern Territory government is the landlord, the instruction from me, as minister, has been explicit. I know the Chief Minister is red hot on this also; that if there is malicious damage to any of our assets it is to be reported and investigated by police, and we will institute processes to get that money paid back.
That is our policy, member for Nelson. I will just repeat from the response to the report:
The policy in relation to malicious and wilful damage is aligned with … urban public housing, whereby instances of malicious and wilful damage are reported to police.
Recommendation 8:
- … the Northern Territory government honour its commitment to provide a detailed financial report on SIHIP each quarter.
The response is:
- A detailed quarterly report is provided to the CTC. Remote Housing NT will continue work with CTC secretariat to provide additional information … required.
I know there are still discussions about individual packages, and some undertakings have been made by Ken Davies and Andrew Kirkman about the provision of information on completion of packages. When those details are provided, the average house for these packages is being built within a reasonable ballpark average indicated by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory government. Some are a little more and some will be a little less, as one would expect.
Recommendation 9:
- … the Northern Territory government provide details of how the outcome of delivering healthy homes will be monitored and evaluated.
That is a pretty important recommendation. The outcomes of delivering healthy homes will be monitored and evaluated by the Healthy Homes Working Group with regular reporting to the board of management, and ongoing monitoring through the local implementation plans tracker. What we are looking at here, as I said on the public record a number of times, is a journey. Many people living in remote communities are, for a whole range of reasons, probably not aware of their obligations as a tenant and, equally, of the obligations of government as the landlord. I believe it is important we go on that process of education with people, and give people every opportunity to understand what is involved in a tenancy, looking after a house, and ensuring a healthy environment. It is a large challenge. That was a very short response. It is probably easier said than done, but it is something, as a government, we are committed to.
In closing, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table government’s response to the CTC. I commend the work of the CTC. Sometimes, you make it a little difficult for government, but that is your role. I wish you all the best and believe it is good you are there inquiring into some very important projects and challenges that face the Northern Territory. Obviously, we will not always come up to the expectations of the CTC, but we are giving it a red hot go in the interest of Territorians to deliver better housing and local government services across the length and breadth of the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not going to talk on the CTC third report, however, given some of the issues raised by the member for Johnston I need to respond. I shall not be long; I need to ensure the record remains clear.
The member for Johnston expressed concerns about the fact that opposition members left the CTC. All things being equal, I would have liked to stay on the CTC for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the issue the member for Johnston pointed out - the fact we had an opportunity to learn. We were on a committee with a broad-ranging mandate; we could go virtually anywhere and do anything. We were a self-referencing committee, and that is useful for the members involved. I found my time on the CTC to be useful; I learnt much, I was exposed to things I would not normally be in opposition, and had access to people through the inquiry process I would not ordinarily have access to as a member of the opposition. For that, it was a useful and good committee. It was a great education, and I learnt much.
However, edification was not the purpose of the CTC. In my view, it was having a committee structure which made government more accountable. When I say ‘government’, I mean the ministers of this government. When you look at the relationship between the Chief Minister and the CTC, one has to assess the seriousness with which the Chief Minister takes that committee, given its unique role.
I quickly refer to one particular issue which, for me, was the straw that broke the camel’s back: the issue of compelling ministers to appear before the CTC. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as a committee member yourself, you and the other committee members would understand and know there was a recommendation in the CTC’s second report with respect to getting ministers to appear before the CTC. That recommendation was agreed to by all members of the CTC. It was agreed to by the CLP members, the Labor Party members, and the Independent member for Nelson. When that recommendation went to the Chief Minister, it was batted back with some disdain. In my mind, it cemented that the Chief Minister was not taking the CTC seriously enough to warrant my inclusion and, by extension, the member for Port Darwin’s inclusion, in that committee.
As far as the member for Johnston asserting ‘a strategist’ had hold of this and made the call to remove us from the committee, I can only repeat what I have said: in my view, the Chief Minister did not take the CTC seriously enough. I felt my time could be better spent, rather than sitting on a committee that was largely there, in my view, in name only.
I satisfy, I hope, the member for Johnston that there was no conspiracy or strategy in place. Those other members who were on the CTC could vouch for this particular fact. Both the member for Port Darwin and I - and I am not saying us exclusively; all the members of the CTC - put in a lot of hard work. We approached our work with the CTC in good faith, expecting there would be some result from the hard work we put in. Of course, when that did not materialise, it made me wonder whether it was worthwhile to remain there. Clearly, the decision was made not to.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to clarify that point, and to stress to the member for Johnston who raised it, the reason for the departure of the CLP members from the committee.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to expand on the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations that relate to my portfolio responsibilities in Local Government and Indigenous Development.
The council’s work provides an important means for local government councils, Indigenous and other organisations, and individuals to present their viewpoints on programs operated by the three levels of government. I pick up on the comments made by the member for Katherine regarding the many opportunities he received as a committee member, travelling with the CTC across the Northern Territory, and the exposure he received in being able to have access to important government officials in the departments, important information, scrutinising the many areas the CTC has, in particular with SIHIP and the local government region.
I have to say it is an absolute disappointment the opposition pulled out of the CTC and continue to stay out of it, simply because one of the fundamental goals of any of the committees of the parliament – but, in particular, the CTC under the leadership of the member for Nelson - is to scrutinise and be vigilant about the many reforms going on across the Northern Territory. It is a shame the CLP continues to remain absent in that forum, especially given the comments by the member for Katherine of how beneficial it was to both him and his colleagues.
I pick up on that point and highlight also that, even at the very beginning, it was always indicated there would be a fair process of access to the many departmental heads and their staff throughout this. The opposition has the perfect opportunity in the estimates process to scrutinise each and every minister for hours on end, armed with terrific information that is coming from what they were learning through the CTC. Now, they do not have that and they are worse off for it. They knew when they entered into that arrangement that that was the case. So, to be on it for nearly a year and, then, to suddenly spit the dummy and walk off with their bat and ball, was disappointing, no doubt, for their constituencies. I maintain regular contact with my peak bodies in regard to local government and to others who are relevant to my portfolio.
The Council of Territory Cooperation has provided a considered response to the issues presented to it, and I turn to the recommendations that apply to my ministerial portfolio. I have five recommendations.
Recommendation 10 - the council has recommended that:
- … the DHLGRS develop memorandums of understanding or agreements with all shires to improve coordination between governments and establish a single point of contact.
The department of Housing and Local Government has undertaken a functional assessment that has increased the capacity of regional offices to provide a first response to council issues, both municipal and shire. This recognises regional staff are most acquainted with local issues and are best positioned to understand the operating environment and issues faced by local government councils.
For issues that may not be resolved at a regional level, the department has created a single point of contact for all local government councils, shire and municipal. This is the Senior Executive Director of Local Government and Regional Services, the position occupied by Fran Kilgariff, former Mayor of the Alice Springs Town Council, who has vast experience in local government and is well known to many people in the third tier of government.
In regard to communication with shire councils, the department has established a regional shires forum, which includes mayors and presidents of shire councils, together with their council CEO, and CEO and Senior Executive Director of the Department of Local Government and Regional Services, together with the Northern Territory State Manager for FaHCSIA. Councils submit agenda items they want discussed around their priorities at these meetings, which are held three or four times a year. This is a great forum for discussion of cross-agency and cross-government issues. It is important to note, at the request of the councils, the meeting agenda provides as much time as possible for open discussion, rather than focusing on presentations from government agencies.
Recommendation 11:
- … the Northern Territory
- (a) tell the Australian government that the closure of CDEP will have a detrimental impact on Aboriginal communities; and
(b) work with the Australian government to achieve the maintenance of the CDEP program.
I totally agree with the member for Nelson and the team with the CTC. We know how important it is to have that dialogue. In fact, I was in Canberra a couple of weeks ago pushing that very issue with the federal minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin. The Commonwealth government’s stated intention is to end CDEP as a wage program in 2012 and, effectively, the Commonwealth’s current planning is to reduce CDEP in scale and to develop other new work-readiness and Indigenous employment programs.
Like the Australian government, we have been concerned about CDEP becoming a destination rather than a transition to mainstream employment. Having said that, the Northern Territory government also recognises the real value that well-managed CDEP programs can provide in supporting community development and providing people with work-ready skills where there are limited mainstream employment opportunities.
There is also real scope for developing a revised and enhanced CDEP program in the local government area, but with real jobs as outcomes for participants. My department is partnering with the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory and the shire councils to further develop workforce planning capacity in shire councils. The aim of this is to help support long-term strategic planning for the development of existing and potential remote Indigenous staff. This will increase the workforce capacity of shire councils and enhance career pathway planning and support for employees.
Recommendation 11 is absolutely crucial in ensuring what we are doing with A Working Future. What I appreciate about the CTC in this regard is that you cannot have enough people vigilant about wanting to see thorough and solid long-term employment across our regions, especially given the many reforms that come under my portfolio. I will be very keen to see further work done in this area in CDEP and Indigenous employment.
One of the other people I saw in Canberra in regard to Indigenous employment was Mark Arbib. Given that under his leadership they are looking at Indigenous employment, naturally, the conversation goes to people like him in what we can do to ensure there is solid, long-term, ongoing employment in these programs reforms, not only in the shires but under the banner of A Working Future.
Recommendation 12:
- … the Northern Territory government provide a report to the CTC on the number of current local jobs in local government by shire and community and the number of jobs that existed prior to local government reform.
