2015-11-18
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, from 1 to 5 November the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory hosted the seventh Commonwealth Youth Parliament. Over 50 young people from 32 Commonwealth jurisdictions around the world had the opportunity to interact and exchange ideas on issues of concern to the youth of the Commonwealth. They were mentored by six sitting members of parliaments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Turk and Caicos Islands, New South Wales, Tasmania and of course the Northern Territory, which was ably represented by the member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss. Thank you very much, Lauren, for your time; it was greatly appreciated.
Delegates experienced life in the parliamentary spotlight and at the same time showed how the next generation would approach parliamentary politics. Their agenda included Question Time, a committee hearing and debates on bills and motions.
Some of my highlights from the debates were: Mr Oliver Wilson from the ACT raised a point of order regarding Standing Order 63, offensive and disorderly words. When I asked him what word he found offensive he replied that he ‘found the whole conduct of the other side this morning offensive and unruly’. I duly noted that this was not a point of order.
Ms Jacinta Slater from the Northern Territory told the Chamber, ‘that watching those people opposite is like watching a dog play the piano – hopeless, useless and completely out of tune’. Interestingly, no one found that offensive.
I enjoyed also when Mr Tommy Gilchrist, from the United Kingdom, pointed out during Question Time that there were strangers on the floor, referring to the mentors. It was the first time as Speaker I have had to rule on Standing Order 249.
The seventh Commonwealth Youth Parliament passed the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill 2015 with amendments. Transcripts of debates, Question Time and the public hearing of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill Scrutiny Committee, along with the bill, are on the Assembly’s website.
Thank you to all departmental staff who helped with that, particularly Ben Harris and, again, Lauren Moss, who was very good with all the young people.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the inaugural Build-Up Ball was held at Parliament House on Saturday 19 September 2015. The ball was generously sponsored by SilkAir and a number of other corporate entities and filled to capacity with 230 people, and tickets sold out two weeks before the event. It was a charity fundraiser event which included an online auction, which ultimately raised in excess of $20 000. That money has been distributed to the charities selected by a subcommittee earlier in the year of which I am not part of. The money went to HBA Incorporated, the NT AIDS and Hepatitis Council, the Top End Women’s Legal Service and Variety NT.
I thank the honourable members who attended the ball, the members for Brennan, Sanderson, Fannie Bay, Johnston, Karama and Nightcliff, and the member for Stuart who bought a table of 10 but was unable to attend in person.
I acknowledge and thank all sponsors of the ball and the auction. They are too numerous to mention here but without them we would not have been able to support the Northern Territory charities. I thank also Senator Nigel Scullion and the member for Fannie Bay, both of whom offered themselves for auction.
There is a Build-Up Ball website, which includes a photo gallery, and I invite members to have a look at it.
The committee, comprising members of the press gallery and me as Speaker, has met and decided it was a great success and we will do it again next year. I advise honourable members that the date for the 2016 Build-Up Ball is Saturday 5 November 2016 and I advise you to put it in your diary.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as mentioned yesterday briefly the 2015 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Australia and Pacific Regional Conference will be held in this Chamber next week. We have over 40 delegates attending representing most Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand, Kiribati, Niue, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Nauru, Bougainville, Tuvalu in the Pacific and observers from India.
The theme of the conference is vulnerability, and I am delighted that the conference program will include papers from the members for Barkly, Nelson and me.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act and Regulations to provide a resettlement allowance to members of the Assembly when they retire – whether this be at a time of their choosing or due to not being re-elected – to assist in the transition from political life to private life.
This bill flows from a recommendation made by the Remuneration Tribunal in its 2015 Report on Salaries and Other Entitlements of Assembly Members. In its report the tribunal noted that the existing resettlement allowance only applied where a member loses the endorsement of their political party or where they are defeated at the election. The tribunal went on to say there could often be very good reasons for a member’s retirement, such as poor health, and recommended the benefit be extended to include voluntary retirement.
The government accepts this recommendation, noting that such an entitlement acknowledges parliamentarians, unlike members of many other professions, do not have the benefit of accrued leave or redundancy payments to fall back on when they move on from life as an elected member.
The bill provides as follows:
Only a member who was elected at or after the 2005 Northern Territory general election and who is not immediately, after ceasing to be a member, entitled to receive payment of a pension or superannuation benefit related to their office as an MLA, is eligible for the resettlement allowance.
A member is not entitled to the allowance should they retire from their existing seat to stand for another seat in the Legislative Assembly or in any other Australian parliament should they be successful in being elected to that seat.
An amendment is also being made to section 5 of the act which permits the minister to make an interim determination in order to fill in a gap or omission in the tribunal’s determination. Following a review, it is proposed to amend the section 5 power so the minister may make an interim determination in respect of office holder salaries, in addition to non-salary entitlements, on the basis these are the categories of entitlements where there is more likely to be a need for an interim determination.
I will propose this legislation be debated in the December sittings. The reason is that once the bill is passed and receives assent it will be necessary for the Remuneration Tribunal to undertake an inquiry, provide a report and make a determination. The tribunal determination will then need to be tabled in this Assembly and will be the subject of the usual 10 parliamentary sitting day disallowance period before it may take effect. In order for these steps to be concluded during this term, it will be necessary for the tribunal to provide its report by February 2016 sittings.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I thank the Remuneration Tribunal for its recommendation in relation to the resettlement allowance and I table the explanatory statement for the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 141) passing through all stages during the December sittings.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion before the House, there is a golden rule that runs through all Westminster parliaments that we do not rush legislation. Legislation is the basis for our society and rushed legislation leads to errors. The most important thing we do in this House is pass or reject legislation.
For those listening and for the Hansard record the first time we saw this bill was this morning. We had a briefing …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Given that the opposition will oppose this I seek leave to withdraw that motion.
Leave granted.
Motion withdrawn.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to enact a new Education Act that reflects contemporary educational practices and supports a flexible system that can deal with current and future issues affecting school education in the Northern Territory.
This bill supports the implementation of new government policy such as independent public schools, and will make significant updates in important matters such as expanding the opportunities for parent and community involvement in schools, and supporting contemporary practices for students with a disability, and will broaden options for principals managing student wellbeing and behaviour.
The Education Act has been in force for over 35 years without major amendment or review. It uses outdated and inappropriate language and contains significant structural omissions. The act fails to accurately reflect contemporary society or educational practice. It lacks the flexibility to meet the complex needs of NT consumers or the education sector and lacks the breadth to allow for changing priorities. In particular, the act contains significant structural omissions in the areas of disability, special needs and inclusion, vocational education and training, and flexible models of school governance and operations.
It is a primary responsibility of government to provide education for Territorians and to regulate educational service delivery. School education is far more complex now than when the act commenced; however, most of the act remains unchanged. This sometimes makes it difficult to implement contemporary and innovative strategies and delivery models. The act is in need of comprehensive reform so that it reflects contemporary society and educational practice, and is responsive to current and future needs.
Reforming the act presents an opportunity to establish a strong legislative basis for transformational changes to education in the Territory to meet the changing needs of young Territorians into the future and to ensure there is sufficient flexibility to accommodate the current range of contexts and diversity in the Northern Territory.
Reform of the Education Act began in February last year with the release of a discussion paper which set out a number of potential reform options. This was followed by a significant period of targeted and public stakeholder consultation. During that first phase of consultation, 42 consultation workshops were held across the Territory and 45 written submissions were received at the end of that two-and-a-half month consultation period.
The initial draft Education Bill was informed by the feedback from that first phase of consultation with stakeholders, as well as research conducted into best practice models and initiatives across Australia. The draft Education Bill was publicly released earlier this year. Another 16-week period of consultation with stakeholders followed during which feedback was sought on the bill. Feedback from the second phase of consultation has been incorporated into the final bill. I now present the bill for passage through this House to become the new Education Act for the Northern Territory.
There are a number of proposed changes I bring to your attention. The Northern Territory Board of Studies is an advisory board and its current membership model is representative of a number of stakeholder groups. There are 16 members on the board and it has been challenging to maintain an effective NT Board of Studies in the Territory, particularly as it is a small jurisdiction.
The NT Board of Studies has no formal regulatory function, particularly as the SACE Board is contracted to provide services in relation to secondary school qualifications. Boards in other states and the ACT have a formal regulatory function, as well as an advisory policy role. Many jurisdictions have combined the functions of a board of studies with other regulatory functions such as teacher accreditation and non-government school registration. The core function of the Northern Territory Board of Studies is to provide advice to the minister on curriculum policy. This bill amends the model of the board to become a smaller, mixed-membership board which retains key stakeholder representatives but includes expert members in a range of fields.
The new board will consist of 11 members, one departmental representative, six expert members and four stakeholder representatives. Two of the expert members are nominated by the NT Catholic Education Office and the Association of Independent Public Schools of the NT, and this will maintain the cooperative arrangements between the school sectors. The other four experts are members nominated by the Minister for Education. Between them, the expert members must have expertise in a range of relevant educational fields, which will be specified in the Education Regulations, but include: early childhood education and care; primary education; secondary education; special learning needs; Indigenous education; vocational education and training in schools; distance and online education; and international education.
The four stakeholder representatives will be: one member who is the parent of a child who attends a school, who represents the interests of parents of children attending Northern Territory schools; one member who is a practising teacher who represents the interests of teachers; one member who represents the interests of Indigenous people; and one member who represents the interests of employers. This model will ensure the provision of quality advice to the minister, which includes input from a range of key stakeholders and experts.
There are currently 81 students across the Territory being home educated. Currently the Education Act requires parents to apply to the Chief Executive of the Department of Education to provide home education. However, no particular curriculum is mandated, meaning there is no set standard of quality.
The bill mandates that the curriculum used by home educators is one that is approved by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA. This will ensure all children and young people in the Territory have access to a high-quality education. However, it is acknowledged that in some circumstances there are curricula which have not been approved by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority but which are popular with families, particularly those who are home educating on religious beliefs or families who are home schooling a child with a disability and using a blended curriculum. To accommodate such circumstances, the Chief Executive of the Department of Education may grant an exemption to this requirement where appropriate. Home educators will also be required to inform the Department of Education when a child stops home education, which will ensure all children of compulsory school age are receiving an education.
The current Education Act uses outdated terminology that is inconsistent with current policy and practice, such as the term ‘handicapped’. The bill corrects this with the use of the term ‘disability’ as the correct, current terminology, aligning the act with local and national policy. In addition, a definition of ‘disability’ has been inserted into the bill which refers to the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act. This means that any changes to the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act will automatically reflect the new Education Act definition without any need for amendment. This is a widely understood and consistent definition, and is already used in Department of Education policy.
The bill also streamlines the process for parents or principals of children with disabilities or special needs to apply to the Chief Executive of the Department of Education for special arrangements where children need additional assistance, whereas it is currently the Minister for Education. An example of a special arrangement might be where a building modification is required.
The appeal process in relation to special arrangements is also streamlined. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal can review decisions rather than the Supreme Court, which is a less complex process for families.
School teaching and learning methods and facilities are focused on providing education for school-aged children and young people. However, the bill recognises that there may be reasons why students who are 18 years of age or older may need to attend school. For the first time we are providing schools with guidance in relation to mature-aged students.
Where it is appropriate for a person who is over 18 to apply to enrol at a school, and who has not been enrolled in a school for more than 12 months, they must pass a criminal history check before they can enrol. This means that if a disqualifying offence appears in the criminal history check prospective students cannot enrol in a school in the Territory. What is meant by ‘disqualifying offence’ will be detailed in the Education Regulations. However, the offences will be similar to those of significance for a Working with Children clearance, including, sexual, violent and drug-related offences involving children. This is an important safety check which does not exist in the current act. This does not apply to continuing students who turn 18 while they are studying. It does, however, apply to both government and non-government schools.
The bill confirms that government education is free. All children and young people are entitled to a free quality education that is capable of enabling them to reach their potential and so maximise their achievements and contribution to the community.
The bill also provides a legislative basis to the current practice where schools council request voluntary contributions or charge fees for optional extra items such as extra-curricular programs or activities that are offered in addition to the standard curriculum program. Parents can choose whether their child accesses or participates in courses that require optional extra items. The bill also provides for fees to be waived on the grounds of economic hardship or special circumstances.
Policy currently ensures that children within the local area of a school area are able to attend that school. When a school is nearing capacity, local students have priority for enrolment. However, there is nothing in the legislation about this. The bill includes guidance on enrolment policy as a tool to help principals manage enrolments fairly and with transparency. When a school is nearing capacity, principals will be required to prepare a school enrolment management plan which will be approved by the Chief Executive. The plan will provide direction for decisions the principal makes about the priority enrolments of students.
The current Education Act says that children must attend school while they are of compulsory school age but it does not describe when a student’s school journey should finish. This results in a lack of clarity around the start and end points of schooling. The bill establishes a set allocation for each child in the Territory of 26 semesters – that is 13 years of schooling – and that will see a child through from Transition up until the end of Year 12.
The bill also proposes that where appropriate additional time at school can be accessed by applying to the Chief Executive of the Department of Education. Processes already exist for these circumstances, for example, students at special schools or students studying the NTCET over a number of years. However, these processes are not uniform and lack a solid policy or legislative basis. The primary utility of the scheme is to provide structure, consistency and transparency for decisions made about those students who need additional time at school.
The application process will be simple and will be managed at the school level. Schools will assist students and their families should additional time be required at school beyond the 13 years they will have already received. Should any decision be made not to grant a request for additional time, students or their parents will be able to apply to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is an independent tribunal, to review that decision.
It is a priority to ensure our schools are safe, supportive and respectful teaching and learning communities that promote student wellbeing. The current Education Act allows for suspension and expulsion, but does not provide any guidance for teachers and principals on behaviour management.
The bill sets out a range of measures to allow schools to better manage student behaviour. First, it identifies a range of factors that principals must have regard to when making decisions about behaviour. This includes things like the age of the student, the student’s home environment, any special needs and relevant religious or cultural considerations.
The bill also gives the Chief Executive Officer a specific power to issue guidelines about the management of behaviour of students in government schools. This will ensure consistency and transparency across schools. The bill also allows the Chief Executive Officer to attach reasonable conditions to the enrolment of a child for behaviour management processes. An example of this is where a student must participate in a behaviour management program to attend a particular school.
The bill also includes a new safety measure by allowing students who have been charged with a serious criminal offence to be temporarily excluded from school until the charge is dealt with by a court. This would only occur when the continued presence of the student poses an unacceptable risk to the staff or students of that school. Should a student be excluded, reasonable steps must be taken to allow the student to continue their education while they are excluded. The Chief Executive Officer’s decision to exclude a student is reviewable by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
There is currently no express power to close or amalgamate schools where it is considered appropriate. The present process to close or amalgamate a school is done administratively, but there is no requirement for community consultation before the closure or amalgamation takes place. The bill protects and respects community interests by enshrining the requirement for community consultation to occur before a decision is made regarding a school’s future. The consultation must include principals, school staff, students and their parents, and other representative bodies of those persons.
The bill recognises the importance of parent and community involvement in government schools and will provide greater flexibility in school governance models to meet individual community needs. First, the bill requires principals to take reasonable steps each year to establish a school representative body. A school representative body can be a school council, an independent public school board or joint school representative body, depending on the needs or type of school. Where it is not possible to establish a school representative body, a school can set up a parent consultative group to have an advisory role, but with no formal functions.
While the current act strictly prescribes who may be a member of a school council, the bill allows for more flexibility in membership but retains the important component of parent representatives. The membership for a school representative body will be detailed in the new Education Regulations, with the intention to free up membership provisions to allow more external members depending on the needs of the representative body. However, all school representative bodies must have at least 50% parent representation.
There will be an exception to this rule for the boards of independent public schools. Parental involvement should be first and foremost; however, in circumstances where parents cannot be engaged to be part of an independent public school board, or where it is appropriate to vary the membership, an independent public school may apply to the Minister for Education to vary the composition of their board based on their needs. However, any application will have to demonstrate how parent and community views will be represented on the board.
In the current Education Act both the regulatory and administrative functions relating to non-government schools are the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department of Education. In other larger jurisdictions these functions are separated, with separate statutory bodies to regulate non-government schools, for example, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. However, this will be costly to implement in the Northern Territory at this time given the small size of our jurisdiction. For comparative purposes, in New South Wales there are over one million students and around a third of those attend non-government schools. In the Northern Territory there are just over 41 000 students and around 11 300 of those students attend non-government schools.
The bill instead separates the regulatory and administrative functions by changing the regulatory authority for non-government schools from the Chief Executive of the Department of Education to a registrar who will be appointed by and report to the Minister for Education. This creates a level of independence for the regulation of non-government schools.
However, the bill states that a review of this section will occur in five years’ time when consideration can be given to whether the Territory should move to an independent regulatory body.
There are many other notable amendments in this bill including: the express prohibition of corporal punishment; providing a legislative basis for contemporary elements such as vocational education and training; providing a legislative basis for international students; and including powers to enable the Northern Territory to enter into partnerships to provide education services overseas.
Finally, there are some consequential amendments proposed in the bill along with some minor amendments of the kind normally dealt with in statute law revision legislation. These amendments modernise the language used but do not affect existing policy or legal effect of the provisions so amended.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Education Bill 2015 (Serial 142) passing through all stages during the December sittings.
I am moving that we suspend so much of standing orders to enable passage of the Education Bill before the end of 2015 because I believe the new Education Act must commence on 1 January 2016 to ensure the many important reforms are in place for the beginning of the school year in 2016.
First, it is important to note that we have consulted extensively on the provisions of the Education Bill 2015. The Education Bill is the culmination of two extensive public consultation processes. The first consultation period, from February 2014, was on a publicly-released discussion paper which set out a number of possible reform options for consideration drawn from best practice around the country and the world. It also gave the community the opportunity to put forward its ideas for a contemporary education system for the Northern Territory. During that consultation period, 42 consultation workshops and briefings with stakeholders were held across the Northern Territory. The first of those briefed was the Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations, COGSO, an organisation which has been continually involved and consulted throughout the reform process.
The second consultation period, a further 16 weeks of consultation, allowed stakeholders and community members to comment on the draft of the Education Bill as it was shaped by the results of the first consultation. The draft bill has been available for scrutiny by the community since it was publicly released on 4 June 2015. Public forums have been held by the Department of Education in every region across the Territory and many key stakeholders were directly briefed, including members opposite.
Also, the Department of Education attended all COGSO forums to hear directly the views of parents and school community members. Overall, more than 40 stakeholder groups were engaged during the 16-week consultation process on the draft bill. In addition, to further assist the public feedback process and ensure complete visibility of all the legislative changes, key stakeholders, including COGSO and all school councils, were provided with the drafting instructions for the subordinate regulations, with a three-week opportunity to provide feedback.
While I had intended to introduce the Education Bill 2015 in the September 2015 sittings of the Legislative Assembly to allow time for normal passage of the bill, this was not possible. The community and members opposite asked for more time and public consultation. COGSO, the unions, the general public and school councils asked for more community consultation, so we granted an extension, recognising the importance of the legislation. Parents, students, teachers and community members have had a great deal of input and an opportunity over the past 20 months to contribute to drafting a new Education Act. Another year before commencing the new act is too long to wait, and I thank everybody for the time and effort they have put into this massive job.
I am moving that this bill be passed on urgency so that it is in place for the beginning of the 2016 school year because schools operate on calendar years.
Associated with the legislative changes is an intensive review and rewrite of policies and procedures for schools. It would be unmanageable to start those mid-year, that is, having different rules and processes within the same calendar year. We need to avoid putting unnecessary pressure on our schools by introducing new administrative requirements mid-year and mid-budget. A calendar year start will allow principals and administrators to prepare themselves and become familiar with the changes and the new administrative arrangements in time for the 2016 school year start. For families and students it is much easier to start a year knowing what the year involves and that there will not be any changes to requirements halfway through.
The current act is well behind current practice, and teachers and students deserve to be supported by a current and contemporary Education Act. They deserve the certainty of knowing that the underlying legal principles of the legislation give authority to their daily practice.
Government is now faced with commencing the new legislation on 1 January 2016 or 1 January 2017. There are many provisions within the legislation which are preferable to commence at the beginning of a school year. For example, the broadening of the definition of attendance at school to include contemporary education elements, such as vocational education and training, requires some changes in data collection so it needs to occur at the beginning of a statistical period, that is, the beginning of the year, so the like data can be collected.
If school representative bodies are to be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the new provisions, particularly around changing the composition of their members, that needs to occur at an annual general meeting, which is always held at the beginning of a school year. In addition, the terms of school council members are measured by calendar years. The mandated requirement for home educators to use an ACARA-approved curriculum only applies to new applications which are approved before the start of the school year.
The 26 semesters scheme is intended to apply from when a child first enrols in Transition, and students and families need to be able to count their time at school in calendar years. This will make it much more straightforward and sensible for students and parents to be clear about, and keep track of, their allocation. Starting the scheme at the beginning of a calendar year would reduce the administrative burden on schools by allowing the majority of students to have their entitlement commence at the beginning of the calendar year. The priority enrolment provisions should be applied from the beginning of a school year so parents have certainty that their child will be able to enrol at their local school.
Creating a registrar for non-government schools also needs to commence at the beginning of a school year to give clarity and certainty for non-government schools. Other provisions should be applied as soon as possible, including criminal history checks for mature-aged students; new behaviour management provisions, including the ability to put conditions on the enrolment of a child for behaviour management purposes; the ability to exclude a student charged with a serious criminal offence; the requirement for parents to tell the Department of Education if their child is no longer being home schooled; and the requirement for parents to tell the Department of Education if their child aged between 15 and 17 is no longer participating in an eligible option of employment or training and needs to be enrolled in school.
This is a journey that we have been on for 20 months, and families, schools, principals and the non-government sector are excited about the commencement of the new legislation. Education is the key to ensuring that the Territory’s children and young people have every opportunity to reach their potential so they can succeed, achieve their aspirations and contribute to the economy and their community. This new Education Act will provide the foundation for a contemporary and flexible school education system now and into the future, enabling Northern Territory children to reach their greatest potential and become confident and capable global citizens. It cannot wait another year.
We are asking for this to be passed on urgency in the December sittings due to the fact we listened to the community and consulted further for a longer period of time. Secondly, education is an area that whilst from time to time will have a difference of philosophy and view in the approaches we take, we all agree that an act that is 35 years’ old is well overdue for replacement. Many changes were suggested originally which, after consultation, we introduced, such as – which I did not think would be contentious – moving the compulsory school age from six to five. In the Northern Territory 97% of parents and carers already send their children to school at the age of five so we thought it would be a logical move to bring it into the act. That was probably a major area of concern, so rather than push through with that we decided to keep the compulsory age of six as it is.
Throughout this process of two rounds of consultation and many briefings across the Northern Territory over 20 months, we can clearly demonstrate we have listened to the community. We introduced the changes, but like all legislation we will not get everything right. However, this is a solid foundation for the start of an act that, from time to time if it needs tweaking, can be tweaked.
Madam Speaker, I commend not only the bill to the House, but also the motion to suspend standing orders to pass the bill on urgency in the December sittings.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, the opposition will not be supporting the motion to pass the most significant legislative work for the Territory education system on urgency. This is based on very strong feedback from key and critical education stakeholders.
Allowing the government to pass the Education Act on urgency will mean that Territorians have just over a week in work days to give proper consideration to an extensive modernisation of the Education Act. To put it in context, this is the biggest amendment to an act which is the same age as I am. It has been in place for 36 years. This is an opportunity to get legislation that is once-in-a-generation work right from the start.
There are 116 pages in the Education Act the minister has just introduced into this parliament. One would think that given the size, scope and impact of this bill, allowing time for proper consultation and consideration would ensure the very best outcomes for this bill and the amendments being proposed. Instead, this government is trying to get this through in a very quick time; it is just over a week. It is trying to ram through amendments to this 36-year-old bill from introduction to passage in a very short period of time in what is the busiest time of the school year. We are currently in Week 7 of Term 4. As all members will attest, it is one of the busiest times for education professionals in our schools.
If the government was to follow proper process, it would allow for a minimum of one month between introduction and passage of the bill. However, this will mean the bill will be debated between 9 and 11 February, therefore would not be in place for the start of the 2016 school year.
I understand the minister is trying to get a clean cut start to the 2016 school year by doing this. I get that is what he is trying to achieve and it would make implementation neater. However, I thoroughly believe it would be more sensible and there would be a better long-term gain in this process by allowing time for proper consultation, scrutiny and feedback to ensure we get the best possible Education Act.
I feel that would entail passage after one month from introduction, not a rush job, which is what the government is currently proposing. I have greatly appreciated the professionalism of the Education minister’s staffers and Mr Ken Davies from the Department of Education in being so open, helpful and approachable with all the briefings and offers of information about this bill from the very start. The minister has accommodated every request from the opposition for a briefing. I have no doubt – and by his actions have seen – he wants the very best informed debate in the community about the Education Act. I commend the minister for that.
As I said, I am very grateful to the minister and the Department of Education for how open they have been in their consultations with me, as the shadow Education minister, and my Caucus colleagues with regard to the Education Bill. You should be commended for it. I also appreciate that I was provided with a briefing for this bill last Friday prior to it going to Cabinet. The minister’s office was up front about the government’s aspirations to pass this bill on urgency, which they made clear. I appreciated that honesty and welcomed the briefings.
I understand their desire to get a clean-cut implementation of the bill for a full 2016 calendar year. However, there will be a better long-term outcome by taking the time to allow proper scrutiny of this bill. As we know, the government is aiming to amend half of the Education Act. These changes will be in place to deliver the education needs across the Territory for the next few decades. The government is covering a great deal of matters and making many changes, so why not ensure it gets it right? There have been changes to the exposure draft the government issued which deserve due consideration.
I appreciate that the government will argue in this motion it has conducted extensive consultation on the bill. This is one of the few examples of some genuine and meaningful consultation by the government. It has issued a discussion paper and an exposure draft of the bill, held public forums and meetings, conducted briefings and been very open and approachable with regard to this. It even granted an extension of the exposure draft period to get feedback, because it had been released over a very tricky time for education advocates. It was in the mid-year break, which is a four-week break as we all know, and that timing did not work well for schools.
Again, I appreciate that the minister and the Department of Education have had a genuine fair go at doing this properly. But I ask the minister and members of the government to not stop that good work here. You have done so well in this process so far, but do not stop it here, follow it through right to the end. Do the consultation and follow the legislative process the right way right through to the end so you can be genuinely proud you did the full job to the best of your ability. Give parents, teachers, education advocates and the community members enough time to review your final bill. If you pass it on urgency, you are not doing that.
Again, I stress that we are currently in one of the peak times of the year for schools. The end of the year is an extremely busy time and you will not be able to get the proper feedback I genuinely believe you want if you pass this bill on urgency now.
We would also be more open-minded to urgency if there was a compelling argument about the need for urgency, aside from it being neater to have it in for the full 2016 school year. In my briefing from the department, I did not hear of any compelling urgent matters that would justify a need to pass this bill on urgency today.
Key stakeholder groups of parents are saying urgency is not the answer or what they want to see today. The Council of Government Schools Organisations, which represents school councils and, most importantly, the parents of the students who go to Territory schools, issued a media release regarding the urgency motion. I will read the media release to put it on the public record. The media release is titled ‘Why the urgency, Minister?’
Thank you, COGSO, for that and for the opportunity to put this on the record.
I will also place on the record some feedback from a gentleman who has been involved with COGSO as a parent, who sits on school councils and works within the education system. An e-mail has been received by members of parliament from Mr Matt Skoss which reads:
I have also managed to have a conversation with the Australian Education Union today, which is also of the view that we should not pass this on urgency but ensure there is due time between introduction and passage of the bill so we get the very best possible end product with this Education Act.
Minister, you are very close to the finish line, and you are setting a good example to your team on how to develop a good major piece of legislation in a proper, carefully considered and consultative way. I commend you for the work that you, your office and the Department of Education have done, but this bill will impact every member in this Chamber and the constituents we represent. It will affect all our schools.
Madam Speaker, I urge members not to support this urgency motion to ensure the amendments to the Education Act get the proper consideration they deserve.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, my mind goes to the one word which should guide any urgency motion before this House: hardship. What is the potential hardship faced by delaying this bill?
I listened very carefully to the member for Wanguri. I take a little umbrage. I have been a fairly aggressive consultant over the years with most – not all – of the bills on the floor, so I am feeling a bit slighted. I was, for a short time, the Education minister when this bill was floating around before. We were continually consulting. Then the new minister took over.
He could have truncated the consultation process, which had been going on for a lengthy 20 months. He determined, not unreasonably, to extend the consultation process even further. He chose not to force the consultation process – something I tend to be more inclined to do because I like to get the agenda happening – and hold over the bill so there could be further consultation until November, with a view to passing it in December.
Whilst I was listening to the member for Wanguri and her contribution, I asked a number of questions in the House, one of which was of the adviser’s box regarding what challenges this throws up. I also spoke to the minister about the hardship component.
There is a genuine hardship case to be made. The hardship component is what the member for Wanguri described as a mere clean-cut approach. It would be nice to get it operating at the start of the year. It is not that simple because it is not just about the bill. Attached to the bill will be restructures that have to occur within the Education department. I do not know what the Department of Education’s standard operating procedures are called, but I am sure it will have a set, all of which will be predicated on the assumption that this bill passes so when we hit the ground running it will be good for the students because it will be a new set of rules in the new year.
If we hold this bill over until February that work cannot be substantially done because the challenge facing those educators is they are trying to create a set of structures around something that is not law. At the moment it is a bill, a bit of paper with some writing on it; it is not law until such time as this House says so. The Education department will have to start doing work after the passage of the bill in February, which of course is after the new year has started. My concern is that genuine hardship will be created which will affect students.
I am genuinely surprised to hear that COGSO feels it has not been consulted on the bill and has issued a media release at the last moment. It was in the loop when I was the Education minister. I understand there are some tweaks, but no major substantive differences – as I look to the adviser’s box I am getting a nod – in relation to the draft. COGSO had input into the consultation draft, gave feedback and got what it wanted. I am surprised that COGSO, at this point, would say it needs more consultation ...
Mr Chandler: What is their motivation?
Mr ELFERINK: The position of COGSO is very difficult to reconcile. The minister just made a comment about their motivation. I am not quite sure what that means, but if that motivation is more about the relationship between COGSO and the Northern Territory Education department, or between COGSO and the Northern Territory government, then I say to COGSO, let us focus on what is important here, and surely that is the kids.
The minister has described a bill which brings substantive and substantial changes to the operation of the current Education Act, which has been around for 35 years or thereabouts. We will have kids going to school operating under one set of rules and then, halfway through the year, at the end of first term, we will change those rules once that work has been done. That may change any number of things in how the education system operates. That would potentially create a hardship on those students which is greater than the validity of the argument put by the member for Wanguri.
This bill ain’t no surprise! It is not like we have come into this House with a bill that nobody has ever seen, had no notion of or contact with before. The member for Wanguri acknowledged that the consultations have been far and wide, and the efforts the Education department has put in to talk to people about the contents of this bill.
Essentially, if you distil the difference between me and the member for Wanguri on this issue, it is where the greater benefit is. That, of course, is the crux of this argument. I argue that there are no real surprises here and the greater benefit is with the urgency motion to avoid the hardship that would potentially flow from waiting until February. That is my position.
In a more critical or cynical world view I perhaps smell an element of political opportunism. I see the member for Wanguri shaking her head and saying no. I do not know if I believe you on this one, but if that is your motive then woe betide you.
On balance of the arguments presently before this House, do we hold over the bill which has been widely circulate and discussed, and has been around for a long time? The only reason we are having this conversation is because the minister said we will do a bit more. We will make it stretch out a bit more on the assumption that common sense would prevail and hardship would be avoided by the passage of an urgency motion. That is the point of difference.
I do not think this is as mild an impost as the member for Wanguri believes it is. Understanding the contents of the bill as I do, as the former Education minister, I am sure it has undergone several changes since that time. This is a very substantial change, and the hardship impact, which is a requirement of standing orders to be satisfied to allow a bill to be passed on urgency, has been made out by the minister today.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that COGSO and the unions still want to hold this over. Surely it is about the kids, and consistency when a kid walks into a classroom. To withhold consistency, in my opinion, creates the requisite hardship demanded by standing orders.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the members for Port Darwin and Wanguri with interest. Somehow we have lost sight of the role of this place. I thank the government for all the consultation it has done; I appreciate all that hard work. But that work is what has guided the government to bring this document here today. As a member of this parliament, I believe I have the right to look at this legislation thoroughly and to talk to people about it, regardless of the consultation.
The problem I have with this legislation is that the Education Act, which is important, would have been an ideal act for a committee to talk to the community about. The government, through a department, discussed this with the community, which is fair enough.
I learnt in Canada you can also have another method of consultation, which includes this parliament. We have the ability to do it as well. You would either have or set up a committee which would discuss these issues as a bipartisan group and hold meetings with the minister. It would do all that work and come back to parliament saying it has consulted and agreed, and present a document to this parliament. You would then know the parliament, as a bipartisan group, has agreed this legislation is worthy of being passed in parliament.
We can have that system, but we do not in this case. We have consultation, which is good, and we appreciate all the work the department has done, but we also have another part of the consultation, which is what this place has been set up for, the reason we have a Legislative Assembly. It is meant to consider bills brought before it.
This bill, I understand, went to Cabinet yesterday or the day before. Our briefing was on Monday and we only received a draft copy. This is the final version the department, minister and Cabinet have approved.
I thank the department for the briefing, at which I asked the CEO what the major problem would be with this not passing in December but later in the year. He said it would be in relation to the 26-week semester. That is the only thing he said would be a problem. I looked at my little calendar – I hope I have a copy of the 2016 calendar. No, I do not. I am not sure what the date is we are sitting but I can imagine it is fairly close to the second week of school. School normally starts after Australia Day and we are sitting in the second week in February. Is that really a big deal? The member for Port Darwin said the kids would be affected. What would they be affected by? As I said, I asked the same question of the CEO and he said the only issue would be the 26-week semester. I am not sure that is the end of the world either.
I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, minister. In my electorate there are three non-government primary schools, four government primary schools, one non-government secondary school and one government secondary school, one of the biggest in the Territory. Obviously they have all been involved in this discussion, and it is a difficult time to do it; that is one of the problems. As the minister would know, there are many farewells and other things in the next week or so. Most members will be chock-a-block with that sort of work. It will be difficult to get people even interested in asking whether we can let them know if the act has covered all the things you said.
This bill has 182 clauses in it and I am told that roughly half of those were there before. I would also like to talk to the non-government school sector to check whether some of the things it disagreed with are in this bill. I know it was looking at a proposed statutory body structure. My understanding is that might have been rejected. I would like to have some time with them to see if there is anything in the bill which still should be brought to attention.
Parliament is the place for us to debate this bill. We have a process where (1) we talk about it in general and (2) we have a committee stage which enables us to question the minister on the detail within this bill. For me to go through a bill this big and get an understanding of it is a lot of work. I would like to have the time to see whether there are things I would like to ask the minister about. We will not have the time to do that properly. As I said, it is a very busy time of year and that would be impractical.
I also read clause 179, which said this could result in hardship. As I said, I spoke to the CEO and the issue of the semester was the only issue he believed would be a problem. There are not likely to be substantial or major issues, I imagine, with all that consultation. If the government was preparing for this legislation to go through in February, it would have most things ready to go subject to any change that might occur in this House.
I do not agree that there is hardship, based on what the CEO has said to me, or anything that would be a show-stopper to this being debated in February. I feel that in this important bill – in the words of the member for Port Darwin – is substantial change, and we need a reasonable time to assess those changes.
I am not always against urgency motions. I have supported some in my time in this House. Not very many, but I have because a case was put to me that persuaded me something needed to happen otherwise there would be serious consequences. I do not see serious consequences happening with this if it is passed in February. I see it as the government going through a consultation process. We, as members of this parliament, are also a part of that consultation process. We should not truncate this process unnecessarily. We should not regard it as, ‘We have done all the work. Here, tick and flick.’ This is not a tick and flick place; it is a place where we should think carefully about legislation.
Every member of parliament should take this bill seriously because education is so important for the future of the Northern Territory. Many of the problems we have are due to a lack of education.
This bill has some very important sections in it. I was listening to the minister’s third reading where he spoke about managing behaviour, suspension, exclusion and expulsion. These are important issues I am interested in fleshing out with people who are at the coalface dealing with these matters.
We do not want kids drifting out into the ether because some are unable to be educated. We want to ensure we have methods that will bring them back into the system. We have some facilities in the Territory that help in that way. It is important that our act recognises those difficult areas.
I know a local person whose wife teaches at a school. She has many problems with discipline in her school and other difficulties with teaching. She comes home exhausted and nearly sick from the abuse she gets and how hard it is to control a class. It is important the act enables teachers to be protected from that type of behaviour. It is an issue that has been raised a number of times with me. What is the protection for teachers in these cases?
I raise that trying to be positive, minister. The member for Port Darwin raised the point about politics. To be honest, I could not care about the politics; I am more worried about making sure I have a chance to look at this bill carefully. I do not think I can do that in a week because at this time of the year it will be difficult. To get around to some of these schools and ask if they have looked at some of these issues will be hard. Sometimes you are limited because you are an MLA. It would be nice to talk to people at the coalface first hand and ask them what they think about these changes.
I do not know whether some of them would have a different point of view to the peak bodies. That sometimes can be the case. It would be nice to flesh out the bill with people who are part of the industry. I should not call it an industry; I do not like that word. Education is more than an industry; it is a vocation, and a means to improving people’s lives. I would like that extra time to flesh out what is in this bill and come back with a considered response, which may be that I support all of it. Then again I may have a few queries I would like to put forward to this parliament to get clarification so we have a bill we all feel confident about and know is good for the future.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I am a proud former student of the NT public school system. It is now my job to make sure our Northern Territory students in the future are afforded those same opportunities.
As the members for Nelson and Wanguri have outlined, there is a golden rule that runs through our Westminster parliaments that we do not rush legislation. Legislation is the basis of our society, and what we are debating today is the basis of our education system. It is the guiding document for our schools, teachers and parent bodies. To pass or reject legislation is the most important thing we do in this House.
We should be afforded the opportunity to take this detail back to our community. As the member for Nelson has outlined, this went to Cabinet on Monday, and last Friday the member for Wanguri and I had a briefing. I am grateful to both the minister and the Department of Education for the briefings provided.
However, we have not seen the final document Cabinet signed off on. It was placed on our desks about an hour ago. We have not had the time or opportunity to go back to our schools or communities. It is of such importance that we must be afforded the opportunity to take it back to our community.
There are very few times that this parliament must consider and pass something on urgency, and this is not one of them. We must focus on why we are in this situation today, which is because we have a government that is so dysfunctional it could not put together a sittings schedule that would allow for proper passage. We have repeatedly been asked to pass something on urgency and have said it is not urgent. Yes, this is urgent because you did not allow appropriate time between sittings, but it is not urgent in the sense of the Westminster system, and our job as elected members is to uphold that. The need for urgency must demonstrate some overwhelming issue that means an injustice or an error should be corrected straightaway. That is not the case in this situation. There is no case for hardship and no serious consequence if this is not passed. Yes, it would be nice to start the 2016 school year with this legislation, but there will be no hardship if this comes in mid-year or in the 2017 school year.
One reason we must be cautious with this bill is that it deals with our schools. We are now in Week 7 of Term 4, an extremely busy time for our schools, parents and teachers. You are proposing to spend eight days looking at a huge bill, one of the thicker bills to land on our desks in this parliament. We will not be able to get to our schools, interested bodies and parents to get feedback that is our role as local members. We are elected to represent our communities. It is our job to take bills back to our community. Some members on the other side may laugh but I take my role seriously.