I believe this is a particularly important recommendation and, again, goes to the heart of my response on Recommendation 11; that is, our constant vigilance about how we are performing, and how we compare to how things were before.
Improved employment and development opportunities for local people was a major objective of the 2008 reform of local government. The reform included a requirement for shire councils that the employment and training of local people in delivering local government services was a core function. It is a high priority objective for the council mayors and presidents, as reflected in their annual reports. I agree there is a need for more regular reporting on local government workforce data in the department, together with LGANT and shire councils. They will develop a template and reporting framework to deliver consistent workforce data. Data collected from shire councils will be reported by the department.
The only reliable data for the pre-2008 local government councils available at this time comes from preliminary doctorate research conducted through Charles Darwin University. This research was based on a detailed assessment of council records pre-July 2008, and in the first half of 2009. The research shows a significant growth in council employment, from 1660 people with the former community government councils to 2300 people with shire councils in 2009. The data includes employment in both core and agency-related services. The analysis concludes the employment growth was most likely due to the increased funding provided to move former CDEP positions into fully-paid jobs in aged care, childcare, community patrols and similar, as well as the introduction of the matching funding scheme for transition of former CDEP participants to paid jobs in council core services.
I certainly agree with the recommendation that there should be more consistent reporting of employment in the shire councils to monitor trends and provide appropriate responses, if needed. The department is working with LGANT and councils to achieve this objective.
Recommendation 13:
- … provide information about ongoing additional funding it has identified that will assist shires in delivering the full range of services.
As we all know, shire councils in the Northern Territory have limited revenue-raising capacity due to the small population base and the significant area of land administered. The shire councils are very dependent on ongoing operational subsidies from the Northern Territory government. Our government continues to work with shire councils and LGANT to strengthen the capacity of shires to provide services. While provision of additional funding is subject to budget development, the department will negotiate for the development of shared understanding of service levels and standards, and seek agreement on the costs of the required level of service delivery to ensure there is a realistic expectation of service standards within financial resources available to shire councils.
To go to the heart of that issue with regard to ongoing additional funding for shires, this clearly is the important challenge in the reforms because we want to see that our shires across the Northern Territory look very much at own source revenue. We know the reality of how difficult that is but, again, this is about a journey, a process that is not going to happen overnight. We are clearly tackling a situation in the Northern Territory which was not met, not dealt with in previous decades, recognising when we embarked on the shire reforms we did so in the firm belief we had to create a future where there was far more scrutiny of how local government worked across the regions. We recognised the serious challenge of additional funding was ahead of us, and is clearly there today.
Recommendation 14:
- … the Northern Territory government urgently establish a Northern Territory statutory leaseholding entity or negotiate with the Australian government for the transfer of the Office of Township Leasing.
Believe me, member for Nelson, this is an area we most definitely will look into and discuss at length. Whole-of-township leasing for our growth towns is a key priority for both the Northern Territory and Australian governments. There is a need for more progress in this area when we look at the reforms taking place across the Northern Territory. The long-term future we envisage has to be built on strong foundations, so we need robust and long-lasting lease agreements, enjoying strong support of landowners and land councils. Without their cooperation we cannot move ahead.
In this House, we have heard on numerous occasions, and as recently as last night, talk about leasing across the Northern Territory. We know almost half the Northern Territory land mass is Aboriginal land. That is an obvious challenge in front of us, and we want to ensure the way we grow these regions is based firmly on a strong foundation. That is why the Northern Territory government is seeking to develop, in close cooperation with the Commonwealth, land councils, and shire councils, a detailed implementation plan for all 20 Territory growth towns, and to have them in place by 30 June 2012 - long-term leasing arrangements which secure government assets and facilitate private investment. A bold vision! We are moving ahead and working towards a goal. This will continue to be considered by government but it is in the Territory’s interest to cut red tape where possible and have a seamless intersection with other planning and land-leasing arrangements across the Territory.
We believe the agreed plan should deal with the future role of the EDTL, including options for the Commonwealth EDTL to be replaced by a Northern Territory entity under section 19A of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We also believe this plan should include options for the creation of a joint Commonwealth/Territory Office of Leasing Coordination with the capacity to negotiate leases on Aboriginal land on behalf of all Northern Territory and Australian government agencies.
In summary of Recommendation 14, the government broadly agrees to the Council of Territory Cooperation recommendation, and has commenced processes to implement the recommendation in cooperation with the Commonwealth, land councils, traditional owners, and shire councils.
Recommendation 15:
- … the existing township leases not be used as a template and the Northern Territory government insist on head lease terms for Territory growth towns that exclude the need for permits.
There is a fine balance to be achieved in reaching agreement on leasing arrangements in remote towns on Aboriginal land. First, the rights and interests of traditional owners have to be respected. Second, the appropriate level of government involvement to guide development has to be determined. Third, we need to ensure leases can operate in a similar way to freehold property interests and enable local people to build wealth and ultimately reinvest in their own communities.
The Northern Territory government agrees with the Council of Territory Cooperation that the current arrangements in town areas leased to the Executive Director of Township Leasing do not yet achieve the right balance. The head lease terms are still complicated and onerous, particularly on commercial leases. Investors should be required to respect sacred sites, cultural imperatives, and strict environmental standards. They should not be subject to arrangements requiring constant approval and oversight by the EDTL which, amongst other things, makes accessing finance more difficult.
In relation to access and permits, the government believes lease terms should ensure leaseholders and their families, staff, visitors, and customers are able to freely access leased areas for the agreed permitted uses. This includes being able to travel on roads to and from leased areas of land. In fact, there are already provisions in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to ensure this kind of open access. As such, changes to legislation of effective permit arrangements are not required.
The government agrees with the intent of Recommendation 15 of the Council of Territory Cooperation, and looks forward to implementing it in cooperation with the Commonwealth government, land councils, and traditional owners.
In closing, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I put on the Parliamentary Record a heartfelt thanks to you, the member for Arafura, and the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson, for your vigilance in this area. I appreciate that these are terrific reforms across the Northern Territory. I do not mean ‘terrific’ as in they are fantastic. I mean they are just huge. We have an enormous body of work ahead of us. We have been going through stages of social reform with the local government shires and, of course, with A Working Future and the leasing. I firmly believe the effectiveness of this parliament in the use of the parliamentary system and the mechanisms within it to be vigilant about these kinds of reforms is very helpful for me, as the minister, and I appreciate that.
Debate adjourned.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly adjourn until 29 March 2011 at 10 am in Alice Springs, or such other time and/or date as may be ordered by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on the last of our sitting days for this session I talk about police, crime, law and order and, particularly, raise my concern with hearing recently that the Operational Superintendent for the Palmerston Region, who has been for some time based in Palmerston Police Station, has been called back to the Darwin Police Station to base his operation from there.
Palmerston is a city in its own right nowadays. It deserves the respect and dignity of having its own police commander - in fact, police superintendent - on-site, on the ground, to support the community. When I heard the Palmerston superintendent had been relocated to Darwin city, it really offended me. We have seen so many occasions where organisations have been withdrawn from the best place they should be, which is on the ground, and brought back to a central location.
The officers on the ground appreciate the fact that, day in, day out, they get to see their direct commanding officer. They get to touch their commanding officer and feel the direct support of having one of the hierarchy who determines how their work will be conducted available to them. If that superintendent is a good superintendent they get to hear that superintendent say: ‘Guys, you are doing a great job out there, keep going’, or ‘Guys, I know it is tough, but keep going’. However, that has been taken away from them. That ability, that extra layer of support that gives them the drive to go out there, day in, day out, and stand that thin line - that most cannot stand - has been taken away from them. They have had it ripped out from under them.
I call upon the government to have that superintendent returned to the Palmerston district where that superintendent belongs, to be on the ground in the city of Palmerston; the city that deserves to have a superintendent, to have management’s finger literally on the pulse so the key, local issues are heard firsthand. So, when the superintendent, just like a politician, walks down the local corner store for a coffee, the community can see and touch that brass, and say: ‘I like what your boys are doing’, or, in reverse, ‘I have a problem with your boys. I am not happy with this’. He can have that direct feedback. The community can have that direct contact, the confidence in the force, knowing they are able to reach out and touch their force, be in communication with the hierarchy of this force, particularly at a time when the troubles of Alice Springs are very arduous – they are horrendous, in fact.
It is vital we get back to the base roots of community policing; being in contact with the community. Ripping out the Palmerston super from the Palmerston Police Station and pushing that superintendent into the higher levels of Darwin city is ludicrous. It is madness. It may serve the benefits of commanders above - make it a little easier for the brass to talk to him or her - but the reality is, that officer should be in contact with the troops they represent, on the ground, and in contact with the community they represent.
I am sure you appreciate, when you all have senior police visit your communities and you see them walk around your communities, the feeling they are out there doing their job; it is good to see the boss is getting in touch. It is ludicrous to think we have allowed the force to do the opposite and withdraw that community support and put it in the Darwin station. I find that absurd, and I do not support it in any way or form for the simple benefit, predominantly, of having better control of management. How about we get the management on the ground where the people can be in contact with the person; can get the support of the Palmerston people? He can pass the support up to the commissioner, having been in contact with the people.
I have heard another rumour which causes me some concern; some of our general duties police have, over time, been whittled away from the ranks within Palmerston station as well. I do not expect the Chief Minister to come here any time soon and grandstand and say: ‘We have recruited more police, we have done this, we have done that’. I am hearing that police officers from within Palmerston Police Station have been reallocated, either on a temporary or permanent basis, to other areas to do jobs. That means the staffing level in the Palmerston Police Station would, without doubt, be down from what it should be. I am not asking to hear the rhetoric and the grandstanding: ‘We have recruited more police’. I want to know the numbers on the ground. I want to know that what you said they should have out there, and the books say they should have out there, they actually have out there, and they have not been whittled away to some other far corner of some dark policing room. I want them on the beat in Palmerston, keeping my bus stops and shopping centres safe. I want them there so people can have confidence their police are supporting them.
It is a strange environment we currently live in, where we have outbreaks of lawlessness in Alice Springs. I do not want to see that happen in Palmerston. I want to ensure we have our officers where they are needed, so they are there to support each other and our community, so our officers do not get overworked and buried under the burden they carry.
I call on the government to immediately have the Palmerston superintendent returned to Palmerston where he can give direct support to his community. I call on the government - as we have in the past on this side of the Chamber - for a complete, open and transparent review into actual numbers of police officers on the ground: what their actual current location is. I do not want to hear a PIPS positional numbers representation of where those police are. I want to know if they do a head count of the station. Let us say we have 45 or 55 police officers in the Palmerston Police Station. I want to have a representation against the fact that we should have 70-something police officers in that station. I want to know how many officers are in those stations: in the Darwin station, in CIB. I want to know where those officers are.
That is how we find out exactly where our resources are. Do not go to your computer and pull off the PIPS numbers, because PIPS numbers can be replicated, and do not show you a physical representation of that person at the time. Show us; tell us; have a review into it. Have a consideration that we might actually know some of what we are talking about. Have a consideration, if you are looking for a way to find out where your resources are, that this is what you have to do. Do not be ashamed; do not be afraid, Chief Minister and your various ministers, to give us on this side a call and say: ‘Hey, Ross, come in. We want to have a chat to see if we can work out a few things. Let us talk’. I do not have a problem, ministers. I do not have a problem helping you to help the community.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak about the loss to the Territory last year of a great Territorian, a gentleman known to us as Bill Wong, also affectionately known as Uncle Bill. He was a foundation member of the Chung Wah Society when it started in 1949, and held a general secretary’s position there for some 40 years, from 1955 to 1994. Shortly after that, he became known as the Temple Affairs Officer. He was the first Temple Affairs Officer and held that position from 1996 to 2006.
I place on the public record that Bill Wong was presented an Order of Australia Medal for his contribution to his community and to the Territory. This was read out by Roland Chin on behalf of his Aunty Rosemary, Bill’s wife. I quote from the document I have received from the family which reads:
- I am honoured to be asked by Aunty Rosemary and the Wong family to pay tribute to my late Uncle Bill Wong OAM.
As country bumpkins from Pine Creek, first my brother Edward, and then I, lived with our Granny Wong and then single uncles Herbert and Bill in Searcy Street while we attend the Darwin Higher Primary School. Uncle Bill took a keen interest in our schooling and when we were not doing so well he used unforgettable names such as gwar doy, meaning melon head, and even the much stronger muk tow meaning blockhead. But he always said it with a loving pat on the head.
- So, who was this man we come here to honour today?
There are many sources of information that have provided for me the essential facts to give to you. These include extensive biographical notes written by Uncle Bill and transcripts of interviews and various materials written by others. If you wish to follow them in more detail there is a copy of Uncle Bill’s biography in the Chung Wah Museum as well as official Hansard record of the parliamentary tribute by Shane Stone in Hansard.
That was done quite some years ago, Madam Deputy Speaker.
- William Chon Fang Wong was born in Darwin on 14 January 1923. He was the fifth child of Jimmy Wong Yung and Linoy Moo. His older siblings were Mabel, Charlie, Herbert and Lily. The youngest sister was Noreen. His mother was born in Darwin in 1891. His father came to the Northern Territory from Hong Kong in the 1880s to work on the Darwin to Pine Creek railway and later became a storekeeper at Brocks Creek. The family moved to Darwin in 1916 and Jimmy Wong worked as a woodcutter, fencer and firewood merchant. He died in 1926. Linoy raised chickens and vegetables to support her young family. The older children were forced to sacrifice their education and go out to work. In one biographical interview Uncle Bill recalls the poverty of the family with memories such as going barefoot to school and saving his one pair of sandshoes to wear on special occasions. Eggs were a good source of income and a boiled egg was a special treat on a birthday.
Uncle Bill completed his primary education and won a Queensland scholarship for secondary school but, because he was just over the age limit, it was not granted, in spite of representations by the school supervisor. He undertook a junior correspondence course but because of family poverty had to give it up. He really wanted to study medicine but circumstances prevented this ever becoming a reality. He was proud that his son, Wesley, has qualified as a doctor and that his grandson, Matthew, is studying medicine.
At the age of 15 he went out to work as a messenger boy for Amalgamated Wireless of Australia for a wage of one pound per week. Later he left his position to work for a better wage as an assistant at Thomas Brown and Sons, a warehouse firm.
When the opportunity arose he joined the public service to work as a messenger boy for the Department of Public Works. He was there when Darwin was bombed in 1942. He was evacuated to Alice Springs and rejoined the department when it was relocated there and became Allied Works Council which was set up by the Australian government to construct projects for the war effort. Although Uncle Bill was called up for service in the Armed Forces he was not released by the department.
In 1944 the headquarters of the Allied Works Council moved to Adelaide River. Conditions were basic with numerous air raid warnings and hard Army rations. In his biography, Uncle Bill recalls visits to Pine Creek where he enjoyed home-cooked feasts of Chinese dishes at Tom and Nellie Fong’s farm and fresh salad vegetables and fruits from Bobby Lee’s. His brother Herbert was the cook for the Northern Command and sometimes sent roast goose with all the trimmings which Bill shared with his hut mate. It was so tasty they nearly ate all the bones.
After the war Uncle Bill stayed with the Department of Works and Housing until 1947 when he became a partner with his brother-in-law, Jimmy Ah Toy and Jimmy’s brother, Riley Wing, in a grocery store in Knuckey Street. The shop was renowned for its friendliness and door-to-door delivery service by Uncle Herbert Wong and Vincent Hee. This business eventually became a supermarket and traded until Christmas eve 1974 when Cyclone Tracy forced its closure. After this devastating natural disaster Uncle Bill rejoined the government in the Water Supply Section where he worked until his retirement in 1988.
In retirement, he was kept busy with his Chung Wah and Chinese Temple commitments. His daily walks around Darwin’s streets were legendary. To quote a few lines from a poem called Oriental Aussie Man written in his honour on his OBM Award by an unknown author in 1966:
- He walks so briskly down the street,
he caused the air to quicken,
The tall trees bent from sudden gusts
and the dust began to thicken.
With his Akubra perched upon his head,
he strode off through the city.
And his sunburnt mate who lay about
sat up and sang this ditty.
‘Oh, welcome and good morning
to the cheerful smiling boss,
Who greets us with a rising sun
As we lay on our beds of moss’.
And as he glides so swiftly by
they ask him for some tucker.
But just as quick comes back the quip,
‘go work, you lazy bugger’.
As you pass by Searcy Street,
or is it Wong’s retreat
You’ll see Billy on the porch
perched upon his favourite seat.
He sits there with his pipe unlit,
his eyes glued on the street
For he is watching for the birds,
his usual morning treat.
- For Uncle Bill’s 80th birthday, Ted Egan wrote a song about him. You’ll be happy to hear I won’t attempt to sing it. It starts like this:
- I hear my old mate Billy Wong has recently turned 80.
I see him every morning as he walks around the block.
He doesn’t exercise his dog, he doesn’t break into a jog.
He’s walking to stay healthy and to take nostalgic stock.
He walks around old China Town that he has known from boyhood.
He was born right here in Darwin,
but things have changed so much.
The cyclones and the bombs of war have brought changes by the score
So Bill Wong walks it each morning for he likes to stay in touch.
- Uncle Bill’s attachment to his mother was very deep. Her difficulties when she was widowed, her dedication and hard work for the welfare of her children, and her desire to visit the family village in the New Territories of Hong Kong had a profound effect on him.
In 1951 his mother and family moved to the block in Searcy Street where the family home was built by George Liveris of Progressive Builders. George Liveris repaired the house after Cyclone Tracy and it still stands today.
- In March 1958 Uncle Bill accompanied his mother and her sister to Hong Kong. There he met and wooed his future wife, Rosemary, whose relatives in Darwin had talked of her many talents, including being able to speak, read and write the Chinese language. His autobiographical notes described her as both attractive and charming, and after a whirlwind courtship they were married in Hong Kong on 24 May and returned to Darwin in June 1958. I recall many years later that, when asked about the whirlwind courtship and marriage, Uncle Bill dismissed the event as not being out of the ordinary by saying modestly, ‘I am a fast worker when I need to be’, followed by his traditional chuckle. In his autobiographical notes Uncle Bill vividly recounts the story of visiting the family village, Lim Chon, with his mother and Rosemary. They were met by a welcoming party of children who greeted them with a ceremonial unicorn dance with drums, cymbals, and firecrackers which they threw at the feet of the bride to make her dance. She nimbly sidestepped the exploding crackers to everyone’s delight.
- Over the years the Wong family grew with the arrival of Anna, Eleanor, Rhonda, Verna came next, Teresa followed, and then Wesley and Karen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the rest of the speech be noted and included in the Parliamentary Record.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you cannot ask that the remainder of the speech be put into the Parliamentary Record. Under the standing order, it is to accommodate lists of winners and results. You are actually required to produce that to the Speaker by 10 pm the night before.