I have already engaged with some community members on this bill but more want to discuss it. They want to see the final copy and the regulations, and our job as elected members is to speak to our communities. Some of my colleagues on this side are from remote regions. They might not even get back to their communities in the short time we have to look at this bill. We have not seen a case for urgency today.
It has become evident that the sittings schedule this year has been extremely unworkable for the government and for providing community consultation – the opportunity for us to go to our communities and talk about legislation. Maybe those on the government benches do not talk to people and do not listen. That seems evident after last night’s events.
The Australian Education Union and COGSO have asked for appropriate time for passage of this bill.
One concern I have is the regulations, policies and procedures that need to be developed. This is a huge bill, and although the minister has indicated those changes are fairly minor in makeup, development of that work at the end of November to be delivered on 1 January 2016 is a huge ask. We have seen changes to the exposure draft and are not sure if the bill that has landed on our desks today, which was passed by Cabinet on Monday, is the final document.
We need to go back to our schools. There is no case for urgency. As the member for Wanguri and the minister outlined, we have spent many weeks changing this act. The current act has stood for 35 years in the Northern Territory and you are proposing to change an act in eight days and develop policies in six or so weeks that will hopefully stand for another 35 years.
We should be afforded the opportunity to consult our communities to make sure we are doing the right thing by the students of the Northern Territory, because that is what this comes down to. We have questions and we need to talk to our community to make sure we do the right thing so this act can stand with our names against it for another 35 years.
Madam Speaker, as the opposition Whip I do not support the urgency motion before the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I find it extraordinary that we are debating an urgency motion on such a crucial reform bill. Education is at the heart of our society. It is what we all need to work to make our community and our society work. I do not think there are any of us in this Chamber who do not hold dear to our hearts the need to improve the learning outcomes of our children, which is a complex cohort across the Northern Territory. We have the nation’s most complex cohort within our education system, public and private. The non-government sector is not out of the picture in the impact of this bill. We have in our system so many challenges.
I cannot recall, in my 14 years in parliament, ever being in a briefing on legislation on the day prior to the commencement of sittings, with a bill of such magnitude with an urgency debate attached to it which was still in Cabinet. We could not even be briefed on the bill because Cabinet had not made the final decisions on what would be in and out of this bill. Up until this morning all the stakeholders who are genuinely invested in improving education outcomes for our children, including ourselves, were still guessing about what is in this and the changes from the draft that went through the consultation process, and I will get to the consultation process in my contribution.
I have not read what has landed on my desk this morning, but I will be going through it. But it is not about my chance to read it. As other members have said in the debate, if we are to do our jobs as representatives of our communities, it is about going out to our school communities and parents, and sitting down with our educators, who we all know and respect across our community, and listening to what they have to say. There may well be a great deal of good in these reforms.
I already have concerns about the 26-week semester cap. I want to read the detail around that. I am asking for the opportunity to see the regulations and how that would operate, but we do not have those regulations. We have seen broad drafting instructions, but they were drafting instructions based on a draft bill, not the actual bill.
As I asked in the briefing I had on Monday – and I thank the officers of the department and the minister’s office for providing us with that briefing – why the 26-week semester cap? What is the education outcome of that? We know that two jurisdictions have caps. Victoria has 20 years of age …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, could you pause? Honourable members, I welcome to the gallery honourable members from the Niue parliament here today to watch and enjoy.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: … and Queensland has a cap. We do not have time in the time between this sittings and just over a week or so to the next sittings when we are meant to debate this to find out the impact of arbitrary caps in other jurisdictions.
I am a parent. My kids are educated through our system, both private and public. I am a product of the Northern Territory public education system which the minister is hell-bent on reforming. When I was at school quite a few of the students I went to school with repeated a year. Under this cap situation you repeat a year, and then you move to, say, doing Year 12 over two years, which is increasingly becoming an opportunity that our children are embracing.
You are busting through the entitlement. You no longer have an entitlement because of the arbitrary 26-week semester cap. The process articulated is that the principal makes a determination. If that is no, you do not have the entitlement to return to that school. Then it goes to the Chief Executive of the department. The process following that is the Chief Executive of the department says, ‘No, you do not have the entitlement to return to school, you can go to the newly-established NTCAT, the administrative tribunal, for appeal’. I pointed out that at that stage, and several stages through that process, our young people will stop and lose the desire to go on with their education. Who does that benefit?
Putting in place impediments to attending school does not make any sense to me, but I may be wrong. The 26-week semester cap and the unknown regulations around it might be okay, but I do not know. Passing urgency today would give me no opportunity to do any more research on it, quite frankly, because the short time between this sittings and the first week of December sittings does not allow me to talk to parents, the kids in our school system now and the educators, or find out the impact of caps in other jurisdictions, of which only two exist.
I have a disability background. I spent years advocating in the disability sector before being a member of parliament. I know through lived experience that our young students with disability who then mature into young adults often require additional years of schooling to get to the level of education outcome to equip them to go on to what we call post-school options. What exists in post-school options in the Northern Territory is a separate debate.
It is not unusual for students at Henbury, for example, to do their 14th and 15th years at school because that is what they need in their education levels to equip them for the best opportunities and chances in life to pursue the best of their abilities after school. Let us not pretend, they would be prevented from having those 14th and 15th years of schooling. That would be a travesty. That would directly impact on opportunities that would otherwise exist for those young Territorians. What government considers that genuinely?
I may be accused of verballing, but I will stand by what I am about to say. In the briefing, in drilling down on this point, the Chief Executive of the department said it is a matter of cost. Realising that may have not been the best answer, albeit a frank and honest answer, he then went on to qualify it and say there are only finite resources in Education.
The best money we can spend is on education because educated Territorians are productive Territorians. Whether you have a profound disability or not, your productivity improves with your education. The cost of education failure is writ large with our overflowing gaols, families in crisis and a child protection system under enormous burden. Fixing everything we need to in our community comes down to education, yet we will rush consideration of the largest reform in education legislation, which sets parameters of what can and cannot occur. We will rush it after 30-odd years because you want to start on 1 January.
Maybe you exist in a different realm to me, minister, but my schools have been struggling under the burden of the reforms of global school budgets. My school communities are struggling to deal with assessing whether it is another teacher or a half-teacher position they will lose next year as they deal with global school budgets. Educators in my community are exhausted dealing with the pressures and burdens of the reforms to global school budgets that have hit our communities hard.
Our parents on our school councils are over it, yet we expect them all, when they are heading into school Christmas concerts, end-of-year awards, graduation ceremonies and reports to write, to focus on this because it will be debated in December if the government gets its way today. Seriously? That is absurd. You cannot expect our school communities, educators and parents to do that at one of the busiest times of their year.
It is the end of the year and we all get excited. I am excited as a parent, but I know I am dealing with my daughter’s Year 12 graduation. She has just finished her exams. I am dealing with my son’s end-of-year activities, including the school Christmas concert. The teachers at those schools have been dealing with getting the kids through their school year, and are now dealing with writing reports. The administrators of the schools and the school councils are dealing with bedding down their analysis of what the budget may or may not look like as they set up the start of the next school year.
Yet you give them just over a week to look at the most significant reform in 30-odd years because – forget the draft – today we finally see the bill.
Minister, for the sake of education in the Northern Territory, take a deep breath and listen to our community and the feedback from stakeholders such as the AEU and COGSO. Both have been consulting, and not just in the regional towns, which is what your department did. Its consultations stopped at large regional towns; it did not go to remote or very remote communities. There are many significant impacts on Indigenous education buried deep within these reforms. How on earth will those remote and very remote school communities be able to have any line of sight on what is in this bill, to consider it, debate it and genuinely provide feedback to the members of parliament who represent those communities?
Minister, please heed this call. Do not proceed with urgency. Let us have the time over the end-of-year period to consult with our communities. That will be tough enough coming into a February sittings to debate it.
Madam Speaker, I oppose urgency.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, first of all I was of the mind that if I could be convinced today that there were genuine reasons not to do this on urgency, I would consider it. I have heard, though, nothing but politics from that side of the House. We have seen politics 101 played today. Although there was some congratulations and kudos for the way the consultation has been conducted over the 20 months; mind you, this is a 35-year-old act. Labor was in power for nearly 12 years and administered an act that was approaching 25 years of age until it was over 30 years old and did nothing. The act is out of date.
I explained the process which has brought us to this point today: hat we consulted and listened to the community, you, COGSO and the unions, and to the feedback we were getting. That is why we extended the consultation. Had we not extended the consultation we would not be in this position today. I am of a mind to say let us not consult. If we want to do things, as a government, why not just do it because we will get the same negative feedback from the opposition whether we do it or not, and that is frustrating.
Let us step through the 20 months where there have been two rounds of consultation, the last lot for 16 weeks. Consultation does not pass legislation. Committees do not pass legislation. Legislators pass legislation. How do we get to the legislation we have today, by some miracle? No, it is by listening to people who are educators, people in our community, and to organisations like COGSO, school councils, unions, teachers, principals and people who work within education. That is how we arrived at the bill we have today. We have looked at what we had and how we could change it to make it better.
I did not dream these ideas up. I had some ideas and suggestions, but this has all come from the consultation periods. We have listened and consulted but, more importantly, we have constructed an Education Act that is pretty damn good for that 20 months’ worth of work. I take my hat off to everyone involved in the process to date.
But we have now reached the stage where it is up to us, the legislators, and we still have a process to go through. This matter of urgency is not to do with legislation I want to debate and pass today or even in tomorrow’s sittings. Sometimes urgency motions can be done immediately. No, there is still another two weeks yet. In the last 16-week consultation period the shadow minister for Education – and good on her for doing this – has gone to around 35 or 40 schools. That is fantastic and all facilitated through my office ...
Ms Manison: They are very good in your office.
Mr CHANDLER: The fantastic staff in my office are all very helpful in trying to get the right feedback and processes in place to ensure that we have done the right thing in regard to updating our Education Act.
If there was not time to consult in visiting 35 or 40 schools, I do not know what more we can do. I feel like we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we try to rush something through we are criticised for rushing it through. If we consult we are criticised. I do not know what you expect of this government and me as a minister when we are trying to follow a process through. We have done the consultation and listening, and we have made the changes.
We are here; it is now time for legislators to legislate and the process to begin. There is another two weeks before this will be back in the House. Then we will go through the process. I give you a guarantee that if you find anything in the next two weeks that should be changed we have the committee stage to do that. It is time for you to make a decision, not to have more consultation or more committees.
The member for Nelson said at this stage perhaps we should be sending this to another committee. This is after 20 months of consulting with the community. This legislation is based community feedback. We have taken contentious things out of the legislation because we listened to the community.
There are two more weeks. We have the debate before the committee stages which gives you a chance to put forward last-minute changes. If you have not been engaged over the last 20 months you have left this to the last moment. If you are selling the message that education is so important to you, you would have been engaged in this process from the very start, not at the very end.
In fact, the member for Karama laid her cards on the table today. She could pick on one thing in the entire bill and she focused on that. That goes to show you how engaged in this process she has been.
If this parliament decides not to support urgency and decides to be lazy before this comes back to this House for its final debate and the committee stage where we can look at additional changes if necessary, then we are doing education in the Northern Territory a disservice.
As picked up by the member for Port Darwin, this will provide hardship. There is a lot of work to do, and to give fair and reasonable time for the Department of Education to gear up to prepare for this legislation next year, the right thing to do is to have it debated and passed through this House by December so they can get on and do the work they do so well.
I am disappointed to hear that the new COGSO Chair, Tabby Fudge, is saying they were not consulted enough. I find that bizarre. COGSO has been involved in this from the word go. The previous President, Gerard Reid was involved in a meeting where he asked departmental staff what to look for in what is wrong in this.
Fair dinkum! How involved are some of these people – 20 months after we have had consultation after consultation, community meeting after community meeting, briefing after briefing, and used all that information we gathered to bring to this legislation – to now ask for more time? It is time to legislate, people. Consultation has occurred. We have listened to the consultation. The draft was put together from the original consultation. What did we do? We had a second consultation period w,hich was extended to 16 weeks.
We are in this position today of asking for the leniency of this parliament to push this final bill through on urgency in two weeks from now because of the changes that were produced through the 16-week consultation period.
If people have not been engaged in this process and do not know where we are up to, that is not the fault of the process. If it is important enough to you, you will talk to your communities in the next two weeks. As the member for Nelson said, he would like to speak to a number of schools. In the perfect world perhaps that would be fine, but we have telephones and e-mail, and can send messages to schools to see if there is any other thing we should consider.
I put to you that we still have the final debates and the opportunity to make changes that could be brought in through amendments in the committee stage if they are so important or deserve to be in the legislation. As a minister I want this to be the best legislation it can be, so I will not stand in the way of a good idea. I will not stand in the way of something that I or all the experts have overlooked. If you find it, bring it forward and it will go in the bill. If it stacks up and will improve education, it will go in the bill.
The member for Karama is shaking her head at me. You spent nearly 12 years in government and when did you look at the Education Act? You say education is so important to you, yet in nearly 12 years in government you did not have the courage to look at the act and update it to the point where it should be to make an act that will take us through the next 15 or 20 years.
Madam Speaker, this should be above politics, but today we have seen politics 101 being played. If there was a genuine concern over there, I would have walked away from this motion. But education means too much to me to set the education system up to fail next year. We would be doing education a disservice by not passing this legislation this year. We need to be fair to our education system and our educators, and give them ample time to prepare and start a new year with a brand new act. We have the power and capacity to do it.
Madam Speaker, there have been 20 months’ worth of work, two solid rounds of consultation, many community meetings and many briefings held. That consultation has led to this act in its current form. It is time to legislate. Put the politics aside and give our educators a chance. Let us get on and introduce this legislation.
The Assembly divided:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a pairing.
Madam SPEAKER: It is noted. Mrs Finocchiaro and Ms Moss.
Motion agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 511 petitioners relating to conserving Berry Springs waterhole. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Continued from 16 September 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the Information Amendment Bill (No 2) before the House. As always, I thank the minister’s office for facilitating a briefing which I attended on 16 October with officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice who, as always, were most helpful and professional in providing me with an overview and answering the questions I had.
I advise the minister that the opposition members support this bill, which is to:
I acknowledge the good work done in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice over the last couple of years on the enormous body of work for the implementation of NTCAT. I recall being briefed on that legislative reform by Mr Andrew Macrides when I held the shadow portfolio for Attorney-General and Justice following the change of government.
It is sensible legislation which aims to streamline the processes and procedures for members of the public to access government and personal information which is held by government. It has been endorsed by the Office of the Northern Territory Information Commissioner, who briefed me on the same afternoon I had been in the minister’s office. I was advised by the Office of the Northern Territory Information Commissioner that the amendments are welcome because they improve the workability of the act, amongst other things, strengthening early resolution powers and freeing up mediation processes to better resolve complaints. I understand FOI legislation is very technical in nature so I will not go into any of the technicalities of the bill. I take it on good advice from experts that it is good legislation.
The Information Act is a very important legislative instrument. Its provisions underpin the legitimate rights of the community to hold their government to account for its decisions and actions. This is why the Northern Territory’s first Labor government, when it came to power in 2001, introduced the Territory’s first Information Act in 2002, which was an election commitment.
Legislation like this is particularly relevant in the case of the current CLP administration, which as we know is the most secretive and unaccountable government in the history of the Northern Territory. A systemic pattern of secrecy and cover-up is endemic in the Giles CLP government. There are many concrete examples of the CLP government’s lack of transparency and obsession with secrecy, which I will turn to shortly.
First I want to focus on some fundamental principles relevant to the Information Act and the amendment bill we are considering before the House today. Referring to the inherent public interest in accountable government in Eccleston and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Queensland’s then Information Commissioner said:
The Information Commissioner went on to articulate a further public interest principle for effective freedom of information laws:
These key principles of transparency and public accountability are the antithesis, as we know, of how the CLP operates. The Giles government is preoccupied exclusively with its own political survival, secret deals behind closed doors and endless cover-ups. Accountability and the public interest always run last with this government.
Richardson Park is a recent example of the government’s disregard for transparency, accountability and the public interest. Without public consultation, $20m was allocated as an up-front payment to relocate rugby league to its former home ground. There was no consultation with sporting codes, local residents or Ludmilla Primary School, let alone the broader community. People were simply kept in the dark. There is no evidence of a proper feasibility study before the $20m was allocated, or detailed budgets to complete the project. Ongoing operational costs impacts on traffic flows, lifestyle and urban amenity, absence of parking facilities or the implications for Ludmilla Primary School were not considered.
Is the government really surprised by the predictable adverse reaction from local residents and key stakeholders? This is a perfect illustration of why the community deserves strong freedom of information laws that are reviewed frequently in the public interest.
Regarding the government’s decision on Richardson Park when viewed through the prism of the guiding principles articulated by the Queensland Information Commissioner, the community will make up its own mind on these things: whether the public has been able to discover what the government has done and why it was done so the government can be brought to account; whether interested members of the public were able to discover what the government proposed to do and obtain information to participate in and influence government decision making; and whether there are checks and balances on the small elite group that ultimately manages government policy formulation and decision-making.
It is no wonder that the Treasurer has abandoned his electorate of Fong Lim to contest preselection in the seat of Spillett against the member for Drysdale. There is great expectation in the community in respect to decisions on Richardson Park and what the Public Accounts Committee has already unearthed following the tabling of the report yesterday by the member for Araluen, who is chair of that committee – a report which the government tried very hard to stop. Recent statements by the Treasurer …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from subject. The member is also alluding to previous debates which were disposed of yesterday. On all reasonable estimations she is now well out of bounds.
Ms WALKER: Could I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: This is very important legislation about freedom of information. Whilst I will be talking further about specific amendments to the bill, I know that in these debates you allow, and other Speakers allowed, a certain degree of latitude about why it is these laws are so important and where their failings have been. I am giving examples of that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I do not have a problem. It is talking to a bill. There is a huge amount of latitude when talking to a bill and drawing conclusions at the end of the debate. I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy will bring them all together.
Ms WALKER: Recent statements by the Treasurer and the Minister for Sport and Recreation that they will ignore recommendations arising from the PAC inquiry have intensified the community’s anger at the lack of consultation on an important issue that affects their daily lives.
There is a litany of failure by the government to respect the public interest in developing policy and decision-making with direct relevance to the Information Act, the amendments to which we are talking about today, which will strengthen this act.
Honourable members will recall that FOI documents discovered under the act by media and the opposition exposed questionable allocations of water licences to former CLP parliamentarians and candidates. Both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Land Resource Management denied there was any political interference in the allocation of these licences, but documents discovered under FOI proved conclusively that these denials were untrue. This is why this legislation, this act, is so important to the people of the Northern Territory, as is strengthening it, as we are today through amendments.
In answers to written questions, the Minister for Land Resource Management denied that he had spoken with Tina MacFarlane or Peter Maley in relation to the water licences subsequently awarded to them, but under close questioning during estimates the minister confessed that he had discussed the licences behind closed doors in separate meetings with each of these applicants. In doing so, he refused to disclose what was discussed in these secret meetings.
In a Supreme Court hearing it was subsequently disclosed that the very same minister failed to conduct merit-based reviews when asked by applicants to review decisions of the Controller of Water in respect to the allocation of 18 water licences. The court case cost Territory taxpayers $120 000, and the minister is yet to adequately explain why he did not conduct merit-based reviews as required under the law.
The bill before the Assembly provides for the Information Commissioner to refer complaints about decisions under the Information Act to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In the context of the abject performance of the Minister for Land Resource Management with respect to water licences, the Attorney-General should consider, in consultation with interested stakeholders, the merits of transferring the review of decisions under the Water Act to NTCAT.
There are other examples of government actions and decisions which breach the fundamental principles of accountability and the public’s right to know, enshrined in the Information Act.
The Chief Minister has alleged a conspiracy between Northern Territory Police and a Cabinet colleague to destroy his leadership, but has declined to disclose any supporting evidence to the public. The Chief Minister has also accused the Electoral Commissioner of prematurely leaking information about the recent redistribution to the media, but again he has refused to provide evidence on the public record to support his allegations. The Chief Minister presided over secret discussions to sell TIO, to privatise the port and to split the Power and Water Corporation as a precursor to selling more public assets. The public was not properly consulted about these very significant government policies and the Chief Minister has refused to release information to the public on the basis that it is commercial-in-confidence.
In a leaked e-mail the Chief Minister foreshadowed discussions with Graeme Lewis about the extent of any conflicts of interest between Mr Lewis’ role as a Director of Foundation 51 and his duties on government advisory boards. The public was never informed about the content of these discussions and the extent of the conflicts of interest was never disclosed. These are the hallmarks of a secretive and unaccountable government that has no regard for the public interest and holds the community and Territorians in contempt.
Information discovered under FOI by the media and the opposition was fundamental to the exposure of very questionable ministerial travel, including a $40 000 trip to the United States by the Minister for Women’s Affairs and her former senior adviser. FOI documents obtained by the media were central to the exposure of a $5000 expenditure on a government credit card in a seedy Tokyo bar called the Red Rose on goods and services provided to the former Minister for Tourism and the Chief Minister’s former Chief of Staff. Neither the Chief Minister nor the transgressors have disclosed the nature of the goods and services received or who else was present at the Red Rose bar in the early hours of the morning in Tokyo.
More recently, the Attorney-General, consistent with the government’s culture of secrecy and cover-up, has not been open and transparent about the crisis in the youth justice system and systemic failures in Correctional Services. We know there are many more systemic failures to uncover in my own electorate at the Datjala Work Camp. I read online on the ABC in the past hour that the sex offender who escaped had access to a phone and a vehicle, and complete and free access around the community. We will go through channels to find out what was going on there ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am being tolerant, but this is a clear breach of Standing Order 67, and there are also several breaches of Standing Order 59.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not believe it is. It is not a digression from subject. She is putting facts on the table, which I believe are in the public domain.
Mr ELFERINK: But attending to Standing Order 59, she is alluding to earlier debates, which have disposed of many of these topics.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not recall a debate about people being on the loose in towns …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but Madam Speaker, there were a number of other references …
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down; it is not a point of order.
Ms WALKER: I have nearly finished. I have already mentioned the utilisation of the freedom of information process by the media to hold governments to account. This is a very important consideration in the context of the Information Act and the bill before the Assembly this afternoon. Transparency is tough but it is necessary. In an article in 2012, Francis Maude, who was Cabinet Office minister in Whitehall, said:
This is a resounding message for Cabinet ministers in the CLP government, politicians and public officials, whether in office now or in the future. The culture of secrecy and cover-up is endemic in the CLP, and it is unsustainable politically. The community is disillusioned and angry about the failure of the government to govern in the public interest. That is why we need effective and contemporary FOI legislation.
Returning to the provisions of the bill, I said at the outset that we support the amendments in this bill. The provisions to transfer the hearing of complaints from the Information Commissioner to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal and to reform the complaints process have merit. This is consistent with our in-principle support for the creation of NTCAT and its mandated functions. The streamlining of processes, such as the referral of a request for review of a decision directly from a public sector organisation to the Information Commissioner, is an improvement on existing arrangements.
Prima facie these provisions do not appear to add cost, complexity or longer time lines to processing and determining applications, reviews and complaints under the act. However, the Attorney-General may wish to give assurances to the Assembly about this issue in the context of the new processes set out in the bill.
The opposition also supports the new provisions in relation to improper influence, misleading information and unlawful disclosure of information under the act. I urge the government to direct more time and resources to the training of information officers, and public sector employees generally, on the content and operation of the Information Act.
Transparency and accountability in government would also be enhanced by community information programs on the purpose and operation of the act, and how it can be utilised by the general public. As I said, in the lead-up to the 2001, election Labor promised, if it were elected, to introduce FOI legislation as part of its reform agenda to enhance transparency and government accountability and, true to our word, the Territory’s first ever Information Act was introduced into this Assembly in August 2002.
We are committed to restoring integrity to government and are engaging with community on a very wide range of policy proposals as part of a broader integrity framework in order to restore that trust, accountability, integrity and honesty to government which has been sorely lacking in the past three years. Of course, freedom of information legislation is a key element in this broader framework.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude my comments there. I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. We support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): What an extraordinary contribution by the member for Nhulunbuy ...
Ms Walker: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: No, that was not meant in a pleasant way. It was extraordinary in the fact that it was outside the bounds of ordinary in a very bad way and dishonest ...
Ms Walker: Oh seriously!
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Oh seriously’, says the member for Nhulunbuy. How about that there is a cover-up in youth justice despite the fact that the Vita review was released not because I was under any obligation to do so, but because I insisted it be so.
The Children’s Commissioner’s report was released – after receiving legal advice from the Solicitor-General saying we did not have to release it – at the insistence of the minister, namely yours truly, in the interests of openness and accountability in this area.
They are not necessarily healthy reports. To assert that somehow there is a cover-up in this area, when in fact I have directly intervened on a number of occasions to make sure the information was delivered into the public domain, is just poppycock. Absolute nonsense!
The member opposite, the alternative Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, is quite happy to be loose and fast with the truth, as she has been today. Even the rationale for the structure of her debate is incomprehensible. ‘We support this legislation because it improves transparency; however, the mob over there who are sponsoring this bill that creates more transparency is a bunch of people who cover things up.’ If I am the sponsor of the bill that creates more transparency, how on earth am I interested in this absurd assertion of cover-up that the member opposite makes?
She lives in such a deluded fantasy world about what happens in government that should she ever become a minister of the Crown she will find herself thunderstruck with the obviousness of the role. She lives in a world where she sees skulduggery behind every bush and villainy in every action. That is nonsense. Of course, the assertion that she makes means public servants must be complicit in these processes. It is an indictment on this shadow minister’s incomprehensible arguments in this place, with her anger spraying around the room as she slithers in and out of this place to heap scorn on not only members of this government, but also public servants. What reprehensible behaviour by this member opposite. It shows she has lost her way completely because she is much more interested in the politics of this place than any real governance issues in the Northern Territory.
In Question Time today the members opposite reflected an incapacity to deal with policy issues because they are bereft of policies. All they have is conspiracy theories to peddle, despite the most obvious evidence to the contrary. It is dishonest, and, frankly, dumb.
With that off my chest, I thank the honourable member for her support, nevertheless. This is an amendment to legislation which in the substantive part enables the NTCAT to have an expanded role. The NTCAT was a policy of this government sponsored by yours truly.
Although the member opposite beats on about the introduction of freedom of information legislation, I sat on the opposition benches for years saying we needed some sort of civil and administrative appeals tribunal, which they steadfastly refused to implement. All of a sudden, in opposition, they have a road-to-Damascus conversion and discover there is such a thing as a civil appeals tribunal which is good in making access to justice available in a way it has never been in this jurisdiction, either under a former CLP government or the previous Labor government.
It is all part of our dastardly scheme for cover-ups and world domination. You can now have an application heard for about $49. Before, in many instances, those applications would have been lodged in the Supreme Court, where an initiating action would have cost you $1800 to have exactly the same sort of matter dealt with. Those are the reasons we need NTCAT.
Like any other tribunal or oversight body, NTCAT has generated some controversial decisions. I congratulate Mr Richard Bruxner and Andrew Macrides on the rollout of NTCAT in the Northern Territory. It has already made a substantial impression in the Territory and I am glad to see it is operating the way it is. Mr Bruxner is what I would call a black-letter lawyer, who has been very careful to make sure the decisions of the tribunal have as much a judicial flavour as he can possibly manage, which is good. These are good things, but this is the real world, not the fantasy the member opposite perpetrates.
This bill is about as benign as a piece of tofu in a refrigerator. It is not in any way offensive. It is good commonsense legislation, which is why the member opposite had no real way of challenging it. So rather than simply acknowledging the passage of good legislation, she defaulted to politics 101, sprayed venom all over the room, laced it with some invective and threw in a bit of strychnine to give it a bit of seasoning.
That is the nature of her shadow ministry. Should she become a minister, will it become the nature of her ministry? Will she lace her decisions with invective, deception and strychnine should she come to power? If that is what she will demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory as her style, people will find it very tiresome very quickly. In short, she should simply get over it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 August 2015.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this bill may be one of the shortest this Assembly sees. It is through no lack of research or trying; it is simply a very simple bill. The minister’s second reading speech was five sentences.
The purpose of this bill is simply to change an age so as not to discriminate. The opposition supports the bill. I do not think I can add anything more to it apart from waffling on, which I will not put the Chamber through. We support this bill which is very straightforward.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, this legislation is quite simple. It is about taking out the discrimination sections of the acts. The Department of Business, through its red tape campaign, is taking these sorts of things out of the legislation and making it equitable for all.
I thank the …
Ms Fyles: Sorry. I told you it was short this morning.
Mr STYLES: You were supposed to go a bit longer. Coming down stairs at 100 km/h is probably not good for you, but we all get our exercise somehow.
I thank the members for their contributions to the debate. The Agents Licensing Amendment Bill 2015 is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to modernising the Northern Territory legislation by removing age discrimination provisions.
The bill will ensure that all Agents Licensing Boards operate without any impediment and that future boards will have access to the broadest possible range of skills Territorians have to serve on it. It is also about ensuring we do not lose our corporate knowledge. It is quite simple; it just takes the age limit of 65 out and leaves it open so we can engage anyone.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STYLES (Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr STYLES (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I speak about remote telecommunications in the Northern Territory – more good news from the government.
Telecommunication services through remote areas is one of our key priorities. We heard during Question Time today some of the fantastic places where we are putting communications in the bush and across the Northern Territory. We have heard before that we have hot spots around the Territory where we are erecting magnifiers for communication signals.
Telecommunications is an enabling technology that opens the door to so many possibilities and provides the means to create significant improvements in the lives of Territorians. Reliable communication is important to people in our cities and towns, but are even more significant to Territorians living in remote communities where isolation is a big issue and service delivery is much more difficult.
Telecommunications opens opportunities for individuals to stay in contact with loved ones and for businesses to take advantage of an economy that is much broader than the physical boundaries of their community. Through the Internet, NT towns can compete online and be seen and heard on a global stage. Mobile phones are the product of choice for the modern consumer and should be available to all, including our remote communities. With the advent of smart phones and tablets, and the explosion in apps and mobile services, people across the globe are now accessing an enormously wide array of services and information, with powerful computing technology at their fingertips 24/7 in most places, but not in all our remote communities.
Telecommunications will also allow for the range of government services to be expanded, and the efficiency of service delivery to be significantly improved. A great example of this is the health service where services which have not been possible to provide in the past can be delivered online. Specialist medicos will be available to connect via high-definition cameras directly to remote health centres and provide on-the-spot advice for patient treatments. It can save lives.
Over 2013 and 2014 the Country Liberals government, in a joint program with our long-term partner Telstra, delivered mobile and broadband services to 13 remote communities in the NT. Project 13, as it was called, was a substantial success. Broadband and mobile services were delivered on time and on budget to these communities. Telstra and the NT government each contributed $2.88m to this project.
I commend to the Assembly the good work that Telstra has done to deliver telecommunications and services across the Territory over many years. Project 13 followed other joint programs to expand telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory, including the earlier Arnhem fibre project that extended optic fibre connections across Arnhem Land. I doubt anyone would dispute the substantial investment that Telstra has made in the Northern Territory. While Telstra is a commercial organisation with responsibilities to its shareholders and has a need to make a return, it has clearly demonstrated its ongoing commitment to the Territory, particularly our remote communities and residents.
Given the goodwill from Telstra and the value to the Territory from these joint funding agreements, we have entered into another jointly-funded partnership program with Telstra to again expand remote telecommunications infrastructure. Through this new program, a combined total of $30m will be invested over three years.
Northern Territory remote communities that will benefit from having telecommunication services installed under the new current investment program include Umbakumba, Bulman, Weemol, Minyerri, Kata-Tjuta, Yarralin, Manyallaluk and Titjikala. These communities will receive mobile phone services and, where possible, fixed broadband services. Additionally, communities such as Ali Curung, Barunga and Timber Creek, which already have 3G mobile phone services, will now get fixed broadband services installed, which will broaden the benefits of the co-investment program. This co-investment program has prioritised communities based on the need, population, community views, potential business benefits, Telstra service and commercial requirements and costs.
Telstra will now undertake detailed feasibility studies of all sites. These feasibility studies will guide the selection of the appropriate technology platform to deliver the mobile services, and identify clearances and site requirements, and determine the cost of each site. Telstra will conduct detailed consultation and engagement with the communities to ensure they are supportive, ready and have a strong say in the services to be delivered. Community wishes will be respected, and changes may be made to the program in the future if a community has a strong preference not to take up telecommunication services.
The co-investment program will run through to 2018. This remote telecommunications infrastructure program will bring vital services to the bush and improve the lives of thousands of people living and working in remote communities throughout the Territory.
It is significant that in addition to its substantial infrastructure investment, Telstra has committed a further $1.35m per annum over three years to a sustainability plan. The sustainability plan will focus on targeted community education and awareness campaigns that will address issues such as digital literacy, cyber safety and Telehealth. The plan will, at Telstra’s invitation, be jointly designed and ensure the new mobile services make a real difference.
Through supplementing the hard infrastructure program with a softer education program, a complete package will be provided that will deliver even greater benefits to communities. People can find out how to use the technology effectively and, importantly, how to protect themselves in our modern online world. The messages to be developed under the sustainability plan will have broader application and be considered for use in metropolitan and regional areas as well.
I remind the Assembly that telecommunications is the responsibility of the Australian government. Successive Australian governments have made the decision that the National Broadband Network is the answer to the inequity of services and disparate costs that have plagued Australian telecommunications. The NBN will provide a national telecommunications infrastructure platform to deliver telecommunication services to all Australians. Unfortunately though, under the NBN, telecommunication services to remote areas will be limited to satellite broadband. The satellite service will enable community residents to access the Internet, generally with improved bandwidth compared to existing satellite services.
However, the service quality will not be enough to allow Telehealth diagnostic and treatment services or the large downloads required for education, nor will it provide the necessary infrastructure for mobile phone services. We have and will continue to make strong representations to the Australian government for a better NBN solution for our remote communities that have existing access to optic fibre infrastructure.
What is pleasing to see is the importance that the current Australian government is placing on mobile communications. The Australian government’s Mobile Black Spot Programme will deliver 499 new mobile sites across Australia, with five of these sites to be built in the NT by Telstra. The communities are Minjilang, Mount Liebig, Finke, Imanpa and Wallace Rockhole.
By 2019 there will be at least 57 remote NT communities with mobile phone services. I am hopeful that we can expand this number and add more communities to the list over the course of the current investment program. This depends on the results of Telstra’s feasibility studies and the opportunities to leverage from the government’s Mobile Black Spot Program where we can.
In this regard the Chief Minister has written to the Chief Executive Officer of Telstra seeking support for cooperation between these two major telecommunications programs to maximise the outcomes for the Territory. As I mentioned previously, the Giles government understands the value of telecommunications to remote communities. For remote Aboriginal communities, like the rest of the country, mobile phones are invaluable.
Installing telecommunications infrastructure generally incurs a high cost. A mobile phone service in a remote Northern Territory location will cost at least $750 000 to install. Depending on the location, the cost can be significantly higher. The need to transport the phone call from the mobile tower to the connection point in the national network potentially adds millions of dollars. Maintenance costs are also generally high in remote locations. The cost of delivering mobile phone services to every remote community and across the Territory is simply beyond the government, so we are working with national companies and local innovators to explore ways to improve telecommunication services in remote parts of the Northern Territory. The government is looking for other innovative ways to improve telecommunications and supplement the infrastructure programs.
An exciting initiative we are progressing with the Centre for Appropriate Technology, or CAT as it is known, is for mobile hot spots in the bush. This is a sophisticated low-tech solution developed by Central Australia’s Centre for Appropriate Technology to extend critical mobile phone coverage in remote areas. The mobile signal amplifiers, or hot spots, extend the range of mobile services to approximately 30 km. This is about twice the existing usable handheld mobile coverage at a fraction of the cost of traditional mobile services. The user places the mobile phone in a fixed cradle which receives a concentrated mobile radio signal, allowing for a normal conversation either through an earphone or on the speaker.
The Northern Territory government will be supporting this local initiative by providing $360 000 funding over four years to implement 22 mobile hot spots in the Central Australian region. At this stage the proposal will be confined to Central Australia, as the Centre for Appropriate Technology is yet to obtain an engineering certificate for mobile hot spots in cyclone-related areas.
The mobile hot spots are being manufactured by CAT’s Aboriginal workforce, which is welcomed by the Country Liberals government. The mobile hot spot is a 1.2 m diameter parabolic dish antenna on a post, a base and a pedestal. It uses no electronics, requires no power and has minimal maintenance and associated costs.
CAT has installed two mobile hot spots near Hermannsburg to service the road to Finke Gorge National Park. These pilot hot spots are operating successfully and have already been responsible for the rescue of stranded tourists. The technology provides critical mobile access where previously there was none.
Everything is fabricated and assembled in the CAT enterprise workshop by the Aboriginal staff. In addition, the Aboriginal employees have constructed a purposed-built trailer to use for site surveys, testing the signal of the hot spot in the identified rollout locations, ensuring site selection optimises the signal. They will be assisting the CAT telecommunications engineer in the site surveys and undertaking installation and ongoing maintenance of the hot spots across Central Australia. CAT is an Aboriginal-owned, not-for-profit technology innovation company working across remote Australia.
The Northern Territory government will continue to work with service providers and governments to achieve the best outcomes possible for telecommunications services in the Territory, especially in our remote communities. We will provide a further submission to the second round of the Mobile Black Spot Programme and continuing dialogue with the Australian government. We look forward to opportunities to further work with Telstra in our remote communities. We will seek out innovative solutions to telecommunications problems and deficiencies in our remote communities, working with organisations such as CAT.
This Country Liberals government will not give up on getting the best telecommunications services delivered for Territorians across the Territory. We will not sit back and do nothing. We understand what telecommunication means to all Territorians and the benefit it brings, especially for our remote communities. If you take Africa as an example, 70% of all business in the main part of Africa is done on mobile phones – not computers or tablets, but mobile phones. With those lessons in mind, this government will continue to advocate, demand and focus on getting reliable, modern and consistent telecommunication services for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement in relation to telecommunications in the bush. It is a vital and exciting area, as I am sure many members of the House agree. I always get very excited about the opportunity to hear about what local organisations in the Northern Territory are doing, especially the ones which are coming up with innovative solutions to some of our challenges. We should be celebrating innovation in the Northern Territory more than we do.
Telecommunications and the opportunities it brings should be a firm focus of the government. The minister is correct that there are still remote areas across the Northern Territory where the vital infrastructure to provide our communities with the opportunities to connect and grow through technology still needs significant work. We will hear from some of our members who represent remote electorates in this debate, I am sure.
Technology and telecommunications are essential to economic and cultural growth in the Northern Territory. Innovation and investment in information and communications technology, or ICT, is of vital importance to the prosperity and wellbeing of Territorians. There is a technological revolution sweeping the world and no facet of life or the economy will be left untouched, which has not escaped the attention of those in this House. Those jurisdictions, businesses and individuals with the creativity, imagination and courage to adapt and innovate stand to benefit enormously from the opportunities afforded by the rapidly-evolving world of digital technology. Those opportunities should also be afforded to Territorians outside our urban centres and major regional centres.
Those who fail to invest in infrastructure, skills, technology and innovation culture are on the path to lower growth, lower employment and a decreasing quality of life. A culture of innovation in this space must be fostered and requires leadership from the highest levels of government. It also requires collaboration and genuine consultation, particularly with the ICT industry.
Telecommunications provide thoroughly exciting opportunities for health and education, business and enterprise, and community connectedness which is also very important to the wellbeing of our communities. They provide opportunities to increase access to the remote delivery of training and development opportunities, including in governance, business administration and the delivery of training and development for those who work in human services, as many people do in our remote areas of the Northern Territory.