Mr STYLES: Perhaps I will move that the speech be tabled, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I guess in those circumstances you can have it tabled, but that does not necessarily mean it will be recorded in the Parliamentary Record, only what you have said in your 10 minutes. You can approach me afterwards, member for Sanderson and I will explain the details to you.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the schools in my electorate first tonight.
I thank and congratulate long-term finance administrator, Di Scally, who has left Leanyer school. Di was part of the school intimately. She was an exceptional administrator who made a major contribution to the school and the community. All of us in and around Leanyer school thank you, Di, for your extraordinary efforts over the years, and we wish you all the best down south.
Thank you also to long-term teachers, Katrina Bartholomew, Lindy Maddock and Annie Mangohig, who will also be greatly missed.
The BER work at Leanyer is nearing completion. There have been some delays because of rain, but I am looking forward to opening those facilities this year. Student numbers have increased by 32, the largest increase coming from the preschool. Leanyer keeps going from strength to strength.
At Wanguri, a number of staff left the school at the end of the last year. Leah Crockford successfully secured a six-month acting principal position at Berry Springs. Thanks, Leah, for all your work at Wanguri. Sharon Grant, Robert Joyce, Laura Ayres and Michelle Fraser, the canteen manager - thank you all for your great contributions; you are all going to be missed at Wanguri.
The BER multipurpose building at Wanguri school is due to be completed by April. I drive past it every night on my way home; it is looking fantastic.
At Holy Spirit, the new library and multimedia centre is now completed. It is open for students and community use. I had a tour towards the end of last year - another great BER project that has been completed and we look forward to the opening soon.
I thank the Darwin Lord Mayor, Graeme Sawyer, and the Town Clerk of the Darwin City Council for their prompt response to my constituents in Leanyer by installing a gate on the laneway close to Murrabibbi Street, and also working with us on street lighting in the area, after an exceptionally traumatic period in Leanyer. I thank the mayor for his response and for working with me in alleviating some of the concerns of the community.
I bid farewell to a long-term Territorian and a fellow St Kilda supporter and a great man. After 35 years in the Territory, Duncan Beggs heads to Perth tomorrow. Duncan has made an enormous contribution to the Territory in both his professional and community roles. He first came to Darwin in 1973 to work as a maintenance engineer for Darwin City Council. Twenty-eight years later, Duncan was working on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project. In his most recent role, Duncan was the community relations coordinator for INPEX in Darwin. Duncan has held an extensive array of community positions over the last 30 years, including Chairman of Darwin Regional Development Board; Board of Directors Northern Territory Football League; President of Southern Districts Football Club; Chairman of Taminmin High School Council; and Chairman Darwin and Districts Alcohol and Drug Dependence Foundation. Duncan is currently the president of the YMCA in the Top End.
I am sure other members will agree, with such an outstanding contribution to community, the Territory is losing a truly community-minded citizen. I know it is with sadness that Duncan and his wife, Jenny, say farewell to family and friends in the Territory, and to the place they called home for so long. I understand they are both excited to be spending more time with their four adult children and their families who are now all living in Perth, particularly their grandchildren. All the best, Duncan. Thank you for all you have contributed to the Territory. I look forward to seeing you at the MCG later this year for St Kilda winning the flag that has eluded them for so long.
On Australia Day, the Northern Territory Public Service farewelled an icon who everyone in this House knows. After 45 years of trusted service, VIP Fleet Manager, Garry Wilkshire, hung up his keys for the final time after 45 years service to the Northern Territory. The professionalism, integrity and commitment with which Garry undertook his duties are widely recognised and appreciated by me, my Cabinet, parliamentary colleagues and, I am sure, all past CLP ministers and every Chief Minister going back to Paul Everingham whom Garry served. If he was to write a book, it would certainly be a best seller around here, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The awarding of the Public Service Medal to Garry in 1999 was testament to this. Following self-government in 1978, Garry was the driver for the first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham and, as I said, has driven for every Chief Minister since then. Garry also transported former Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Harold Holt, Gough Whitlam and Billy McMahon, and ambassadors from around the globe.
The Wilkshire name has a long history in transport throughout the Northern Territory. Garry’s brothers, Kenny and Barry, have 86 years between them with Darwin Bus Service. Garry’s nephew, Bradley, is currently employed with the Darwin Bus Service. Garry and I have had much to talk about in a few years in the car, and I am really sad to see him go. He was someone who, regardless of the mood, you could have a bit of banter with. He always had a good, wry sense of humour. Stacey and I came to know Garry very well and will certainly miss him. We thank him for everything he has done. Many people would have no idea what the job entails. Only a handful of people would understand some of the issues, scenarios, and characters Garry had to deal with over the years. Garry was an exemplar public servant. What is told in the car, stays in the car. I do not know that he will ever write his book, but it would make an interesting read.
I first met Garry when I came to the Territory in the early 1980s because I was not a bad darts player in those days, and Garry and Barry were part of the scene. They are still part of the scene; I think they still play A Grade. I have known him, as I said, for nearly all my time in the Territory before I entered politics.
Garry, best wishes in your retirement. I hope your retirement is as good to you as you have been good to everyone you have worked with over the years. I know I speak for everyone in this House and wish you a very happy retirement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to touch on a couple of subjects tonight. One is in relation to signage. Most people in the tourism industry realise signage is important.
I have raised this already with the department and I have not yet received any tangible results. With the changes to the Stuart Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive some of our tourism facilities, such as caravan parks, are not named anymore in the sense that there are no directions given for people coming in from south to find those places. Freespirit caravan park is a classic example. Now, with the way the signage has been erected directing people to either Darwin or Casuarina, newcomers to Darwin are going to find it difficult to know how to get to the caravan parks. There are a number of caravan parks on the Stuart Highway - Shady Glen and Freespirit - and there are also a number in the northern suburbs.
It is important, with the changes to Tiger Brennan Drive, that the government does not wait till the Dry Season hits, but puts up those tourism brown signs to ensure people coming to Darwin can find caravan parks without getting themselves lost by going down Tiger Brennan Drive instead of the Stuart Highway.
For places such as Crocodylus Park, there were some signs on Tiger Brennan Drive coming from the Darwin end but, now, with the changes to the road, those signs are required to send people in the right direction. I believe those type of signs need to be put up now before the tourists start to come in. It is important for the tourism industry.
The tourism industry in the Territory is, generally speaking, a seasonal industry, especially for the grey nomads. They need to find those caravan parks without getting lost. If you get unhappy grey nomads, it does not take long to get around via the grey nomad telecommunications system that things are not easy to find in Darwin.
Also on the issue of signage, the department is meant to have a policy in relation to signage, especially advertising signage. I believe it has become too hard for them because advertising signage for businesses is always controversial. They need to rationalise where signs can go and how many signs can go up if we are to make our highways neat and tidy. The Arnhem and Stuart Highways in the Top End are places tourists frequent. They do not want to see the sides of our roads look like Rafferty’s rules when it comes to signage.
I refer to the 11 Mile. There are rules which allow signage for tourism development. There are rules which allow for some temporary signage; however, there are parts of the Stuart Highway where I know one company has three signs permanently in concrete, blocking the name of Holtze, the suburb sign. Where is the department? It is meant to look after our highways. I am sure some departmental people go past these signs. Are they too frightened to act on their own rules and regulations?
On the Arnhem Highway in front of the Humpty Doo Shopping Centre, there are a massive number of signs. You can have signage and advertising signage; however, we have to look at ways of doing it. They put signage in arches which the government allows, but in many cases they are very hard for people to read. If someone can tell me what the signs on the arch on Temple Terrace say, I will go he. The government needs to be realistic. There needs to be some advertising for businesses, especially those which do not have frontage to the highway. However, we need to do it in a progressive, neat and tidy way so our highways do not look like anything goes.
The other issue I am concerned about and have raised earlier in the sittings is solar panels and the requirement by the Building Advisory Services to have technical data to allow those solar panels to be installed without having to get certification which could cost up to $1500. I do not know if the government believes there is an issue. However, a number of people are not going to have any work if these solar panels are not approved for installation in Alice Springs and Darwin. I have a letter from Brian Elmer, the General Manager of Alice Solar City, to Fabio Finocchiaro from Building Advisory Services:
- Your comments at the meeting …
… seemed to suggest that solar PV manufacturers haven’t provided evidence of meeting the standards. However, solar panel manufacturers have already gone through the process of having their solar panels confirmed as meeting all of these standards.
The Clean Energy Council has the legislative role under the Renewable Energy Electricity Act 2000 of maintaining a list of solar panels that meet these standards. As part of this process, the CEC relies on internationally recognised testing laboratories providing independent certification of PV panels meeting the standards listed above. Module testing must be performed by a test laboratory approved to test PV modules to these standards under the International Electro-Technical Commission’s IECEE CB scheme (CBTL). The certificate must be issued by a national certifying body associated with that laboratory who are accredited to certify PV module testing under the IECEE CB scheme.
- To be clear, in their legislative role the CEC already require solar panel manufacturers to provide evidence of meeting all these standards as part of the process of solar panels being approved under Australian government legislation.
The question which needs to be answered by the department is: why are these standards not enough to allow solar panels to be put on the roof? The minister said it is a concern whether the solar panels can withstand cyclonic conditions. The industry is saying they already come up to those standards. What is the government doing to push this issue? We have customers waiting for solar panels on roofs. We have installers who have no work because everything has come to a standstill. We now have people who have been thinking about putting solar panels on their roof who are saying: ‘This is all going to become too expensive; I cannot be bothered doing it’.
Alice Springs has been promoted as a solar city. Alice Springs is the centre focus of these photovoltaic panels that have been put on many houses in Alice Springs. Both the Commonwealth and the Territory governments are promoting renewable energy, yet, all of a sudden out of the blue, it has come to a standstill. I am not saying it is all the government’s fault or issue, but why are the industry and the governments not working at speed to try to fix this particular issue when people’s livelihoods are at stake and the promotion of renewable energy is one of these key things government likes to promote? Why is something not happening a bit quicker than it is? Surely, someone in the department can ring up BP, SunPower - any of these companies making these solar panels - and ask them if they have the information required? You would not think that would be too hard. If they have that information, surely they can pass it on quickly. If they do not have the information then maybe the government has a point and they need to be bringing them up to standard.
As it is at the moment, I have not heard much about where this is at, and I hope the minister can let us know where we are with this particular matter. It is an important industry for the Territory and the government should be doing something about ensuring it is a success and is operating as quickly as possible.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have an extremely serious matter to raise tonight which involves the Minister for Children and Families.
This afternoon, I asked the minister about a question put to him on Wednesday, 22 February, regarding changes to the powers of the Ombudsman in respect of child protection. He informed the media he had spoken to the Ombudsman on Wednesday, 22 February, and claimed he had fully informed the Ombudsman of proposed changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act that affected the role of the Ombudsman. He informed the media on Wednesday, 22 February, the Ombudsman did not object to them.
I questioned him this afternoon, as you will recall, during Question Time. I asked him if that was, in fact, the case; if his statement was truthful and correct. I warn the minister that deliberately misleading the House is a very serious offence.
On ABC television this evening the Ombudsman was interviewed, and said that not at any point did she support the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act gagging her and curtailing her powers to investigate to matters pertaining to services and vulnerable children. We have a huge discrepancy here between what the Northern Territory Ombudsman and the Minister for Children and Families are saying in regard to this matter.
I call upon the minister to return to the Chamber tonight and sort this matter out here and now, because …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, any reference to the presence or absence of a member is not permitted under standing orders. I ask you to rephrase that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I call upon the Minister for Central Australia to bring his colleague back into the Chamber …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Araluen, you cannot make reference to the presence or absence of a member. You cannot refer to a member who is not present. I ask you to withdraw and rephrase, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I invite the minister to get to his feet and explain this matter; it needs to be resolved tonight. It is of a very serious nature, and I am sure the people of the Northern Territory would like this matter to be resolved as soon as possible.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Health in the Northern Territory walked into this place today and I heard him assure Territorians he has met with the Ombudsman and it is all squeaky clean and wonderful, and there were no issues and, obviously, the member for Araluen was misleading the House with her spurious allegations that sufficient had not been done.
What we have here is an example of a minister whose looseness with the truth would invite me to use the word ‘lie’ other than the fact that I cannot in this House. This minister should be in this House explaining to Territorians how he could possibly and outrageously, in this place, assure people he had spoken to the Ombudsman, and everything was sweetness and light, when the Ombudsman herself, in a letter to the ABC news tonight, indicated she did not support – did not support - the changes. For him to stand up in this House and suggest that she had said that to him is an indictment on this minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of these two people is a liar, and the question I have is: which one?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have made no allegation of anyone being a liar. I am asking a question. So, one of these two people - I do not know which one - is a liar, and I would like to know which one. Is the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to temper your language - actually I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I do not think he actually called anyone a liar; he suggested someone is lying. He has not made the allegation. It is not a …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Resume your seat. There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, as I heard it, you are accusing one of two people of being a liar. I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I withdraw ‘liars’, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of getting through this obfuscation.
The point is, someone in the Northern Territory has not been telling the truth, and it is either the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory or the minister who resides in that chair over there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can tell you, this is a disgrace. This is very serious ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … you guys are trying to cut the throat of open, transparent government.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as you well know, when the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker stands, members are to resume their seats. I ask you to address your comments through the Chair, please. There is no need to shout, member for Port Darwin. Your microphone means you can …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, they are shouting to try to shut me down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am talking, member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: I ask the clock be stopped, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am talking. I am simply asking you to address your comments through the Chair. There is no need to shout across the Chamber. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will always shout loud enough to shout down those people who would try to cut the throat of openness and transparency in this jurisdiction. I will always protect the rights of Territorians to know, and I will protect the rights of the Ombudsmen, in the face of charlatan ministers, to be able to do their job.
Yesterday, I listened to the Attorney-General in her second reading debate say: ‘We are going to take powers away from the Ombudsman’. We were told it was supported by the Ombudsman. Clearly, it is not supported by the Ombudsman and, as far as this side of the House is concerned, this Health Minister - who will be getting to his feet, no doubt, to give us some weasel words about all the great things he has done to weave his way through this particular issue, and do other things to try to convince us of how innocent he is in this whole process - should stand condemned for placing the Ombudsman in such an embarrassing position for his own tawdry ends. I look forward to the minister climbing to his feet and trying to explain this away without either him, or the Ombudsman in this case, being revealed as a liar.
The other issue I speak on is the matter of the carbon tax. Treachery, thy name is Labor! I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I sat there today dismayed watching the television set during the news. I listened to the Prime Minister of this country saying: ‘There will be no carbon tax’. Now, we have, coming down the pipeline, a carbon tax because of the coalition government between The Greens and the reds in this country. What does that make, maroon? I cannot imagine how a Prime Minister - or any person with any sense of dignity - could possibly, with their hand on their heart during an election campaign say: ‘I am not going to introduce a carbon tax’, then waltz in within a few months of that election campaign, shortly after nearly losing it and forming a coalition with The Greens, suddenly introduce a carbon tax. The Greens said it themselves on the television tonight: this is part of their power sharing arrangement with the Labor Party ...
Mr Bohlin: Lying to the public.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you the only conditions that I would apply to supporting a …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, pause, please. Member for Drysdale, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, reference to, you know exactly what. You have used the word ‘lied’.
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, but that was to the Labor Party.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, withdraw, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Port Darwin, you have the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: The only conditions in which I would ever support such a tax would be that it does not affect industry, it does not affect any Territorian negatively, and it does not affect anyone in Australia negatively. Of course, those conditions could never be met by this Prime Minister and her intended tax.
I can tell you that what we get with the Labor government every time is more tax, more tax, more spend. There is a cyclone in Queensland, there is a flood in Queensland and the answer is: we get a tax. If there is a carbon issue or a government issue they have to maintain their little coalition with The Greens with - what is their answer? More tax. What is the hallmark of Labor governments historically, both in this country and overseas …
Members: Tax, tax, tax.
Mr ELFERINK: Tax, tax, tax. They are into taxation ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: They are going to try to tax this country out of any economic usefulness in the future. ...
Mr Styles: Boat tax, carbon tax, mining tax.
Mr ELFERINK: This Territory government does the same thing: boat registration tax. They are going to bring it in. They just love to spend money. They have learnt to spend money in ways you would not believe and, now, we are going to have a carbon tax. Why? Because it is for our own good.
This is the government that lied to us about it. The federal government has been dishonest and lied to Territorians and to Australians as a whole about the carbon tax. But, that is all right because it is a conscionable lie, because it is for your own good. Mate, with friends like the Labor Party, who needs enemies? That is all I can say.
I am astonished the Prime Minister would have the audacity to do this. This will directly affect and challenge businesses in the Northern Territory. We talked about the INPEX project. This is an issue for INPEX, as it is for every other company and business in the Territory. I urge the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to state on the record in this House tonight his refusal to support the federal government on the carbon tax. He has done it before. He has done it in relation to the Muckaty site for the U-dump, so why will he not do it again? Why will he not, in this place, condemn the federal government for launching a tax which will, ultimately, negatively affect the conditions under which Territorian businesses operate?
When I heard that Tony Abbott was going to resist this great, new, big tax, he got my support. He got my support because it is the right thing to do. If this government wants to tax carbon, then it should be honest about its intent during the election campaign.
What they have done is simply lied and, as far as this side of the House is concerned, there are very few conditions under which we would support a carbon tax . Those conditions will not be met by any carbon tax this Prime Minister intends to introduce with her tawdry little unofficial - well, official now - coalition with The Greens. The Prime Minister of this country should hang her head in shame. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should defend Territory businesses and Territory jobs.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute tonight to a great Centralian, William Arthur van Dijk, known to friends and family and locals in Alice Springs as Bill van Dijk. I attended the funeral service to celebrate the life of Bill van Dijk at the old Alice Springs Town Hall youth centre at ANZAC Hill on Saturday, 12 February at 10.30 am. It was a well-attended service, packed to the rafters. Many people spoke very highly of Bill. It was great to see his family, some from the Netherlands, in attendance.
A little about Bill and his life history. He was born in Arnhem, The Netherlands, on 9 December 1936. He lived through World War II of 1939 to 1945. He completed tertiary education in physical education and was employed as a recreation officer. He cruised the world on a Dutch liner bringing migrants to Australia; the ship returning to Holland as a luxury cruise ship.
Bill married Patricia Lorraine Eaton, an Australian, in Holland in 1961. He arrived in New Zealand and worked at Wellington Boys High School and Dargaville High School from 1961 to 1967. He arrived in Victoria and worked at Greythorn High School in 1967, and accepted a post at Alice Springs High School in 1974.