We are coming up to or are in cyclone season, and investment in telecommunications and technology is hugely important in the potential for us to increase and improve our emergency management. Early notification during emergencies is exceptionally exciting in this area of policy.
Expanding the infrastructure capability across the Northern Territory is a positive thing for our community and I commend the government on Project 13, in partnership with Telstra. I concur with the minister that Telstra has made a sizeable contribution to the Northern Territory over a long period of time, and the expansion of telecommunications should be undertaken by any government in the Territory, particularly in this evolving world.
I was very excited to hear about the new project and the rollout of broadband. The minister mentioned a number of communities, including Ali Curung, Minyerri and Yarralin. The work that will be undertaken on prioritising those communities is something I suspect a number of members will be interested in learning more about. I am looking forward to getting a briefing. I will be requesting that so I can learn more about that project.
I congratulate the Centre for Appropriate Technology, or CAT, for the fantastic work the minister has outlined in his remarks about expanding the reach of mobile coverage. The former Labor government was a strong supporter of CAT and its creative responses to the challenges of mobile communications in remote areas of the Northern Territory. Its work truly shows what can be achieved when you think outside the square. These kinds of projects not only improve the delivery and reach of crucial services, but also help to create jobs and deliver skills, particularly for Indigenous Australians in our remote communities.
There are some very innovative and creative change makers in the Northern Territory. It is a very exciting time. The government has a role in creating an environment in which new ideas cannot only be seeded, but can come to fruition and have the best chance of success. Again, I commend the government for its partnership in this space with respected Territory organisations, and I look forward to hearing more about the experiences and results that come from employment in these current and interesting projects.
Territory Labor has been, and always will be, in the business of delivering vital infrastructure. That is why we fought so hard in government to deliver improved ICT infrastructure for Territorians. It was why we were proud to partner with Telstra, Rio Tinto and the NLC to help deliver the Arnhem Land fibre optic project which the minister referred to in his statement this afternoon. It is why we work so hard to deliver better remote infrastructure and mobile coverage whilst acknowledging that there is still much more to do. It is why we fought so hard to secure the best possible deal for the Territory with the incredible opportunities the NBN presents.
I am pleased to see each and every dollar invested in ICT infrastructure regardless of who delivers it. The recent announcement by Telstra and the government to deliver better mobile services in the bush is welcomed, as is the fact that the Australian government is finally getting around to delivering the much-needed mobile black spot funding, because each and every dollar counts.
The minister made reference to the NBN and its impact on equality and access to services and costs in telecommunications. It should be noted that at a time when they should have been supporting Labor governments federally and in the Territory to deliver the best possible NBN services for Territorians, they were playing politics. Locked in step with the Liberal and National parties, they rallied against and failed to see the long-term benefit of world-class infrastructure projects like the NBN and what that will deliver for the Northern Territory.
This ignorance has delivered a substandard NBN project in many of our important regional centres like Tennant Creek. The government may say it has made strong representations to the Australian government in relation to services in the bush, but we have heard very little about this advocacy, certainly during my time in parliament.
Addressing the digital divide is exceptionally important. We need to have a robust discussion about ensuring we do not leave people behind in this digital revolution. I am very pleased to hear about the $1.35m per annum over three years in the plan from Telstra to work with our communities to increase digital literacy, cyber safety and Telehealth, all of which are incredibly important.
These projects should fit into a broader government ICT or digital strategy that shows the sector and the broader community your plans for the industry so the Territory is truly prepared for the needs of the future, both in expectations for capability and the changing nature of the workforce. Given the sheer potential for scaling up innovation in the Territory in our remote and urban areas, a well-articulated position and direction would be well and truly welcomed.
I want to hear from the government about how it plans to use technology and telecommunications to highlight to the world the unique offerings of the Northern Territory. We know from projects such as the language work undertaken by the Ngukurr Language Centre and others using multimedia and online platforms to share culture, stories, environment and languages, that technology can truly expand our reach and the promotion of what is occurring in our back yard.
I want to hear from this government how it sees improved access to IT in our education delivery, particularly given significant changes to Indigenous education in the bush, and how we plan as a Territory to better support our schools in remote areas in their connection to and use of digital tools.
The projects the minister outlined are incredibly and valuable. However, it is disappointing that after three-and-a-half years there is still lack of a well-articulated vision in ICT for both the present and the future. This must include how the government plans to optimise the involvement of our local sector in upcoming work, and it would also provide a strengthened environment in which the sector could have a sense of what the government is looking for when it is doing its own blue sky thinking.
From talking to the sector – and I have met with a number of wonderful organisations in the sector over a long period of time – I get the distinct sense that security and direction are not necessarily forthcoming from the government or seen as a particular priority. So, while we are here today talking about what is an incredibly important and positive project and an important focus for the government, I want to ensure both concerns are on the record.
As our local industry is ready for greater clarity of work in the area of ICT, which is broader than infrastructure. The opportunities that exist through telecommunications and technology are broad and exceptionally exciting for the Territory. To see our young Territorians engaging in related subjects and projects with gusto is even more so, given the changing nature of our jobs. We have to look at the increasing nature of automation and what jobs will be available for people and what jobs we can create through these kinds of projects.
Territorians are launching apps and platforms to increase help seeking and share their languages, cultures and skills. How this develops over the next couple of years will be fascinating.
We remain excited about the potential for growth of such projects in the Territory as outlined by the minister. The government continues to build on some of the foundations established by the former Labor government, as it should. I look forward to hearing contributions from members, particularly in our bush electorates. We have heard today how important this has been to the member for Arnhem and others. I hope to hear a contribution from those members on the needs in their communities and what this means.
We remain excited about the opportunities to work with our ICT sector to realise the potential of new technologies in improving the lives of Territorians and the connectedness of our communities. I look forward to continuing to hear more from our most innovative and creative Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was interested today when I interjected about money being spent in Namatjira and there were great outbursts of laughter and joy over it. It is fantastic it is being spent there.
My concern is that there has been nothing spent in my area. You will not see anything in the budget for Nelson. One road is probably in as bad condition as the Tanami Road. That is the road to Gunn Point, which is used by hundreds of people yet is in really bad condition. It is a constant worry that people will be injured or killed if that road is not upgraded so part of the road is permanently sealed.
When we are talking about, in this case telecommunications infrastructure, and use the word ‘remote’ – there are people who live close to Darwin who feel they are remote. There are people who use and live on the road to Gunn Point who do not see any real long-term financial input into upgrading that infrastructure. There are also people in the rural area who live within a 35 km radius of the centre of Darwin who have 35-year-old telecommunication systems and nobody is willing to do anything about it. We have asked Telstra for a long time and nothing has happened.
This statement from the minister said the Country Liberals government will not give up on getting the best telecommunications services delivered for Territorians across the Territory and will not sit back and do nothing. I will gave the minister an example of what needs doing and ask him in six months whether he has given these people the best communications services he can deliver for Territorians. These are not the only people but I am using them as an example.
A family runs a business from home in Carabao Road in the Girraween area and does not have ADSL. A similar lack of infrastructure also applies to Zill Road and Mango Road in the Girraween area. The subdivision these people are in is approximately 25 to 30 years old and the infrastructure does not allow them to have ADSL. In the immediate area on Florigan Road and Rogers Circuit residents have ADSL, so people within the vicinity have the benefits.
This family can use the mobile network access which connects them to broadband but it is very expensive. As an example, people with only mobile network access will get 25 GB for $165 a month and on Florigan Road where they have ADSL you will get 500 GB for $30 a month. The people who do not get it have to use the mobile network access. People in Carabao, Zill and Mango Roads do not get the bandwidth and do not use the system much because of the cost. It is so costly it precludes them using the system as much as they would like. They told me there are many dropouts, which may occur elsewhere, but they seem to occur when the school kids get home. It seems around 3 pm there is more usage and it affects their business.
A lot of razzamatazz has been spoken about the NBN in the NBN advertising I have heard. It has now come to some parts of Howard Springs. The NBN will not help these people. Unless there is a tower where they can pick up a connection, they cannot see any improvement in the foreseeable future. The reason the NBN will not make a difference is because of the existing infrastructure.
The member for Casuarina mentioned the NBN. Maybe a debate is needed on whether the NBN should go to the house or the end of the street. In the case I gave, when it goes to the end of the street it means some people in the area do not get the service everybody else has.
I am asking the minister if he could lobby Telstra to at least charge the mobile service these people have to use at the landline rate, because the landline cannot deliver ADSL. That would at least be something. After all, if you look up the latest figures, Telstra made a measly $4.6bn last year after tax and was complaining because it had a slight reduction in its profit. I am sure a bit of revenue it might use by giving people with a very poor quality service an upgrade to use the mobile network access at a cheap price, or a landline price, would be appreciated by the people in the area.
The minister also mentioned the new satellite that was launched. I gather it will not be available for seven or eight months yet, but I stand to be corrected on that. The word I have heard is as soon as there are more people connecting into the satellite, the service will slow down. It will take the people who cannot be connected to the standard landlines, so there will be many more people connecting.
This family has been living in the Girraween rural area for 25 years, but Telstra will not replace the ancient system it put in because it will cost it a great deal of money. Minister, if you can spend $2.8m out bush, perhaps you can spend some money helping residents and businesses in the rural area move into the 21st century. This government espouses the importance of small business and how it is helping business get off the ground. Can the minister find some money to scrap the system in this area, which these people have been requesting for years, and improve it?
The federal member has been there. I heard on the grapevine he had a meeting and is discussing this down south, but I have not heard any feedback, nor have the people he was speaking to. I have no idea where that discussion is heading. I only know this needs some proactive work from government and Telstra. If the government can work in partnership with Telstra, as the minister said in his ministerial statement, then I am sure if the minister believes the Northern Territory government supports small business – and many small businesses need good telecommunications – then he will do something about this.
I will be checking with the minister next year regarding the issue raised in his statement:
While we are discussing this issue, maybe the minister could raise with Telstra that it seems there is something called contention, which is another name for congestion. While the NBN is being installed through the suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area, there is no appropriate upgrade of the facilities further south. My understanding is we are now getting what is technically contention. We are putting more people onto NBN in this part of the world, but we are not fixing the lines south to cope with the extra number of people connected. That has come from someone who has worked in the telecommunications business.
I do not know whether the member for Daly has some of these issues where he lives in the southern part of Litchfield, but I know he is a bit of a whiz kid with computers. It can get pretty frustrating if you are running a business and you need good, quick communications.
I am happy to give the details of the problems in Girraween to the minister. The government needs to look at this. It might be expensive, but if the government can take telecommunications facilities out bush for people to get mobile phones, then I ask it to make an effort for those people who live close to town but are in places where the communication system is old and Telstra is not willing to do anything about it. There needs to be some pressure from government to fix it.
I reiterate one other thing, minister. I said this at a conference; I think it was the NT Cattlemen’s conference. With the amount of money Telstra makes, when people cannot get good service on the landline but can get better service on the mobile network access line, I cannot see why Telstra will not charge people the landline price instead of the mobile price. It makes a heap of money – $4.6bn is not chicken feed. It would be good customer relations and would show that Telstra, which sponsors the Telstra Business Awards, also supports businesses by not slugging them because their landline facilities are so weak they are forced onto the mobile network. It could support them by saying, ‘We admit the service you get is pretty lousy, so we will at least treat you equally with other people who get good ADSL by giving you the same rate on the mobile network’. That would be good for the customer but also good for Telstra’s public relations.
I hope, minister, I can give you some details and in six months I hope you can tell me there is a good news story for these people so they can run their business profitably.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to deliver a smorgasbord of information on behalf of constituents.
Minister, thank you for bringing this statement to the House. The Minister for Business is dealing with serious fatigue management that comes with two things: old age and hanging out until 3 am in the Legislative Assembly appropriating – what would it be, member for Port Darwin? – about $30 000 of taxpayers’ money for a completely disingenuous motion and consequent defeat.
Minister, I pitch this at your wonderful staff on the fifth floor. I know how the system works and they are listening to this broadcast. This will be a smorgasbord of what I have collected over a number of trips in regional and remote areas, but most recently reinforced in travels through the Barkly.
It is good to see that the minister outlined in the statement what has been a long-term partnership with Telstra through successive governments. I acknowledge the half-a-dozen words where the minister referred to the Arnhem fibre optic project that was, from memory, in 2011, with a value of just under $12m, a Labor government partnership with Telstra, for those on the other side who continue to trot out that disingenuous rhetoric about previous governments. It was a seriously ground-breaking project. It is great to see that the CLP government has picked up on that and continued the partnership with Telstra. You give credit where credit is due. You tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It appeared in the lengthy statement, and gained about six words.
However, let us move on, because the CLP has now embarked on the same partnership with Telstra, a long-term partner, to deliver mobile and broadband services into 13 more remote communities. The journey continues.
For the Minister for Health, in the statement there is the regular analogy about Telehealth. What a great concept. I discuss that with health professionals in the bush whenever I get the opportunity. They support that. But Minister for Health, a priority that comes way before Telehealth is Internet connectivity to the doctors, the nurses and the health professionals’ houses in the bush. It seems to be a policy blockage in the Department of Health that they refuse to install Internet connectivity. When you meet with your health professionals in the bush you will see that the Internet connectivity is about professional development, their ongoing studies, connection with family, the tyranny of distance and enhancing their professional work. There are examples of nurses leaving their residences and going back to the clinic to continue part of either their professional development, their connectivity with family or their work. It is not satisfactory.
I want the minister to take that on board. I bring that to the House on behalf of many health professionals in remote areas. It is a simple problem that could be addressed through a cashed-up government that really wants to look after public servants in the bush. That is – what did the Chief Minister call it today? – put it in your back pocket. Well, put it in your pipe and smoke it because that is a serious policy initiative I put to this government on behalf of health professionals who work in those regional and remote areas. It is not something difficult, minister, but I offer that in good faith.
When the minister talked about the $30m investment, what came to mind was that there are places in the Barkly electorate that are screaming out for mobile services. I have been continuing to dialogue with businesses, communities, roadhouses and tour operators in these areas of the electorate. I talked about the priorities of road safety and how the government set that very important agenda.
Now they are starting to see mobile services rolled out into remote communities and they have their bids in. The next level I am working on is advising constituents about petitions, lobbying, how to prepare letters, giving contact addresses and encouraging them to drive this agenda.
An example for the Minister for Business is Heartbreak Hotel at Cape Crawford. Management has compiled an extensive petition. It has written a number of times to Telstra. It has lobbied the Territory and federal government, and they need support. Cape Crawford is on an intersection of two regional highways in a very remote part of the Territory. It represents a base for business and tourism outcomes, particularly road safety with some very interesting examples of how they have coordinated emergency aeromedical retrieval, particularly using helicopters for road accidents and pastoral property accidents and trauma. They are screaming out in this area because they have a black spot. There are mobile services at McArthur River mine. One would expect, with Telstra’s technology, there should be an easy link to deliver the system and cover an area of around 100 km.
So for Kerry and Chook at Heartbreak, I am still battling for you. We hope to get there. We have to get you on the list because it is a very good example of how to deliver technology into a fairly easy environment that will deliver great outcomes for the Ministers for Business, Transport, Indigenous Affairs and Primary Industry and Fisheries.
I will talk about the Tara community on Neutral Junction Station as an example of when things go wrong. We celebrated the tower that was built at Barrow Creek. It was quite obvious that the tower was constructed adjacent to service land, which suggests access to power. The tower was constructed with consideration given to the vista within that spectacular range. It delivered the services for the Barrow Creek area and about 20 km south. However, most of the people are on the community of Tara and the Neutral Junction cattle station, which is on the north side of the range, do not get mobile services. They are within 8 km of that tower. It is a major concern to those communities. They have asked if there is supportive technology that can do something about that.
I believe there are booster-type technologies, for want of a better word. I have contacted the regional manager of Telstra, who has offered his support. We hope that situation can be addressed. When you talk about millions of dollars of appropriation and delivering telecommunications infrastructure in the area, yet 8 km away where most of the population live, there is no mobile coverage, people get upset. The pastoral sector is extremely aggressive about this. The Indigenous community is also very concerned.
Minister, it would be good if your great people upstairs monitoring this broadcast could back me up and work with me, give it further weight from the mighty CLP government and let us get some support for people in that area who are so close yet so far away.
It was interesting to hear the Chief Minister talk about the northeast gas interconnector. I was very aware of the APA Group bid and will become more aware of the Jemena bid. Alpurrurulam sits in that footprint where this pipeline will travel. It is a community of about 600 people with no mobile services. Once again, I have been helping them to organise petitions and with lobbying, writing letters and contact details. Alpurrurulam exists in a very remote part of our great Northern Territory yet in close proximity to Mount Isa.
As a lay person, I believe good connections could be made to deliver mobile services to Alpurrurulam, particularly now that this corridor of infrastructure delivering gas will go through that footprint. It is worth exploring because if efficiencies can be created by using Mount Isa and the information communication technology there to deliver into Alpurrurulam, it seems to me to be good sense to prioritise that for a remote town of around 600 people. They are a great mob there. Once again, the Minister for Business has provided us with all the reasons mobile phone technology and improved communications technology can change the landscape completely.
I will move a little left of centre now, minister, because you said Telstra has committed a further $1.35m per annum over three years to a sustainability plan. I quote:
Let me focus on cyber safety. We are in a very interesting part of history and the new technologies that are now arriving in remote communities are providing many new challenges for those people. It is not to be underestimated. There is a regular conversation occurring within communities I represent about the introduction of mobile phone services, Internet connectivity and particularly their youth having access to new social media platforms.
We have already seen some disaster stories and serious incidents around this new access. We have an adult and senior population becoming more aware and a dynamic youth population grabbing it with both hands. The mobile phones and the tablet computers the minister talked about are becoming widespread now. It is pleasing to see Telstra dealing with those issues. The investment is quite small compared to the hardware and the program investment. We need to be cognisant that this has to run in parallel with any investment because we do not want to see deficits and disadvantage from new technologies that are supporting economic and community development in the bush.
The Bully Zero Australia Foundation deals with cyber safety. It provides education and awareness, has contact details and encourages parents and communities to get involved. I place on the public record some of the issues I was not even aware of. This is an important lesson for me, and I will be asking questions of constituents in the electorate about these concepts because the level of different forms of inappropriate use is quite interesting and alarming.
I will quote from the Bully Zero Australia Foundation media release of 16 November 2015:
I am not aware of the meaning of some of those concepts, but the member for Daly is agreeing with me. He is the computer whiz, testified by the member for Nelson. There is a member of parliament sharing my concerns. Thank you, minister, because this is a very important part of the rollout of new technologies. We need a parallel approach. Read that level of concern, it means any government should be focused on that.
The minister spoke about the NBN, and on the other side of the House the Liberals have had a great deal to say about it over the years. It is good to see the NBN rolling out. I can give you a personal example of the NBN rollout in Tennant Creek. Before I came to parliament they were in my street. They are bringing many economic benefits to our regional town with the personnel, vehicles, accommodation, food and other expenses, the fuel and social aspects of those guys in our community. It is interesting how infrastructure brings those add-on values and benefits to regional towns. It is good. They are very sophisticated; it is all high-tech. They operate at an incredible level of occupational health and safety. They are bringing money to the town, but most importantly they are bringing this new platform of technology. That is most welcome and will support the town and the region.
I looked at the NBN on websites when they were visible in the streets of Tennant Creek, and I became aware of an issue that is representative of the pastoral sector, which is that families with children in distance education are already concerned about the bandwidths, the speed available and the size – the member for Daly might help me with the megabytes and gigabytes – of what they can access. This is very interesting.
The minister, no doubt, will talk about the satellite that has been launched and how the NBN is complemented by a satellite service for the remote areas. Already a sector of the community is raising concerns about the constraints. When that relates to critical distance education programs for children, the long-term partnership between government and Telstra would be very interested in talking about and planning for that, particularly with the investments we see on the pages in the statement.
I enjoyed your description of the Centre for Appropriate Technology and those new mobile bases. I visited the Centre for Appropriate Technology not so long ago for a tour. I went to the workshop and talked to the techs and tradespeople constructing the trailer to carry the technology out bush. They talked about their other innovations as well. It is good to see it promoted in the statement because it is an incredible organisation that represents great opportunities in innovation. The minister has linked this perfectly to innovations in information and communication technology, which have very direct outcomes. I was immediately interested in talking about road safety and the access points where these facilities will be located, as well as the support they can provide to people travelling and touring in remote areas.
It has been a great opportunity for me to mention that smorgasbord of issues – not too hard or intense, but real issues from the bush. As the member for Nelson said, there are some significant dollar appropriations. Telstra is a very successful Australian company and it is good to see that you have continued that partnership, as will any future government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I reiterate that very important area of cyber safety, as it is a whole new world that is literally opening up to remote communities. As a father and a grandfather, I struggle with keeping up with these technologies with the younger members of our family. No doubt I share those concerns with people living in regional and remote communities, particularly in a cross-cultural context in languages other than English and in understanding that there are very real dangers and social issues that can be created. We need to be equally cognisant about that part of the technology, as well as the implementation and rollout of technology.
Mrs PRICE (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, in contributing to the debate on the remote telecommunication co-investment program, I am glad to see progress increasing access to telecommunications for Indigenous people. I have pushed for improved access to telecommunications since being elected to this place. This announcement is a testament to the virtues of working within a party to secure outcomes for people.
The Country Liberals deliver. We are delivering improved outcomes for people, and we listen. We have listened to communities, and the Chief Minister and minister Styles listen to me. It is great to see partnerships and joint programs with the private sector. Telstra and the Northern Territory government have both committed $15m to the program, $5m per year for the next three years. This is a $30m investment in remote telecommunications infrastructure.
The Chief Minister announced the priority communities on 20 October 2015. I was pleased to see Manyallaluk, Umbakumba, Bulman, Weemol, Minyerri, Docker River, Yarralin, Titjikala and Belyuen are the priority communities.
I recently visited Docker River and it did not have the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. Docker River is on a key transport route and is attempting to attract more tourists and grey nomads. Tourists are more likely to access and stay in an area with phone reception. When tourists are there they are now able to check in with a photo and put something on Instagram, advertising the destination to even more people, providing a personal recommendation and endorsement.
This announcement is an important step in investing in the economic enabling infrastructure for tourism but also for so many other reasons. I was in Docker River not long ago and people asked when they were getting access to mobile services. I was pleased to say that we, as a government, were making sure that Docker River gets access, and they were happy. The people of Docker River were very pleased having heard that we were looking into it for them and they were on the list.
Earlier this year, I visited Bulman and Weemol. These are both extremely isolated communities with limited transport options. Wet Season flooding tends to isolate these Top End communities. This infrastructure makes them so much less remote. It means they can go online and send an instant message to their MLA here. It means they can read a newspaper, not just the NT News but The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times and papers from across the world. It means they are able to expand their vision of the world.
Telecommunication infrastructure is vitally important for remote communities. The path to better outcomes and lives begins with vision. People cannot get vision when they are unable to compare and contrast without this investment. The only way to compare and contrast in a remote community is to leave.
I also mention Yarralin, in my electorate, which asked me for this sort of investment. I am glad the Country Liberals are delivering for Stuart. We listen and we deliver. I made a commitment and I delivered. This means the community can access so many more markets. It means they can access commercial opportunities that they would not have been able to access previously through e-commerce. Instead of selling products to people passing through, they can sell to a housewife in the United States who has never been to Sydney, let alone the Territory. It means they can sell their work to people living all over the world.
We are committed to supporting our communities and homelands. That is why there is this $30m joint investment program that is expanding access to telecommunications services in remote Northern Territory communities. A study of exact requirements for each community is under way. I look forward to hearing updates on the progress on this much-needed investment in our remote telecommunications infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and I commend the Chief Minister and minister Styles on their hard work in making this possible.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister in this statement and congratulate the government on the amount of money it is getting Telstra to co-invest into this.
I listened to the members for Barkly and Nelson talk about some of the problems of mobile phones in remote areas, and I recall speaking on this subject. I first spoke about it 18 months ago. The issue I raised was that while we were installing NBN fibre, Telstra had a 3G network it had stopped maintaining because everyone was going to the NBN. The next change was going to satellite, and now we have gone to wireless broadband.
The problem remote places in the bush have with satellite is that it is not just for their Internet but also for television. Every house will need two satellite dishes. There is a complete lack of coordination between those two technologies. Today most TV programs go through broadband, the Internet and to your TV. You now have a layering of the three technologies.
People remember CDMA. After CDMA we had 3G. We then went to 4G and today we have another technology called 4GX. If I describe the differences between those, you will see some of the problems. The tower that sits at Daly works for 3G phones. If it is not being used, every 15 or 20 minutes, a 3G phone will say to the tower, ‘I am here, are you still there?’ and the tower will say, ‘Yes, I am’. That 3G tower is set up to cater for 100 mobile phones at any point in time based on this polling. If you use a 4G phone it constantly says, ‘I am here’, the tower says, ‘I see you’, and then the phone says, ‘I am here, I see you’. So every 4G telephone sitting in the footprint of that 3G tower takes up a link to that tower. That then creates a problem.
People using broadband is the other issue with these towers. That is a wider bandwidth, which means instead of a simple one-connection telephone line, the wired bandwidth uses the equivalent of, say, five or 10 telephones. When people use a computer connection they cut down on the phones. Telstra controls the towers by setting a limit on the number of phones that will run on a tower, say 150 phones, and when close to that limit the strength of that tower is lowered automatically. They lower the strength by computer control and that automatically reduces the circle around the tower. This is why many people’s signals drop out. People will say to you, ‘When we first had it we got a terrific signal, we did not have a problem, but nowadays we are lucky if we can get it outside standing on the roof’. The reason is these towers have not been updated in remote locations. While I support putting in many of towers, I caution everyone that they need to be maintained and upgraded on a regular basis.
We talk about people in the bush having problems. Someone bought our property at the Daly, which is still 3G with satellite and television dishes on the roof, and we recently moved to Acacia Hills. At Acacia Hills, which is 65 km from the CBD, I cannot get the NBN. I cannot even get wireless NBN. I am stuck with using the old copper network and there are no plans for my area to go to the NBN. I sympathise with the people the member for Nelson mentioned.
The other thing the member for Nelson mentioned was the fact that some people who have old technology, such as copper cables coming into their house, Telstra tells them to go to a mobile and they are charged mobile rates. I spoke to the member for Nelson a minute ago to inform him there are properties that are only charged landline rates but are using a wireless connection. One example is my electorate office. There are no landlines to my electorate office; it is wireless broadband. I should not say this here, but it is probably the fastest Internet connection anyone has. It is possible, and Telstra should be pushed on this.
One thing we look at is cost. The member for Barkly spoke about education. A concern raised with me by the people at Palumpa during the last upgrades was the lack of education. Many of the TOs did not want mobile phones because they were scared of what it would do to the community. They said there needed to be more education. This was provided at Palumpa, was quite good and they are more accepting of it.
A couple of benefits have come from that. First, in the past if the housing maintenance crew that goes to these locations went to Palumpa or Peppimenarti to do maintenance on a house they would be there all day. They would look at the problems at the house, then go back to their home base, and it would be the next day or the day after before they advised Housing of the problem. What occurs now is the people who do the maintenance – I think Scott Hammet’s SH Build is the company doing it – use an app on their phones and iPads. When they look at a Territory Housing house and there is a problem they take a photo and it is e-mailed straightaway. There should be a fantastic saving to the service offered for people in these houses.
We can look at how Power and Water use it. Everyone talks about the power cards that many of the communities use. When there were some disturbances at Wadeye 12 or 18 months ago, I was advised that the meters are no longer being produced and do not conform to some standards so they have to change to a new technology. The technology they have changed to is dependent on wireless. When you go to the store or council office to buy what used to be a power card, now you simply pay your money, they get on to their iPad in the store and send a signal and your power is upgraded.
This was trialled in Nauiyu, which I deem as one of the leading-light communities in my electorate. However, the mistake made was they went from Nauiyu to Wadeye. They went from the best to the worst and are hitting some major problems in how it is being handed out.
Power and Water is looking at that. There is no problem with the technology; it is just access to somewhere to pay. You cannot go next door and get a power card off the rest of your family; you are relying on sending a signal to the power box. While some of the technologies are great, there are downsides to them and that is one of them.
Let us look at some of the things coming out of the use of this technology. In most of these communities there are art centres which put on the Internet pictures, paintings or artwork that can be sold around the world.
One of the other things people need to look at is the use of technology in the creation of art. I am talking about music, lighting and stacks of technologies people can use on this. We should also be looking at those things, not just using a telephone.
Recently the Commonwealth was cutting funding for some of the wireless access to some of the remote libraries. We argued with the Commonwealth and have been successful in getting that funding reinstated for at least the next 12 months. This is one area where the number of people using this technology in the communities was evident to me when I looked at the usage rate in these libraries.
The other thing that needs to be considered is the issue of upgrading these facilities. I mentioned at the beginning that in my electorate Dundee is still 3G. Telstra has committed to upgrading that or implementing 4GX there. I have yet to see that happen. It was supposed to be done in September so I hope they get that upgrade in very shortly.
Adelaide River is in the same position of still running 3G. To me, that is a main centre on the highway. There is a problem, part of which is in some of these places people are getting illegal boosters. We give people access to the Internet and they can obtain illegal products from overseas. If they are just getting the edge of a signal, they are buying these illegal boosters which pretend to the tower that there are 10 telephones sitting there and lock up that bandwidth, even though they are not using it in their house. Telstra has a major problem with this at Dundee and Adelaide River, and they do some tracking to find where these devices are. But when people are going to this extreme to ensure their communications are working, it tells us we have a problem. Government has identified this, which is why we are providing this funding.
There are some other areas, such as Batchelor, from where I continually get complaints about the mobile coverage. Lake Bennett is another one where there are no communications from the wireless network, and that is a place where it could be easily set up on the highway.
We will get one at Belyuen out of this next package, which I welcome. Belyuen is right on the edge of the signal that comes from Wagait.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this statement and the government’s investment into this technology. There is a hell of a lot more to it than just putting telephones in. It is not like copper wires where once they are there, you just plug into the end. This technology has to be updated all the time. While people are getting bigger and bigger smart phones with newer technologies, with greater downloads, you are just putting a bigger strain on some of these old towers that are running some of the old technology.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the ministerial statement on remote telecommunications in the Northern Territory.
It is safe to say that I am not alone in saying that I do not know what I would do without my mobile phone. I am sure my colleagues in this Chamber would agree. These days they are not only a way to call and talk to family and friends or to use in case of any emergency. Smart phones can do so much more, from e-mails to world-wide web and countless applications that make our lives easier. We have world information at our fingertips.
When I say ‘we’ I mean those of us who are lucky enough to live in a place where mobile telecommunication is available, because there are a large number of Territorians who do not have that luxury which many in Australia take for granted. Mobile reception opens the opportunity for individuals to stay in contact with the outside world and for businesses to take advantage of an economy that is much broader than the political boundary of the community.
Many times I have spoken in this place about the work this government is doing to create better employment opportunity in the bush through our focus on economic development. Already in the communities lucky enough to have phones and Internet service we can see these connections with the online economy helping to bring money into the communities. Many of the art centres in these remote communities are using an online store to sell artworks across the globe. To think that someone on a remote community hundreds of kilometres from the nearest town can sell their artwork to people living in a big city in Australia or around the world is amazing. The Giles government is attacking the issue of remote area job creation from all angles and delivering mobile and Internet service to the bush communities is just one part of the plan.
Phone and Internet services are not just important to our plan for economic development; they are important for a large range of reasons, including medical emergencies, natural disaster, when police are needed, providing health service, providing government services like Centrelink and Motor Vehicle Registry, and, importantly, for education purposes.
When I visited Maningrida with the Health minister to see the complete upgrade to the health clinic, we toured the emergency rooms where there was a webcam on the ceiling above the bed. We were told how doctors and specialists from around the world can use a password to log on for access and help to diagnose the patient by using and controlling the camera.
The mental health issues in the remote Indigenous communities are huge. We can use technology to assist the individual in managing and treating their condition at home on their country. In times of natural disasters, police and emergency services can send text messages with warnings and updates to community members. Giving our children access to information from libraries around the world or to interactive learning tools can only be a good thing.
The minister’s statement identified funding programs and the government’s partnership with Telstra. I commend him, the Chief Minister and the relevant staff, as well as Telstra for their work in bringing the outside world to these remote communities.
I also thank the Chief Minister for his assistance in lobbying the Commonwealth government to get the community of Minjilang in my electorate on to the Mobile Black Spot Programme. It was a pleasure to have the Chief Minister come to Minjilang to meet with the local community people and reassure them, after a year of lobbying by people like Daisy Yarmirr, that they will be getting mobile reception. The Chief Minister took the time out on Melbourne Cup day to go to Minjilang to give them the news from the top. The community was delighted to have him there and they look forward to having him back so they can have further discussion about creating jobs in their community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to say I am part of the government that is looking after the bush. As the statement noted, there will be 57 remote Northern Territory communities with mobile phone service by 2019. This government will continue working to get more and more communities online, connecting them to the outside world. I thank the minister and his department for their ongoing work and I commend the statement to the House.
Mr STYLES (Corporate and Information Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the House who have contributed to this statement. It is very interesting to hear about things going on in their electorates. It demonstrates a clear commitment from the Giles government that we are achieving things. The members opposite talk about some of the wonderful things that are happening. In fact, in most electorates there is more occurring than ever before in this area.
There are a number of things that governments need to do, one of which is infrastructure investment. This is at the very heart of infrastructure investment. In fact, there are three types of infrastructure: social; commercial; and economic.
Social infrastructure relates to what we are doing with remote telecommunications in the Territory. It is about providing services to people, such as education, health, and policing. These are essential services needed by people who live in regional, rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory. In fact, we need it for all people in Australia who live in those areas, other than urban and city areas.
Commercial infrastructure relates to essential services, providing power and those sorts of services in the bush. The fields of communications and technology are used to control much of this. Consider remote airstrips for instance. You can turn on landing lights for airstrips which have them with a mobile phone so pilots can land. If there is a mobile phone service at an airstrip, you phone a number and it activates the lights. There used to be special long-range contraptions people used. They pressed the button as they were coming in on final approach and hoped the lights would go on. Now you extend that distance through a mobile phone service. You ring that number and the lights come on so you can see where the airstrip is in the middle of the night and you are not flying blind. These essential services are not only for emergencies but are general services for remote communities.
Economic infrastructure is necessary to bring other services and investment into an area. Today in this House I said what is happening in Africa – a revolution in relation to mobile phones and business where 70% of all business in Africa is now done on mobile phones. Rather than get a computer and running business on that, these people are running them on mobile phones. In remote Australia and remote Northern Territory it gives us the ability to do exactly the same.
A lady by the name of Kathleen Buzzacott is an example of where the Department of Business and DCIS is achieving great results. I will take a minute or so to enlighten the House as to her great story. She lives on a very small community about 18 km out of Alice Springs on the Hermannsburg Road. She was a hairdresser in Alice Springs where she did her apprenticeship and was very successful. In fact, when she decided to leave and start her own business it was a sad day for many of her clients who missed her then and still miss her, so I am told.
To conduct her business she had to do something about getting customers to her gallery, which used to be part of her home. She would sit on the veranda – I must say it is a beautiful home. It was built by ATSIC about 10 or 15 years ago. She tells me it is a very expensive home. It is all block with beautiful big verandahs surrounded by grass and is very well kept. Her husband and her sons do a great job.
She came to the Department of Business through some of our programs and made an application for grants. We gave her two grants, one of which was $30 000 to build what she now calls the studio, which is an air conditioned shed. It is a very nice shed with a concrete pad and tiled floors. It is great. There are some nice little seats out the front she made.
She has niche market bus tours coming to her business. How does she get them there? Through IT. When you drive in and look at what she has there now – she has created four jobs out of this grant. One was hers, one was the apprentice who replaced her, and her two sons now work in the business. This is a successful little family being great role models in the community.
When you drive in you notice this big satellite dish sitting on top of the house which you think is for TV. She said, ‘No, it is not the TV; this is my marketing to the world.’ Through the telecommunications they have on this little community, she used part of the grant money to establish a web page and to have her son taught how to build web pages, how to maintain them and how to get their products online. Her products are Aboriginal jewellery and Aboriginal paintings. This young lady who is in her early 40s, is very successful, a great artist and works very hard, as does her family now.
This is a classic example of what you can do when you have a small amount of technology which is not that expensive. It is about telecommunications for individuals opening up their lives. Not only does it open up the life of that woman and her family – and gives her family a fantastic future – it is also role modelling for all the others in the community. I am quite proud of the fact that our business development officers have identified the opportunities that Kathleen would have if these grants were approved. They approved them, got her going and now she will never look back. As she said to me quietly when I went to see what she achieved, ‘Without those grants I would not have got going and I would not have been able to realise my dream’.
It does not matter where you are in the Territory, it is important that government tries to spread this out across the Territory. Obviously, we cannot do everything straightaway and it will take some time. The Territory government and people from the Centre for Appropriate Technology are working with Telstra, trying to identify sites. Once we advertised that the Centre for Appropriate Technology was doing these things, Telstra picked up on the media release. Telstra asked them, ‘How do we work together to use your technology?’ The product they make is patented.
They are now working with Telstra to test all the sites for where they can spread communications and telecommunications further. They will install the towers and then try to extend the area of the tower to 30 km in every direction so people living in the regional, rural and remote Territory can get access. It is interesting because once they know they have this very inexpensive option to extend in every direction, they talk about shifting the towers to different locations because if you move it here you can extend 45 km there. It is very good.
I highly recommend, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that you reside in Alice Springs, that if you are ever driving past, pop in and have a look. They will be very nice to you; they make a great cup of tea and a nice morning tea. They also make great wood heaters as well, although that is not part of telecommunications.
I thank all contributors. As a government we are very proud of what we have achieved with Telstra. It has taken a while and it has taken some intense negotiations. I congratulate the CEO of the Department of Business, Mr Michael Tennant, and his deputy, Mr Andrew Cowan, and all those involved with this negotiated outcome.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2014-15. The statement forms part of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2014-15 and presents the government’s fiscal performance for the 2014-15 financial year. The report also satisfies, very importantly, the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Under the Giles government, the fiscal outcome has improved yet again in 2014-15, following strong economic growth and the successful implementation of a number of efficiency measures across government. These measures were aimed at limiting expense growth, increasing efficiency through restructuring and reorganising services across government, and introducing greater contestability for government service delivery.
In the 2015-16 budget I demonstrated that this government’s focus on fiscal restraint paved the way to eliminating the fiscal deficit by 2017-18. I am now pleased to report that in the 2014-15 year the fiscal balance returns to surplus, which is continued proof of this government’s ability to successfully manage the Territory’s economy and finances. The fiscal balance surplus is the first achieved since 2007-08 and it is three years ahead of the fiscal strategy target to achieve a surplus by 2017-18.
As a result, for the 2014-15 outcome most elements of the fiscal strategy have been achieved well before their stated targets. The fiscal balance surplus of $286m for the non-financial public sector is a $1bn improvement from that projected in May 2014. It is also a $343m improvement from the estimate presented in the April 2015 budget. The improved fiscal balance outcome since the original budget is a result of increased revenues of $891m and around $118m in overall lower combined operational and capital spending.
Almost half the increase in revenue is associated with the one-off proceeds of $411m relating to the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. As foreshadowed in the April 2015 budget, around $200m of the proceeds from the liberation of TIO from government ownership was allocated to a number of Building the Territory projects that will be constructed over the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years.
The remainder of the proceeds will be used to establish the recently-announced Northern Territory infrastructure development fund that will be dedicated to promote further investment in economic infrastructure. The fund aims to leverage up to $1bn of investment from Australian super funds, Australian institutional investors and international investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, to create a self-sustaining pool of capital. The fund will support the long-term economic growth of the development of the Northern Territory by investing in new infrastructure projects and creating new jobs and opportunities for local businesses.
The balance of the $480m in additional revenue largely comprises of the following: Territory taxation revenue of $141m, reflective of the strong economic growth experienced in 2014-15; increased GST of $96m, primarily due to the growth in national GST collections; Commonwealth tied funding of $132m for new and expanding initiatives; $60m increase in revenues due to the transfer of the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme into the general sector; $34m increase in interest received as a result of the 2013-14 and 2014-15 improved outcomes; and $17m increase in other revenues across government agencies.
The reduced spending outcome was a result of continued focus on fiscal restraint with an emphasis on efficiency and service delivery improvements, and enhanced budget monitoring; revised timing of Commonwealth-funded expenditure with the effects of any timing differences to be included in the 2015-16 mid-year report; and lower capital spending across government, reflecting the revised timing of Commonwealth-funded programs and the realignment in the timing of capital works commitments.
In regard to the general government sector, the operating balance is in a surplus position of $887m, an $824m improvement when compared to the original 2014-15 budget. The improvement is consistent with the improved fiscal balance position excluding capital spending. The 2014-15 surplus is this government’s second consecutive operating surplus, and as highlighted in the 2013-14 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, means this element of the government’s fiscal strategy was also achieved three years ahead of target.
I now turn to the Territory’s balance sheet. The improved operating outcomes have flowed through to the net debt position. For the non-financial public sector, net debt is $2.2bn for 2014-15, $852m lower than the 2013-14 outcome and $1.8bn lower than the original 2014-15 budget projection.
As outlined in the April 2015 budget papers, as part of the sale of TIO the Territory retained ownership of the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme. As a result, the scheme was reclassified from the public financial corporation sector to the general government sector. The effect of this transfer, combined with the better than expected fiscal balance outcome, has contributed significantly to the reduction in net debt.
Net debt to revenue has declined to 32% from the 67% projected at the time of the original 2014-15 budget. It is also a reduction of the 2013-14 outcome of 53 percentage points. To put this in perspective, at the time of the pre-election fiscal outlook report prepared in August 2012, Labor’s net debt for 2014-15 was projected to rise to $5.1bn. The actual result is that almost $3bn has been wiped off Labor’s projected net debt since the CLP assumed office in August 2012. In addition, the net debt-to-revenue ratio of 32% is around one-third of that which was projected under Labor. This is nothing short of astounding.
The 2014-15 year was the first financial year of operations for the newly-separated utility government-owned corporations. From 1 July 2014 the Power and Water Corporation was separated into three distinct government-owned corporations – Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation – each having accountability for their own financial outcomes and reporting. The separation was undertaken to allow for competition in the Territory electricity market and to ensure the entities operated more efficiently and effectively.
It was expected that the process of separation would take time, be challenging and potentially cause problems disaggregating the information within the financial systems. Due to the complexity of these changes, and in order to meet statutory deadlines for the finalisation of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, the numbers contained in the normal public non-financial corporation sector for the Power and Water Corporation and its subsidiary, Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd, have been included on the basis of provisional unaudited numbers.
At the time of submitting the Treasurer’s annual financial statements to the Auditor-General, the Board of Power and Water Corporation had not submitted signed financial statements for the Auditor-General to issue an opinion on their account. As a result, the Auditor-General has not expressed an opinion on the public non-financial corporation sector balances contained in the 2014-15 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The inability for the Auditor-General to express an opinion highlights that in financially separating the corporation, processes and systems which may have in the past been appropriate in a consolidated entity are no longer adequate, particularly when taking into account all of the complexities that come with changing systems and business processes in order to produce separated financial statements. I have been given assurances that the Power and Water Corporation has commenced an extensive program of corrective actions to systems, processes and controls to address the issues by 30 June 2016.
Irrespective of the issues associated with the Power and Water Corporation, of the $1bn improvement in the non-financial sector fiscal balance since May 2014, $962m relates to the general government sector, which is unaffected by the modified audit opinion. As such, the modified audit opinion does not detract at all from the achievement of the improved 2014-15 fiscal balance and related key fiscal aggregate outcomes.
In summary, the 2014-15 outcome is testament to this government’s fiscal responsibility, with the fiscal balance returning to surplus for the first time since 2007-08. While deficits are projected for the next financial years, 2015-16 and 2016-17, due to the expected substantial infrastructure spending, the government will continue to focus on the challenges of restraining expenditure growth to below revenue growth in order to return to the surplus projected in 2017-18.
Completely unlike those members opposite, we are committed to reducing the Territory’s debt burden by cutting government waste, making sound economic decisions and promoting a sustainable and diverse economy that benefits all Territorians. Almost every day that we come into this place, government is berated by those opposite for not spending enough money. Members opposite lecture us on the fact we are not spending money on this or that.
The most recent example that is receiving headlines is Richardson Park. The government made a decision to try to limit its expenditure as much as possible while still maintaining and promising a first-class, first-rate rectangular football stadium to be developed at Richardson Park. Yet the opposition constantly comes in here lecturing us that we need to spend $100m or more at the Marrara sporting complex or, even worse, at Freds Pass Reserve.
Their view is that rugby league is best off out of sight, out of mind; throw a lot of money at it, turn your back and walk away. No one wants rugby league in their suburbs, according to members opposite. They seem to ignore that in pretty well every other city in this country, rugby league rectangular stadiums are contained within suburban locations.
The opposition comes in here lecturing us that we need to spend more money on a range of things. Another classic example is my good friend the member for Brennan, the Minister for Education, has done a sterling job reforming the education system. For the first time in years we are seeing a turnaround in results for Territory schoolchildren. This government and this minister are particularly focused on outcomes and making sure children get the best possible education. Whilst he has done a great job at restraining expenditure in the education system, there is more than enough money to fund schools and education programs, and the results are there for all to see.
Education has turned around but almost every day we come into this place we are lectured by those opposite about how we need to throw more money at education. Clearly what members opposite are really saying is, ‘You need to throw more money at school teachers because most of them are good union members who pay into registered organisations and get us elected’. They try to cloak it in some sort of empathy for schoolchildren. I find that somewhat alarming and distressing, but if the comrades opposite feel that is the way to go, well good on them.
There is a range of other areas. We are lectured about our health system. I look at my good friend the member for Port Darwin, who is the Health minister and the corrections minister. He talks to me on a regular basis saying, ‘It would have been good if we had $1.8bn to spend on a hospital. It would have been a marvellous thing if this government could have spent $1.8bn building the new Palmerston hospital.’ The Minister for Health also greatly enjoys his job as the minister for corrections, but he would much rather see that $1.8bn invested in the health system than making more luxurious digs for criminals.
But no, that is the Labor way. They come in here and lecture everybody on how tough they are on crime. As we saw under their government, crime was rampant across the Northern Territory. What was there response? Improve the digs of criminals and make sure when they were sentenced and put away they got to stay in a nice, luxurious, purpose-built, $1.8bn prison.
Their response to the second hospital at Palmerston was a measly $110m. This government would like to spend more money on the Palmerston hospital, but such is the nature of the debt and the deficit legacy left to us by the former government, that we are making do. The Health minister is doing a fantastic job of meeting our election commitment to see the Palmerston Regional Hospital built, developed and operating on the time lines we have committed to. I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, for his hard work in that area.
It is also interesting to see the way those opposite want to deal with criminals. I have noticed recently they have been calling for the end of the Sentenced to a Job program. This is a stellar program, a glittering example of how a lateral-thinking and quick-footed corrections minister can turn a system around. We have seen a big reduction in recidivism and more prisoners leaving prison with skills, somewhat rehabilitated and ready to join the community to start working and ensure they live a decent and profitable life after their period in prison.
These are just a couple of examples of how an irresponsible Labor Party would act in government. If the Leader of the Opposition has his way, he will get a majority of people in here to throw this government out at the next sittings and we will go to the polls. If he gets his way we will have another Labor government. As sure as God made little apples, we will be burdened again by debt and deficit for years to come. The reality is the Labor Party members do not care about intergenerational debt; all they care about is themselves and getting re-elected. The legacy they leave for our children and grandchildren bothers them naught.
This Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is an excellent demonstration of how this government has managed to reign in Labor’s debt and deficit problems, how we are still focused on returning budgets to surplus and how we achieved a surplus last financial year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and commend it to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the paper be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that:
this parliament, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act, appoints a person qualified to be a judge in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to inquire into and report to the Administrator regarding the operation and activities of Foundation 51 Pty Ltd, and
the qualified person referred to above be selected for recommendation to the Administrator of the Northern Territory based on the process outlined for the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge in Appendix A of the Review of The Processes for the Appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory, with the exception that the panel outlined in the process recommend one name instead of two for consideration.
The terms of reference for the inquiry are:
1. the extent of the relationship between Foundation 51, the Country Liberal Party and the Northern Territory government
2. whether Foundation 51 Pty Ltd has complied with the provisions of the Northern Territory Electoral Act (the act)
3. the extent of any conflicts of interest between the Directors of Foundation 51 and their public duties under government appointed positions
4. the scope and method of the investigations conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and NT Police into Foundation 51 and the outcome that prima facie breaches of the Electoral Act and a reasonable chance of conviction existed
5. any other matters the inquiry thinks fit
6. the inquiry will report back to the Legislative Assembly no later than 31 May 2016.
I put to this parliament that there is a need for a judicial inquiry to finally get to the bottom of what happened with the now infamous Foundation 51. This has been a murky issue which has received much media coverage and has been subject to investigations.
However, we believe Territorians still do not have the answers they are seeking. Territorians want those answers so they can have faith in the electoral system and know it is free from corruption. They want to know there is transparency around political donations so they can have faith in the decisions and processes of the operations of government.
There is no doubt Foundation 51 is a CLP slush fund. It was established with a deliberate intent to avoid disclosure of donations as required by the Northern Territory Electoral Act. These disclosure provisions are designed to protect the integrity, transparency and strength of our democracy. But evidence available on the public record confirms, unequivocally, that Foundation 51 and the CLP have conspired to avoid the disclosure and reporting of donations mandated by the Electoral Act. What is the proof that points to this? We have an e-mail from the Foundation 51 Director, Graeme Lewis, of 26 November 2012 to the then CLP President, Braedon Earley, that states in part:
It then went on to say:
I seek leave to table that e-mail, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Ms MANISON: Why would Graeme Lewis be mortified if this information becomes widely known? Why did Graeme Lewis say the information must be closely held for obvious reasons? Why did Foundation 51 and the CLP not declare these donations in accordance with the requirements of the act? Only an independent inquiry will get to the truthful answers of these questions.
Despite the denials of the Chief Minister, there are close links between the CLP and Foundation 51, also confirmed on the public record. Why did the Chief Minister deny a relationship between the CLP and Foundation 51 when the connection between them clearly exists? Why is the Chief Minister hiding this from the Territory community? The exposure of Foundation 51’s operations, including the relationship with the CLP, is something the Chief Minister will avoid at all costs. The Chief Minister seems to be avoiding answering those questions. The only way the unlawful operation of Foundation 51 and its relationship with the CLP will be fully exposed is through an independent judicial inquiry with the powers to summons witnesses and compel the production of documents.
The four elements of the motion before the Assembly provide lenses through which the activities of Foundation 51 will be fully exposed to the community for the first time. The first component of the terms of reference captures:
On many occasions the Chief Minister has denied that there is any relationship between Foundation 51 and the CLP, but that is simply not the case. In an e-mail dated 26 November 2012 to members of the CLP executive and then Chief Minister Terry Mills, Foundation 51 Director Lewis said:
On another occasion as reported by the ABC, Mr Lewis said:
There is no indication of what the obvious reasons are, but we could make an educated guess. Yet again, Mr Lewis has provided a clear demonstration of the links between Foundation 51, the CLP and the government which were previously denied by the Chief Minister, Adam Giles.
In an e-mail to members of the CLP Executive on 24 March 2012 with reference to the current Chief Minister, Mr Lewis stated:
Territorians could reasonably ask why, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, the Chief Minister continues to deny any connection between Foundation 51, the CLP and the government. What does the Chief Minister have to hide and why is he hiding it?
Despite the Chief Minister’s denial that it exists, the relationship between Foundation 51, the CLP and the government is myriad and complex. In addition to the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and the CLP executive members mentioned above, these relationships certainly include Terry Mills’ former Chief of Staff and CLP operator James Lantry; Chief Minister Adam Giles, Treasurer Dave Tollner; and the then Foundation 51 director and former magistrate, Peter Maley.
The second element of the terms of reference for the proposed independent inquiry into Foundation 51 focuses on:
Section 208 of the Electoral Act requires that the financial controller of an associated entity must provide the Electoral Commission with the return showing the amount received by or on behalf of the entity during the financial year; the amount paid by or on behalf of the entity during the financial year; the outstanding amount of debts incurred by or on behalf of the entity; the details of each person who contributed to the entity’s capital; and the total of each person’s contribution.
Section 215 of the act provides for fines of 200 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment for a person who fails to provide a return required under the provisions, or 1000 penalty units if the offender is a body corporate. These strong penalties reflect the intention of the parliament to deter and punish breaches of the disclosure provisions in the interests of our democracy.
It is an indisputable fact that Foundation 51 has breached these disclosure provisions, but the full extent of these breaches has not yet been exposed. That is why we need an independent inquiry to expose all of these breaches of the Electoral Act by Foundation 51.
The third element of the terms of reference states:
An article published in The Australian on 14 November 2014 is directly relevant to these conflicts of interest. I quote from it to inform debate on this important issue:
There is a telling exchange of e-mails between the Chief Minister and Mr Lewis that springs into sharp focus conflicts arising from Lewis’ appointment as the Chair of the Land Development Advisory Board. I will read some of that e-mail as well. The e-mail from Mr Lewis to Adam Giles dated 22 May 2014 reads:
The e-mail later said:
In the interest of probity and accountability of the Chief Minister, he must tell Territorians what was discussed at the foreshadowed meeting with Mr Lewis and what the outcome was.
The fourth aim of the terms of reference for the proposed review is:
A media release by the Northern Territory Police on 21 October 2015 stated:
With respect to its investigation into Foundation 51, a media release issued by the Electoral Commission on 15 April 2015 stated that:
The scope of both investigations is unclear, and it is not possible, without an independent inquiry, to determine all the breaches by Foundation 51 of the disclosure provisions mandated by the Electoral Act. These provisions are important to the integrity of our democracy. The public has a reasonable expectation that all breaches of the act by political parties, candidates and associated entities will be investigated and prosecuted. That is why we need an independent inquiry into Foundation 51 and why I commend this motion to the House.
We are at a time where we are entering into another election period. We know there will be a federal election and a Territory election coming. It is a clear and reasonable expectation of Territorians that they receive full, frank and open disclosures of political donations as they occur so they can have faith in the electoral system and can see transparency around political donations and that they do not influence political decision-making.
In the case of Foundation 51 there seems to be a clear relationship that has overstepped that line between Foundation 51, the CLP and relationships within government.
From the media release that was issued from police we still do not know the full information that was at hand. There are still many questions about the operations of Foundation 51 and exactly what was found. Now is the time to get all those answers on the public record so people can have full confidence in the electoral system and that governments are operating using best practices and best governance as opposed to being influenced by political donations.
Given where we are in the electoral cycle, it is a very important question, and Territorians deserve to have transparency on this issue. We are at the point where the very serious questions about Foundation 51 are still unanswered. We need an inquiry to get to the bottom of those questions.
Previously in this Chamber, we saw the member for Nelson make some ground in trying to look into political donations and succeeded in securing work for that to happen. However, we also saw this parliament overturn that.
Times have changed; things have moved forward. Since the last sittings of parliament, we have seen this media release from police showing, on face value, there are some questions regarding the operations of Foundation 51. We, on this side of the House, want to get to the bottom of those issues.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we want to ensure Territorians can have utmost faith in the electoral system and know governments are operating free from influence driven by political donations. At the moment, we feel people do not have that transparency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the press asked me recently what I thought of the idea of an inquiry into Foundation 51. I said I would support it as long as there was also an inquiry into Harold Nelson Holdings.
If you go back to the debate on this issue, the inquiry under section 4A of the Inquiries Act which was passed in this parliament included a section which said:
There were six matters I asked the inquiry to look at. When the government decided to rescind that motion of 20 August last year and suggested an inquiry of its own. It used three of my original references, slightly changed, and got the late Frank McGuiness to look at them.
One of the issues I was looking at was political donations over 20 years because I wanted to see whether both parties’ policy decisions had been affected by donations in that time. We would have looked at both governments equally. In Question Time on 23 October, the Chief Minister was giving the reasons why he did not support the motion. He said:
He dismissed the idea of looking into political donations over the last 20 years. But he did not dismiss that we look at the role of politically-allied companies such as Harold Nelson Holdings and Foundation 51, in the sense that he did not have an excuse for not looking at those. The motion the member for Port Darwin brought before parliament did not include that. There was much debate at the time, and I remember the Chief Minister talking about the slush fund. There was a great deal of toing and froing across the table.
My feeling is if the Labor Party wants this to come to an inquiry – and there are many issues in relation to Foundation 51 – it must be even-handed and willing for the inquiry to look at its own Harold Nelson Holdings to see if it has been above board. I am not making a judgment on either of those bodies, but it would make good sense and, from the public perspective, look like the motion was even-handed. I have heard the debates back and forth across the table, and there have been plenty of accusations about both these organisations. If we are to have this request for the inquiry, then the best thing would be to have both of those bodies inquired into.
I will move an amendment now. I am happy if people do not agree with it, but it puts forward my view of how this debate should go. I have the following amendment, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
In the first paragraph, after ‘Foundation 51 Pty Ltd’ insert ‘and Harold Nelson Holdings’.
By the way, I have this printed if people want a copy of it. I will have it distributed in a minute:
After paragraph 1 insert:
1A the extent of the relationship between Harold Nelson Holdings and the NT Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
I do not think it destroys what the opposition is trying to do, but it gives an element of fairness. When we discuss the issue of political donations, it is not always one side I can be critical of. Both political parties received $150 000 from the AHA. I do not think that is particularly good because that can influence the decision-making of those political parties.
Without getting into all the detail of what the opposition prepared for this debate, I support an inquiry as long as it looks evenly and fairly at both political parties. If someone else believes there is another allied – as I think was originally called …
Mr Elferink: You can throw Emily’s List into that lot.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand what you are saying, minister.
In my original motion I had ‘the role of political allied companies’. I am happy if someone would like to add that to the amendment, because it is important, if we have an inquiry, to make it as broad, even and fair as possible. That way we can clear the air because this has been hanging around for an awful long time. People get a bit tired of something when it hangs around like a sore tooth. The inquiry that is being requested is a way to clear the air, sort this out once and for all, and let us move on.
The other issue is – and I do not know whether we will ever get to that part of the debate – it was great to hear that the High Court challenge by certain people in New South Wales who tried to show that the New South Wales legislation which restricted where political parties could receive donations from, such as the gambling, tobacco, alcohol and development industries, was correct and it was something they were entitled to do. I was considering bringing legislation for people to debate here earlier this year, but on advice from the Electoral Commissioner at the time that the challenge was in the High Court, I held off bringing that forward.
It is good legislation. Obviously it needs to be worked on very carefully, because as soon as you say who can give money and who cannot – is it uncle, aunty, sisters, cousins, brothers-in-law? Where do you draw the line on who can receive money? You have to make sure this legislation is not only useful but is workable. That is something we can consider.
On a slightly different note, which I might have raised – I must admit I like the idea – I again bring Canada and its Northwest Territories into the argument. Everybody there has a maximum amount of money they can spend on their election campaign, which is $30 000. No matter where you live you can spend $30 000. Whether you get that money from friends or contributors it does not matter; it is a flat amount, a maximum $30 000. You have to show all your receipts. If you go on to the Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission website, you will see that even failed candidates have photocopies of documents there showing where they bought food or a share in a table, if it was part of their election campaign. That is very different to here, but to me it is very refreshing because it puts everyone on an equal playing field and makes sure everyone does the right thing.
Mr McCarthy: I have 483 000 km2.
Mr WOOD: You will just have to tighten your belt. The member for Barkly has raised a very good point, but I will put that to the people of Northwest Territories, which I can tell you now is a lot bigger than Barkly, and Nunavut has no roads. The principle is a good one and maybe, member for Barkly, it could be adjusted for the Northern Territory. It might be that you have a formula based on the size of the electorate ...
Mr Elferink: Ah, an electoral allowance.
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say that. No electoral allowance for elections.
There are issues about political campaigns that are not healthy, but sometimes you see other ways of doing things and think maybe we should look at that and see whether we could use that for ourselves. I offer it as an idea. The member for Barkly is a smart bloke; he knew that amount would not get him around. It would probably get him out to the Rankin River and that would be about it. You need more money than that.
All I am saying is that there are other ways of doing things which ensure people who want to stand for election know they are on a level playing field. They do not have big brother parties which have lots of money to run big election campaigns, which, for many people, makes it very difficult to get into politics.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have moved that amendment to the motion because I believe it would make it a fairer inquiry, if it ever reaches that stage in this debate tonight.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my feeling after reading the motion and listening to the debate is that this is becoming tedious. I will not say this is the umpteenth time an attempt has been made to call for some sort of inquiry into Foundation 51 in this parliament, but enough has been done about this to make it tedious.
It is childish that the members opposite move this time-wasting motion because they do not accept the decision of the umpire. Frankly, I am surprised that the member for Wanguri has gone down this path. I guess she is under instruction from political masters on the other side of the House to pursue this. I assure you in both the amended form and the original form the government will not be supporting this motion.
It is interesting that the member for Nelson raised issues about Harold Nelson Holdings. There are a couple of stark differences between what has gone before us with respect to Harold Nelson Holdings, the Labor Party and the unions contrasted against the Foundation 51 matter, which has already been inquired into a number of times.
As members of this House are aware, Harold Nelson Holdings is an Australian Labor Party-run company which owns a part of 38 Woods Street. It is now called the Northern Territory ALP Investment Trust. I will come back to Foundation 51 in a moment, but some of the questions that arise for me need to be asked of the opposition – the Labor Party. One is whether they can tell us if there are any other assets or income for Harold Nelson Holdings that are not registered under the Electoral Commission financial disclosure requirements. That is probably a pretty good question for them to start with. I do not know whether they would be prepared to answer that question in this debate, but it would be pertinent and relevant to do so if they are talking about Foundation 51. In their efforts to see whatever it is they want to find or see laid bare to do with Foundation 51, perhaps it might be appropriate for them to also lay bare some of those answers to questions about Harold Nelson Holdings, about which I am sure many other people have questions.
They could also address any issues around donor returns as well. It might be something worth canvassing. Perhaps those opposite – as they sit in their glass house throwing stones – can shine a light on this important issue about which taxpayers should know. The redevelopment of 38 Woods Street is the centre point of the transfer and lease of the Stella Maris building. It has been identified that a key driver of the lease was so the business of Unions NT could continue at Stella Maris while 38 Woods Street was being redeveloped as a high-rise building.
Let us not forget that this was done using industry super or union funding. Perhaps something else needs to be teased out about Harold Nelson Holdings, perhaps we should ask the question rather than make the statement. Does Harold Nelson Holdings owe the Australian Labor Party thousands of dollars through intercompany loans?
I suppose you could delve into the nitty-gritty of all that, and I am sure an inquiry would eventually tease all that out. There could be some interesting times ahead should an inquiry look into Harold Nelson Holdings, I am sure. The Secretary of the Labor Party NT has always been the head of Harold Nelson Holdings, and I wonder whether those opposite can see any conflict there as well.
Another question that might be asked about Harold Nelson Holdings is whether they failed to lodge their financial returns on time with some, I have been advised, being as much as 253 days late. What does that work out to, about three-quarters or two-thirds of a year? I am sure there will be many people in this House who would think those issues would not pass the pub test either if they were teased out through some inquiry.
I remind those opposite, yet again, that the matters around Foundation 51 – I will move to Foundation 51 now for a moment – have already been canvassed in a number of forums. The member for Wanguri knows that. She mentioned during the course of her speech that she was aware the DPP has decided not to pursue a prosecution around Foundation 51 because it was not in the public interest. It seems to me that this is just a case of the Labor Party not liking the umpire’s decision and looking for another umpire. They are looking for another adjudicator who will somehow find the answers they think exist despite the fact Foundation 51 has already been through a number of processes.
I understand the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has inquired into Foundation 51, as has the Australian Electoral Commission. Both decided, ‘Nothing to see here’. The police have also investigated Foundation 51 and handed that over to the DPP which, as the member for Wanguri rightly pointed out, decided not to prosecute because it is not in the public interest.
The gall of the Labor Party to bring this matter into the House again and waste the parliament’s time really irks me. It is bordering on being a disgraceful waste of time in parliament.
Perhaps because of the policy vacuum – that there are no policies emanating from the Labor Party – all they have is the time, the penchant and the ability to sling mud around the place, desperately hoping some of it will stick. Perhaps they are trying to muddy the waters and draw attention away from the icky mess of the Stella Maris Inquiry.
While Foundation 51 has been cleared by those numerous investigations thus far, the findings of the Lawler inquiry were not. They were ugly and reflected on most of those opposite, who dare to sit in this House today and push this ridiculous wagon.
I will walk down memory lane a bit, if I may. The Northern Territory Supreme Court revealed Labor’s deceit for all to see. The court found in the course of the Stella Maris Inquiry that the member for Karama, Delia Lawrie, and her lawyers engaged in a ‘conscious and deliberate strategy’ to make ‘false and completely baseless allegations’ against Commissioner John Lawler to discredit the ‘ugly’ report coming Labor’s way. We all know this scandal is and was much bigger than the now Independent member for Karama. The tentacles of this saga reach deep throughout the Labor Party, its MLAs, its officials and union affiliates, not to mention its collaborators in the legal community.
As much as they like to distance themselves from this entire episode, let us not forget many of those sitting on the Labor benches today worked in the inner sanctum of the Labor government in the lead-up to the Stella Maris decision, or at the time the gift was made. I have a very nice infographic here which shows the lovely web of deceit that emanated from the Labor Party in relation to the Stella Maris matter, as well as the involvement of, to some degree, all those members opposite.
Let us look at a few of them. Before he was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay was Deputy Chief of Staff to Chief Minister Paul Henderson, as well as working in a range of other offices. He was a government backbencher in the Assembly when the Stella Maris gift was made to Unions NT.
The member for Barkly cannot go unnoticed in all this, given that he was the Planning minister at the time of the Stella Maris lease decision. He was well and truly dealt with in the inquiry into the Stella Maris matter, and there will be more to come on that.
The member for Wanguri was an adviser to Chief Minister Paul Henderson, who led the Cabinet in question. She was also the adviser to the member for Karama – as well as Chris Burns – who was a Cabinet minister when the decision was made, and tearfully defended Labor’s actions in the inquiry last year.
The member for Nightcliff was an adviser to former Cabinet minister Karl Hampton at the end of 2012.
The member for Johnston was an adviser to Sports minister and Cabinet minister Karl Hampton.
The member for Casuarina worked in the office of Cabinet minister Rob Knight, who was around at the time as well. He was part of the Cabinet that approved the deal.
The member for Nhulunbuy was a parliamentary secretary in the Labor government when the decision was made. Although some of them are mentioned here, we will not canvass or include Matthew Gardiner, one of Labor’s union mates who were the main beneficiaries of this stinking, smelly eleventh hour deal.
Unions NT was gifted a 10-year rent-free lease over this prime piece of land. This entire episode shows the lack of integrity running through Labor’s veins and casts a dark shadow across the opposition benches.
Yet, those opposite sit in this House today and point the finger at Foundation 51, which, I will say again, has already been through a number of investigative processes through the Electoral Commissions – two of them – the police and finally through the DPP.
Based on all that, it would probably be more appropriate to hold an inquiry into Harold Nelson Holdings, as opposed to Foundation 51. I will not amend the motion this afternoon because I do not know that the wording of the motion that is passed through this parliament – particularly one that has been worded by members opposite, probably and most likely without any form of legal advice – would be sufficient to duly deal with the type of inquiry needed to successfully examine Harold Nelson Holdings, the Labor Party and the associated unions.
Consequently, we will not be supporting the amendment the member for Nelson has suggested in relation to this because it does not change the wording of the motion, only insofar as adding Harold Nelson Holdings, etcetera. We will not be supporting this motion in its original form to inquire into Foundation 51, given all the reasons I have stated in the last 15 minutes or so.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is becoming tedious in this House. The Labor opposition should finally accept the umpire’s decision and that Foundation 51 has been inquired into by the Electoral Commissions, the police and the DPP, and stop hunting around for some adjudicator or umpire who will give it the answers it is seeking.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, before I start, I acknowledge the arrival in the visitor’s gallery of the Darwin Sea Scouts, if I am not mistaken, which I notice also has the presence of one Eleanor Elferink. Hello Eleanor, how are you today, sweetheart? That is a coincidence isn’t it? I get to my feet and there they are. I also acknowledge …
Ms Fyles: Best behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, now I really have to behave properly. It will be very difficult for me.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is wonderful, but I will keep everybody’s behaviour nice because I do not like it when people are rude in front of children. There is everyone’s warning.
Mr ELFERINK: Too right, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a good and personal friend of mine, Mr Andrew Price, who is sitting up there somewhere. No, lost him in the crowd. I am pretty sure I saw him before.
Back to the matters before us. There are a couple of issues with this that I would like to touch on for administrative reasons. Even if we were to agree to the inquiry, it would not work because of a number of issues, one of which is it is nowhere near prescriptive enough as there would be no control over the expenditure for the operation of the inquiry. I will get back to the reason for raising the issue of expenditure shortly.
This organisation, Foundation 51, has now been investigated by a number of independent bodies which had no political influence brought to bear on them at all. Not least of those organisations is the Northern Territory Police Force. Also, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has gone through a process of collecting information and evidence. Another organisation that looked at that evidence was the Director of Public Prosecutions. There were three independent arms looking into the Foundation 51 environment which are not influenced by government and, in particular, politicians.
The vast majority of my knowledge of Foundation 51 is collected from the public domain, and those documents show me it was a company which was ultimately declared to be an associated entity of the CLP for the purposes of the Electoral Act. This is, of course, the foundation for the member for Wanguri’s assertion that Foundation 51 is a slush fund for the CLP. That is an erroneous way to describe Foundation 51. I understand it was established and Mr Graeme Lewis, who was one of the final directors of the organisation, had certain obligations under the legislation to make reports to the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
One of the first organisations to investigate was the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. From what I can make out from what I have seen in the public domain, there was a point of difference between Mr Lewis and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission as to whether or not Foundation 51 was an associated entity.
An associated entity is a definitional construct under the Northern Territory Electoral Act, so it has to meet certain criteria to be declared an associated entity. Harold Nelson Holdings would be one of those types of organisations. I argue that, depending on how you read it, you could even say like Emily’s List is an associated entity. However, I am not sure whether Emily’s List does much more in the Northern Territory than merely donate money. If it does, then it has to be declared by the recipient and Emily’s List declared as the donor. I am curious to know if all of those requisite donations have been declared if Emily’s List has been donating to Labor women, which is its charter.
The great discovery of the Electoral Commission was the point of difference between Mr Lewis and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission that Foundation 51 was an associated entity. The response from Mr Lewis was, ‘Okay, if that is the case I will make all the people who have provided money to Foundation 51 available publically as is required by the Northern Territory Electoral Act’. In the dispute the Electoral Commission made a determination that Foundation 51 was an associated entity and said, ‘Declare your donors’. Mr Lewis complied. Did he do it within the time frame that was required? No, he did not because he did not think he was an associated entity. So the matter was then referred to the police and the police investigated and came to certain conclusions.
You will note in a recent media release the police stated that they determined there was a prima facie case. A prima facie case, by the way, is not a finding of guilt or close to a finding of guilt. If you translate ‘prima facie’ from Latin into English it means on the face of it, at first blush, the immediate appearance of. The Labor Party would take that comment to mean some assertion of guilt on behalf of Mr Lewis.
Mr Lewis is an innocent man. He has not been convicted by any court other than the star chamber the Labor Party hatch together in their lobby in this place. He stands not charged or convicted, yet we find the pursuit of Foundation 51 remains relentless by the members opposite.
What is it that has the Labor Party so excited? It is this reference to a prima facie case, but the DPP said, ‘Do not worry about it’. Why did the DPP say not to worry about it? Because the offence was of such a trivial nature that it was not worth pursuing. It was not in the public interest to pursue the matter through a court house, simply because it would cost too much and the offence – I presume, without having looked at the legislation – was little more than a summary offence – a traffic offence such as not wearing your seat belt. You would get bigger fines for swearing in the street than Mr Lewis was potentially subject to through any breach of the legislation should it have been proved.
I reiterate that no such offence has been proved. Mr Graeme Lewis is an innocent man and I defy the members opposite to start going outside of this House in the public domain saying anything other than that about Mr Graeme Lewis. I am sure Mr Lewis would be delighted to separate some of the members opposite from some of their houses in pursuit of the defamation case. But no, they use this place.
If you look at this motion you will get an impression of how ridiculous it is. This Labor opposition, in pursuit of something that has been established at the very worst to be a summary offence, would hire a judge to pursue the matter through an inquiry under the Inquiries Act at the cost of what? $200 000 to $300 000? Is this Labor opposition suggesting we should chase down a person for a summary offence at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars when the independent head of the DPP, Jack Karczewski, has said it is not worth chasing through the auspices of the lower courts because it is not a serious enough matter to pursue? What the member for Wanguri is suggesting is patently and abjectly absurd, and reeks of exactly the witch hunt she would accuse the CLP of launching into.
Let us compare what was inquired to in relation to the last time we had an inquiry established under the Inquiries Act in the Northern Territory. The amount of money being investigated was probably worth millions of dollars in benefit to Harold Nelson Holdings. The inquiry into Stella Maris was about moving the unions out of 38 Woods Street – if I have the address correct – and into a taxpayer-funded facility for a period of a number of years. The net result at the end of that would have been that 38 Woods Street would have likely been vacant. The unions were part owners of 38 Woods Street. Who was the other owner? Harold Nelson Holdings!
That part of the Stella Maris Inquiry was never pursued. If you want to look at something that is really dodgy, there was a multimillion property development mooted by the Labor Party and Harold Nelson Holdings whilst the tenants got free rent at taxpayers’ expense in Stella Maris. You talk about shonky, dodgy and out of control. That is shonky, dodgy and out of control. If it was ever established, that would attract the word ‘corrupt’.
Yet, what does the Labor Party want to do? It wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing a seat belt offence. This is an unconscionable approach by the Labor Party, and a fascinating strategy it has employed. It would make anything it accuses us of doing on this side of the House look like child’s play compared to the cynicism being advocated today by the member for Wanguri.
This is balderdash; it is unsupportable nonsense. It is driven by the most base of political motivations. Suck it up that three different organisations have looked at Foundation 51 and said, at worst, they may have committed a summary offence but it is not worth pursuing.
Yet the member for Wanguri would happily turn a blind eye to an inquiry which demonstrated some pretty dodgy behaviour. The only reason, I suspect, Mr Lawler was not able to make a finding of corruption in that inquiry is there was no suitable definition on the Territory statute book of ‘corruption’ to justify such an assertion.
Nevertheless, after that shonky, dodgy deal was bolted together at the death knell of the last Labor government, we saw the unedifying response from the member for Karama. She engaged in a deliberate strategy to create a fiction that due process had not been afforded to her in the inquiry. She could then go into the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which was invited, as a result of that strategy, to make an incorrect finding through the conduct of the member for Karama.
Part of that process has seen the member for Karama become subject to a criminal investigation in relation to affidavits filled out as part of that matter before the court. I make no further observation or comment because, as far as I know, no determination has yet been made as to whether the matter should be pursued by criminal processes or not. That is a matter I will leave with the DPP, the police and whoever investigates these things. It is a matter I will leave entirely in the hands of the court. It is not for me to postulate on that.
But where is the outrage and indignation from the member for Wanguri when that sort of behaviour is conducted? She will get herself into a lathering state of agitated excitement over a seat belt offence, and want to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money in pursuit of such nonsense, but remains utterly silent about the connection between Harold Nelson Holdings and the Stella Maris arrangements struck by the former Labor government.
Whilst I appreciate what the member for Nelson is trying to introduce, his amendment will not go far enough because it does not add Harold Nelson Holdings every time the words ‘Foundation 51’ occur. If it did, the structure of such a motion – especially if you put together a motion for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act – would by its very nature demand a much more prescriptive and descriptive motion.
If the member for Nelson is keen to pursue this, I invite him to speak with me and the Chief Minister at some point. We can put together a motion that may well be acceptable to the member for Nelson to look at Harold Nelson Holdings. Let us look at exactly what was said by members of the Labor Party who govern Harold Nelson Holdings and union members who sought to benefit from this deal over Stella Maris. Let us get those people, whoever they are, into an inquiry and answering questions about what conversations they had and what was proposed going forward. I note the member for Nelson is now listening about the offer I am making. I would make sure the member for Nelson was properly negotiated with in relation to this matter ...
A member: It will get rolled anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps not. I was talking to you.
Mr Wood: Huh?
Mr ELFERINK: I will talk to you later. It is all right. I note the member for Nelson may have been momentarily distracted.
Perhaps I can make the offer again so there is no uncertainty. The problem I have with the motion as it is at the moment is that if you compare it with the one that established the Stella Maris inquiry, it has to be a lot more prescriptive. I note that the member for Nelson has made a number of suggestions in relation to inserting ‘Harold Nelson Holdings’. I do not mind; let us look at Harold Nelson Holdings. But even if we insert those – and we would have to insert them every time ‘Foundation 51’ occurs – it is not prescriptive enough in the structure of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. It would attract the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As a consequence of that, what I was suggesting to the House, and to the member for Nelson in particular, is that we will defeat this motion today, but we are happy, as a government, to have a conversation with the member for Nelson about how he would like to step through an inquiry of this nature, to see if we can find a way forward.
I would like very much to look at Harold Nelson Holdings, particularly in relation to its arrangements with the union movement and the Stella Maris lease, because 38 Woods Street would have been bulldozed and been worth millions of dollars on a property redevelopment. This would have cashed up the Labor Party for a long time to come, and the taxpayer would have footed the bill, and put the tenants of 38 Woods Street into Stella Maris. I ask the member for Nelson to be cognisant of those facts.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in short, we cannot support this motion simply because, for practical reasons, even if we wanted to support it, it was not prescriptive and descriptive enough. The second reason is that chasing an organisation like Foundation 51, when it has already been established that the worst it has ever done is the equivalent of a seat belt offence – if proven, which it has not been – and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to recover that is silly, nonsense and politics at its most base.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson and other members opposite for their contributions, even though we look at this issue very differently.
We brought this very serious motion before the parliament because we believe there are still too many unanswered questions when it comes to Foundation 51, relationships within the CLP and with the government. We feel that those questions need to be answered. That clarity is still not there for Territorians. People want to know the answers and we feel there is a case still to answer.
I keep referring to the investigation into Foundation 51, and the Electoral Commission media release on 15 April 2015 that stated:
I also refer again to the media release issued by the police on 21 October 2015 that stated:
We believe there is public interest and concern. People want to have faith in their electoral system and that political donations are fully disclosed. At the moment I do not believe people have that confidence given what has happened with Foundation 51. That has been made absolutely clear. There are still many unanswered questions.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been put on the record that the government will not be supporting this motion. This will not stop the opposition from continuing to pursue this matter to add light and get to the bottom of what has happened with Foundation 51. We believe it is important that Territorians can have confidence in their electoral system, and that governments go about business free of influence driven by political donations. That is a very great concern and something we do not want to see in the Territory.