He met Trish in 1983, and formed a 28-year partnership. He was Deputy Principal at Tennant Creek High School from 1984 to 1986, and Deputy Principal at Nhulunbuy High School in 1989. He was founding Principal of the Alice Springs Language Centre from 1990 to1994. He formally married Trish in 1992.
Bill retired in 1994, but did not retire from his community service. In the acknowledgements at the service, that was one thing about Bill which really stood out to me and the people who have known him. He made some outstanding contributions, particularly with the Northern Territory Department of Education in 1994 as founding Principal of the Alice Springs Language Centre. He was also involved in the Rotary Club of Alice Springs, and involved in the Henley-on-Todd in 2000. He was awarded a Paul Harris Fellow. He was also very much part of the Henley-on-Todd when they won the Brolga Award in 2000, and was also involved in the Alice Springs Hockey Association. I know, from my mother-in-law, Bill was a very much respected member of the association. He was Northern Territory Volunteer of the Year in 2007, Coordinator of the Masters Games in 2004 to 2010, and made a life member of the Alice Springs Hockey Association in 1998. He was also made a life member of the NT Hockey Association in 2010.
In relation to his involvement with the Alice Springs Town Council, Bill was part of the Alice Springs Town Council Sports Facilities Advisory Committee and received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Alice Springs Town Council in 2010 for supporting the community. He was also awarded the Commonwealth Recognition Award for Senior Australians in 2001 by the then Prime Minister, John Howard.
It was a beautiful service. It was packed to the rafters. I acknowledge Lindsay Wright, the Master of Ceremonies. Other speakers at the service included Mayor Damien Ryan; Mark Goode, Treasurer of the Alice Springs Hockey Association and a personal friend; Eleanor Dennis, Chair of the Rotary Club of Alice Springs; Dominic Miller, Rotarian and friend, and Sue Crowe, Principal of Braitling school and a close friend.
I also acknowledge Bill’s family; particularly Trish who is a great worker for the Labor Party Branch in Alice Springs and a tireless worker for the community of Alice Springs; Bill’s children, Karena, Pieter and John; his step-children, Susan, Michael, Steven and Lisa, and grandchildren Michael, Matthew, Sarah, Joshua, Samuel, Steven, Mark, Samuel, Simon, Goshen, Richard, Rose, Stevie, Anyupa, Sherriff, Crystal, Harry, Zachary, Milo, Ranger, Cosmo and Shiloh. He was also great-grandfather to Hayley, Naomi, Nathaniel, Ethan, Colby and Asher.
I quote other acknowledgements from the Alice Springs community which really summed up who Bill was:
- A brave, generous and noble spirit; a passionate mentor, coach and friend; a true legend; a well-respected member of this community who dedicated many years of service to several local sporting and community groups; an amazing gentleman who worked tirelessly for a range of community causes; a sporting stalwart; a strong Centralian and treasured member of the Alice Springs community, and a stalwart Rotarian and Henley-on-Todd hero. Goodbye to such a gentleman, a friend, and a legend.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I pass on my best wishes to Trish, all of Bill’s family, and also thank him for his strong commitment to the Masters Games as part of the Masters Games Committee.
I respond also to some of the comments made in the House this week about my home town of Alice Springs. As I said before and I will say again, the crime and antisocial behaviour that is happening is totally unacceptable. What are just as unacceptable are the wild fictions that have been tossed around as facts by some members opposite. I have to be frank and say I am extremely concerned with the effects these wild claims and divisive advertisements are having in the community.
For the member for Braitling to stand up in this House, as he did last night, and try to draw a parallel with what is happening in the Middle East and Alice Springs is astonishing. For him to stand up in this House and say we are lucky in Alice Springs that we do not have riots, that people are not ‘donning hoods made of sheets’ is just gobsmacking and completely irresponsible. The exaggerations, the intemperate language, the fear and loathing they are stirring up for purely political reasons is disgraceful.
Again, I say crime is totally unacceptable. It is easy to beat your chest and raise a lot of headline grabbing allegations. I say to those members: if you have any evidence, any information whatsoever about crime - especially crimes against children - take it to the police.
I also call on them to show some responsibility, some real leadership, in the community and stop this grandstanding. They would like to pretend that racism is not playing a part in this. Why, then, the reference to hoods? Member for Braitling, why are the advertisements portraying Aboriginal people as being responsible for all the crime and antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs?
I would like to know how much backing members opposite have given to this current advertising campaign. Since these ads have been running, I have received some pretty unsavoury phone calls and messages. Okay, I am a politician, I am a big boy, and I can take on board the criticism. I know not everyone is going to agree with what I say or do, and I would not expect them to. However, there are others out there who are much more vulnerable than I am, and I am deeply concerned at the antagonism and hate that has been directed to people, purely because of their race. I call on the members opposite to take a deep breath and play the part of responsible leaders in the community.
You claim nothing has been done. You know it is just not true. We are committing the resources, developing the policies, putting in the hard yards to tackle these issues. You scoff at programs such as the Youth Action Plan and the transformation plan. It is easy to sit back in opposition, stir it up, throw rocks, and come up with knee-jerk responses they know very well will not be followed through if they are ever in a position to implement their scant policies.
I am meeting with Aboriginal leaders and representatives tomorrow to start trying to find a way forward as a community to stop the divisive, harmful approach pushed by the elected members from Alice Springs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have faith in the community; that the community will realise the harm the current approach taken by some is having and, by acting together, we will make a difference.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, that speech by the Minister for Central Australia reminds me of the story of the two men who were sent to the Tower of London to be executed. They said to the executioner: ‘Can you place us in a good spot so when we fall we fall with dignity?’ One bloke turned around to the other guy and said: ‘Why would you care how you fall when you have been beheaded?’ He said: ‘Well, when the fall is all you have left, it does matter’.
That is where you are at, minister. You have, essentially, capitulated. It is your last cry for help, trying to shut us all down and keep us all quiet. I am sorry the truth hurts, and I am sorry that what is taking place in Alice Springs is taking place. It is ridiculous to suggest we are embellishing this and using this as a political punching bag. But, whatever; I see that as a final plea.
I will run through some of the culture of cover-up by the Martin/Henderson governments in the past 10 years; the culture of cover-up to mask the government’s poor performance: design and safety concerns over Tiger Brennan Drive upgrade; the location for the new prison for the Top End; the costs and number of houses delivered through SIHIP; the impact of shire amalgamation and failure to properly assist shires to prepare for the transition; the Montara oil spill; the future of the RAAF Base houses; high pollution levels at Vesteys and Mindil Beaches; and the death of 800 cattle at the Mataranka Station; and, of course, the terrible state of our child protection.
Over the last 10 years, we have seen the musical chairs or the revolving door of ministers. Since August 2001, there have been 17 ministerial reshuffles and 141 ministerial appointments. Most portfolio appointments, including the Attorney-General, Health, Education, Transport, Planning, Child Protection, Housing and Local Government have had four ministers in the past 10 years. Among those ministerial changes, we have seen: the member for Nightcliff sacked from Health and Child Protection for her inept handling of the portfolio; the member for Arafura moved from Education over her sacking of the then Education head, Margaret Banks; the member for Daly moved from the portfolios of Housing and Local Government over his scandalous handling of SIHIP and local government reform; the member for Johnston - of course, who can forget that? - moved from Health over the nursing staffing crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital and his failure to table annual reports; and the member for Arnhem moved over the shocking injuries to an orphaned infant known to Child Protection. These are just some of the revolving door of Labor ministers and the culture of cover-up.
Then we go to Labor’s freedom from information. In 2001, the then Chief Minister promised ‘the Territory’s freedom of information laws would be a pillar of open and accountable government’, and would ‘enhance the decision-making and discussion’. Ten years on, Labor has used the legislation to deny access and public debate on numerous important reports produced using taxpayers’ money - reports to which the public have been denied access, including: the two Cornish reports into the aeromedical service; the review of St John Ambulance; the review into the Health and Community Services Complaints Act; and the original Bath report into child protection. It is failure after failure after failure.
A review of the Territory’s FOI laws was promised in 2009, with a discussion paper to be released to the public for comment. As of February 2011, the government has not released the promised paper and FOI laws are used to stymie public debate and protect the government from exposing its failures. It is failure after failure after failure, and the culture of cover-up is alive and well.
We see today, again, the Minister for Health has managed to duck and weave. He has done pretty well. I believe he was appointed Health Minister in 2009. He has done pretty well - nearly coming up to two years; almost a record in the Martin/Henderson government, particularly for the Health portfolio. I highlighted how many Health ministers we have had since 2001. He may have met his match today, or just gone a little too far. He has dodged and weaved, and ducked over the course of the last two years, scraped by just by a whisker on many occasions. However, today we heard him saying in the House - and I will quote from this if I can just have this, member for Araluen, thank you. When asked by the Leader of the Opposition, the minister said …
Mr Elferink: The Ombudsman supported the changes.
Mr CONLAN: Yes. He said:
- Again, she questioned why I left the investigation powers of the Ombudsman with regard to administrative issues and the police issues, and why I did not provide them to the Commissioner for Children. The Ombudsman supports the changes.
I say that again, Madam Deputy Speaker:
- The Ombudsman supports the changes. There is no intention from my government to gag the Ombudsman.
Thank you, member for Araluen. Clearly, we have a situation where the minister has said, on the Parliamentary Record in Question Time, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, that the Ombudsman supported the changes. Yet, tonight, we saw on ABC television the Ombudsman denying any such claim. So, who is telling the truth, minister? Is the Ombudsman telling the truth, or are you telling the truth? I believe you owe it to the people of the Northern Territory, to the reputation of the distinguished Ombudsman in the NT, to provide a clear and accurate account of exactly what took place. The culture of cover-up continues and I fear it will continue as long as this bereft, hopeless, Northern Territory Labor government remains in power.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a bit rich to listen to this kind of comment from the member for Greatorex, who actually discovered after a year and a month that we have an oncology centre. He managed to visit it after he repeatedly declined to visit it.
Also, it is very rich to come from the member for Araluen. She is, obviously, not Jodeen Carney. The member for Araluen yesterday picked up the publication and said: ‘This is a really nice publication. You did not have to reprint the recommendations’. She missed the 49 pages that actually say what we are going to do for the next five years; how we are going to address the recommendations. The member for Araluen did not even bother to read the act that specifically states no one can direct the Children’s Commissioner, and the Children’s Commissioner is independent and can do whatever he wants in order to resolve the complaints he receives.
I am here tonight because I am not a person to hide away like the Leader of the Opposition did for several hours, as the member for Fong Lim said, cowering – that is what you used, cowering - inside a restaurant to avoid being interviewed by the media.
The Ombudsman was briefed on 4 February 2011 in relation to the proposed changes to give the Children’s Commissioner capacity to investigate complaints into vulnerable children. There were another three people in the room who were witnesses to this briefing she received. At the meeting, the proposed changes were outlined to the Ombudsman. This included that complaints related to vulnerable children be transferred to the Children’s Commissioner and subsequently expanded. The Ombudsman would still retain her jurisdiction in relation to police, and the changes did not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating other administrative actions of any agency, including the Department of Children and Families.
The Ombudsman advised me that she agreed that one agency should deal with complaints relating to vulnerable children, and that it is the government’s prerogative as to who that person will be. I assured the Ombudsman she would be able to complete her current investigation. I have also invited the Ombudsman, if she had any concern, I am very happy to discuss the advice from the Solicitor-General on the best way forward. I said that because I have no intention of gagging the Ombudsman. I find the function of the Ombudsman vital and fundamental for a democracy, and I always maintain a good relationship with the Ombudsman.
We believe the best way forward is one person only to deal with complaints related to children, and I have advised the Ombudsman of that fact. She agreed it is our prerogative who that person will be, and it is the government’s decision who that person will be ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Despite the rhetoric, and the vitriolic and hysterical attack from the other side, one thing, at least, I can say of our government is that we are united. This is the party the Leader of the Opposition uses the freedom of information legislation to find out who, amongst his colleagues, leaked an e-mail ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale!
Mr VATSKALIS: Was it you? Was it you? He uses freedom of information to spy on his own colleagues ...
Mr Elferink: You verballed the Ombudsman.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr VATSKALIS: We know it was not you. But who of you others leaked it? He will find out - he thinks, he believes, he wants.
I have to tell you, whatever hysterical and vitriolic attacks, they do not resonate with me or the community. People know who is united and who is divided.
Despite your attack, and your unsubstantiated allegations about events in Alice Springs, I invite and call you, if you have evidence about prostitution of children in Alice Springs, advise me, advise the Police Commissioner, advise my department …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: None of you have provided any notification, any advice, either to the police or to Children’s Services. Either you break the law, or there is no substantiated information.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday the Minister for Children and Families informed the media that the Ombudsman had been informed of the proposed changes to the act and did not object to them.
The minister was then questioned. In fact, it was the Chief Minister who was questioned today in Question Time. It was a matter that related to child protection matters. The Chief Minister started answering the question and, foolishly, deferred the question to the Minister for Children and Families, who said - and I quote from Hansard, as has been quoted already tonight: ‘the Ombudsman supported the changes’ ...
Mr Chandler: I heard it, it was there; it is in Hansard.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We were all here, listening to Question Time. That is a quote from Hansard today.
Tonight on the ABC news, we saw a report of a letter written by the Ombudsman denying she supported changes to this legislation. Tonight, the Minister for Children and Families - I honestly expected him to withdraw the comments he made or offer some explanation as to why he made them. No, he weaselled around the issue. Without a doubt, he verballed the Ombudsman. You can intimate from what the minister said tonight that he was calling the Ombudsman a liar; that the statement she produced for the ABC news tonight was incorrect.
I find that to be quite reprehensible. The Ombudsman is an honourable person working hard under trying circumstances. Now she is having some of her powers stripped from her. When you read through the answers from this government to questions asked about this issue, clearly the Ombudsman is not happy at losing those powers. Everything in those answers which relate to this says she is not happy.
The minister said the Ombudsman supported the changes, and the Ombudsman has denied that is the case. I would have expected the Minister for Children and Families to offer an explanation tonight; however, there was nothing. There was no explanation, no apology; no ‘I am sorry. I made a mistake’. There was nothing of the kind.
The integrity of the Minister for Children and Families is now seriously in question. And do not forget this is the same minister who presided over the worst oil spill in Australia’s history, the Montara disaster. He is a minister who is incompetent and cannot handle the responsibilities of the portfolio of Resources. Now, we find through statements made by him and the rebuttal by the Ombudsman, his integrity is seriously in question. His position as a minister in this government is compromised.
It is a shame because, if I were Chief Minister, I would be a little upset and worried because the minister, the member for Casuarina, is without a doubt one of the better performers on that side of the House. We now have one of their better performers with his integrity seriously in question. His position as a minister is seriously compromised. I call upon the Chief Minister to discipline this minister. The Chief Minister must deal with this integrity issue. He has stood in this House and made statements, and those statements have been rebutted by a person who has great standing in the community. I call on the Chief Minister to deal with this minister. He must find a way.
It is a very shallow talent pool from which they are drawing, and another ministerial reshuffle on their part would spell disaster for the Henderson Labor government. However, as a minister of the government, his integrity was questioned or brought into question. He then came into this House after the fact and did not offer up any semblance of a reasonable explanation or an admission that maybe he said the wrong thing; that it was a slip of the tongue. We could all understand and accept those sorts of explanations. But no, what he did was come in here, weasel around it, and intimate the Ombudsman was not telling the truth. I believe that is absolutely reprehensible behaviour. The Chief Minister must discipline this minister, must deal with him tonight, and come out tomorrow in the media and tell the people of the Northern Territory what he has done to correct this offensive, reprehensible behaviour by the Minister for Children and Families. He must do that tomorrow; it must be done as a matter of urgency.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been listening carefully to what has been said on the other side - the pious indignation, the anger and outrage that has been expressed here by members opposite. I will tell you what I heard in Question Time today. I heard the Health Minister say he had a discussion with the Ombudsman, and the issue with the Ombudsman was around whether the legislation would be retrospective or not. What I heard - and I am yet to check the Hansard record - was the minister saying there was a recognition and an agreement by the Ombudsman that, basically, he could determine who would be the single channel for complaints. That is what I heard the minister say. It is too cute by half for members of the opposition here …
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is coming across - the words exactly.
Dr BURNS: I am focusing on what I have to say. I am telling you what I heard in the Chamber here today, and I will …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Oh, no, you will not like those words, because that is the quote from the Hansard.
Mr Chandler: The culture of cover-up. Don’t want Hansard.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brennan, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I have risen to my feet and I am explaining what I heard today on the floor of this parliament. It is too cute by half for the word ‘integrity’ to be bandied around by members opposite. For goodness sake, you have a leader who has not directly answered the question in public of whether he offered Leo Abbott a job or not. You have a leader who hid away for hour upon hour at a restaurant just down the road here, and did not want to face the media. Here is a leader who is unable to stand up and answer a very simple yes or no question …
Mr Chandler: He answered it.
Dr BURNS: He has not answered that question. He has not answered that question with a yes or no. All he said is it was a personal conversation.
The member for Casuarina has come down here and explained himself to this parliament. I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition do that. I get a bit alarmed when I hear the words ‘integrity’ and ‘fraud’ which was bandied around by the member for Katherine. He used the word ‘fraud’ in relation to the Northern Territory government budget. Yet, today he reacted very strongly when the Chief Minister raised the issue of a used car he allegedly bought in Katherine. It is in the newspaper here, and I will just read the end bit first. It says …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Westra van Holthe: Why don’t you just read the newspaper article and forget about the truth?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: It says: ‘Mr van Holthe could not be contacted yesterday’. This is the NT News of 6 December. I would have expected, if this allegation was so repugnant to you, member for Katherine, and so out of line, you would have waltzed up there and given a personal explanation before this parliament. Yet, the minister came in here and gave his explanation …
Mr Westra van Holthe: I do not need to give a personal explanation to you or anyone else, you goose!
Dr BURNS: … and you are just trying to heap a lot of abuse on him. The minister has integrity because he did come in here; he faced this parliament and made a statement. However, you are still yet to comment …
Mr Elferink: Which proves he verballed the Ombudsman.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: As far as I am aware - and I could be wrong, member for Katherine, about this allegation that you bought this car for $12 500, then sold it to an Aboriginal organisation for $17 000. This used car dealer is alleging you went there and said: ‘I am out money, I am new to town, can you give us a break?’ You put down a deposit of $1000, you agreed to repayments, you made one repayment, and then you sold the car. He is saying you sold the car that was not yours to someone else. That is the allegation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You laboured with me the fact that my comments should go through the Chair. I ask you to extend the same invitation to the Leader of Government Business whilst he continues his slander.