Amendment negatived.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly suspends Chapter 12 of the standing orders in relation to questions seeking information and replaces the content of Chapter 12 with the following sessional orders for the remainder of the duration of the Twelfth Assembly or until otherwise determined by the Assembly:
1. Ministerial Reports
2. Question Time
3. Questions to Ministers
4. Questions to Other Members
At the conclusion of questions to ministers any member may rise and ask another member a question relating to a bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House in which that member is concerned.
5. Questions to the Speaker
At the conclusion of all other questions being asked during Question Time any member may rise and ask the Speaker a question relating to any matter for which the Speaker is responsible.
6. Questions on Notice
7. Language of Questions
The Speaker may require the language of a question to be changed if it seems to him or her that it is unbecoming or is in breach of the standing orders or conventions of the Assembly.
8. Content of Questions
9. Content of Answers
And I further move that:
the sessional orders outlined in this motion be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration by the committee to then report to the Assembly on best practice for Question Time with a view to adoption of new standing orders
the Standing Orders Committee must report to the Assembly by no later than the last scheduled sitting day of the second sitting week of 2016.
I note that this motion to reform Question Time starts off with:
You will notice further down it says:
Whether people agree with this or not, the motion is putting a case for changes to Question Time which would then go to the Standing Orders Committee where it would need more discussion. The idea of some changes to Question Time has come from a number of sources. I thank the Clerk for some assistance in putting this together.
When I was in Canada I liked the way they conducted their Question Time and the way ministers were able to give statements before Question Time. I also note that some of these reforms are similar to reforms introduced to the Victorian Legislative Council.
Canada has a minority government with eight ministers who can present reports if they have a subject of interest. The members can make a report which is a like our adjournment debate, which is called the member’s statement or report. If they wished, all minsters could give a report regarding their portfolio or a subject they would like to inform the House about. When that is finished, Question Time starts. There are no Dorothy Dixers because the ministers will have made a three-minute statement.
Some ministers may not want to make a report. For ministers with a number of portfolios, I imagine that minister may have two lots of three minutes or three lots of three minutes if he, say, was the minister for Primary Industry, and he may also deal with fishing ...
Mr Chandler: How big is the parliament?
Mr WOOD: The parliament has 22 members so it is very similar to us. Northwest Territories has 19, though it is my understanding they are going to increase it by a couple of members.
It then allows the rest of the parliament to ask questions. I am asking to give everyone a chance. Theoretically, if you have 12 members you will have 12 questions. It says in the motion Question Time will last for 12 questions. I will come to how that is split up.
I will start at the beginning. There will be ministerial reports, and we have had those before. There has been some discussion about whether we should or should not have them, etcetera. Victoria has changed its standing orders to get rid of the Dorothy Dixers. Instead of being fed a question to give a report on something, the minister just makes a report. When that is finished, 12 members can ask 12 questions with a supplementary.
That is a slight variance from the Canadian experience. In Nunavut members can have two supplementary questions. Northwest Territories allows three supplementary questions with the last one being short. They keep an eye on it. Basically, you can only ask one question but if you get three supplementary questions you get a pretty good bite of the cherry. I am saying that every member on this side will be able to ask a question.
I am deviating from my paper. Item one of the motion is ministerial reports:
Do we have nine ministers? I hope I am right there. That takes 27 minutes, nearly half-an-hour. When that is finished there will be Question Time:
That is standard now.
We try to follow those rules. If I ask the minister about education, the supplementary cannot be about growing melons; it has to be about education.
I will get to that in a minute.
I realise that needs some discussion. That will be part of what would go to the Standing Orders Committee because, for argument’s sake, the Independent numbers shrink. If some of them went back to where they came from there would be fewer independents. Should they still get four questions?
Mr Chandler: Is there still a time limit?
Mr WOOD: No. I will get to that. The time limit will be the length of time you can have for every question. It does not matter which party is in opposition; sometimes the Leader of the Opposition might want to have all the questions. So he takes all the questions from the other members and says, ‘I want to have seven or eight questions. I am going to hit the minister for something or other and this is what we will do today.’ Otherwise, each person can have a question. That allows everyone here to at least have one question with a supplementary. I will get to the supplementary questions in a second.
I saw again in Canada that most people have a second question ready on a piece of paper; I was watching how they were working. They ask a question and then they refer to the Speaker and say, ‘Speaker, a supplementary question’. They are much more formal in some ways than we are. It is deliberately polite in the way a member’s name is called every time. If you ask for supplementary question, your name is called and then you direct your question to the minister.
Item 4 is, Questions to Other Members, which is interesting:
You might ask a committee chair who may not be a minister. The Acting Deputy Speaker is the committee chair for the port, and you might ask him a question about what is happening in that committee. It does not happen very often, but someone may put forward a motion to be debated and – you have to be careful to not ask a question that pre-empts debate – you might ask a general question about what the motion was all about. There is the option to ask other people who have a position in the parliament, such as the chair of a committee. It would not be used very often, but the ability is there.
The other one is about questions to the Speaker:
We know there are not many questions to the Speaker, but it at least allows people to ask the Speaker a question at the specific time. When that is finished, that is the end of the questions.
This is the item regarding questions on notice which are basically written questions:
That is pretty well what we have at the moment.
Under Language of Questions:
It is straightforward, but makes sure people are not using abusive or inappropriate language.
The Content of Questions says:
I should have checked the standing orders. I know the Clerk will tell me straightaway about the existing questions or answers. I do not know whether we have that ...
A member: Standing Order 112.
Mr WOOD: Standing Order 112 is …
Mr Elferink: The very oft quoted 113.
Mr WOOD: Yes. We already have a fairly lengthy section about questions in standing orders, which states that questions cannot be debated, should not contain statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated, should not contain arguments inferences, imputations, epithets – that is a good one for the member for Port Darwin; he likes that one – ironical expressions or hypothetical matter. Also, questions should not ask ministers for expressions of interest to announce new policy of the government or for legal opinion.
The motion has a slightly more truncated version of that, as I said:
That is fairly new and is different to what we have at present.
Content of Answers says:
Am I right in thinking ‘factual’ is the new word there? That would be different from the existing standing orders:
I thank the Clerk for suggesting that. I put some alternative ideas to a few people to test them, which were based on other places I visited. For instance, in the two Canadian territories, where the minister gives a three-minute statement to the parliament, a copy of each minister’s statement shall be filed with the Clerk one hour prior to the sitting of the Assembly during which the statement will be given. I do not know how that would work in practice, because in the territories they start parliament at 1.30 pm so there is the morning to get that ready. As we start earlier there might be a problem with that.
I am checking what else is here that could also be looked at in relation to this. It is pretty close to what I saw in Canada. The reason I raised it is it would make our Question Time more open for questions from this side of the House. I am not trying to be silly, but if you fill up Question Time with Dorothy Dixers – I am not saying every minister has a Dorothy Dixer but a fair number of questions are. The government could still have that but not part of question time per se. We could have a Question Time where we try to, in theory, give everyone on this side the ability to ask one question. That is a good thing to do.
I would love to hear more local questions sometimes. In Canberra they are doing something like that by allowing people to ask local questions. You will never get away from the bigger questions, and that is fair enough, but we need to allow our members to ask some local questions about their electorates. That is what people expect from Question Time as well.
I am not saying people will necessarily agree with this, but it is worthy of discussion. It is not setting the government to agree to this; it is simply saying to the Standing Orders Committee, ‘Would you like to look at this?’ I am on the Standing Orders Committee and I would probably bring copies of the standing orders of Nunavut and Northwest Territories. It is amazing how similar we are. People might ask what I did over there talking about that, but we are so similar in many ways, except for that big table which does not exist in those places. Instead, there is a big polar bear skin or a sled with a man with a drum.
They are discussing the similar issues in Nunavut, such as fracking – a big issue. Why? Because Nunavut and Northwest Territories are heavily dependent on federal funding and many people are unemployed. Many communities are highly dependent on government funding because they are way up north above the Arctic Circle, which is a tough country to live in without federal government supplying the funds to do it.
We have much that is similar. It is good that we learn from other places. I have brought back that this is not a bad idea.
I might digress while the Chief Minister is here. He may think about this. I am not trying to put people out of work here by any means …
Mr Giles: You are reflecting on my presence in the Chamber?
Mr WOOD: Oh sorry, yes. In both those places they had pages. You see them in Canberra; they are very official people. The pages are young schoolchildren, probably 15 or 16. They are the ones who take the water around. When you water is empty they fill it up. When you want to send a note to the Chief Minister you put your hand up and they take the note over to him. Where I have been, they also have a cloak area where you have to drop off your coats, because it is cold weather and people leave their coats behind. It is partly security as well. If you want to listen to the language you get a little ear plug and a small radio that you can change to pick up the translation you want.
What is good is that they are picking kids from schools who are being rewarded for attending school. It not only gives those kids some pride – in the case of Nunavut they dress up in traditional costume and in Northwest Territories it is a more formal style but it is still a costume – but they learn about parliament. Sometimes they are shy. I noticed that they sat in different corners, and there might be two at the back because sometimes in those parliaments there is a table where, during the Committee of the Whole, the minister sits and is questioned by the parliament.
I liked it because it was rewarding kids for doing well at or for attending school. My understanding is kids really look up to someone given that privilege. It may not be something the government will be in a hurry to do. It is an idea for getting kids interested in parliament. They only come in for the sittings or part of the sittings, say one week. That was good for young people, to not only be rewarded for attendance and trying hard at school, but also they get an interest in politics or the way parliament works.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not speak any longer on this motion. It is simple. I am happy to hear any responses but, as I said, it is not asking the government to agree to it now. It is asking if you will allow it to go to the Standings Orders Committee to have further discussion.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I can advise the member for Nelson that government will be supporting this motion.
In doing that, member for Nelson, there are a few things I would like you to consider on the committee, one in particular being the intent of parliament to have debate. There are many complaints about Dorothy Dixers, but we are telling the story of what we are doing in government. Many of the non-policy questions designed as personal attacks from the opposition are something you could look at. That would be quite good.
The opportunity for someone who has been asked a question to seek clarification about it would be handy. Quite often, if it is a local issue, a bit of clarity on the question is helpful because you may not know the context of the question. Sometimes you talk about a range of things in an answer because you may not know the context of the question.
For example, fortunately I knew a lot about the question from the member for Araluen to the Sport minister today so I could answer in detail. But if that question had been slightly different and the detail not known, it would have been a challenge.
I note you want this taken to the Standing Orders Committee. I do not have an issue with that nor any problem with the time frame. If it was earlier or later is not a particular worry of mine. There would have to be some scrutiny by the Standing Orders Committee to look at the affects in this area. The Standing Orders Committee would recommend some things as suitable and others unsuitable.
There are some things in here it would appear we already allow, such as questions being put to any member who has a bill. That is in item No 4, Questions to Other Members. I understand that is already part of the standing orders now, but I am happy to be corrected on that. The Standing Orders Committee will have to go through that.
My key point is that whatever improves the standard of debate in the Chamber is good. I also recommend the member for Nelson, through the Standing Orders Committee, looks at the latitude given to Standing Order 113 during Question Time. That would be handy because the use of Standing Order 113 on a regular basis is not adding any value to debate. It is designed to stop comments that could be picked up through television cameras. We know exactly what the opposition is deliberately doing in that regard. That could help the process.
The member for Nelson could look at some of the personal slurs that occur, which are not welcome or warranted, and not ruled upon. It would be suitable to strengthen the standing orders in that regard.
In this regard, there is a range of things I would throw into this if I had more time to consider the motion; it only came in yesterday. I am happy for the Standing Orders Committee to look at a range of different areas in regard to debate, all in the interest of improving it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not about setting this up to attack government, because I will not support it if that is what it proves to be. If it is about improving debate I will be happy to support it.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy to support the motion before the House. I thank the member for Nelson for raising it. As the member for Nelson knows, on this side of the House I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee, as is the member for Nightcliff.
We all know the member for Nelson is very passionate about sharing the ideas you learn from your travels to other parliaments and your discussions with other parliamentarians and the community. It is exceptionally positive that you bring that contribution to the House for consideration. We should be encouraging positive contribution from members in the House about how we might improve the quality of debate, reform parliamentary processes and all of those things. It should be open for debate in the House. So, thank you.
I will keep it brief. We welcome discussion and debate of ideas and believe we should be working hard to open our parliament up further for more participation from the community. As you may well know, we have released a discussion paper about some of these themes as well, which also looking at different aspects, including Question Time.
Politics, after all, is about people, engaging the community and how we can make sure the processes are doing exactly what they should be doing, and that we have ample opportunity to represent our constituents in the way they expect and in a way that provides them with confidence in the integrity of parliament.
I do not see any issue or reason why we would not support this motion to go to the Standing Orders Committee. There is no reason why members on the Standing Orders Committee – of which there are members on all sides of the House – cannot talk to their colleagues about the ideas they have and bring them into that debate as well. It is very clear that people around the Chamber have ideas about what might work, might not work and what the implications might be from the proposal put forward.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we support the motion to discuss this further in the Standard Orders Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not a short motion. It is probably one of the longest ones I have ever had to debate. Nevertheless, I understand what the member for Nelson is trying to do.
I have a small confession to make. It is funny how you mature in this job. I remember when I came into this place in 1997 and there was a very strict way of doing things, which was the way things were always done. I had that wrapped into my parliamentary procedure DNA.
When the new Labor government came into power in 2001 it then made some changes. It introduced the idea of the ministerial report and changed Question Time from 10 am every day to 2 pm, and those sorts of things. Perhaps it was a lack of my political maturity, but I thought this was some sort of villainous and evil act that the new government was doing simply because it was a Labor government.
With the maturity that comes with hindsight, I have realised they were probably trying very hard to improve and tweak the system. Under the old system, General Business only occurred once every 12 days when the Labor Party, when in opposition, got the whole day. They effectively got four or five days a year to pursue their own business. They introduced this system we have now of GBD every Wednesday night for three hours which, time-wise, is probably about the same as one full day every 12 days because there was no time limit on the length of the day.
That prejudice came with me when we formed government after the 2012 election, which is why I was happy to see Question Time go back to 10 am. I was always critical of the ministerial report, because by its very nature it was not debated. This is a parliament and, by literal definition if you translate it from the French parlement, it means the place where you talk – parlez vous francais, parlez vous anglais, parlement.
As a consequence, I was always twitchy about the idea of a ministerial report because it could not be debated. I railed against that when the Labor government was in place, and I am well on the record for fighting my way through that. Eventually the Labor government caved and we ended up with a five-minute report with a two-minute response and a one-minute rebuttal at the tail end, which made it the equivalent of parliamentary tennis.
The problem with the reports, as they were envisaged by the government at the time, was that opposition did not even have to turn up. There was no point. There was no invitation to debate. The ministers could stand up and the opposition could turn up half-an-hour late to parliament. You would come if for prayers and walk out. The ministers were talking to an empty room, and it had an odd look to it as a result of that.
However, as I have grown a bit in this job I sense there might be a place for such a thing as a report. I am cautious about it by virtue of the fact this is a House of debate. Anything that truncates debate in that fashion, where there is no opportunity for anything other than a minister to speak on an issue, is something I remain instinctively cautious about.
Nevertheless, this is, on face value – and I accept it as that – a genuine attempt at reform to make the system work better. There is a certain amount of pantomime with the Dorothy Dixer approach; it is still used in every parliament in the country. But there is legitimacy in one important way. A member of parliament who is not a minister of the Crown, even if they are a member of the governing party, may choose at some point or another to ask a question of the minister which is not a Dorothy Dixer. I can imagine any number of circumstances where that may occur.
The reason the Dorothy Dixer exists, of course, is so government can equally get its good news stories out, as well as having to deal with the bad news stories that are invariably implied, particularly from a hostile opposition. If Question Time was a feeding frenzy on government alone, I have to ask how government also gets some of its better news stories out.
What will happen in the practical world is the press gallery will only turn up for Question Time. A minister is standing in a room, talking to an empty set of chairs with nobody in the press gallery, trying to tell the people of their jurisdiction, as well as the opposition, the good things they are doing. It is lame. Then comes Question Time. All of a sudden the press gallery is full and you get all these questions with nasty edges to them, which makes for good fodder for the press.
Having made those observations, this motion does not ask or demand of government anything other than a reference to the Standing Orders Committee. I am not sure about the system of timing, but again this is a suggestion by the member for Nelson, a starting position for an improved process. That is how I read this. The member for Nelson is not delivering this to the House as a fait accompli. He is suggesting we should sit back and soberly and sensibly look at the systems we have in place and see if there is something we can do to improve them. I agree with that. Any system is worth looking at.
I signal now that the government will accept this motion unamended. I understand you need to make an amendment in relation to the suspension of standing orders, member for Nelson. We will happily navigate that. As a government we are prepared to take this motion pretty much on face value, because you are not suggesting to this House that this is a fait accompli. You are saying that the matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration by the committee, and then to report to the Assembly on best practice for Question Time, with a view to adopting new standing orders, and that the Standing Orders Committee must report to the Assembly no later than the last scheduled sitting day of the second sitting week of 2016.
For something of this magnitude over the Christmas period, that timing might be a big call. However …
Mr Wood: The second sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but in any instance, if the committee determines that it is looking at something that is too substantial, it can come back and say, ‘We need some more time’. As long as that case is made then the sponsoring member of this motion might turn around and say, ‘That is not an unreasonable suggestion.’
Mr Wood: There is no urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: No, there is no urgency involved in this; I get all of that.
What he is suggesting is any number of things. This will, of course, invite some broader research. I note that the new standing orders which have been produced should be debated shortly. In fact, the Clerk dropped one of the most subtle hints I had ever heard in recent times in this House by pointing out that the standing orders had a particular consequence to me, thus jogging my mind that we need to debate those. So we will see if we can get that into the business of the House tomorrow.
This idea is to see how we can improve systems. With the maturity I have gained, albeit excruciatingly slowly over the last number of years, particularly now that I have seen the world through the lens of the Leader of Government Business, I am not at all disinclined to say we should improve systems. I will to be much more liberal in my approach to how we deal with these sorts of things, because the test and the yardstick has to always be whether it produces a better result for the people who put us here.
The observation I make is that whilst I am a great and strident champion of democracy, there is, and can be, a tendency to over-democratise. I believe the people should be allowed to elect their government. This is the Lincoln idea of government – for the people, of the people, by the people. I have absolutely no problems with that at all. But governments, when elected, should also have the right to govern, because tough decisions have to be made from time to time by responsible governments. If a government is too vulnerable to overreach in the committee-isation of large slabs of its work, then you push the balance too far the other way, because the whole thing gets bogged down.
I know the member for Nelson is a great champion of committee’s scrutinising legislation and those sorts of things. I hear and understand what he is saying, but he has not seen the role of government through the lens of a minister’s eyes. I sometimes wish he had. In the former government he may well have had an opportunity, if he wanted to, and he chose not to go down that path ...
Mr Wood: Both sides offered me something; I declined.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I get all of that; you declined. But it changes your perspective on how this place operates and what government is trying to do, particularly on a daily basis. You say government has to work harder to get things through this place because it sits in a position of minority. That may well be true, but it may work much harder to the point where it starts to not embark on things because the work is too hard. That is also an important consideration that needs to be taken into account. If government thinks something is too controversial, too hard or will be too unpopular, it tends to slow down to the point where it becomes non-responsive. If that is the case, then is it acting in the true interests of the people it represents? That embodies the idea that politicians do not like to make unpopular decisions.
Politicians who know there is some space between their decision and the next election, or there is some latitude around them, will make tougher decisions. One example is TIO was a difficult call on the part of government. We were not sitting around the Cabinet room popping champagne corks, laughing out loud and having rollicking good times when we made the decision to sell TIO. We knew there was a mountain of pain with that, but I am convinced to this day it was the right thing to do. If the parliament had been super sensitive to large crowds out the front, then that necessary decision would have potentially exposed the Territory to a substantial loss. That is one of the concerns I have.
The other component is that budgets, by necessity, are tough. We just saw the TAFR hit the table here today, and the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement shows we inflicted pain, particularly a couple of years ago. We did not do that with any sense of relish or joy. We knew we were hurting Territorians, but we had to do it because we knew that two or three years down the track there was a $5.5bn overreach. That was a debt we could not have suffered in this jurisdiction.
I wonder if this House had effective control of the budget, if it could bring itself to do those necessary things. Sure, a handful of members would be here to do or call for those things, but then the tough decisions could not be made. Governments have to be accountable. They are regularly accountable through this place, and ultimately, once every four years in this jurisdiction, to the people of the Northern Territory, who decide who forms the majority in this House. We all know how the system works.
We have to strike a balance which enables the government to be tough when it needs to be. We have to get the balance right of leaving everything structured in such a way that we as a House do not interfere with the necessary decisions of government – not just the fun decisions but the necessary ones. I am cautious about overreach in relation to that principle.
There will always be issues which will divide members in this House, often for political reasons, sometimes for practical reasons. I understand you will object to some legislation I present. You have also supported legislation I have brought to the House. But there were times when I brought legislation into this House and have simply relied on the numbers of the CLP because it was necessary to get that unpopular but necessary legislation through. I do not shirk from the reality of having to do that. Is it a blunt instrument? Perhaps, but government needs to be about more than populism; it needs to be firm and strident at times and occasionally even controversial and confronting.
I have strayed into another area of our structures, but nevertheless it is valuable to look at how we do what we do. That is what is captured in the member for Nelson’s motion. We are, in the absence of a strict separation of powers, particularly at the state level level in this country, driven by the long-held common law doctrine of responsible government. The doctrine of responsible government is that the executive arm of government serves and answers to the Crown and its interest in this parliament, which is representative of a bigger philosophical sovereign being, the people themselves.
There is nothing in this motion which confronts the notion of the doctrine of responsible government. In fact, it seeks to enhance it or make suggestions as to how it can be enhanced in how it works in this jurisdiction. To that end, the motion is not in any way repugnant to that doctrine or in any way offensive to the members of this House or this government. Nevertheless, this is a motion of some physical magnitude in its size and is not something we could readily agree to unless it went to a committee to fully and carefully consider all of the implications herein. That is exactly what the motion suggests.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as a consequence, the government indicates that we are happy to see this go to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration and that the committee then report to the Assembly on the best practice for Question Time with a view to adoption of new standing orders by the second sitting week of 2016. We support this motion and will work in good faith to see if there is a way we can improve the systems this House has for the benefit and true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I indicate that I will move an amendment in a moment or two.
I thank the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General for their support. The Attorney-General wavered a little on to more philosophical matters. I understand, to some extent, where he was going. He reminisced about the days of parliamentary reports.
The issue about backbenchers on the government side asking questions and how that would work in practice is something which should be discussed at the Standing Orders Committee, if that is how the government feels. However, Question Time is generally about the opposition asking the government questions.
I feel this is an opportunity for government to put out its good stories. I like that questions can then be asked about the minister’s answer. That is where the debate, to some extent, can come from. If the Minister for Education wanted to talk about a motion where no one is allowed to write with their left hand but must use their right, and he gives us a reason why, then he will attract a fair number of questions from people like me who happen to be left-handed. It is not just a matter of the minister making a statement, but because he makes it so close to Question Time, there is an opportunity for people on this side to ask some questions. The added help of a supplementary question will make questioning even more fulsome – if I can use that word.
I also have memories of the original ministerial reports. I always think of one which I had a bit of a laugh at in the days when – it is hard to know if it was a ministerial report. Mr Peter Maley was the member for Goyder then. He was also the shadow minister for Primary Industry. The minister started talking about the vine leaf rust that was a bit of a scourge in Darwin at one stage. All grape vines had to be destroyed and there were various places around Darwin you could not go past if you had any of that material on you. I remember the minister made a statement. There was a follow-up report of two or three minutes and Peter Maley started talking about weeds. When I had my opportunity I reminded him that even though he was shadow minister for Agriculture he should not have been talking about weeds at all but vine leaf rust. We had some interesting times in that system because people had to quickly get on their feet and respond to a report, and sometimes that is what happened.
I try to bring things to parliament that make it work a little better. I am not patting myself on the back, but explanatory notes and remarks in legislation is something I suggested many years ago when I first came here. I cannot say it was my idea, given it was used elsewhere, but occasionally you will see notations in legislation that explain something. We did not have that or explanatory notes before, which are an improvement. There is nothing nicer when you are reading legislation than an example of how the legislation works. It is good to have that within legislation.
This is a similar approach, not necessarily for legislation, but being able to improve processes by not making them over-bureaucratic, but making some sensible changes that hopefully will enhance Question Time.
I also note that the minister talked about the government having to make hard decisions. Without bringing on the debate about TIO, if you want to go back to this second phase of TIO and not the first phase, which was a different kettle of fish, I understand the government had to make a tough decision. But my criticism – and the Chief Minister knows this – is they fell down badly in putting the facts before the people. They did it too late, which is why many of us were cranky.
I heard the member for Fong Lim yesterday talking about communists. Hey, the two people who helped me and came to see me were panel beaters, not exactly communists. If you want to call them anything, they were capitalists. They did not want their businesses destroyed by seeing the company that always gave them good service, TIO, closed down. They were not sure what the future held nor did they know what was going to happen. Many of them did not know the reason the government was moving down that path. I will be honest with you; when I knew the reasoning – and I had discussions with Richard Harding – I asked for a public meeting at CDU to allow people to put their sides of the debate. That is what it was about. Tough decisions have to be made, but sometimes it can hurt a little less when people know the answers.
I was the President of the Litchfield Shire Council for quite a while. I know how tough it is when you put the rates up. You might think that is simple, but, by gee, you can cop a lot of flak if you put the local rates up. You have to do it because otherwise the council will go broke ...
Mr Chandler: Or spend less.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but sometimes the lawn still grows. I suppose you could stop watering it; that might save money. Thank you for that, member for Brennan; I will tell the Palmerston City Council. However, I digress.
The one thing the minister said in the way he described the government approach to legislation is that the government also needs to be careful what it does and know fully the consequences. It is one thing to be tough, but it is not hard to be silly. The legislation I think he was talking about was not carefully thought through.
I thank the government for its support. I need to move an amendment because technically if we agree with this, we suspend Chapter 12 of Standing Orders.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will move an amendment. This is fairly simple. I move the following amendment in the first paragraph:
Omit:
Insert in its place, ‘considers a new model of’.
I put that motion.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I place on the record, so we understand and are of one mind on what this amendment means, that the current wording would have the effect of essentially suspending standing orders, and that is not what you want to achieve.
Mr Wood: Yes, that is right.
Mr ELFERINK: What you want to achieve is having the operation of the standing orders in relation to Chapter 12 packaged, put together, then sent to a committee for consideration to report back within the time frame described by the motion. It makes the motion benign, where in fact the current motion would have an unintended consequence which we are now trying to remedy. That would be a fair way to describe it?
Mr Wood: I think so.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case the government supports the amendment to the motion.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 153, that General Business Order of the Day No 3 be postponed and made an Order of the Day for the next General Business Day.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am double-checking. I do not have any problem with it; I want to check one thing. Standing Order 153 says:
The member for Wanguri has a matter which is to come up after the next motion and she is seeking to postpone it to the next sittings. So there should be two motions for the sake of completeness. The first motion should be the order of precedence, and then this occurs. But I understand what you are doing, the intent is clear, and the government will not make a song and dance about it. So, yes.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 25 March 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, ‘it has been a long time comin’ and it has been a long time gone’. That is Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; I better reference that. I this part of the debate I was talking about Mr Wood’s suggestion that we be located 100 m from the polling place and no closer. I was explaining that in the electorate of Barkly in some of those polling places that would put me in the bush, well and truly outside of the boundary of town. That is, from memory, where I left off.
Essentially, this motion was about a climax in the NT’s general election history and its procedures. The election of 25 August 2012 received serious comment in the NT general election report by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and some mobile polling booths got a special mention. There were many comments about unruly behaviour, spruiking and the level of aggressive tactics that have been used.
As a supporter of mobile polling for over 30 years, I can testify that I never saw a more aggressive campaign in the bush than in 2012. It was due to many reasons. If I looked a Hansard, I would probably find I have already put some of those on the record.
The Electoral Commission no doubt had to do a reality check after the 2012 election. That was not the only entity because the Independent member for Nelson also brought this motion to the House to try a stop-the-bus approach and get a sense of decorum and reality back into the system. He has those changes expressed in the motion.
Going back to the Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s report on the NT General Election 25 August 2012, the booths that received special mention were in the electorates of Stuart and Daly. There were a number of booths mentioned. I remember Nyirripi, Wadeye, Yuendumu and Daly River.
I took the stance that the controversial issues in the bush polling places which led to concerns about the operations, procedures and protocols were attributed to either a lack of trust and integrity or an adversarial inducement approach to conducting the elections. The trust and integrity approach was what I saw over many years. But in 2012 what I witnessed in the Barkly – and I covered the majority of polling booths except a few in the tablelands – was definitely the adversarial inducement approach. That is reflected in the report and has created the concern. The member for Nelson’s motion proposes changes and moderation, so to speak.
I collected notes of the estimates hearing of the following year in 2013. The questions from the opposition and the answers from the Chief Minister were quite interesting. A line of prosecution I was using was about the training and professional development of the Electoral Commission’s officials who operate those booths. There seems to be a pattern that they are experienced people who have great goodwill and dedication, but they are not Territorians. They come from interstate, from the south. Put them in a bush environment and it is a wonderful learning experience. Some I have talked to share stories about coming back for each election and the different areas they have worked in. They developed, it seems, a cultural trait: they are great people but easily exploited.
I can testify that in the 2012 election the adversarial inducement campaign in the bush, particularly run by the CLP, was intimidating to that type of electoral official who had goodwill, integrity and experience in the south. But in a booth in a remote area of Barkly – it could have been Epenarra – that very aggressive, loud, visual style of campaigning and the inducements to be part of a political persuasion was way too much.
I remember an example at Epenarra. It is a community I lived in for quite a number of years. My Alyawarr was not up to speed but I had a very aggressive encounter with an Alyawarr man who was campaigning for the CLP at Alpurrurulam. That was an amazing experience because suddenly all my Alyawarr started coming back. We had a set to and it was not something I was comfortable with.
We travelled on through the electorate and when we got to Epenarra to poll it was quite clear there was a first language speaker who had contravened all the protocols by going into the 10 m secure area. This person was coaching people in their first language and spitting out a very clever CLP rhetoric. There was no doubt, as I found out later, that this person had been influenced by quite a number of inducements to carry out this role.
It was my wife who picked it up, and she was quite concerned about what was going on. She alerted me, but I could not go into that area so I used first language to call that person out over the fence. When I got that person out of that area where we could have a conversation, it all started to unravel. She told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It was an interesting situation that I remember today. I then went back to my trust and integrity approach and gathered all my male ex-students under a tree. I basically said, ‘What is going on here?’ They were very honest and very open, as they are; they are great people and they told the truth. They told me what had been going on behind the scenes, about the offers that had been made and why they were encouraged to throw me out and put the CLP candidate in.
I used a very basic grassroots tactic and turned it into a classroom. We started to deconstruct the promises and the rhetoric that had been espoused to them and then compare that to what the Labor Party had to offer and what we had done. Lucky for me I won that booth.
To me, that is a reflection on why this motion came about and what this motion hopes to achieve. Throughout that estimates process where I asked questions about the Electoral Commission – what is new, what will change, what will moderate this situation – I remember, without reading back through all the notes, that there was not a lot forthcoming.
It will be interesting because the planned election for August 2016 will be another test case in the bush. I am interested to see if we have another 2012 campaign by the CLP – cashed up, aggressive, lots of inducements, mobile, the tactics of engaging first language speakers, heavy dialogue and rhetoric. It was an amazing experience all round. I am wondering whether that will be the case again.
Essentially, now that this motion has been floating around for so long, we will not have changed anything. If it is game on, then game on. Bring it on because I have some great experience from that 2012 encounter. I suppose I am a bit nave; I will share it with my colleagues. The first hit was Minyerri and I honestly thought that Giles was coming after me. Then I realised that no, he was not, he was going after everybody. It was not until I got back in phone range and checked in with base that I was told, ‘No, the CLP is coming after the lot of us’.
I remember the Chief Minister’s great disappointment when we came back into this House. He got four of my colleagues but he had not got Hector the Safety Cat, and he could not hide his displeasure.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is what this motion is about. If it will be the same in 2016, bring it on. I am really looking forward to it. I survived the last one; I will survive again.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Hector the Road Safety Cat – I remember that, it was very funny ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Mr Giles has spoken on this already.
Mr Giles: I do not think I have.
Mr WOOD: I have Hansard here. You can check with the …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise, Chief Minister, you have already spoken on this debate.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! With the indulgence of members opposite and the member for Nelson, I seek leave for the Chief Minister to make some further comments in relation to this motion before the House. I understand the Chief Minister’s comments will not be displeasing to the member for Nelson and would put the seal of the head of government on what this motion seeks ...
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not trying to be clever; I am trying to find a resolution to the satisfaction of the member for Nelson and, hopefully, for the members in this Chamber.
I seek leave for the Chief Minister to make some further remarks in relation to the motion before the House.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I am sorry, I cannot reflect on the member for Barkly but I would have liked to have paid him a compliment from his Hector the Road Safety Cat commentary.
It has been quite some time since this was last on the agenda, member for Nelson. I think it was 25 March, so reflecting on Hansard debates – I do not have it in front of me so please excuse past remarks and I will provide commentary as of today.
Had we not been busy in recent times with things such as the gas pipeline and all the environmental matters we announced today, we would have introduced a bill into the Chamber this week about electoral reform, had it gone through Cabinet. There is a process we are working on right now. I will not breach any confidential matters except to say we will be taking a paper to Cabinet next week and seeking to bring that paper to parliament in the following sittings with a view to introduce it, have the second reading, then go to consultation for months. I will detail the time frame when I introduce that bill about electoral reform.
There will be a committee consultation process – you do not rush electoral reform – which will address a number of things. For those things, which I will detail in a moment, we will support this motion before us now.
We will take it a bit further – I will run through six points, not to say that will be the exhaustive part of the legislation. Government will seek electoral reform through a consultation process that will seek to make it clear that enrolment is compulsory. It is a technical element, but very important.
Given there are many concerns about voter turnout and informal voting, particularly in remote parts of the Territory, we will canvass the idea of changing the current voting system from preferential to optional preferential, thus giving people more opportunities to have a lower level of informal votes.
We will seek to allow voters to choose whether to vote at an early voting centre, by way of a postal vote, or attend a polling booth on election day without having to satisfy any criteria. This has recently been changed for the purposes of local government elections, as I understand it technically. Previously if you wanted to vote at an early enrolment centre you had to justify that it was because you were going on leave or away for work, or something like that. This will allow you to vote at any time during an election campaign period.
It also seeks to support those who are postal voters, particularly in remote areas who rely on mail planes. If the mail plane only comes once a week, and it might miss one week, many of those voters are not counted. Allowing for alternate options for a postal vote, particularly an additional week, would help. That is why we seek to allow an additional week for eligible ballot papers to be received and included in the count of votes to support some of those votes that go missing.
Regarding allowing the draw for positions to be held on the ballot paper to be conducted at sites to be determined by the commissioner, I will give you a hypothetical. If there was a by-election to be held in Nhulunbuy right now, the ballot of the draw would be in Darwin at the Electoral Commission. This will allow for the ballot to be held at Nhulunbuy.
The other item is that we would seek to prohibit canvassing within 500 m of a polling booth, including how-to-vote cards and other political literature. The Country Liberals will be putting legislation forward, I anticipate next sittings, for consultation that will seek to remove the running of the gauntlet at polling booths.
With that in mind, with the agreement of members around the Chamber, we will support the motion. It is only asking for consideration. Clearly we are considering those things you mentioned and more. If it passes through Cabinet we will bring a bill into the Chamber with a commentary that will detail a range of electoral options to go to consultation, and then come back into parliament sometime next year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is not a fast process but a process that will seek to benefit Territorians through an electoral reform process. Thank you for allowing me to make a few comments.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the comments by the Chief Minister. I also thank members in this House for their indulgence in relation to this matter. I suspect the member for Nelson is somewhat surprised. I am not sure what was said when this motion was initially partially debated before it was ...
Mr Wood: Had support from the Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: At the time. There you go.
Mr Giles: I could not remember.
Mr ELFERINK: I could not remember either. The point is we have discussed this matter. Of course, I cannot talk about what is discussed in Cabinet, but outside of Cabinet I took part in a few discussions as well.
I am one of those people who think that the three-ring circus which is an election both in the bush and in town needs to have some restraint placed around it. Polling day at a city polling booth is exhausting. But there is no such thing as polling day in the bush; it is polling days. It is now extended out to about 10 days.
There is something inherently undemocratic about the first component of it, in that the resources of covering all those remote communities in the bush are the purview of the major parties, particularly if you have a massive seat like my former seat of Macdonnell, Barkly and Bess Price’s seat, Stuart. European countries are dwarfed by some of these seats. So covering those seats is often very difficult for somebody who is trying to stand as an Independent. The resources it takes to cover all those booths in the bush – even in a seat like Macdonnell – means you had three teams going out – when I used to do it originally – for a week covering those booths, and it was exhausting and hard work.
I am a little critical of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s overreach when it comes to trying to cover every small booth in these remote communities and areas because these remote area booths will have somebody standing there for two or three hours when there are only four people on the bloody roll at some of these outstations. Frankly, that is overreach by the Electoral Commission.
Whilst I know it has a mandate to bring democracy to the people, to go to some of these outstations is often overreach and unnecessary. Some of these outstations are but a stone’s throw away from a major community. They would be physically closer to a polling booth in a larger community than some people live in relation to a local polling booth in a remote or rural area, or even in suburbia. The bizarre act of driving 2 km down the road into an outstation near somewhere like Papunya and then standing by a booth for three hours because two people are on a roll there is just dumb.
I understand the remit of the Electoral Commission, and I will not tell them how to do their job; that is what they do. Nevertheless, I am critical of some of what I have seen in the bush. It is unconvincing to me that what happens in those places is necessarily democratic.
If you go into a place like Papunya, where I imagine it is similar to larger communities in the Top End, when voting day happens, the booth is set up for eight hours. Everybody votes within the first hour. There is a massive line-up out the front, everybody votes, then you end up standing there for seven hours and one or two people will trickle through towards the end of the day. Sometimes we spend too long in some of those communities.
We also have the resources of the Labor Party – a couple of Toyotas running around for them and a couple of Toyotas running for the Country Liberals. They do on those booths exactly as others do in the town booths during polling day on the Saturday whenever the election is. The people there still have to run the gauntlet. You have the usual fights about where the boundary is and those sorts of things.
Every time I have done those remote booths – in fact every time that I have done a booth in town – I have always been very keen to speak to the Labor person and establish ground rules of friendly exchange at the outset. It is so much easier than having to deal with somebody who is constantly on edge and trying to get excited about the polling system.
In the remote communities there are things we could improve. We are allowed to say we will not spend too much time in those booths, and when we go to an outstation where there are only four people on the roll, we will open the booth for 10 minutes; do not stand there for four hours. They will either be there or they will not. Assuming somebody is going to drive out of the bush in a two-hour period is over-servicing the electorate.
Having made that observation, town booths have become almost comical or farcical in the way they physically appear, and they are becoming more so with every passing election. In those elections you will see thousands of dollars’ worth of corflutes, posters, wraps, signs, banners, fliers, DLs, how-to-vote cards, etcetera, being shoved into people’s hands. Most people find that an intrusion. Those people who are actively seeking a how-to-vote card are essentially asking the Country Liberals or the Labor Party which way they would like them to cast their preferences. They trust those parties to give them guidance.
I would be very surprised if many people relied on the how-to-vote cards when they have already made up their minds. It is a matter of politeness that those people tend to simply accept the cards. We have the unique situation in the Northern Territory where the photograph of the candidate is on the ballot paper – that does not happen in the federal election – and the person looking at a ballot paper can determine, on the basis of the photograph, who they want to vote for without necessarily having a how-to-vote card.
Contrast this with a New Zealand election. A New Zealand polling booth is a surprising thing to behold. I remember the first time I watched one of those election specials on a New Zealand election. We are all hopelessly addicted to election night broadcasts from various state elections or even a federal election. Sky News started covering New Zealand. They went to one of the booths. There was essentially nothing at the booth. There was a small sign placed out the front of the booth which said Polling Booth. There was no other indication whatsoever, or presence of any party or party campaign worker at all. The voter went into the polling booth utterly unmolested, went about their business of casting their vote and walked out. If the voters want a conservative party – as is the case in New Zealand with John Keys enjoying the first majority government for a long time because they have a system of multi-member proportional electorates – then that is what the people of New Zealand choose.
If the people of the Northern Territory choose a CLP government then they are capable of choosing that without having 15 bloody campaign workers out the front telling them that is what they want.
I would love, quite frankly, to not turn up to polling booths. The problem is if you abandon the field then you send the signal that you are not engaged and the other party – whose people are standing there with all their banners out the front – is engaged. That could have an influence. The effect of standing in front of the booth does not necessarily change the outcome of an election; it simply neutralises this notion that one party does not care. If that is the case, then have no parties present and allow the voter to enter the polling booth unmolested to exert their democratic right.
The longer I have observed our electoral system in the Northern Territory, the more I have warmed to this notion. The robustness of our democracy will not be diminished by an absence of paraphernalia ...
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the Adult Migrant English Program, accompanied by Veronica Bagshaw. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I do not think paraphernalia has necessarily changed the outcome of an election. It is interesting to note that when you do polling properly – I have read a number of party polls over the years – you get a sense before election day of whether you will win or lose. So come election day there are not that many surprises.
When the polling is done well and professionally you know the issues that you have to deal with in an effort to steal a seat-for-seat result. Generally speaking, there are a few surprises. Occasionally a seat will swing one way or the other. When a seat is close one or two weeks out from an election, it is generally difficult to pick. On polling day you look at those seats more carefully because they will be a surprise to you. When the polling was done on the seat of Port Darwin prior to the last election, whilst I continued to campaign hard as I have done for several years, the only question I had was how much I would win by.
All of the paraphernalia in the world at the polling booth did not change the result of the booth’s pre-poll polling that we had done as a political party. So what does the paraphernalia do? Do corflutes change people’s minds politically? Does a picture of John Elferink hanging off a tree 20 feet off the ground cause a voter to say, ‘There is John Elferink; I will change my opinion of the world because there is a picture of him stuck up in a tree’? It is an introduction of John Elferink for those people who do not know him, but they will check quickly to see whether there is a Liberal, Labor or Greens tag on the banner to make their mind up, which will familiarise them with the candidate. Corflutes do not change people’s opinions. The only thing a corflute can do is raise the profile of the candidate, and you can do that with other systems of advertising.
All the junk paraphernalia – wraps, etcetera – at a polling booth is often more to keep the party faithful occupied, thinking they are making a contribution – which they are in a minor way – than to change people’s minds. The big wraps you see nowadays, those plastic adornments which go for a distance of 50 m or so, are a one-message last-gasp thing at the booth. They may have an effect, because if an issue or personality is very positive or very negative, the presence of a large wrap may influence a voter as they walk into the polling booth. Again, I do not see that in relation to what you see in pre-polling polling the parties do and the actual results you see on the night. You get a pretty strong correlation between the two, so what does all that other stuff do? All it does is show a level of commitment. As I said before, if that level of commitment is shown by one party, the other party and other players feel obliged to show that commitment as well.
Here is the truth of it: elections are won and lost basically on the performance of the government and the mood of the electorate. There is nothing you can do about it. What we do is load up these booths and stick mountains of crap around them and keep ourselves occupied. There is an assault on the senses for any poor old voter who wants to walk in and simply do their civic duty in a democracy.
The pantomime is now writ large to the point of being silly. If that type of behaviour or material around a polling booth was ever sublime, it has now clearly and unequivocally drifted into the domain of the thunderously ridiculous.
The reason the government can easily accept this motion is that it asks a single thing of the government. I quote for honourable members the motion, as produced by the member for Nelson:
And then he makes certain suggestions.
The answer to the member for Nelson is yes, we can consider it, but we will do a lot more than just consider it. We will attend to each issue you have raised in these bullet points and then go further with other suggestions, with a bill that will sit on the table for the purposes of being a discussion draft going to the next Territory election.
Let us make polling day an exercise of the democratic principle rather than a three-ring circus which offends the sensibilities of so many average, normal citizens who simply want to come in and exercise their democratic values.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward, because it captures the mood of many people. If the member for Nelson is one thing, he is a good barometer of the public mood. I am often critical of him for other reasons, but he gets a good sense of what people are doing because he talks to them.
I enjoy a similar relationship, probably not as profound because of the time I do not have doing my street corners. But I speak to many people as well and I get a similar sense from them. If you start talking to them about their experience of the election or the electoral environment, you find their experience is generally negative. They do not like having to run the gauntlet. Few people do. You can see it in their faces and their eyes. Sometimes I even feel a little embarrassed trying to approach certain people because all they want is to put their head down, bum up, and get through it as quickly as they possibly can.
Why should it be that one of the greatest privileges we have in the modern world, the right to cast a vote, becomes a burden because people are trying to badger you as you go into the polling booth? That applies equally in Yuendumu, Ipolera, Daguragu, Yirrkala, Nhulunbuy, Casuarina and the seat of Port Darwin. It is time we look at how we conduct ourselves as parties and individuals around booths and what structures we should put in place to make, once again, the exercise of a civic duty something people embrace as a right to be protected and cherished, rather than something dreaded because of a process of badgering when you walk into the polling booth.
Madam Speaker, I fulsomely support this motion.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I will tonight say hopefully quite a few words about this motion because it is something that interests me. In many ways I will be furiously agreeing with the points contained within the motion. Also I have been listening to the member for Port Darwin and agreeing, in many respects, with what he said in his contribution.
However, by way of pre-empting what I will say tonight, I will run through a typical election day in my seat of Katherine and talk about some of the things that happened on election day, some of the concerns I have about the matters that are up for discussion and what is being proposed and asked of government to consider on polling day.
I have been around the political scene now for two elections. My first polling day came a bit out of the blue in some respects. The way my pre-selection went in Katherine in 2008 was a little unusual, insofar as I went through the normal pre-selection process for the seat of Katherine and was beaten by another candidate in the first round.
I will not going into the details of the how, when, where, why and what occurred around that, but suffice to say that a few weeks after the pre-selection process there were some changes. Ultimately I was asked by the local branch in Katherine whether I was still interested in becoming the candidate. The other candidate stood down. On a Sunday night, I recall getting a phone call to say, ‘Congratulations, Willem, you are now the pre-selected candidate for the CLP for the next election’.
That was all fine. At that point in time, we did not know when the election would be called, but it did not take long to discover when the election was to occur. The next morning I was at my property on the outskirts of Katherine at Maude Creek and received a telephone call to say, ‘Willem, we have just received notice that the election has been called and you have 19 days to campaign’. From Sunday afternoon not even pre-selected through to being advised the next morning that I had 19 days to campaign was an interesting situation I found myself in.
During the course of the campaign, albeit short, I exhausted myself with doorknocking and all manner of things in order to raise my profile. The obligatory corflutes were rushed through and printed, and any other material that needed to be printed was.
I felt at the time that 19 days was not enough for me to raise my profile, so come polling day – I do not recall the date, it might have been 25 August 2008 – I found myself feeling grateful that I had the opportunity to stand at a polling place all day on that Saturday. I moved from the main polling place at the Katherine Civic Centre to the MacFarlane Primary School and spent a bit of time there. I jostled between both, but spent most of the time at the Katherine Civic Centre.
That was an opportunity for me to meet and greet people as they came through. These were people I had not necessarily met during the course of that very short 19-day campaign. I was able to engage briefly with a number of people. I remember having brief conversations with people who asked me what I stood for and what I would do for Katherine and those types of things. Under those circumstances I found it valuable to have the opportunity to stand at a polling place on election day and continue with my campaigning, effectively. That suited me at the time.
Leaping forward four years to 2012, I did pretty much the same thing; I spent most of the day at the polling place at the Katherine Civic Centre then went to MacFarlane and back again. It was an opportunity to engage with the people of Katherine, who I was asking to vote for me. By that stage I knew a few of them. It was more of a social event for me to shake hands and say g’day to people and give out a how-to-vote form to those people.
When I read the motion and thought about some of the other things government has been considering already, which the member for Port Darwin has alluded to in his contribution, I got a bit jittery about it. I thought, polling day is a great opportunity for politicians to have that last-minute talk to people, ‘Hi, how are you going? It is nice to see you again. I hope I can count on your vote today when you walk up those stairs.’
I am supporting this, but I am in two minds about it. There is a part of me that says polling days are a fantastic final opportunity for local members to engage with the voting public. But, that said, my other experiences with polling booths are not so positive.
Again, I hark back to the 2008 and 2012 elections, the only two I have been directly involved with as a candidate. Notwithstanding that both of those occasions were excellent opportunities for me to engage with local voters, there were a large number of people who came to vote on the day who did not want to engage. You were able to quickly slip a how-to-vote form into their hands as they walked past, but they were not interested.
I got the impression they were not interested, not because they did not like me or they did not like the other candidate or candidates, but because of walking through a great throng of people, past all of these marquee tents with corflute, bunting and banners all over the side along with every manner of printed material you could think of being shoved in their faces. The member for Port Darwin used the word ‘assault’. I am sure some voters who turn out on polling day feel at least a bit affronted and perhaps even a little assaulted by some of the carry on.
For the sake of the average voter on polling day, giving consideration to these types of matters you have raised in your motion is a worthwhile pursuit. There is a part of me that says it is great opportunity for candidates, but it is not just about the candidates; it is also about the voting public. That is what elections are for. Sure, a candidate is ultimately elected to represent those people but it is the people who count, not the candidate. The people who are turning out on polling day and making the effort to ensure they receive the representation they want are the important people in this equation. Giving consideration to changing the modus operandi of political parties and candidates on polling day is worth having a darn good think about.
In a more practical sense I turn my mind back to those days leading up to and the night before polling day. It is quite well accepted that the first person or party to get their tent, marquee or whatever up the night before will get the prime position. At 6 pm on a Friday afternoon before election day, you can go to a school – I think it is 6 pm when they say you can set up – and there is almost a queue of mad party people trying to jostle for the very best position to put their marquees and their material together. I have to admit it is almost a little uncivilised. Some of the things you see at polling booths is – goodness me, fights almost break out ...
Mr Higgins: What do you mean ‘almost’?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. He said, ‘What do you mean almost?’ You are quite right, member for Daly. There are physical altercations that occur at certain places just to get that very best spot so your party can stand there and canvass for votes the next morning at the opening of the polls at 8 am. It seems rather uncivilised.
I have even found myself caught up in that, not that I ever had a physical altercation, but I recall at the last election in 2012 in Katherine at the main polling booth at the council chambers, as I mentioned before – at the previous election, we missed out on what I thought was the best spot as people walked past, where the best tent site would have been. I vowed then and there that I would be there before the Labor Party the night before to set up where I wanted my tent. I went there and cased it all out on Friday afternoon and I knew exactly where things would be.
Almost childishly, I found myself in my car at midnight – in fact it was slightly before midnight on Friday night before the last election. I was waiting with my tent, my marquee and all my other bits and pieces in the back of my car ready to race in as soon as I was able and set up. It is a bit of a funny story. The council was so keen to ensure nobody set up before midnight that they hired a security guard who put barriers across the entrance of the Katherine Town Council chambers off the Stuart Highway to make sure no one got in there before midnight. The security guard was patrolling to make sure there was no one there. I went there a bit earlier than midnight; it was probably 11 pm. I thought I might sneak in a bit early only to discover this great security system had been set up to prevent people from doing what I had intended to do.
I drove around town and around the back of the council chambers into Kalano and parked the car. I sat there and watched, and saw the security guard still there. I could see the lights from his car. So I drove back around to the front and parked my silver Prado across the road from the front entrance of the council, in the shadows underneath the trees, away from the lights. Lo and behold, I had only been parked there about 15 minutes or so and the security guard clearly saw me and came over. He walked across the road; I saw him coming. I sat there with this feeling of horrible resignation that I had been sprung, and waited for him to come up beside the car. I put the window down – I knew him – and he said, ‘What are you doing?’ I said, ‘I’m waiting for midnight, Rob, so I can set up over there’. He said, ‘Yes, that is all right. It is almost midnight so you will be able to go over shortly.’ I have to admit, I felt like a bit of a clown.
That is an example of the things individuals or the parties do and the extent to which they will go to try to get that very best position on a Friday night to prepare for Saturday morning. I got in after midnight, even though one of my competitors turned up at midnight as well, and I managed to get a good spot.
The story illustrates just how important it is for us to think hard about this motion and what it means to polling day. Not only would it take a lot of pressure off the candidates, but the parties would have some restrictions placed on them and people would not have to sneak around at midnight. On polling day it means people will not be accosted. Some feel quite affronted having all this paperwork shoved in front of their noses when, in the vast majority of cases I suspect, people already know what they will do when they get there.
As the member for Port Darwin already pointed out, the government has been considering these matters and we are looking at matters relating to polling day that go a bit further than those outlined in the motion before us tonight.
As I said earlier, a part of me is still a bit jittery because I like the people of my electorate. I relish the opportunity to catch up with them whenever I can. I spend way too much time in Darwin as a result of the ministerial work I do, and I relish every opportunity I have to get back to Katherine and engage with those very important people of my electorate. Those people placed their faith in me and elected me to represent them on two occasions, in 2008 and 2012.
Giving up that Saturday opportunity, for me, will be a bit like a five-year-old giving up their favourite toy, or having to sell your first car. It is like you are giving something away that you are close to, which you relish, enjoy and think is important. At the end of the day, I will get over it. I am sure the electors who turn up on polling day will, by and large, appreciate the fact they are able to walk into a polling place unaccosted and not have all manner of things thrown in their faces.
The reason I believe the majority of people will appreciate this is if you look at the pre-polling statistics – and I do not have the numbers in front of me. For the elections I have been involved with I have noticed that the number has increased of people who visit a polling place set up as a pre-poll in the two weeks before polling day for those who say they cannot make it on polling day ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, I am one of them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the injection from the member for Port Darwin, who said he is one of them. Port Darwin is clearly in the same boat as Katherine. That is probably because most people do not like to be affronted and accosted at the front of a polling place on a Saturday.
At least this motion raises some issues that are most worthy of some further discussion. I am happy to stand in this House and support this motion for the government to consider what changes might be necessary to make polling day a better place for those people who are important in this equation – as I said before, not the candidates or the parties, but the people, the electors, the voters of that electorate.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support this motion tonight.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, after listening to that, you definitely know the difference between an urban seat and a bush seat. I can assure you I will not miss it like I missed my toy when I was a child.
I fully support all the suggestions that made tonight, both by the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. When I attended the CPA conference a couple of years ago at Westminster it highlighted to me that in Australia sometimes we go overboard with much of this. There was an example given to us there.
There was an election 12 or 14 years ago where a fellow was pre-selected to run in one of the seats. I cannot remember which party he was running for; it was one of those times when there was a big change in the number of seats. Anyway, this fellow was elected. The party had produced a how-to-vote form for him in some way or form. He did not rock up to any of the polling booths, no one had seen him doorknocking and he had not done any doorknocking. But he won that vote.
In the UK it is a bit different to Australia or the Northern Territory. They are not provided with electorate officers; they are given an allowance. There can only be 200 in parliament at any one time and there are about 600 members.
This fellow did not bother to set up an office or publish his phone number and never rocked up to parliament. That was about three elections before I was there. I was advised he had done the same thing at every one and he had increased his majority. He had never made himself available, he did not have an office and had never been to parliament. It proves that sometimes if you did nothing you would be better off.
That is the other end of the spectrum, but it highlights the fact that sometimes we think the best, closest spot, the more bits of paper, the brighter the paper, the bigger the paper, the nicer the picture – all of that will win us votes. I do not think it does. Many Territorians would be very happy to see changes made to how the voting system in the Northern Territory is conducted.
I wanted to get that story across about how someone can do nothing and increase their majority. The fellow probably still has not been to parliament, but I hope he is still elected because it is a very good story about people who do nothing.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the previous speakers. There are some interesting things to consider when you look at the issue we are talking about.
One of the things I want to talk about is electronic polling. As technology and the ability to get onto the Internet and vote for your favourite person improves, we will see eventually that people will not go to polling places and it will all be done online. If you do not have a computer or you are not computer literate you go to the local library and someone will help and direct you as to how you can vote. Picking up on what other speakers have said, it is done in various places in the world now.
I worked on my first campaign in 1983. I was a young bloke and had just arrived in Darwin. I thought it was pretty good stuff and that I would work on a campaign. It was all fairly benign in those days. It was pretty quiet and everybody was jovial. Most people knew each other. I remember walking into Tiwi Primary School, as it was known in those days, and I was introduced to a few people. I was thinking they were all part of the team. They said they were the Labor people, but we all got along. We had barbecues at lunchtime, and everybody stood around and talked.
I do not know what happened, but along the way some people seemed to get a little too passionate, because some adversarial issues occurred at polling booths. I have not been a big participant in mobile polling. I have heard stories about it and looked at the things they do. I looked at photographs and videos, and talked to people about what happens across the Territory at mobile polling booths. As was rightly pointed out by the member for Daly, it is a different world. But when you go to work on these polling booths as a member of a party or as a volunteer, it can be quite daunting.
I can only imagine what it is like for people who are different to me when you front up. I was a police officer in 1983. Not much bothered me except 12 gauge shotguns being pointed at me. But you get used to that. I am a tall guy and was trained, so not much bothers me. But for other people in our communities who run the gauntlet at these polling booths, it can be quite intimidating. That is something I am very aware of when I talk to people who volunteer to help me.
We have a barbecue generally a week or two out so we can train people on how to deal with people who are coming into vote. You do not want to intimidate people. I do not know what other people want, but I do not want people feeling intimidated. You have to train people. A whole lot of stuff has to go on and we have heard various bits and pieces.
There is not only a financial cost but a human cost. You have to find people. We have heard about the night times. There is no set time when you can got to the polling booths to set up. There are various times; some will let you on Friday afternoon, some Saturday morning at 6 am, others when the sun comes up. You almost need counselling and mediators to make the decisions. People rush in to do things and it causes problems. I have seen people almost have stand-up fights. I have not seen a fight; I have heard about them. I have had to get between people and say, ‘Pull the reins up here, folks, this is not worth having a huge physical fight over. Everybody take a chill pill and step back for a few minutes and go back to your corners.’
These are some of the issues you have in current day polling. I remember in 1983 and 1986 or 1987, everything was fine. Things started to change a little in the 1990s and by the time the 2000s arrived, things had definitely changed. But so had the makeup of those people who were working on the booths. I know my people were local, but other people who were participating in the polling booths were from interstate. People had been flown in to work on booths and had an interstate attitude, not a Territory attitude. That caused an enormous number of problems. Various people running for electorates bring people in if they cannot get enough volunteers locally.
I remember the Blain by-election where Irish backpackers were handing out how-to-vote cards. I do not think they had any idea what they were doing. The poor girls obviously did not have much money because they could not afford many clothes. But they were handing out how-to-vote cards for candidates in that by-election. They were fine – they had a great sense of humour as the Irish do – but there were some people who were flying in from interstate who were belligerent. They were pushy and were provoking people, not only volunteers, but also voters. They would affront people and almost intimidate them.
When you see people kowtowing with their heads down, not looking at anyone, you can see they are intimidated. I agree with the member for Nelson that we need to have a good look these things and make considerations. When you have to set these booths up at night time – there are people who want to drive in star pickets and tent pegs when there are irrigation systems – you have to pay bonds because schools will not let you put in a pin. You have to take great lumps of concrete there, running around in the middle of the night. People will ask, ‘Where is your public liability?’ An issue some people and school councils do not realise is they are responsible for the people on their premises. Some do not have a full suite of public liability cover – maybe they do, maybe they do not, but I have heard in some cases they do not – for all the events and activities happening on school premises.
The government carries its own insurance on schools and students, but when you are collecting monetary gain to run an electoral booth at your school, you need to have some public liability insurance. If you do not, everyone is exposed. You are running around at 4.30 am or 5 am in the morning, as we have been required to do – if you do not, you just miss out. You have to be in it to win it and be in the game.
There are some serious issues in relation to OH&S at all these polling places. That goes not only for the urban areas but the rural and remote areas as well. People go in four-wheel drives and many people are there. We have had instances where there have been accidents. A range of things, sadly, has happened to people at polling booths. Teams of people fly around the Territory. That is a cost.
The member for Nelson was at some stage talking about – as others were – taxpayer-funded election campaigns, where you cannot get any donations. The taxpayer will say, ‘Here is what you have; go and spend it’.
These are the things that will drive us all into electronic polling. The technology is there. People start to say, ‘I do not want to go to a polling booth’ – as is indicated by the number of people going to pre-polling booths. There is a rapid rise in these numbers. In the previous council election there was about a 300% to 400% increase in people who, for some reason, could not make it to the polling place on a Saturday. I agree with the member for Katherine. There are times when people will say, ‘I do not want to run the gauntlet at the polling booth. I do not want to be intimidated by someone trying to shove material down my throat, into my pockets or into my hands.’
I train people not to do that, but there are others who relish that confrontation where they want to get their message across. They want to leap in front of everyone and shove things into people’s hands, and make a real scene of what they are doing. If that is their nature, I cannot blame people for not wanting to go. There are people who probably do not go and do not realise they can go to a pre-polling booth, or that they can do a postal vote if they cannot get there. We will make sure, in all our deliberations, that we consider these various things.
Regarding damage to property, I have been in the situation where we have to pay for damage we did not do. It becomes a very combative and competitive environment when everybody turns up to set things up, either at midnight or 4 pm, or when school finishes. It is election Olympics. When you get there, everyone has brought a tribe of people with a certain amount of gear – X marks the spot and that is where you have to go. We have had to do it because others have done it, so you have to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.
We have a whiteboard and a picture of the place from last time. You say, ‘When they let you in the gate, please stand here and you stand there. You take the tent over there. You do this and you do that.’ It might take 20 or 30 people to do that.
If people from one party get annoyed because they have missed out on the best spots, as the member for Katherine was alluding to – and sadly this happens – people might tear down what you have put up and destroy it, so then there is criminal damage and we have to call the police, who investigate. I do not know how many corflutes I have seen where the eyes are cut out and rude things drawn on them. There are numerous problems with the current system.
The government, the member for Nelson and the opposition might want to look seriously at electronic voting, even if it is only in suburban areas. If rural people want to do it – they may not so perhaps we can look at a hybrid model. We can seriously look at models from around the world so we can move from our current system with a combative environment. People can go online, look up the candidates and read about them. If you choose to, you can put your CV online to do an entire marketing campaign in people’s homes, which they can see at their leisure.
It is hard sometimes, when you front up at a polling booth. I quite enjoy the day; you get to see your mates who come to help and on Saturday night you are either celebrating or commiserating. There is always a big barbecue somewhere. It becomes a serious social event, and I like that part of it.
I do not know whether the punters enjoy the experience because more of them are going to pre-polling and not showing up. When they do come in and you ask if they would like one of your brochures, an increasing number are saying no, as they know how they will vote.
Madam Speaker, those are a few things we should consider as part of this debate. It is a good debate and I thank the member for Nelson for bringing the motion on.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will wrap up. I thank all members for giving their points of view.
The Howard Springs Volunteer Fire Brigade will not support the idea of voting from home, otherwise they will go out of business. Those days of turning up at the polling booth are very important to many of our community groups.
On a serious note, I have concerns about voting that way. I am not saying the case of what happened in Florida a couple of years ago – I think it was between George Bush and…
Mr Elferink: Not Dole. What was his name? Al Gore.
Mr WOOD: Al Gore. It might not have been a flash system but it had some problems. The other thing that will concern people is the security and things like hacking. As much as it is very simple and you might even say even primitive, putting your mark on a ballot paper is pretty hard to fiddle with, unless you have a whole pile of ballot papers stuck away in your pocket we do not know about ...
Mr Styles: That is what my mother said about a bank book.
Mr WOOD: That is right. It is worth discussing and things will improve.
The other thing I am concerned about with early voting – and I will probably write a letter to the NT Electoral Commission – is that voting for Litchfield Shire started last Monday week. I do not think early polling should be three weeks of polling. There are two sides of the coin here. The people who are standing need sufficient time to tell people they are standing and get around the shire, especially in a rural area as big as Litchfield. It is not easy to get around the whole shire.
I am not sure we want to have polling spread out for that length of time. It is meant to be that if you cannot get there on the Saturday you can vote a couple of days earlier. Having this extended period does not seem right, but that is another issue.
I thank the Chief Minister, who gave support for this when I presented this motion. The beginning of the motion asks the government to consider these changes. The Chief Minister has brought forward some concepts. I am not a great fan of optional preferential. If you cannot fill in three numbers for three names then you should go back to school. I believe to have optional preferential sometimes favours governments. It is not that hard to fill in a ballot paper. Maybe if you have 50 candidates it might be, but generally speaking we do not have those numbers of candidates, so I am not a great fan of that idea.
I raised the issue of 500 m clear of a polling booth when I first debated this in March. It can be an issue, especially if you start to cover people’s private property or the local car park at the supermarket where the guy has the sign on the back of his car. Looking at 100 m was more reasonable. Again, I am happy to have that debate. Yes, there are areas where the distance away from the polling booth is considerable.
The issue of postal votes was interesting.
With regard to not having any literature at the polling booth, if the person in charge of the polling booth was in charge of a rack where you could put standard how-to-vote cards and candidates or their supporters had nothing to do with the rack, I would not object to that so much.
We are trying to say that it has got out of hand. I enjoy going to the polling booth too, but as the member for Katherine said, it is a fight for the best position. Sometime some parties want two sites because people will enter two ways. Then it is pushy, pushy, pushy – it is rude. I do not like that. I do not like stuff shoved in my face. Most people know when they go to the polling booth who they will vote for.
Look at the Litchfield council voting now. You might not know who the person is from the point of view of what they stand for, but you would have seen their pictures by now. You would know by now which one you will push a pin in for. We have eight candidates for the mayor. It will be a very interesting preferential voting system. Once people have gone past about two, it might be pot luck who gets the preferences. We will see what happens.
The other thing that is a sad reflection on the way we operate is all the paraphernalia. There were times when parties had plastic, roll-out signs which ran along the fence for about 100 m, as if they own the fence. There is a fight for the fence. There is a fight for the spot. The poor old person in charge of the booth has to mark it exactly where you cannot step over. We should have moved on from that.
We are not the only place looking at that. There are other cities in the world and Australia where you are restricted. In The ACT you cannot have paraphernalia all over the place. Does it make a difference to them? I do not think so.
The member for Daley mentioned something about a bloke who did not turn up and was still elected. I can give you a bit of local advice: you can put a chook on a poster and it can get elected for four years running. So who cares about who the person is or what they look like? They can look as ugly as a chook, and still be elected.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Okay.
We drifted off the issue a little there but in the end, I understand where the member for Katherine is coming from. Yes, it is nice to shake hands with people but if there are 10 candidates, it can be a bit pushy about who wants to shake hands with whom. Some people push their way in to make themselves known when all the person wants to do is go from A to B. They are confronted by people of all parties who believe that by shaking your hand they have won your vote. It will probably put them off voting for you because they will think, ‘What are you? Why do you treat me like that? You have never done it before. You have never visited my house in your life but now you are very friendly on polling day.’ I see that occasionally.
The original motion, proposed a long time ago, was:
Not many people have commented on that. There was also the issue of how far you want to take advertising as that also drives people up the wall. That is an issue we also need to look at. We have the danger of people putting dishonest ads in at the last minute. The way to stop that is to say, ‘Sorry, from so many days out, there will no ads in the paper’. I have seen the last-minute shock ads: ‘Fred killed his cat, don’t vote for him!’ Fred did not, but if you can get it into Saturday morning’s paper, cat lovers will not vote for him ...
Mr Styles: Absolutely not. I would not.
Mr WOOD: That is right. However, the real story is the cat was sitting under the back wheel of his four-wheel drive when he happened to reverse out to get the milk at the local shop. Yes, he did kill the cat, but it was an accident. That is not the way the headline looked so that is why sometimes …
Mr Elferink: It was a cat-tastrophe.
Mr WOOD: I am glad we are closing the debate after that joke.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution and I appreciate the government’s support for this matter. I am interested to hear what the government is bringing forward because it will create lively debate on the future of how we run polling day.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table some travel reports from the members for Arafura, Casuarina, Johnston, Arnhem, Greatorex and Drysdale in accordance with tribunal requirements.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also table the Casuarina by-election report from October 2014.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, tonight I want to speak about public housing tenants not being good neighbours. I believe I can speak for everyone here that we strongly believe everyone should have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. For many Territorians this comes in the form of public housing administered by the Department of Housing.
Those who have been able to survive the increased exorbitant wait times for public housing dwellings find themselves in a privileged position of calling one of these dwellings home. But with this privilege comes conditions and obligations, just as renting a home in the private market has.
One of the expectations of a public housing tenant, as detailed in the Territory Housing policy documentation and guidelines, is that a tenant be a good neighbour. On the Department of Housing website under the good neighbour policy, tenants have an obligation under the terms of the lease to not cause a nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours. If the Department of Housing receives a complaint it will investigate the matter thoroughly. If the behaviour is not a breach of the tenancy agreement there are other courses of action open to the Department of Housing.
I want to make it very clear that I am not generalising public housing. I am sure that for every bad housing tenant there are numerous ideal tenants. But I can tell you there are a few Territory Housing tenants in the Johnston electorate who are not fulfilling their obligations to be a good neighbour. Sadly, there appears to be no recourse for them.
The Minister for Housing, on 2 September this year, issued a media release titled ‘Housing three strikes policy just got tougher’. People living alongside these bad public housing neighbours would be forgiven for thinking that the minister’s title was in fact true, but the new toughness was directed at them and their difficulty in getting their complaints heard for any of the three strikes registered, not a new toughness on their bad neighbours.
Some of these tenants have earned themselves impressive notoriety amongst their neighbours, the police and the frontline staff at Territory Housing, yet no action is taken, certainly not by the failing Minister for Housing. My office has received countless complaints from families living alongside or within earshot of public housing residents where antisocial behaviour such as yelling, fighting, intimidation and other acts is not indicative of a good neighbour.
These complaints have been relayed, reported and retold to the department and to the minister’s office on numerous occasions, yet night after night – in some of cases for months and years – these families and people are still subjected to the suffering that comes with living alongside these bad neighbours.
One in particular – where there is meant to be a senior’s area in Hazel Court, Coconut Grove – has now been identified as a hot spot for antisocial behaviour by the Northern Territory Police. Residents have relayed to me that a unit in Hazel Court is the hot spot with over three years of complaints. I was told there were over 170-odd complaints against this one unit. There are nightly visits by the police, groups turn up in buses with alcohol and then there is swearing, fighting, loud music all night, and sadly our senior Territorians are threatened. This is a disgrace.
Imagine how distressing it is for these senior Territorians to witness and put up with the ongoing antisocial behaviour, and being threatened, and how afraid they are feeling. This stress and anguish is taking its toll on their health, as you can imagine. One resident who has suffered sustained stress from living alongside a bad public housing neighbour was rushed to the emergency department at RDH with stress-induced symptoms which she described as feeling like a heart attack. Another family, sadly, has chosen to pack up and move to a new suburb because they were completely fed up with the ongoing problems with their public housing neighbours.
There is also a public housing unit in Moil Crescent where there are issues. I struggle to comprehend how the tenants are still there. The families within the units are fed up with the constant drinking, swearing, domestic violence, property damage and fighting and the threats to them and their families. The police are their regularly and the neighbours have had enough.
There are families taking their children to pick up a family member from a midnight flight because the children are terrified to stay home by themselves because of the out-of-control behaviour witnessed at this unit in Moil Crescent. There is a massive problem with bad neighbours and bad tenants.
Early yesterday the Minister for Housing rattled off a list of statistics she claimed prove antisocial behaviour has been reduced in public housing, and subsequently a reduction in the number of strikes being recorded against bad tenants. Many Territorians who live alongside bad public housing neighbours take no comfort from the minister’s statistics and would question their legitimacy. I suspect it is more a case of creative accounting and spin by the minister’s office, where the reduction in numbers for antisocial behaviour recorded by the Department of Housing would be a result of the neighbours of these bad tenants giving up calling the department.
I ask this question legitimately and I hope to get an answer: how many people have been evicted from public housing under the three strikes policy since the CLP came into government? I also question how many of the reports to the police by the neighbours are passed on to the department and recorded against the tenancy – an obvious flaw and disconnect in the complaints process.
Along with the current government’s flawed alcohol management policies that contribute to many antisocial behaviour complaints received by my office, this is becoming a real problem that needs a solution. I place on the record the fantastic job the police do in meeting with me and with tenants in regard to the issues I raise tonight about antisocial behaviour and bad neighbours in Hazel Court and Moil Crescent.
While I would never advocate making a person homeless, it is clear there are some tenants in public housing who are abusing their privilege of safe, secure and affordable housing provided to them by the Territory government. But under the current minister and government, these tenants are sitting pretty. Something needs to be done.
After three years of complaints about one property in Coconut Grove, they are still there. I went there to speak to the residents and witnessed a bus which arrived full of people who got out with their alcohol. The door is never closed in the unit and people go in and out. There have been accusations from neighbours that the person who stays in this unit is not there three or four months of the year. They go to Alice Springs and leave the unit open for anybody who wants to use it.
Madam Speaker, something needs to be done. It is a privilege to be in Territory public housing, not a right. I urge the Minister for Housing to do something now to protect the people doing the right thing in public housing and as citizens of the Territory. They need the minister to stand up and take some action against the people who are doing the wrong things in Territory housing and look after the people who are doing the right thing under the Tenancy Act.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House and the minister two e-mails I have received from a company called Diamond Louvres Australia, which is based in Deception Bay, Redcliffe, Queensland. The managing director is Rob Bugeja, who sent me these e-mails. I said I would raise this issue in parliament. I am not using anyone’s names, except I gained permission to use Rob’s. So if there are any other names here besides the minister’s, I will not be using them.
He said:
Mr A:
They sent me another e-mail today. The previous e-mail was dated 10 November. Today, 18 November 2015, he sent me another e-mail which said:
That was signed by Robert Bugeja. I have brought them to parliament because after reading them I believe the matter needs some response from the minister. This company has sent me a pile of information in relation to this. I do not know if all the facts are correct, but they have been brought to my attention by a company that has been operating in the Territory for quite some time and feels there has been a problem as the use of its product has been excluded.
I hope the minister will take this up as a matter of urgency. I am happy to give all the information I have here and I hope she investigates whether the issue Rob Bugeja has addressed is true, and that there is an independent assessment of what I have put to parliament. I hope the minister will give us a response as soon as possible because this sounds like a company that believes it has not received proper and fair treatment in relation to using products in houses the government is building in the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I commemorate the life of Bunny Nabarula – RIP – 6 June 1930 to 25 September 2015.
Nabarula’s formative years, set in the shadow of the 1928 Coniston massacre, saw her family traversing ancestral land among drovers, mining prospectors, Overland Telegraph Station workers, police and outlaws.
In 1942 Darwin was bombed by the Japanese, with many Aboriginal people relocated to ‘control camps’ and restrictions placed on travel.
In 1945 Aboriginal people on Lord Vestey’s Northern Territory cattle station received rations, inadequate housing, no running water or sanitation and were paid less than five shillings a day.
Nabarula was born in this historical context, in 1930, at a soakage on the Gosse River east of Tennant Creek into an Aboriginal clan walking on country, living their traditional ceremonies and law.
In 1945 Nabarula’s people were moved to Phillip Creek Mission where Nabarula attended school and learnt domestic duties. However, in 1956 the mission was relocated to Warrabri Aboriginal Reserve.
In 1957 Nabarula ignored Commonwealth law, leaving Warrabri to return to station life, a 300 km journey undertaken on foot carrying a baby to Banka Banka and then Muckaty Station.
I met Nabarula in 1980, the year my mother died. I was teaching at Kargaru School in a transitional unit for Aboriginal students, many attending their first mainstream education. Nabarula was a parent visiting the class and after witnessing a chaotic series of lessons before recess, uttered the most profound words, ‘You look like you need some help’, adopting me as her son.
Nabarula campaigned against Australia’s nuclear waste facility on Warlmanpa land, defining leadership and activism. However, those who truly knew Nabarula witnessed a formidable advisory for social justice, human rights, Aboriginal land rights and reconciliation all her life.
Nabarula’s Warrabri walk-off in 1957 represented an action protesting relocation of Aboriginal people and restriction of nomadic movement. Nabarula chose station life over an Aboriginal reserve for connection to country and ceremonies. Nabarula’s move to Tennant Creek – an economic powerhouse for seven operating mines – provided a platform among influential people supporting her active community work for land rights, language and culture, child protection, health and education.
The themed float ‘Warumunga People 1930’ launched in the 1980 Tennant Creek Gold Rush Festival parade marked Nabarula’s visionary presence, emphasising Aboriginal traditional owners to 5000 European locals.
Behind the scenes, Nabarula practiced traditional culture and law, bridging two worlds in health and education and once supported a witch doctor visiting an old Aboriginal man hospitalised in Tennant Creek with health staff approval.
Nabarula was a beautiful soul, fostering children all her life, supporting the vulnerable, champion of Aboriginal languages and culture, loved by everyone and leaving a legacy of cross-cultural community service and survival on the last frontier. Nabarula gave so much but asked for so little.
Nabarula’s funeral took place in the Tennant Creek Town Hall. It drew a crowd in excess of 300 people who came from all over Australia. Many community people organised what was our little state funeral. It was a brilliant, solemn event and the speeches were endless from some very influential people from varying walks of life from all over the continent. Nabarula’s family was very proud of that day, and to witness and listen to the stories of her life from quite a diverse crowd that had come to commemorate her life and times.
Nabarula was truly an activist, noted very much for her leadership in the campaign of what would be Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste facility, on Warlmanpa land. However, it was important to retrace her steps and define her activism in her total life, from very early days through to her fine 85 years. Nabarula had lots of stories; I told many.
I was very privileged to be adopted by this old woman, because as a young teacher starting out in the Northern Territory, she guided my teaching practice and understanding of the diversity within the classrooms I chose to work in.
One of her first lessons was teaching me about home visits. I knew home visiting was a good methodology for parental engagement. I practiced it in Walgett in northwestern New South Wales. But in Tennant Creek in 1980, traversing the fringe camps located around the town, sitting down with families that were literally living behind corrugated iron, bow sheds and vegetation thrown over small shrubs, was quite an eye-opening experience. Looking back, I understood that was very much the first real point of engagement that put me ahead of the game.
Nabarula was fascinated with European society. She learnt about it and she understood Europeans very well.
She also had a visionary approach to supporting people. Someone who understands Aboriginal kinship and the cultural traditions and responsibilities will understand that as her son, I definitely did my fair share of supporting Nabarula and her extended family over the years.
One of the stories I told was about crowbars. She always humbugged me about crowbars, and was always on the hunt for good metal that would be good for shaping and fashioning crowbars. Every time I completed the assignment, the next time I saw Nabarula she would put in an order for more. Being a whitefella I got a little disgruntled at this continual pressure.
I was delighted that Nabarula had enrolled herself in a welding course with the old Northern Territory Open College of Education. At the welding course she discovered two older gentlemen in Tennant Creek who took her under their wing. She discovered the resources of the Northern Territory Open College workshop. I asked my mum, when she finished the course, how much she learnt about welding and she told me not much, but she had a cache of great crowbars. I remember counting at least eight brilliant crowbars which were very well designed.