Dr BURNS: I will. Thank you for that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin, you are quite correct. Member for Johnston, if you could direct your comments through the Chair?
Dr BURNS: I understand that this is one side of the story. This is the used car salesman’s side of the story about what has happened. He seems pretty fired up about it. I suppose I was a bit alarmed when I read at the end that the member for Katherine could not be contacted. Well, he has been contacted here today in this place, and he can make a personal explanation regarding these allegations of fraud; that he sold the car which was not registered in his name; he did not own it, and that he pulled a swift one on a used car dealer. There are probably other things I do not want to talk about here tonight in relation to the member for Katherine. Here is one for a start.
Let us get back to the CLP and their woes here today. Our minister has come in here and explained himself. The Leader of the Opposition has never done that, and has caused so much trouble. I mean, to the fact …
Mr Conlan: Yes, he has.
Dr BURNS: Well, you say he has. He has not.
Mr Conlan: He has.
Dr BURNS: He has not given a yes or no answer.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Johnston, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Dr BURNS: Okay, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are saying, member for Port Darwin, the Leader of the Opposition has come in here and said: ‘No, I did not offer Leo Abbott a job’. Is that what you are saying?
Mr Elferink: There was no evidence he ever did – not even in the so-called transcript.
Dr BURNS: Oh, the transcript says: ‘I will look after you, mate’. Then he talked about conversations with the Prime Minister. As you said, one of two people has to be lying here, either Tony Abbott or Terry Mills. Which one is it, to use your own words?
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: All I am trying to illustrate here, member for Port Darwin, is you come in here, work yourself into a frenzy - but look in your own back yard first. Look at the division on your own side. Look at the member for Fong Lim, who talked about your own leader cowering in a restaurant - and that is what he did. The media was outside for about six or seven hours, and the bloke would not even come out and face them. What sort of a leader is that? What sort of a leader has led this party, as you have said so many times, from the brink of oblivion to the brink of government …
Mr Elferink: A good one.
Dr BURNS: Yes? So you say!
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: So you say, but here is a leader who has led you into such incredible trouble, first with division within your own ranks and, second, incredible division within your party hierarchy, which has been acknowledged by Sue Fraser-Adams. She said in her e-mail, the one they are trying to search out who sent - if I can just lay my hands on it. Here we go. She said:
- … we now have within the party nameless faces, gutless wonders who are in the most senior positions on Management Committee who are making every effort to destroy our chances of winning in the next election.
In other words, they are trying to bring Terry Mills to heel; they do not support him; they think he is a disaster zone. Then, this is a beauty from Fraser-Adams:
… you will tell me who it is that is breaking the confidence of Management Committee and Central Council will deal with them.
This is the vengeful party, the CLP. Here is the other one with Mr Lantry when he left under a cloud. How you wanted to vent your spleen on him! This is a vengeful, divided party desperately looking for a target. You are desperately trying to pin down the member for Casuarina; you are trying to throw spears at him but, really, it is just showing how disunited you are.
Here is the challenge; I will reiterate the challenge: if any member opposite has details - you are talking about conversations with cab drivers - you waltz into the police station and tell them who that cab driver is ...
Mrs Lambley: All right.
Dr BURNS: You do that. Have you done that yet? No, of course you have not. Similarly with the member for Macdonnell and her allegations. I understand from what the Police minister said today that the police have been trying to contact her and interview her for a number of weeks now. I hope both the members for Araluen and Macdonnell take up the suggestion by the Police minister that they should talk with police if they have serious allegations of child abuse.
Our minister has come into this place, stood up in this parliament and given straight answers to the questions asked of him. We have not had the same from the Leader of the Opposition, nor have we from the member for Katherine - specifically, as I am aware, about this allegation that is in the newspaper. He should be up here making a personal explanation if he feels so slighted about it. That is all I have to say this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
I remind members of the opposition of Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance, which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I now feel like a real spoiltsport. I just have some local issues I would like to talk about ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure they are very important, member for Brennan.
Mr CHANDLER: They are very important, but it feels as though I am breaking the spirit of this wonderful theatrical event we have seen here tonight between government and the opposition and the way they have used theatrics, flotsam, jetsam - any other thing that you want to throw at this side - to deflect the real issue tonight.
The real issue tonight is the fact that we have a minister who has said one thing in this House and a very senior and important person in our society does not agree with it and has a different opinion. One way or another, it has to come out. We have all heard it today, and seen it in Hansard. Yet, the minister just came out with a lot of verbal diarrhoea, as did the member for Johnston.
I will talk, though, on a couple of things. The Bakewell Primary School is a school I am extremely proud of - all the teachers, students, and the community. It is a wonderful facility; a wonderful school. Tonight, they would have had their AGM and I wish them all the best and trust either the existing Chair or a new Chair has taken on the role and leads that school as it has been in the past.
The other week, I had the chance to visit the school as I do regularly. I listened to the candidates who were running for the Student Leadership Council. It was about a two-hour event, listening to each of these young children. I will read their names out tonight because it is important: Abbey Chalker, Abbey Larner, Ciara Hogg, Elly Hudson, Emma-Rae Wadwell, Grace Fletcher, Grace Mayfield, Isabel Palmer, Jemma Fosdick, Jessika Lewis, Kimberley Fitzgerald, Maddison Banks, Maria Mousellis, Montanna Wright, Paige Jacka, Samantha Smart, Taylor Hall – I know her as Swifty - Theresia Gebran, Vanessa Kaewtoon, Zoe Carrier, Aiden Shaw, Blake Latimore, Cameron Dubbeld, Connar Bridgeford, Darrien Friend, Jacob Terawsky, Jake Batista, Jarrod Hovland, Jerome Trono, Jonathan Almada-Boucadas, Jordan Winston, Joseph Wilson-Stanton, Kelvin Thompson, Ryan Rashid, and Zachary Rigby.
Although it was two hours of sitting down listening to these young children, I was blown away with their presentations. From being associated with the school for so long, I have been impressed, week in and week out, with the manner and way the students take to a microphone, get up on stage, and talk with confidence. I can remember at school only few people had the ability to stand and use the microphone. We were scared to do something like that. Yet, week in and week out - not the same kids - different kids get up every week in front of their class in the assembly and speak with clarity and confidence. The way they get the chance to use a microphone today will pay dividends into the future for their confidence and the way they manage their own lives.
Each one of these young children provided such a presentation I thought not only the students, but the teachers and senior teachers in the school, are going to have a difficult time choosing which one of these young children would lead their school in the Student Leadership Council - a very hard decision to make. One of the things in school which often happens is there is a populist vote. Sometimes, the most popular students are not the best and do not show the correct leadership attributes, even though they are well liked. That plays out in politics sometimes too.
The reality is these young children blew me away with the quality and, more importantly, content of their speeches, and impressed me greatly. That two hours flew by like you would not believe, given the quality of what I was listening to. There might be a few good speech writers there later in life.
Tonight I wish Bakewell Primary all the best with their AGM.
There are two other issues I will talk about. First, Maluka Drive in Gunn. Without any consultation whatsoever - this is a not a large road - government has chosen to put a new bus stop in front of residential properties. In fact, where they have placed this particular bus stop on Maluka Drive is right in front of a resident who runs a business - not from the house – and often has vehicles that park on the street, and have done for the many years they have lived there. All of a sudden, without any consultation whatsoever, a blue pole went up out the front and they have a bus stop. Now they are forced to park on the other side of the road, which makes it a very dangerous situation, particularly around the times the buses are going up and down that area.
We all know we want to improve our bus services in and around the suburbs, but I would like to know what kind of consultation the government entered into before choosing that particular street and exactly where they have put that particular bus stop. The residents I have spoken to in that street did not hear anything, did not receive a letter, did not know anything. The first they knew was the light pole was painted blue on the bottom four or five feet and, now, it is a bus stop. There has been no single yellow line placed in the gutter to prevent people parking there but, here we have this blue bus stop.
While we are talking about buses, the very same lady who was involved in a dreadful incident at the Palmerston Bus Interchange had another horrible situation happen to her - I believe it was on the way to Casuarina on a bus - where a very drunk itinerant lady on the bus was very abusive, with much swearing and carrying on, to the extent she was going to be kicked off the bus. In doing so, she actually hit this young lady in the back of the head rather severely and, as she was being ejected from the bus, spat on the bus driver, swore abuse, and so forth.
The question this young lady asked me was: ‘How does someone get on the bus in the first place in that intoxicated state?’ It goes to show the type of society we appear to be becoming, where there is no respect for each other, no respect for community property - just a non-caring attitude we seem to be developing. However, it is not everyone. The truth is there is a small percentage of society who just seem to think they rule the roost and can get away with anything.
That is the sad reality. They can get away with anything because we have a government that is soft on crime, with no real answers to any of the issues we are facing today. They have had 10 years to get this right and, every time another situation is raised - whether it be in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Palmerston, Darwin or the wider Territory - their best answer is: ‘We have a review’, or ‘We are going to have another program, or some other system, or process’ that does not deliver real results. The problem is society is now paying the dividends for this soft approach this government entered into when taking government 10 years ago. We need to harden up as a society. We need to get tough, and we need to make the tough decisions.
I know there will be people who will accuse me and others of being racist, and accuse us of all manner of things, but the reality is whoever it is - whether they are black, white, brindle, any colour of person in this society - it does not matter. If they treat society with contempt, then society should treat them with contempt and lock the buggers up.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016