A month later I was back in town and, sure enough, I got the order again because the crowbars were all gone. It took me a while to work out what was happening. Nabarula gave the crowbars away because it was something to get women out of town, back on country, taking children hunting, speaking in their language in their environment and teaching the children. It was one of many examples of Nabarula’s true vision.
The 1980 Gold Rush Festival parade was another one where she seconded me to organise that for her. Stepping out in a community of 5500 people, including miners, meatworkers and non-Indigenous people, was a challenge. But I am glad I took it up and went through with it. We ended up with a truck as a float. She had her sign saying Warumungu People 1930. She presented those people in a community of 5500 people and was very proud to do it. As a young teacher it was a great experience for me logistically, socially and culturally to pull that together.
There were many more stories told. She is greatly missed in Tennant Creek. Nabarula, in the Muckaty campaign, blocked the Stuart Highway when told by one of the activists that was the best way to do business. She was rescued by friends and countrymen, and brought back to the footpath. It is a great story, told often. Nabarula blocked a national highway again upon her funeral, when we escorted her to the Tennant Creek cemetery. Nabarula will be sorely missed and may she rest in peace.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Barkly reminded me of my younger sister who the member Namatjira spoke about, who has worked in the back blocks of Docker River. There are three key things the women carried with them: one was a crowbar, one was a hub cap and one was a bottle of water. You could hunt with the crow bar, cook on the hub cap and you had your water to drink. I know exactly what you are talking about with the old lady.
This evening I pay tribute and talk about some of the exploits of people in my electorate, young and not so young. The first is a young girl who became a barrel racer interstate, and her name is Georga Hollingsworth. She is 12 years old and qualified for the national rodeo finals in Dalby, Queensland. Qualifying for the finals, she says, was a big achievement for her and she dreams of competing in the barrel race in America one day. I am sure she will get there.
Georga is a fourth generation rodeo competitor. Her great-grandfather was an Australian Champion, her grandfather was all-round NT champion, and her mother competed all over the Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. Georga says she loves barrel racing because she loves to go fast, particularly around corners. She was so happy when she was selected to represent the Territory at Dalby in a sport she loves.
Her horse is called Homebrew and she said, ‘He is amazing; he is the most loyal and loving horse. He may be small, but he has a huge heart and loves to barrel race as much as I do. Homebrew is the foal of my mum’s horse she used to compete on.’ Homebrew is 17 years old, which in horse age is not that old and probably just run in.
She was after sponsors and fundraising, in which I was happy to help her and her mum, Cody. These people who go off on these expeditions with horses, children and dogs are very brave indeed. It is sponsored by the Northern Territory Cowboys Association. It was the junior barrel event in late October in Dalby. While she did not get the number one ticket, she performed exceptionally well, given that not many young people go from the Territory to these amazing events. It would have been an adventure of a lifetime, taking two horses, two dogs, children and one adult all the way to Dalby and back again.
So well done, Georga, your mum Cody, and to grandma Sue, who has the plants at the Coolalinga Markets – a lovely family. I wish her well and I am sure she will go on to much more barrel racing, if not in Australia in America one day, as that is her dream.
I also pay compliments to those wonderful people at Smile-a-Mile. You know them, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Recently in October the Minister for Education announced the Education Care and Excellence Awards. Smile-a-Mile Fun Bus and Toy Library picked up an award for outstanding education care services in budget-based funded services. A big congratulations to it. It provides a huge service to the greater rural area as far down as Dundee and out to Adelaide River and Pine Creek.
Smile-a-Mile Fun Bus and Toy Library was established in 1987 so it has been around for quite a while. It is funded by the NT government to meet the needs of local and rural communities. Although government funded, it also gets some private sponsorship. It was at Humpty Doo but has moved to its permanent site, which is near Freds Pass Reserve Police Station. It became an incorporated group in the 1990s. It provides all manner of services which I know people are familiar with. Not only does it have a toy library, but you can hire out the toys for birthday parties. There is the Fun Bus, which goes, as I said, as far down as Adelaide River, Acacia/Larrakia, Batchelor, Cox Peninsula, Daly River – for the member for Daly – Douglas Daly and the Territory Wildlife Park.
People subscribe to it. I was talking to some mothers at the Humpty Doo shops last week with little girls about five or thereabouts. They said Smile-a-Mile toy bus coming and going to them was a lifesaver for their children.
During Children’s Week, which I think was about three weeks ago, Smile-a-Mile organised a children’s week activity at the Humpty Doo Village Green, which was amazing. It organised all manner of things, not only that it is associated with, but it had the fire people and other people there with activities, face painting, jumping castles – things that young children enjoy. By its counting, there were about 412 children who had come from preschool and Transition from all the rural schools, plus there were about another 200 people who came – parents and grandparents of little tackers – to enjoy a lovely day.
I went to help with Trish from my electorate office. I had never seen 400 icy poles disappear as quickly as I did that day – hugely popular. We have to get double for next time because many of the adults wanted to get icy poles as well.
To Jacinta and her team, congratulations, you run a great show. I know you are well loved and well supported by the community. To all the other Smile-a-Mile people – Lenore Dawes, Viki Ross, Lynley Wilson-Nichols, Carmel Coutts and Toni-Anne Thorpe-Roots – congratulations, well done, not only for Children’s Week but what you do generally and the services you provide to the rural area for all the young children and young families. Thank you, well done.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENTS BY SPEAKER
Seventh Commonwealth Youth Parliament
Seventh Commonwealth Youth Parliament
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, from 1 to 5 November the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory hosted the seventh Commonwealth Youth Parliament. Over 50 young people from 32 Commonwealth jurisdictions around the world had the opportunity to interact and exchange ideas on issues of concern to the youth of the Commonwealth. They were mentored by six sitting members of parliaments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Turk and Caicos Islands, New South Wales, Tasmania and of course the Northern Territory, which was ably represented by the member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss. Thank you very much, Lauren, for your time; it was greatly appreciated.
Delegates experienced life in the parliamentary spotlight and at the same time showed how the next generation would approach parliamentary politics. Their agenda included Question Time, a committee hearing and debates on bills and motions.
Some of my highlights from the debates were: Mr Oliver Wilson from the ACT raised a point of order regarding Standing Order 63, offensive and disorderly words. When I asked him what word he found offensive he replied that he ‘found the whole conduct of the other side this morning offensive and unruly’. I duly noted that this was not a point of order.
Ms Jacinta Slater from the Northern Territory told the Chamber, ‘that watching those people opposite is like watching a dog play the piano – hopeless, useless and completely out of tune’. Interestingly, no one found that offensive.
I enjoyed also when Mr Tommy Gilchrist, from the United Kingdom, pointed out during Question Time that there were strangers on the floor, referring to the mentors. It was the first time as Speaker I have had to rule on Standing Order 249.
The seventh Commonwealth Youth Parliament passed the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill 2015 with amendments. Transcripts of debates, Question Time and the public hearing of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill Scrutiny Committee, along with the bill, are on the Assembly’s website.
Thank you to all departmental staff who helped with that, particularly Ben Harris and, again, Lauren Moss, who was very good with all the young people.
Inaugural Build-Up Ball
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the inaugural Build-Up Ball was held at Parliament House on Saturday 19 September 2015. The ball was generously sponsored by SilkAir and a number of other corporate entities and filled to capacity with 230 people, and tickets sold out two weeks before the event. It was a charity fundraiser event which included an online auction, which ultimately raised in excess of $20 000. That money has been distributed to the charities selected by a subcommittee earlier in the year of which I am not part of. The money went to HBA Incorporated, the NT AIDS and Hepatitis Council, the Top End Women’s Legal Service and Variety NT.
I thank the honourable members who attended the ball, the members for Brennan, Sanderson, Fannie Bay, Johnston, Karama and Nightcliff, and the member for Stuart who bought a table of 10 but was unable to attend in person.
I acknowledge and thank all sponsors of the ball and the auction. They are too numerous to mention here but without them we would not have been able to support the Northern Territory charities. I thank also Senator Nigel Scullion and the member for Fannie Bay, both of whom offered themselves for auction.
There is a Build-Up Ball website, which includes a photo gallery, and I invite members to have a look at it.
The committee, comprising members of the press gallery and me as Speaker, has met and decided it was a great success and we will do it again next year. I advise honourable members that the date for the 2016 Build-Up Ball is Saturday 5 November 2016 and I advise you to put it in your diary.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Australia and Pacific
Regional Conference 2015
Regional Conference 2015
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as mentioned yesterday briefly the 2015 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Australia and Pacific Regional Conference will be held in this Chamber next week. We have over 40 delegates attending representing most Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand, Kiribati, Niue, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Nauru, Bougainville, Tuvalu in the Pacific and observers from India.
The theme of the conference is vulnerability, and I am delighted that the conference program will include papers from the members for Barkly, Nelson and me.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) LEGISLATION
(Serial 141)
(Serial 141)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act and Regulations to provide a resettlement allowance to members of the Assembly when they retire – whether this be at a time of their choosing or due to not being re-elected – to assist in the transition from political life to private life.
This bill flows from a recommendation made by the Remuneration Tribunal in its 2015 Report on Salaries and Other Entitlements of Assembly Members. In its report the tribunal noted that the existing resettlement allowance only applied where a member loses the endorsement of their political party or where they are defeated at the election. The tribunal went on to say there could often be very good reasons for a member’s retirement, such as poor health, and recommended the benefit be extended to include voluntary retirement.
The government accepts this recommendation, noting that such an entitlement acknowledges parliamentarians, unlike members of many other professions, do not have the benefit of accrued leave or redundancy payments to fall back on when they move on from life as an elected member.
The bill provides as follows:
Only a member who was elected at or after the 2005 Northern Territory general election and who is not immediately, after ceasing to be a member, entitled to receive payment of a pension or superannuation benefit related to their office as an MLA, is eligible for the resettlement allowance.
A member is not entitled to the allowance should they retire from their existing seat to stand for another seat in the Legislative Assembly or in any other Australian parliament should they be successful in being elected to that seat.
An amendment is also being made to section 5 of the act which permits the minister to make an interim determination in order to fill in a gap or omission in the tribunal’s determination. Following a review, it is proposed to amend the section 5 power so the minister may make an interim determination in respect of office holder salaries, in addition to non-salary entitlements, on the basis these are the categories of entitlements where there is more likely to be a need for an interim determination.
I will propose this legislation be debated in the December sittings. The reason is that once the bill is passed and receives assent it will be necessary for the Remuneration Tribunal to undertake an inquiry, provide a report and make a determination. The tribunal determination will then need to be tabled in this Assembly and will be the subject of the usual 10 parliamentary sitting day disallowance period before it may take effect. In order for these steps to be concluded during this term, it will be necessary for the tribunal to provide its report by February 2016 sittings.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I thank the Remuneration Tribunal for its recommendation in relation to the resettlement allowance and I table the explanatory statement for the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through All Stages
Pass Bill through All Stages
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 141) passing through all stages during the December sittings.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion before the House, there is a golden rule that runs through all Westminster parliaments that we do not rush legislation. Legislation is the basis for our society and rushed legislation leads to errors. The most important thing we do in this House is pass or reject legislation.
For those listening and for the Hansard record the first time we saw this bill was this morning. We had a briefing …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Given that the opposition will oppose this I seek leave to withdraw that motion.
Leave granted.
Motion withdrawn.
EDUCATION BILL
(Serial 142)
(Serial 142)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to enact a new Education Act that reflects contemporary educational practices and supports a flexible system that can deal with current and future issues affecting school education in the Northern Territory.
This bill supports the implementation of new government policy such as independent public schools, and will make significant updates in important matters such as expanding the opportunities for parent and community involvement in schools, and supporting contemporary practices for students with a disability, and will broaden options for principals managing student wellbeing and behaviour.
The Education Act has been in force for over 35 years without major amendment or review. It uses outdated and inappropriate language and contains significant structural omissions. The act fails to accurately reflect contemporary society or educational practice. It lacks the flexibility to meet the complex needs of NT consumers or the education sector and lacks the breadth to allow for changing priorities. In particular, the act contains significant structural omissions in the areas of disability, special needs and inclusion, vocational education and training, and flexible models of school governance and operations.
It is a primary responsibility of government to provide education for Territorians and to regulate educational service delivery. School education is far more complex now than when the act commenced; however, most of the act remains unchanged. This sometimes makes it difficult to implement contemporary and innovative strategies and delivery models. The act is in need of comprehensive reform so that it reflects contemporary society and educational practice, and is responsive to current and future needs.
Reforming the act presents an opportunity to establish a strong legislative basis for transformational changes to education in the Territory to meet the changing needs of young Territorians into the future and to ensure there is sufficient flexibility to accommodate the current range of contexts and diversity in the Northern Territory.
Reform of the Education Act began in February last year with the release of a discussion paper which set out a number of potential reform options. This was followed by a significant period of targeted and public stakeholder consultation. During that first phase of consultation, 42 consultation workshops were held across the Territory and 45 written submissions were received at the end of that two-and-a-half month consultation period.
The initial draft Education Bill was informed by the feedback from that first phase of consultation with stakeholders, as well as research conducted into best practice models and initiatives across Australia. The draft Education Bill was publicly released earlier this year. Another 16-week period of consultation with stakeholders followed during which feedback was sought on the bill. Feedback from the second phase of consultation has been incorporated into the final bill. I now present the bill for passage through this House to become the new Education Act for the Northern Territory.
There are a number of proposed changes I bring to your attention. The Northern Territory Board of Studies is an advisory board and its current membership model is representative of a number of stakeholder groups. There are 16 members on the board and it has been challenging to maintain an effective NT Board of Studies in the Territory, particularly as it is a small jurisdiction.
The NT Board of Studies has no formal regulatory function, particularly as the SACE Board is contracted to provide services in relation to secondary school qualifications. Boards in other states and the ACT have a formal regulatory function, as well as an advisory policy role. Many jurisdictions have combined the functions of a board of studies with other regulatory functions such as teacher accreditation and non-government school registration. The core function of the Northern Territory Board of Studies is to provide advice to the minister on curriculum policy. This bill amends the model of the board to become a smaller, mixed-membership board which retains key stakeholder representatives but includes expert members in a range of fields.
The new board will consist of 11 members, one departmental representative, six expert members and four stakeholder representatives. Two of the expert members are nominated by the NT Catholic Education Office and the Association of Independent Public Schools of the NT, and this will maintain the cooperative arrangements between the school sectors. The other four experts are members nominated by the Minister for Education. Between them, the expert members must have expertise in a range of relevant educational fields, which will be specified in the Education Regulations, but include: early childhood education and care; primary education; secondary education; special learning needs; Indigenous education; vocational education and training in schools; distance and online education; and international education.
The four stakeholder representatives will be: one member who is the parent of a child who attends a school, who represents the interests of parents of children attending Northern Territory schools; one member who is a practising teacher who represents the interests of teachers; one member who represents the interests of Indigenous people; and one member who represents the interests of employers. This model will ensure the provision of quality advice to the minister, which includes input from a range of key stakeholders and experts.
There are currently 81 students across the Territory being home educated. Currently the Education Act requires parents to apply to the Chief Executive of the Department of Education to provide home education. However, no particular curriculum is mandated, meaning there is no set standard of quality.
The bill mandates that the curriculum used by home educators is one that is approved by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA. This will ensure all children and young people in the Territory have access to a high-quality education. However, it is acknowledged that in some circumstances there are curricula which have not been approved by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority but which are popular with families, particularly those who are home educating on religious beliefs or families who are home schooling a child with a disability and using a blended curriculum. To accommodate such circumstances, the Chief Executive of the Department of Education may grant an exemption to this requirement where appropriate. Home educators will also be required to inform the Department of Education when a child stops home education, which will ensure all children of compulsory school age are receiving an education.
The current Education Act uses outdated terminology that is inconsistent with current policy and practice, such as the term ‘handicapped’. The bill corrects this with the use of the term ‘disability’ as the correct, current terminology, aligning the act with local and national policy. In addition, a definition of ‘disability’ has been inserted into the bill which refers to the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act. This means that any changes to the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act will automatically reflect the new Education Act definition without any need for amendment. This is a widely understood and consistent definition, and is already used in Department of Education policy.
The bill also streamlines the process for parents or principals of children with disabilities or special needs to apply to the Chief Executive of the Department of Education for special arrangements where children need additional assistance, whereas it is currently the Minister for Education. An example of a special arrangement might be where a building modification is required.
The appeal process in relation to special arrangements is also streamlined. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal can review decisions rather than the Supreme Court, which is a less complex process for families.
School teaching and learning methods and facilities are focused on providing education for school-aged children and young people. However, the bill recognises that there may be reasons why students who are 18 years of age or older may need to attend school. For the first time we are providing schools with guidance in relation to mature-aged students.
Where it is appropriate for a person who is over 18 to apply to enrol at a school, and who has not been enrolled in a school for more than 12 months, they must pass a criminal history check before they can enrol. This means that if a disqualifying offence appears in the criminal history check prospective students cannot enrol in a school in the Territory. What is meant by ‘disqualifying offence’ will be detailed in the Education Regulations. However, the offences will be similar to those of significance for a Working with Children clearance, including, sexual, violent and drug-related offences involving children. This is an important safety check which does not exist in the current act. This does not apply to continuing students who turn 18 while they are studying. It does, however, apply to both government and non-government schools.
The bill confirms that government education is free. All children and young people are entitled to a free quality education that is capable of enabling them to reach their potential and so maximise their achievements and contribution to the community.
The bill also provides a legislative basis to the current practice where schools council request voluntary contributions or charge fees for optional extra items such as extra-curricular programs or activities that are offered in addition to the standard curriculum program. Parents can choose whether their child accesses or participates in courses that require optional extra items. The bill also provides for fees to be waived on the grounds of economic hardship or special circumstances.
Policy currently ensures that children within the local area of a school area are able to attend that school. When a school is nearing capacity, local students have priority for enrolment. However, there is nothing in the legislation about this. The bill includes guidance on enrolment policy as a tool to help principals manage enrolments fairly and with transparency. When a school is nearing capacity, principals will be required to prepare a school enrolment management plan which will be approved by the Chief Executive. The plan will provide direction for decisions the principal makes about the priority enrolments of students.
The current Education Act says that children must attend school while they are of compulsory school age but it does not describe when a student’s school journey should finish. This results in a lack of clarity around the start and end points of schooling. The bill establishes a set allocation for each child in the Territory of 26 semesters – that is 13 years of schooling – and that will see a child through from Transition up until the end of Year 12.
The bill also proposes that where appropriate additional time at school can be accessed by applying to the Chief Executive of the Department of Education. Processes already exist for these circumstances, for example, students at special schools or students studying the NTCET over a number of years. However, these processes are not uniform and lack a solid policy or legislative basis. The primary utility of the scheme is to provide structure, consistency and transparency for decisions made about those students who need additional time at school.
The application process will be simple and will be managed at the school level. Schools will assist students and their families should additional time be required at school beyond the 13 years they will have already received. Should any decision be made not to grant a request for additional time, students or their parents will be able to apply to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is an independent tribunal, to review that decision.
It is a priority to ensure our schools are safe, supportive and respectful teaching and learning communities that promote student wellbeing. The current Education Act allows for suspension and expulsion, but does not provide any guidance for teachers and principals on behaviour management.
The bill sets out a range of measures to allow schools to better manage student behaviour. First, it identifies a range of factors that principals must have regard to when making decisions about behaviour. This includes things like the age of the student, the student’s home environment, any special needs and relevant religious or cultural considerations.
The bill also gives the Chief Executive Officer a specific power to issue guidelines about the management of behaviour of students in government schools. This will ensure consistency and transparency across schools. The bill also allows the Chief Executive Officer to attach reasonable conditions to the enrolment of a child for behaviour management processes. An example of this is where a student must participate in a behaviour management program to attend a particular school.
The bill also includes a new safety measure by allowing students who have been charged with a serious criminal offence to be temporarily excluded from school until the charge is dealt with by a court. This would only occur when the continued presence of the student poses an unacceptable risk to the staff or students of that school. Should a student be excluded, reasonable steps must be taken to allow the student to continue their education while they are excluded. The Chief Executive Officer’s decision to exclude a student is reviewable by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
There is currently no express power to close or amalgamate schools where it is considered appropriate. The present process to close or amalgamate a school is done administratively, but there is no requirement for community consultation before the closure or amalgamation takes place. The bill protects and respects community interests by enshrining the requirement for community consultation to occur before a decision is made regarding a school’s future. The consultation must include principals, school staff, students and their parents, and other representative bodies of those persons.
The bill recognises the importance of parent and community involvement in government schools and will provide greater flexibility in school governance models to meet individual community needs. First, the bill requires principals to take reasonable steps each year to establish a school representative body. A school representative body can be a school council, an independent public school board or joint school representative body, depending on the needs or type of school. Where it is not possible to establish a school representative body, a school can set up a parent consultative group to have an advisory role, but with no formal functions.
While the current act strictly prescribes who may be a member of a school council, the bill allows for more flexibility in membership but retains the important component of parent representatives. The membership for a school representative body will be detailed in the new Education Regulations, with the intention to free up membership provisions to allow more external members depending on the needs of the representative body. However, all school representative bodies must have at least 50% parent representation.
There will be an exception to this rule for the boards of independent public schools. Parental involvement should be first and foremost; however, in circumstances where parents cannot be engaged to be part of an independent public school board, or where it is appropriate to vary the membership, an independent public school may apply to the Minister for Education to vary the composition of their board based on their needs. However, any application will have to demonstrate how parent and community views will be represented on the board.
In the current Education Act both the regulatory and administrative functions relating to non-government schools are the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department of Education. In other larger jurisdictions these functions are separated, with separate statutory bodies to regulate non-government schools, for example, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. However, this will be costly to implement in the Northern Territory at this time given the small size of our jurisdiction. For comparative purposes, in New South Wales there are over one million students and around a third of those attend non-government schools. In the Northern Territory there are just over 41 000 students and around 11 300 of those students attend non-government schools.
The bill instead separates the regulatory and administrative functions by changing the regulatory authority for non-government schools from the Chief Executive of the Department of Education to a registrar who will be appointed by and report to the Minister for Education. This creates a level of independence for the regulation of non-government schools.
However, the bill states that a review of this section will occur in five years’ time when consideration can be given to whether the Territory should move to an independent regulatory body.
There are many other notable amendments in this bill including: the express prohibition of corporal punishment; providing a legislative basis for contemporary elements such as vocational education and training; providing a legislative basis for international students; and including powers to enable the Northern Territory to enter into partnerships to provide education services overseas.
Finally, there are some consequential amendments proposed in the bill along with some minor amendments of the kind normally dealt with in statute law revision legislation. These amendments modernise the language used but do not affect existing policy or legal effect of the provisions so amended.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill Through all Stages
Pass Bill Through all Stages
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Education Bill 2015 (Serial 142) passing through all stages during the December sittings.
I am moving that we suspend so much of standing orders to enable passage of the Education Bill before the end of 2015 because I believe the new Education Act must commence on 1 January 2016 to ensure the many important reforms are in place for the beginning of the school year in 2016.
First, it is important to note that we have consulted extensively on the provisions of the Education Bill 2015. The Education Bill is the culmination of two extensive public consultation processes. The first consultation period, from February 2014, was on a publicly-released discussion paper which set out a number of possible reform options for consideration drawn from best practice around the country and the world. It also gave the community the opportunity to put forward its ideas for a contemporary education system for the Northern Territory. During that consultation period, 42 consultation workshops and briefings with stakeholders were held across the Northern Territory. The first of those briefed was the Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations, COGSO, an organisation which has been continually involved and consulted throughout the reform process.
The second consultation period, a further 16 weeks of consultation, allowed stakeholders and community members to comment on the draft of the Education Bill as it was shaped by the results of the first consultation. The draft bill has been available for scrutiny by the community since it was publicly released on 4 June 2015. Public forums have been held by the Department of Education in every region across the Territory and many key stakeholders were directly briefed, including members opposite.
Also, the Department of Education attended all COGSO forums to hear directly the views of parents and school community members. Overall, more than 40 stakeholder groups were engaged during the 16-week consultation process on the draft bill. In addition, to further assist the public feedback process and ensure complete visibility of all the legislative changes, key stakeholders, including COGSO and all school councils, were provided with the drafting instructions for the subordinate regulations, with a three-week opportunity to provide feedback.
While I had intended to introduce the Education Bill 2015 in the September 2015 sittings of the Legislative Assembly to allow time for normal passage of the bill, this was not possible. The community and members opposite asked for more time and public consultation. COGSO, the unions, the general public and school councils asked for more community consultation, so we granted an extension, recognising the importance of the legislation. Parents, students, teachers and community members have had a great deal of input and an opportunity over the past 20 months to contribute to drafting a new Education Act. Another year before commencing the new act is too long to wait, and I thank everybody for the time and effort they have put into this massive job.
I am moving that this bill be passed on urgency so that it is in place for the beginning of the 2016 school year because schools operate on calendar years.
Associated with the legislative changes is an intensive review and rewrite of policies and procedures for schools. It would be unmanageable to start those mid-year, that is, having different rules and processes within the same calendar year. We need to avoid putting unnecessary pressure on our schools by introducing new administrative requirements mid-year and mid-budget. A calendar year start will allow principals and administrators to prepare themselves and become familiar with the changes and the new administrative arrangements in time for the 2016 school year start. For families and students it is much easier to start a year knowing what the year involves and that there will not be any changes to requirements halfway through.
The current act is well behind current practice, and teachers and students deserve to be supported by a current and contemporary Education Act. They deserve the certainty of knowing that the underlying legal principles of the legislation give authority to their daily practice.
Government is now faced with commencing the new legislation on 1 January 2016 or 1 January 2017. There are many provisions within the legislation which are preferable to commence at the beginning of a school year. For example, the broadening of the definition of attendance at school to include contemporary education elements, such as vocational education and training, requires some changes in data collection so it needs to occur at the beginning of a statistical period, that is, the beginning of the year, so the like data can be collected.
If school representative bodies are to be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the new provisions, particularly around changing the composition of their members, that needs to occur at an annual general meeting, which is always held at the beginning of a school year. In addition, the terms of school council members are measured by calendar years. The mandated requirement for home educators to use an ACARA-approved curriculum only applies to new applications which are approved before the start of the school year.
The 26 semesters scheme is intended to apply from when a child first enrols in Transition, and students and families need to be able to count their time at school in calendar years. This will make it much more straightforward and sensible for students and parents to be clear about, and keep track of, their allocation. Starting the scheme at the beginning of a calendar year would reduce the administrative burden on schools by allowing the majority of students to have their entitlement commence at the beginning of the calendar year. The priority enrolment provisions should be applied from the beginning of a school year so parents have certainty that their child will be able to enrol at their local school.
Creating a registrar for non-government schools also needs to commence at the beginning of a school year to give clarity and certainty for non-government schools. Other provisions should be applied as soon as possible, including criminal history checks for mature-aged students; new behaviour management provisions, including the ability to put conditions on the enrolment of a child for behaviour management purposes; the ability to exclude a student charged with a serious criminal offence; the requirement for parents to tell the Department of Education if their child is no longer being home schooled; and the requirement for parents to tell the Department of Education if their child aged between 15 and 17 is no longer participating in an eligible option of employment or training and needs to be enrolled in school.
This is a journey that we have been on for 20 months, and families, schools, principals and the non-government sector are excited about the commencement of the new legislation. Education is the key to ensuring that the Territory’s children and young people have every opportunity to reach their potential so they can succeed, achieve their aspirations and contribute to the economy and their community. This new Education Act will provide the foundation for a contemporary and flexible school education system now and into the future, enabling Northern Territory children to reach their greatest potential and become confident and capable global citizens. It cannot wait another year.
We are asking for this to be passed on urgency in the December sittings due to the fact we listened to the community and consulted further for a longer period of time. Secondly, education is an area that whilst from time to time will have a difference of philosophy and view in the approaches we take, we all agree that an act that is 35 years’ old is well overdue for replacement. Many changes were suggested originally which, after consultation, we introduced, such as – which I did not think would be contentious – moving the compulsory school age from six to five. In the Northern Territory 97% of parents and carers already send their children to school at the age of five so we thought it would be a logical move to bring it into the act. That was probably a major area of concern, so rather than push through with that we decided to keep the compulsory age of six as it is.
Throughout this process of two rounds of consultation and many briefings across the Northern Territory over 20 months, we can clearly demonstrate we have listened to the community. We introduced the changes, but like all legislation we will not get everything right. However, this is a solid foundation for the start of an act that, from time to time if it needs tweaking, can be tweaked.
Madam Speaker, I commend not only the bill to the House, but also the motion to suspend standing orders to pass the bill on urgency in the December sittings.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, the opposition will not be supporting the motion to pass the most significant legislative work for the Territory education system on urgency. This is based on very strong feedback from key and critical education stakeholders.
Allowing the government to pass the Education Act on urgency will mean that Territorians have just over a week in work days to give proper consideration to an extensive modernisation of the Education Act. To put it in context, this is the biggest amendment to an act which is the same age as I am. It has been in place for 36 years. This is an opportunity to get legislation that is once-in-a-generation work right from the start.
There are 116 pages in the Education Act the minister has just introduced into this parliament. One would think that given the size, scope and impact of this bill, allowing time for proper consultation and consideration would ensure the very best outcomes for this bill and the amendments being proposed. Instead, this government is trying to get this through in a very quick time; it is just over a week. It is trying to ram through amendments to this 36-year-old bill from introduction to passage in a very short period of time in what is the busiest time of the school year. We are currently in Week 7 of Term 4. As all members will attest, it is one of the busiest times for education professionals in our schools.
If the government was to follow proper process, it would allow for a minimum of one month between introduction and passage of the bill. However, this will mean the bill will be debated between 9 and 11 February, therefore would not be in place for the start of the 2016 school year.
I understand the minister is trying to get a clean cut start to the 2016 school year by doing this. I get that is what he is trying to achieve and it would make implementation neater. However, I thoroughly believe it would be more sensible and there would be a better long-term gain in this process by allowing time for proper consultation, scrutiny and feedback to ensure we get the best possible Education Act.
I feel that would entail passage after one month from introduction, not a rush job, which is what the government is currently proposing. I have greatly appreciated the professionalism of the Education minister’s staffers and Mr Ken Davies from the Department of Education in being so open, helpful and approachable with all the briefings and offers of information about this bill from the very start. The minister has accommodated every request from the opposition for a briefing. I have no doubt – and by his actions have seen – he wants the very best informed debate in the community about the Education Act. I commend the minister for that.
As I said, I am very grateful to the minister and the Department of Education for how open they have been in their consultations with me, as the shadow Education minister, and my Caucus colleagues with regard to the Education Bill. You should be commended for it. I also appreciate that I was provided with a briefing for this bill last Friday prior to it going to Cabinet. The minister’s office was up front about the government’s aspirations to pass this bill on urgency, which they made clear. I appreciated that honesty and welcomed the briefings.
I understand their desire to get a clean-cut implementation of the bill for a full 2016 calendar year. However, there will be a better long-term outcome by taking the time to allow proper scrutiny of this bill. As we know, the government is aiming to amend half of the Education Act. These changes will be in place to deliver the education needs across the Territory for the next few decades. The government is covering a great deal of matters and making many changes, so why not ensure it gets it right? There have been changes to the exposure draft the government issued which deserve due consideration.
I appreciate that the government will argue in this motion it has conducted extensive consultation on the bill. This is one of the few examples of some genuine and meaningful consultation by the government. It has issued a discussion paper and an exposure draft of the bill, held public forums and meetings, conducted briefings and been very open and approachable with regard to this. It even granted an extension of the exposure draft period to get feedback, because it had been released over a very tricky time for education advocates. It was in the mid-year break, which is a four-week break as we all know, and that timing did not work well for schools.
Again, I appreciate that the minister and the Department of Education have had a genuine fair go at doing this properly. But I ask the minister and members of the government to not stop that good work here. You have done so well in this process so far, but do not stop it here, follow it through right to the end. Do the consultation and follow the legislative process the right way right through to the end so you can be genuinely proud you did the full job to the best of your ability. Give parents, teachers, education advocates and the community members enough time to review your final bill. If you pass it on urgency, you are not doing that.
Again, I stress that we are currently in one of the peak times of the year for schools. The end of the year is an extremely busy time and you will not be able to get the proper feedback I genuinely believe you want if you pass this bill on urgency now.
We would also be more open-minded to urgency if there was a compelling argument about the need for urgency, aside from it being neater to have it in for the full 2016 school year. In my briefing from the department, I did not hear of any compelling urgent matters that would justify a need to pass this bill on urgency today.
Key stakeholder groups of parents are saying urgency is not the answer or what they want to see today. The Council of Government Schools Organisations, which represents school councils and, most importantly, the parents of the students who go to Territory schools, issued a media release regarding the urgency motion. I will read the media release to put it on the public record. The media release is titled ‘Why the urgency, Minister?’
- Mrs Tabby Fudge, President Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations (COGSO) is asking the Minister for Education to confirm he will be consulting with Territory families and schools once the Education Bill and the Regulations are ready to be viewed.
Mrs Fudge said, ‘We have families who are hearing that the Minister wants to push through the education legislation urgently this week in the current sittings.’
‘How is this possible when no one has seen the amended Education Bill?’
‘How is this possible when we have never seen the Education Regulations?’
‘Territorians would be deeply upset to hear that their Local Member would support such important legislation being rushed through Parliament. What is the secrecy and urgency about,’ she said.
‘If Minister Peter Chandler is seriously asking community representatives to pass the legislation under ‘urgency’ – this would result in eight working days from showing of the Legislation to asking the Parliament to pass it.’
‘In anyone’s language, how is this consultation? How would the minister think this is acceptable? Where is the transparency and good governance?’
‘Eight working days may work inside a Minister’s office; eight working days will certainly not work in the Territory-wide consultation. This is not about the Minister’s timetable. This is about open, transparent and considered process.’
‘Of particular concern are our remote and very remote families and schools. In the Territory 73% of our government schools are located in remote and very remote areas and 47% of our students are enrolled in these schools.’
‘These families and school communities deserve to have their Local Member consult with them. How will the Member for Arnhem or the Member for Stuart be able to say, hand on heart, “I consulted with people across huge country in just over a week”?’
‘These families would be insulted to know that important legislation for their children’s future was rushed through urgently.’
The Minister’s Education Department has said that one of its key strategies is to ‘engage with families, communities and stakeholders’. Then give Territorians time to digest and scrutinise this important work. Our remote and very remote families, often the most voiceless must be consulted and heard’, urged Mrs Fudge.
Thank you, COGSO, for that and for the opportunity to put this on the record.
I will also place on the record some feedback from a gentleman who has been involved with COGSO as a parent, who sits on school councils and works within the education system. An e-mail has been received by members of parliament from Mr Matt Skoss which reads:
Dear member of parliament.
The NT government is to be commended for starting the process overhauling the Education Act and incorporating some amendments in response to feedback via the limited consultation.
However, the proposal to rush through the legislation and the regulations with an urgency motion is not a healthy process. I would hope that you seriously consider not voting in the affirmative for this.
- At the very least, I would hope that your electoral and advisory staff have the political acumen to gauge the mood of the public in relation to this matter. In the absence of an upper house in our parliamentary structure, it is doubly important for well thought-through legislation is enacted, with appropriate levels of scrutiny on the proposed bill and the very important regulations document. The proposed timetable is manifestly inadequate to engage the community and respond to items of interest.
I fear that key parliamentary figures are being pressured to rush this legislation through without the appropriate level of governance and scrutiny guiding the process.
- My wife and I have taught in the NT public education system since 1987. Our three children are successful products of this system, and we are proud of what they have achieved, and the opportunities the NT public education system has given them, educationally, and my wife and I, professionally.
I urge you to consider my thoughts above.
I’d also urge your electoral and advisory staff to read the very thoughtful and well-consulted position paper developed by the Council of Government School Organisations (COGSO). It is also important they consult your constituency … parents of children in schools represent the biggest single voting block in the Territory.
- Thank you for your time.
I have also managed to have a conversation with the Australian Education Union today, which is also of the view that we should not pass this on urgency but ensure there is due time between introduction and passage of the bill so we get the very best possible end product with this Education Act.
Minister, you are very close to the finish line, and you are setting a good example to your team on how to develop a good major piece of legislation in a proper, carefully considered and consultative way. I commend you for the work that you, your office and the Department of Education have done, but this bill will impact every member in this Chamber and the constituents we represent. It will affect all our schools.
Madam Speaker, I urge members not to support this urgency motion to ensure the amendments to the Education Act get the proper consideration they deserve.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, my mind goes to the one word which should guide any urgency motion before this House: hardship. What is the potential hardship faced by delaying this bill?
I listened very carefully to the member for Wanguri. I take a little umbrage. I have been a fairly aggressive consultant over the years with most – not all – of the bills on the floor, so I am feeling a bit slighted. I was, for a short time, the Education minister when this bill was floating around before. We were continually consulting. Then the new minister took over.
He could have truncated the consultation process, which had been going on for a lengthy 20 months. He determined, not unreasonably, to extend the consultation process even further. He chose not to force the consultation process – something I tend to be more inclined to do because I like to get the agenda happening – and hold over the bill so there could be further consultation until November, with a view to passing it in December.
Whilst I was listening to the member for Wanguri and her contribution, I asked a number of questions in the House, one of which was of the adviser’s box regarding what challenges this throws up. I also spoke to the minister about the hardship component.
There is a genuine hardship case to be made. The hardship component is what the member for Wanguri described as a mere clean-cut approach. It would be nice to get it operating at the start of the year. It is not that simple because it is not just about the bill. Attached to the bill will be restructures that have to occur within the Education department. I do not know what the Department of Education’s standard operating procedures are called, but I am sure it will have a set, all of which will be predicated on the assumption that this bill passes so when we hit the ground running it will be good for the students because it will be a new set of rules in the new year.
If we hold this bill over until February that work cannot be substantially done because the challenge facing those educators is they are trying to create a set of structures around something that is not law. At the moment it is a bill, a bit of paper with some writing on it; it is not law until such time as this House says so. The Education department will have to start doing work after the passage of the bill in February, which of course is after the new year has started. My concern is that genuine hardship will be created which will affect students.
I am genuinely surprised to hear that COGSO feels it has not been consulted on the bill and has issued a media release at the last moment. It was in the loop when I was the Education minister. I understand there are some tweaks, but no major substantive differences – as I look to the adviser’s box I am getting a nod – in relation to the draft. COGSO had input into the consultation draft, gave feedback and got what it wanted. I am surprised that COGSO, at this point, would say it needs more consultation ...
Mr Chandler: What is their motivation?
Mr ELFERINK: The position of COGSO is very difficult to reconcile. The minister just made a comment about their motivation. I am not quite sure what that means, but if that motivation is more about the relationship between COGSO and the Northern Territory Education department, or between COGSO and the Northern Territory government, then I say to COGSO, let us focus on what is important here, and surely that is the kids.
The minister has described a bill which brings substantive and substantial changes to the operation of the current Education Act, which has been around for 35 years or thereabouts. We will have kids going to school operating under one set of rules and then, halfway through the year, at the end of first term, we will change those rules once that work has been done. That may change any number of things in how the education system operates. That would potentially create a hardship on those students which is greater than the validity of the argument put by the member for Wanguri.
This bill ain’t no surprise! It is not like we have come into this House with a bill that nobody has ever seen, had no notion of or contact with before. The member for Wanguri acknowledged that the consultations have been far and wide, and the efforts the Education department has put in to talk to people about the contents of this bill.
Essentially, if you distil the difference between me and the member for Wanguri on this issue, it is where the greater benefit is. That, of course, is the crux of this argument. I argue that there are no real surprises here and the greater benefit is with the urgency motion to avoid the hardship that would potentially flow from waiting until February. That is my position.
In a more critical or cynical world view I perhaps smell an element of political opportunism. I see the member for Wanguri shaking her head and saying no. I do not know if I believe you on this one, but if that is your motive then woe betide you.
On balance of the arguments presently before this House, do we hold over the bill which has been widely circulate and discussed, and has been around for a long time? The only reason we are having this conversation is because the minister said we will do a bit more. We will make it stretch out a bit more on the assumption that common sense would prevail and hardship would be avoided by the passage of an urgency motion. That is the point of difference.
I do not think this is as mild an impost as the member for Wanguri believes it is. Understanding the contents of the bill as I do, as the former Education minister, I am sure it has undergone several changes since that time. This is a very substantial change, and the hardship impact, which is a requirement of standing orders to be satisfied to allow a bill to be passed on urgency, has been made out by the minister today.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that COGSO and the unions still want to hold this over. Surely it is about the kids, and consistency when a kid walks into a classroom. To withhold consistency, in my opinion, creates the requisite hardship demanded by standing orders.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the members for Port Darwin and Wanguri with interest. Somehow we have lost sight of the role of this place. I thank the government for all the consultation it has done; I appreciate all that hard work. But that work is what has guided the government to bring this document here today. As a member of this parliament, I believe I have the right to look at this legislation thoroughly and to talk to people about it, regardless of the consultation.
The problem I have with this legislation is that the Education Act, which is important, would have been an ideal act for a committee to talk to the community about. The government, through a department, discussed this with the community, which is fair enough.
I learnt in Canada you can also have another method of consultation, which includes this parliament. We have the ability to do it as well. You would either have or set up a committee which would discuss these issues as a bipartisan group and hold meetings with the minister. It would do all that work and come back to parliament saying it has consulted and agreed, and present a document to this parliament. You would then know the parliament, as a bipartisan group, has agreed this legislation is worthy of being passed in parliament.
We can have that system, but we do not in this case. We have consultation, which is good, and we appreciate all the work the department has done, but we also have another part of the consultation, which is what this place has been set up for, the reason we have a Legislative Assembly. It is meant to consider bills brought before it.
This bill, I understand, went to Cabinet yesterday or the day before. Our briefing was on Monday and we only received a draft copy. This is the final version the department, minister and Cabinet have approved.
I thank the department for the briefing, at which I asked the CEO what the major problem would be with this not passing in December but later in the year. He said it would be in relation to the 26-week semester. That is the only thing he said would be a problem. I looked at my little calendar – I hope I have a copy of the 2016 calendar. No, I do not. I am not sure what the date is we are sitting but I can imagine it is fairly close to the second week of school. School normally starts after Australia Day and we are sitting in the second week in February. Is that really a big deal? The member for Port Darwin said the kids would be affected. What would they be affected by? As I said, I asked the same question of the CEO and he said the only issue would be the 26-week semester. I am not sure that is the end of the world either.
I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, minister. In my electorate there are three non-government primary schools, four government primary schools, one non-government secondary school and one government secondary school, one of the biggest in the Territory. Obviously they have all been involved in this discussion, and it is a difficult time to do it; that is one of the problems. As the minister would know, there are many farewells and other things in the next week or so. Most members will be chock-a-block with that sort of work. It will be difficult to get people even interested in asking whether we can let them know if the act has covered all the things you said.
This bill has 182 clauses in it and I am told that roughly half of those were there before. I would also like to talk to the non-government school sector to check whether some of the things it disagreed with are in this bill. I know it was looking at a proposed statutory body structure. My understanding is that might have been rejected. I would like to have some time with them to see if there is anything in the bill which still should be brought to attention.
Parliament is the place for us to debate this bill. We have a process where (1) we talk about it in general and (2) we have a committee stage which enables us to question the minister on the detail within this bill. For me to go through a bill this big and get an understanding of it is a lot of work. I would like to have the time to see whether there are things I would like to ask the minister about. We will not have the time to do that properly. As I said, it is a very busy time of year and that would be impractical.
I also read clause 179, which said this could result in hardship. As I said, I spoke to the CEO and the issue of the semester was the only issue he believed would be a problem. There are not likely to be substantial or major issues, I imagine, with all that consultation. If the government was preparing for this legislation to go through in February, it would have most things ready to go subject to any change that might occur in this House.
I do not agree that there is hardship, based on what the CEO has said to me, or anything that would be a show-stopper to this being debated in February. I feel that in this important bill – in the words of the member for Port Darwin – is substantial change, and we need a reasonable time to assess those changes.
I am not always against urgency motions. I have supported some in my time in this House. Not very many, but I have because a case was put to me that persuaded me something needed to happen otherwise there would be serious consequences. I do not see serious consequences happening with this if it is passed in February. I see it as the government going through a consultation process. We, as members of this parliament, are also a part of that consultation process. We should not truncate this process unnecessarily. We should not regard it as, ‘We have done all the work. Here, tick and flick.’ This is not a tick and flick place; it is a place where we should think carefully about legislation.
Every member of parliament should take this bill seriously because education is so important for the future of the Northern Territory. Many of the problems we have are due to a lack of education.
This bill has some very important sections in it. I was listening to the minister’s third reading where he spoke about managing behaviour, suspension, exclusion and expulsion. These are important issues I am interested in fleshing out with people who are at the coalface dealing with these matters.
We do not want kids drifting out into the ether because some are unable to be educated. We want to ensure we have methods that will bring them back into the system. We have some facilities in the Territory that help in that way. It is important that our act recognises those difficult areas.
I know a local person whose wife teaches at a school. She has many problems with discipline in her school and other difficulties with teaching. She comes home exhausted and nearly sick from the abuse she gets and how hard it is to control a class. It is important the act enables teachers to be protected from that type of behaviour. It is an issue that has been raised a number of times with me. What is the protection for teachers in these cases?
I raise that trying to be positive, minister. The member for Port Darwin raised the point about politics. To be honest, I could not care about the politics; I am more worried about making sure I have a chance to look at this bill carefully. I do not think I can do that in a week because at this time of the year it will be difficult. To get around to some of these schools and ask if they have looked at some of these issues will be hard. Sometimes you are limited because you are an MLA. It would be nice to talk to people at the coalface first hand and ask them what they think about these changes.
I do not know whether some of them would have a different point of view to the peak bodies. That sometimes can be the case. It would be nice to flesh out the bill with people who are part of the industry. I should not call it an industry; I do not like that word. Education is more than an industry; it is a vocation, and a means to improving people’s lives. I would like that extra time to flesh out what is in this bill and come back with a considered response, which may be that I support all of it. Then again I may have a few queries I would like to put forward to this parliament to get clarification so we have a bill we all feel confident about and know is good for the future.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I am a proud former student of the NT public school system. It is now my job to make sure our Northern Territory students in the future are afforded those same opportunities.
As the members for Nelson and Wanguri have outlined, there is a golden rule that runs through our Westminster parliaments that we do not rush legislation. Legislation is the basis of our society, and what we are debating today is the basis of our education system. It is the guiding document for our schools, teachers and parent bodies. To pass or reject legislation is the most important thing we do in this House.
We should be afforded the opportunity to take this detail back to our community. As the member for Nelson has outlined, this went to Cabinet on Monday, and last Friday the member for Wanguri and I had a briefing. I am grateful to both the minister and the Department of Education for the briefings provided.
However, we have not seen the final document Cabinet signed off on. It was placed on our desks about an hour ago. We have not had the time or opportunity to go back to our schools or communities. It is of such importance that we must be afforded the opportunity to take it back to our community.
There are very few times that this parliament must consider and pass something on urgency, and this is not one of them. We must focus on why we are in this situation today, which is because we have a government that is so dysfunctional it could not put together a sittings schedule that would allow for proper passage. We have repeatedly been asked to pass something on urgency and have said it is not urgent. Yes, this is urgent because you did not allow appropriate time between sittings, but it is not urgent in the sense of the Westminster system, and our job as elected members is to uphold that. The need for urgency must demonstrate some overwhelming issue that means an injustice or an error should be corrected straightaway. That is not the case in this situation. There is no case for hardship and no serious consequence if this is not passed. Yes, it would be nice to start the 2016 school year with this legislation, but there will be no hardship if this comes in mid-year or in the 2017 school year.
One reason we must be cautious with this bill is that it deals with our schools. We are now in Week 7 of Term 4, an extremely busy time for our schools, parents and teachers. You are proposing to spend eight days looking at a huge bill, one of the thicker bills to land on our desks in this parliament. We will not be able to get to our schools, interested bodies and parents to get feedback that is our role as local members. We are elected to represent our communities. It is our job to take bills back to our community. Some members on the other side may laugh but I take my role seriously.
I have already engaged with some community members on this bill but more want to discuss it. They want to see the final copy and the regulations, and our job as elected members is to speak to our communities. Some of my colleagues on this side are from remote regions. They might not even get back to their communities in the short time we have to look at this bill. We have not seen a case for urgency today.
It has become evident that the sittings schedule this year has been extremely unworkable for the government and for providing community consultation – the opportunity for us to go to our communities and talk about legislation. Maybe those on the government benches do not talk to people and do not listen. That seems evident after last night’s events.
The Australian Education Union and COGSO have asked for appropriate time for passage of this bill.
One concern I have is the regulations, policies and procedures that need to be developed. This is a huge bill, and although the minister has indicated those changes are fairly minor in makeup, development of that work at the end of November to be delivered on 1 January 2016 is a huge ask. We have seen changes to the exposure draft and are not sure if the bill that has landed on our desks today, which was passed by Cabinet on Monday, is the final document.
We need to go back to our schools. There is no case for urgency. As the member for Wanguri and the minister outlined, we have spent many weeks changing this act. The current act has stood for 35 years in the Northern Territory and you are proposing to change an act in eight days and develop policies in six or so weeks that will hopefully stand for another 35 years.
We should be afforded the opportunity to consult our communities to make sure we are doing the right thing by the students of the Northern Territory, because that is what this comes down to. We have questions and we need to talk to our community to make sure we do the right thing so this act can stand with our names against it for another 35 years.
Madam Speaker, as the opposition Whip I do not support the urgency motion before the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I find it extraordinary that we are debating an urgency motion on such a crucial reform bill. Education is at the heart of our society. It is what we all need to work to make our community and our society work. I do not think there are any of us in this Chamber who do not hold dear to our hearts the need to improve the learning outcomes of our children, which is a complex cohort across the Northern Territory. We have the nation’s most complex cohort within our education system, public and private. The non-government sector is not out of the picture in the impact of this bill. We have in our system so many challenges.
I cannot recall, in my 14 years in parliament, ever being in a briefing on legislation on the day prior to the commencement of sittings, with a bill of such magnitude with an urgency debate attached to it which was still in Cabinet. We could not even be briefed on the bill because Cabinet had not made the final decisions on what would be in and out of this bill. Up until this morning all the stakeholders who are genuinely invested in improving education outcomes for our children, including ourselves, were still guessing about what is in this and the changes from the draft that went through the consultation process, and I will get to the consultation process in my contribution.
I have not read what has landed on my desk this morning, but I will be going through it. But it is not about my chance to read it. As other members have said in the debate, if we are to do our jobs as representatives of our communities, it is about going out to our school communities and parents, and sitting down with our educators, who we all know and respect across our community, and listening to what they have to say. There may well be a great deal of good in these reforms.
I already have concerns about the 26-week semester cap. I want to read the detail around that. I am asking for the opportunity to see the regulations and how that would operate, but we do not have those regulations. We have seen broad drafting instructions, but they were drafting instructions based on a draft bill, not the actual bill.
As I asked in the briefing I had on Monday – and I thank the officers of the department and the minister’s office for providing us with that briefing – why the 26-week semester cap? What is the education outcome of that? We know that two jurisdictions have caps. Victoria has 20 years of age …
________________________
Distinguished Visitors
Distinguished Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, could you pause? Honourable members, I welcome to the gallery honourable members from the Niue parliament here today to watch and enjoy.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Ms LAWRIE: … and Queensland has a cap. We do not have time in the time between this sittings and just over a week or so to the next sittings when we are meant to debate this to find out the impact of arbitrary caps in other jurisdictions.
I am a parent. My kids are educated through our system, both private and public. I am a product of the Northern Territory public education system which the minister is hell-bent on reforming. When I was at school quite a few of the students I went to school with repeated a year. Under this cap situation you repeat a year, and then you move to, say, doing Year 12 over two years, which is increasingly becoming an opportunity that our children are embracing.
You are busting through the entitlement. You no longer have an entitlement because of the arbitrary 26-week semester cap. The process articulated is that the principal makes a determination. If that is no, you do not have the entitlement to return to that school. Then it goes to the Chief Executive of the department. The process following that is the Chief Executive of the department says, ‘No, you do not have the entitlement to return to school, you can go to the newly-established NTCAT, the administrative tribunal, for appeal’. I pointed out that at that stage, and several stages through that process, our young people will stop and lose the desire to go on with their education. Who does that benefit?
Putting in place impediments to attending school does not make any sense to me, but I may be wrong. The 26-week semester cap and the unknown regulations around it might be okay, but I do not know. Passing urgency today would give me no opportunity to do any more research on it, quite frankly, because the short time between this sittings and the first week of December sittings does not allow me to talk to parents, the kids in our school system now and the educators, or find out the impact of caps in other jurisdictions, of which only two exist.
I have a disability background. I spent years advocating in the disability sector before being a member of parliament. I know through lived experience that our young students with disability who then mature into young adults often require additional years of schooling to get to the level of education outcome to equip them to go on to what we call post-school options. What exists in post-school options in the Northern Territory is a separate debate.
It is not unusual for students at Henbury, for example, to do their 14th and 15th years at school because that is what they need in their education levels to equip them for the best opportunities and chances in life to pursue the best of their abilities after school. Let us not pretend, they would be prevented from having those 14th and 15th years of schooling. That would be a travesty. That would directly impact on opportunities that would otherwise exist for those young Territorians. What government considers that genuinely?
I may be accused of verballing, but I will stand by what I am about to say. In the briefing, in drilling down on this point, the Chief Executive of the department said it is a matter of cost. Realising that may have not been the best answer, albeit a frank and honest answer, he then went on to qualify it and say there are only finite resources in Education.
The best money we can spend is on education because educated Territorians are productive Territorians. Whether you have a profound disability or not, your productivity improves with your education. The cost of education failure is writ large with our overflowing gaols, families in crisis and a child protection system under enormous burden. Fixing everything we need to in our community comes down to education, yet we will rush consideration of the largest reform in education legislation, which sets parameters of what can and cannot occur. We will rush it after 30-odd years because you want to start on 1 January.
Maybe you exist in a different realm to me, minister, but my schools have been struggling under the burden of the reforms of global school budgets. My school communities are struggling to deal with assessing whether it is another teacher or a half-teacher position they will lose next year as they deal with global school budgets. Educators in my community are exhausted dealing with the pressures and burdens of the reforms to global school budgets that have hit our communities hard.
Our parents on our school councils are over it, yet we expect them all, when they are heading into school Christmas concerts, end-of-year awards, graduation ceremonies and reports to write, to focus on this because it will be debated in December if the government gets its way today. Seriously? That is absurd. You cannot expect our school communities, educators and parents to do that at one of the busiest times of their year.
It is the end of the year and we all get excited. I am excited as a parent, but I know I am dealing with my daughter’s Year 12 graduation. She has just finished her exams. I am dealing with my son’s end-of-year activities, including the school Christmas concert. The teachers at those schools have been dealing with getting the kids through their school year, and are now dealing with writing reports. The administrators of the schools and the school councils are dealing with bedding down their analysis of what the budget may or may not look like as they set up the start of the next school year.
Yet you give them just over a week to look at the most significant reform in 30-odd years because – forget the draft – today we finally see the bill.
Minister, for the sake of education in the Northern Territory, take a deep breath and listen to our community and the feedback from stakeholders such as the AEU and COGSO. Both have been consulting, and not just in the regional towns, which is what your department did. Its consultations stopped at large regional towns; it did not go to remote or very remote communities. There are many significant impacts on Indigenous education buried deep within these reforms. How on earth will those remote and very remote school communities be able to have any line of sight on what is in this bill, to consider it, debate it and genuinely provide feedback to the members of parliament who represent those communities?
Minister, please heed this call. Do not proceed with urgency. Let us have the time over the end-of-year period to consult with our communities. That will be tough enough coming into a February sittings to debate it.
Madam Speaker, I oppose urgency.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, first of all I was of the mind that if I could be convinced today that there were genuine reasons not to do this on urgency, I would consider it. I have heard, though, nothing but politics from that side of the House. We have seen politics 101 played today. Although there was some congratulations and kudos for the way the consultation has been conducted over the 20 months; mind you, this is a 35-year-old act. Labor was in power for nearly 12 years and administered an act that was approaching 25 years of age until it was over 30 years old and did nothing. The act is out of date.
I explained the process which has brought us to this point today: hat we consulted and listened to the community, you, COGSO and the unions, and to the feedback we were getting. That is why we extended the consultation. Had we not extended the consultation we would not be in this position today. I am of a mind to say let us not consult. If we want to do things, as a government, why not just do it because we will get the same negative feedback from the opposition whether we do it or not, and that is frustrating.
Let us step through the 20 months where there have been two rounds of consultation, the last lot for 16 weeks. Consultation does not pass legislation. Committees do not pass legislation. Legislators pass legislation. How do we get to the legislation we have today, by some miracle? No, it is by listening to people who are educators, people in our community, and to organisations like COGSO, school councils, unions, teachers, principals and people who work within education. That is how we arrived at the bill we have today. We have looked at what we had and how we could change it to make it better.
I did not dream these ideas up. I had some ideas and suggestions, but this has all come from the consultation periods. We have listened and consulted but, more importantly, we have constructed an Education Act that is pretty damn good for that 20 months’ worth of work. I take my hat off to everyone involved in the process to date.
But we have now reached the stage where it is up to us, the legislators, and we still have a process to go through. This matter of urgency is not to do with legislation I want to debate and pass today or even in tomorrow’s sittings. Sometimes urgency motions can be done immediately. No, there is still another two weeks yet. In the last 16-week consultation period the shadow minister for Education – and good on her for doing this – has gone to around 35 or 40 schools. That is fantastic and all facilitated through my office ...
Ms Manison: They are very good in your office.
Mr CHANDLER: The fantastic staff in my office are all very helpful in trying to get the right feedback and processes in place to ensure that we have done the right thing in regard to updating our Education Act.
If there was not time to consult in visiting 35 or 40 schools, I do not know what more we can do. I feel like we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we try to rush something through we are criticised for rushing it through. If we consult we are criticised. I do not know what you expect of this government and me as a minister when we are trying to follow a process through. We have done the consultation and listening, and we have made the changes.
We are here; it is now time for legislators to legislate and the process to begin. There is another two weeks before this will be back in the House. Then we will go through the process. I give you a guarantee that if you find anything in the next two weeks that should be changed we have the committee stage to do that. It is time for you to make a decision, not to have more consultation or more committees.
The member for Nelson said at this stage perhaps we should be sending this to another committee. This is after 20 months of consulting with the community. This legislation is based community feedback. We have taken contentious things out of the legislation because we listened to the community.
There are two more weeks. We have the debate before the committee stages which gives you a chance to put forward last-minute changes. If you have not been engaged over the last 20 months you have left this to the last moment. If you are selling the message that education is so important to you, you would have been engaged in this process from the very start, not at the very end.
In fact, the member for Karama laid her cards on the table today. She could pick on one thing in the entire bill and she focused on that. That goes to show you how engaged in this process she has been.
If this parliament decides not to support urgency and decides to be lazy before this comes back to this House for its final debate and the committee stage where we can look at additional changes if necessary, then we are doing education in the Northern Territory a disservice.
As picked up by the member for Port Darwin, this will provide hardship. There is a lot of work to do, and to give fair and reasonable time for the Department of Education to gear up to prepare for this legislation next year, the right thing to do is to have it debated and passed through this House by December so they can get on and do the work they do so well.
I am disappointed to hear that the new COGSO Chair, Tabby Fudge, is saying they were not consulted enough. I find that bizarre. COGSO has been involved in this from the word go. The previous President, Gerard Reid was involved in a meeting where he asked departmental staff what to look for in what is wrong in this.
Fair dinkum! How involved are some of these people – 20 months after we have had consultation after consultation, community meeting after community meeting, briefing after briefing, and used all that information we gathered to bring to this legislation – to now ask for more time? It is time to legislate, people. Consultation has occurred. We have listened to the consultation. The draft was put together from the original consultation. What did we do? We had a second consultation period w,hich was extended to 16 weeks.
We are in this position today of asking for the leniency of this parliament to push this final bill through on urgency in two weeks from now because of the changes that were produced through the 16-week consultation period.
If people have not been engaged in this process and do not know where we are up to, that is not the fault of the process. If it is important enough to you, you will talk to your communities in the next two weeks. As the member for Nelson said, he would like to speak to a number of schools. In the perfect world perhaps that would be fine, but we have telephones and e-mail, and can send messages to schools to see if there is any other thing we should consider.
I put to you that we still have the final debates and the opportunity to make changes that could be brought in through amendments in the committee stage if they are so important or deserve to be in the legislation. As a minister I want this to be the best legislation it can be, so I will not stand in the way of a good idea. I will not stand in the way of something that I or all the experts have overlooked. If you find it, bring it forward and it will go in the bill. If it stacks up and will improve education, it will go in the bill.
The member for Karama is shaking her head at me. You spent nearly 12 years in government and when did you look at the Education Act? You say education is so important to you, yet in nearly 12 years in government you did not have the courage to look at the act and update it to the point where it should be to make an act that will take us through the next 15 or 20 years.
Madam Speaker, this should be above politics, but today we have seen politics 101 being played. If there was a genuine concern over there, I would have walked away from this motion. But education means too much to me to set the education system up to fail next year. We would be doing education a disservice by not passing this legislation this year. We need to be fair to our education system and our educators, and give them ample time to prepare and start a new year with a brand new act. We have the power and capacity to do it.
Madam Speaker, there have been 20 months’ worth of work, two solid rounds of consultation, many community meetings and many briefings held. That consultation has led to this act in its current form. It is time to legislate. Put the politics aside and give our educators a chance. Let us get on and introduce this legislation.
The Assembly divided:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a pairing.
Madam SPEAKER: It is noted. Mrs Finocchiaro and Ms Moss.
- Ayes 12 Noes 11
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mrs Lambley
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Higgins Mr McCarthy
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Manison
Ms Lee Ms Purick
Mrs Price Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
PETITION
Petition No 56 – Berry Springs Waterhole
Petition No 56 – Berry Springs Waterhole
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 511 petitioners relating to conserving Berry Springs waterhole. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- There is a 18 x five-acre block subdivision being planned right next door to this beautiful, natural, World War II heritage waterhole.
While progress is inevitable, we would like some constraints on this proposal put in place so the water quality is not further adversely effected:
1. a Buffer zone be put in place to slow contaminated water runoff
3. more accurate and transparent investigations on the impact that further development will have on the water quality in the area – particularly to ensure the long-term sustainability of Berry Springs Nature Park.
- Please sign the petition to show your support, or sadly, Berry Springs may soon end up like Howard Springs Nature Park – no more swimming – ever!
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
(Serial 137)
(Serial 137)
Continued from 16 September 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the Information Amendment Bill (No 2) before the House. As always, I thank the minister’s office for facilitating a briefing which I attended on 16 October with officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice who, as always, were most helpful and professional in providing me with an overview and answering the questions I had.
I advise the minister that the opposition members support this bill, which is to:
- … transfer jurisdiction for the hearing of complaints … to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal … and reform the complaint process to facilitate the hearing of complaints by the tribunal and to improve the pathway of complaints.
I acknowledge the good work done in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice over the last couple of years on the enormous body of work for the implementation of NTCAT. I recall being briefed on that legislative reform by Mr Andrew Macrides when I held the shadow portfolio for Attorney-General and Justice following the change of government.
It is sensible legislation which aims to streamline the processes and procedures for members of the public to access government and personal information which is held by government. It has been endorsed by the Office of the Northern Territory Information Commissioner, who briefed me on the same afternoon I had been in the minister’s office. I was advised by the Office of the Northern Territory Information Commissioner that the amendments are welcome because they improve the workability of the act, amongst other things, strengthening early resolution powers and freeing up mediation processes to better resolve complaints. I understand FOI legislation is very technical in nature so I will not go into any of the technicalities of the bill. I take it on good advice from experts that it is good legislation.
The Information Act is a very important legislative instrument. Its provisions underpin the legitimate rights of the community to hold their government to account for its decisions and actions. This is why the Northern Territory’s first Labor government, when it came to power in 2001, introduced the Territory’s first Information Act in 2002, which was an election commitment.
Legislation like this is particularly relevant in the case of the current CLP administration, which as we know is the most secretive and unaccountable government in the history of the Northern Territory. A systemic pattern of secrecy and cover-up is endemic in the Giles CLP government. There are many concrete examples of the CLP government’s lack of transparency and obsession with secrecy, which I will turn to shortly.
First I want to focus on some fundamental principles relevant to the Information Act and the amendment bill we are considering before the House today. Referring to the inherent public interest in accountable government in Eccleston and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Queensland’s then Information Commissioner said:
- The democratic rationale for the enactment of freedom of information legislation, the cornerstone of which is the conferral of a legally enforceable right to access government-held information, is encapsulated in the notions of accountability and public participation. With the object of assisting to secure a more healthy functioning of the democratic aspects of our system of government, and in particular a government responsive to the public it serves, the FOI Act is intended to:
(a) enable interested members of the public to discover what the government has done and why something was done, so that the public can make more informed judgments of the performance of the government, and if need be bring the government to account through the democratic process; and
(b) enable interested members of the public to discover what the government proposes to do, and obtain relevant information which will assist the more effective exercise of the democratic right of any citizen to seek to participate in and influence the decision-making or policy forming processes of government.
The Information Commissioner went on to articulate a further public interest principle for effective freedom of information laws:
- The public participation rationale for freedom of information legislation is inherently democratic in that it affords a systemic check and balance to any tendency of the small elite group which ultimately manages and controls the processes of high level government policy formulation and decision-making, to seek participation and input only from selected individuals or groups, who can thereby be accorded a privileged position of influence in government processes.
These key principles of transparency and public accountability are the antithesis, as we know, of how the CLP operates. The Giles government is preoccupied exclusively with its own political survival, secret deals behind closed doors and endless cover-ups. Accountability and the public interest always run last with this government.
Richardson Park is a recent example of the government’s disregard for transparency, accountability and the public interest. Without public consultation, $20m was allocated as an up-front payment to relocate rugby league to its former home ground. There was no consultation with sporting codes, local residents or Ludmilla Primary School, let alone the broader community. People were simply kept in the dark. There is no evidence of a proper feasibility study before the $20m was allocated, or detailed budgets to complete the project. Ongoing operational costs impacts on traffic flows, lifestyle and urban amenity, absence of parking facilities or the implications for Ludmilla Primary School were not considered.
Is the government really surprised by the predictable adverse reaction from local residents and key stakeholders? This is a perfect illustration of why the community deserves strong freedom of information laws that are reviewed frequently in the public interest.
Regarding the government’s decision on Richardson Park when viewed through the prism of the guiding principles articulated by the Queensland Information Commissioner, the community will make up its own mind on these things: whether the public has been able to discover what the government has done and why it was done so the government can be brought to account; whether interested members of the public were able to discover what the government proposed to do and obtain information to participate in and influence government decision making; and whether there are checks and balances on the small elite group that ultimately manages government policy formulation and decision-making.
It is no wonder that the Treasurer has abandoned his electorate of Fong Lim to contest preselection in the seat of Spillett against the member for Drysdale. There is great expectation in the community in respect to decisions on Richardson Park and what the Public Accounts Committee has already unearthed following the tabling of the report yesterday by the member for Araluen, who is chair of that committee – a report which the government tried very hard to stop. Recent statements by the Treasurer …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from subject. The member is also alluding to previous debates which were disposed of yesterday. On all reasonable estimations she is now well out of bounds.
Ms WALKER: Could I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: This is very important legislation about freedom of information. Whilst I will be talking further about specific amendments to the bill, I know that in these debates you allow, and other Speakers allowed, a certain degree of latitude about why it is these laws are so important and where their failings have been. I am giving examples of that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I do not have a problem. It is talking to a bill. There is a huge amount of latitude when talking to a bill and drawing conclusions at the end of the debate. I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy will bring them all together.
Ms WALKER: Recent statements by the Treasurer and the Minister for Sport and Recreation that they will ignore recommendations arising from the PAC inquiry have intensified the community’s anger at the lack of consultation on an important issue that affects their daily lives.
There is a litany of failure by the government to respect the public interest in developing policy and decision-making with direct relevance to the Information Act, the amendments to which we are talking about today, which will strengthen this act.
Honourable members will recall that FOI documents discovered under the act by media and the opposition exposed questionable allocations of water licences to former CLP parliamentarians and candidates. Both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Land Resource Management denied there was any political interference in the allocation of these licences, but documents discovered under FOI proved conclusively that these denials were untrue. This is why this legislation, this act, is so important to the people of the Northern Territory, as is strengthening it, as we are today through amendments.
In answers to written questions, the Minister for Land Resource Management denied that he had spoken with Tina MacFarlane or Peter Maley in relation to the water licences subsequently awarded to them, but under close questioning during estimates the minister confessed that he had discussed the licences behind closed doors in separate meetings with each of these applicants. In doing so, he refused to disclose what was discussed in these secret meetings.
In a Supreme Court hearing it was subsequently disclosed that the very same minister failed to conduct merit-based reviews when asked by applicants to review decisions of the Controller of Water in respect to the allocation of 18 water licences. The court case cost Territory taxpayers $120 000, and the minister is yet to adequately explain why he did not conduct merit-based reviews as required under the law.
The bill before the Assembly provides for the Information Commissioner to refer complaints about decisions under the Information Act to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In the context of the abject performance of the Minister for Land Resource Management with respect to water licences, the Attorney-General should consider, in consultation with interested stakeholders, the merits of transferring the review of decisions under the Water Act to NTCAT.
There are other examples of government actions and decisions which breach the fundamental principles of accountability and the public’s right to know, enshrined in the Information Act.
The Chief Minister has alleged a conspiracy between Northern Territory Police and a Cabinet colleague to destroy his leadership, but has declined to disclose any supporting evidence to the public. The Chief Minister has also accused the Electoral Commissioner of prematurely leaking information about the recent redistribution to the media, but again he has refused to provide evidence on the public record to support his allegations. The Chief Minister presided over secret discussions to sell TIO, to privatise the port and to split the Power and Water Corporation as a precursor to selling more public assets. The public was not properly consulted about these very significant government policies and the Chief Minister has refused to release information to the public on the basis that it is commercial-in-confidence.
In a leaked e-mail the Chief Minister foreshadowed discussions with Graeme Lewis about the extent of any conflicts of interest between Mr Lewis’ role as a Director of Foundation 51 and his duties on government advisory boards. The public was never informed about the content of these discussions and the extent of the conflicts of interest was never disclosed. These are the hallmarks of a secretive and unaccountable government that has no regard for the public interest and holds the community and Territorians in contempt.
Information discovered under FOI by the media and the opposition was fundamental to the exposure of very questionable ministerial travel, including a $40 000 trip to the United States by the Minister for Women’s Affairs and her former senior adviser. FOI documents obtained by the media were central to the exposure of a $5000 expenditure on a government credit card in a seedy Tokyo bar called the Red Rose on goods and services provided to the former Minister for Tourism and the Chief Minister’s former Chief of Staff. Neither the Chief Minister nor the transgressors have disclosed the nature of the goods and services received or who else was present at the Red Rose bar in the early hours of the morning in Tokyo.
More recently, the Attorney-General, consistent with the government’s culture of secrecy and cover-up, has not been open and transparent about the crisis in the youth justice system and systemic failures in Correctional Services. We know there are many more systemic failures to uncover in my own electorate at the Datjala Work Camp. I read online on the ABC in the past hour that the sex offender who escaped had access to a phone and a vehicle, and complete and free access around the community. We will go through channels to find out what was going on there ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am being tolerant, but this is a clear breach of Standing Order 67, and there are also several breaches of Standing Order 59.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not believe it is. It is not a digression from subject. She is putting facts on the table, which I believe are in the public domain.
Mr ELFERINK: But attending to Standing Order 59, she is alluding to earlier debates, which have disposed of many of these topics.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not recall a debate about people being on the loose in towns …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but Madam Speaker, there were a number of other references …
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down; it is not a point of order.
Ms WALKER: I have nearly finished. I have already mentioned the utilisation of the freedom of information process by the media to hold governments to account. This is a very important consideration in the context of the Information Act and the bill before the Assembly this afternoon. Transparency is tough but it is necessary. In an article in 2012, Francis Maude, who was Cabinet Office minister in Whitehall, said:
- … as governments subject themselves voluntarily to formal scrutiny, we will need the support of another group, which has historically exposed the lies, the corruption, and the ineffectiveness of people in power. I’m talking about the fourth estate – the media – which has an almost sacred role in holding governments to account. A free and independent press has always been the keystone of an open society. Liberal democracies can only exist with informed citizens.
...
Right across the world, the transparency agenda will see journalists as well as citizens gaining access to unprecedented amounts of data. The media has a unique role. Journalists need to engage with this data to expose waste, incompetence and corruption wherever they see it. That’s why I’m issuing a call to arms to the media the world over to hold the feet of government officials and ministers like me to the fire.
This is a resounding message for Cabinet ministers in the CLP government, politicians and public officials, whether in office now or in the future. The culture of secrecy and cover-up is endemic in the CLP, and it is unsustainable politically. The community is disillusioned and angry about the failure of the government to govern in the public interest. That is why we need effective and contemporary FOI legislation.
Returning to the provisions of the bill, I said at the outset that we support the amendments in this bill. The provisions to transfer the hearing of complaints from the Information Commissioner to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal and to reform the complaints process have merit. This is consistent with our in-principle support for the creation of NTCAT and its mandated functions. The streamlining of processes, such as the referral of a request for review of a decision directly from a public sector organisation to the Information Commissioner, is an improvement on existing arrangements.
Prima facie these provisions do not appear to add cost, complexity or longer time lines to processing and determining applications, reviews and complaints under the act. However, the Attorney-General may wish to give assurances to the Assembly about this issue in the context of the new processes set out in the bill.
The opposition also supports the new provisions in relation to improper influence, misleading information and unlawful disclosure of information under the act. I urge the government to direct more time and resources to the training of information officers, and public sector employees generally, on the content and operation of the Information Act.
Transparency and accountability in government would also be enhanced by community information programs on the purpose and operation of the act, and how it can be utilised by the general public. As I said, in the lead-up to the 2001, election Labor promised, if it were elected, to introduce FOI legislation as part of its reform agenda to enhance transparency and government accountability and, true to our word, the Territory’s first ever Information Act was introduced into this Assembly in August 2002.
We are committed to restoring integrity to government and are engaging with community on a very wide range of policy proposals as part of a broader integrity framework in order to restore that trust, accountability, integrity and honesty to government which has been sorely lacking in the past three years. Of course, freedom of information legislation is a key element in this broader framework.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude my comments there. I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. We support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): What an extraordinary contribution by the member for Nhulunbuy ...
Ms Walker: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: No, that was not meant in a pleasant way. It was extraordinary in the fact that it was outside the bounds of ordinary in a very bad way and dishonest ...
Ms Walker: Oh seriously!
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Oh seriously’, says the member for Nhulunbuy. How about that there is a cover-up in youth justice despite the fact that the Vita review was released not because I was under any obligation to do so, but because I insisted it be so.
The Children’s Commissioner’s report was released – after receiving legal advice from the Solicitor-General saying we did not have to release it – at the insistence of the minister, namely yours truly, in the interests of openness and accountability in this area.
They are not necessarily healthy reports. To assert that somehow there is a cover-up in this area, when in fact I have directly intervened on a number of occasions to make sure the information was delivered into the public domain, is just poppycock. Absolute nonsense!
The member opposite, the alternative Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, is quite happy to be loose and fast with the truth, as she has been today. Even the rationale for the structure of her debate is incomprehensible. ‘We support this legislation because it improves transparency; however, the mob over there who are sponsoring this bill that creates more transparency is a bunch of people who cover things up.’ If I am the sponsor of the bill that creates more transparency, how on earth am I interested in this absurd assertion of cover-up that the member opposite makes?
She lives in such a deluded fantasy world about what happens in government that should she ever become a minister of the Crown she will find herself thunderstruck with the obviousness of the role. She lives in a world where she sees skulduggery behind every bush and villainy in every action. That is nonsense. Of course, the assertion that she makes means public servants must be complicit in these processes. It is an indictment on this shadow minister’s incomprehensible arguments in this place, with her anger spraying around the room as she slithers in and out of this place to heap scorn on not only members of this government, but also public servants. What reprehensible behaviour by this member opposite. It shows she has lost her way completely because she is much more interested in the politics of this place than any real governance issues in the Northern Territory.
In Question Time today the members opposite reflected an incapacity to deal with policy issues because they are bereft of policies. All they have is conspiracy theories to peddle, despite the most obvious evidence to the contrary. It is dishonest, and, frankly, dumb.
With that off my chest, I thank the honourable member for her support, nevertheless. This is an amendment to legislation which in the substantive part enables the NTCAT to have an expanded role. The NTCAT was a policy of this government sponsored by yours truly.
Although the member opposite beats on about the introduction of freedom of information legislation, I sat on the opposition benches for years saying we needed some sort of civil and administrative appeals tribunal, which they steadfastly refused to implement. All of a sudden, in opposition, they have a road-to-Damascus conversion and discover there is such a thing as a civil appeals tribunal which is good in making access to justice available in a way it has never been in this jurisdiction, either under a former CLP government or the previous Labor government.
It is all part of our dastardly scheme for cover-ups and world domination. You can now have an application heard for about $49. Before, in many instances, those applications would have been lodged in the Supreme Court, where an initiating action would have cost you $1800 to have exactly the same sort of matter dealt with. Those are the reasons we need NTCAT.
Like any other tribunal or oversight body, NTCAT has generated some controversial decisions. I congratulate Mr Richard Bruxner and Andrew Macrides on the rollout of NTCAT in the Northern Territory. It has already made a substantial impression in the Territory and I am glad to see it is operating the way it is. Mr Bruxner is what I would call a black-letter lawyer, who has been very careful to make sure the decisions of the tribunal have as much a judicial flavour as he can possibly manage, which is good. These are good things, but this is the real world, not the fantasy the member opposite perpetrates.
This bill is about as benign as a piece of tofu in a refrigerator. It is not in any way offensive. It is good commonsense legislation, which is why the member opposite had no real way of challenging it. So rather than simply acknowledging the passage of good legislation, she defaulted to politics 101, sprayed venom all over the room, laced it with some invective and threw in a bit of strychnine to give it a bit of seasoning.
That is the nature of her shadow ministry. Should she become a minister, will it become the nature of her ministry? Will she lace her decisions with invective, deception and strychnine should she come to power? If that is what she will demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory as her style, people will find it very tiresome very quickly. In short, she should simply get over it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
AGENTS LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 134)
(Serial 134)
Continued from 27 August 2015.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this bill may be one of the shortest this Assembly sees. It is through no lack of research or trying; it is simply a very simple bill. The minister’s second reading speech was five sentences.
The purpose of this bill is simply to change an age so as not to discriminate. The opposition supports the bill. I do not think I can add anything more to it apart from waffling on, which I will not put the Chamber through. We support this bill which is very straightforward.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, this legislation is quite simple. It is about taking out the discrimination sections of the acts. The Department of Business, through its red tape campaign, is taking these sorts of things out of the legislation and making it equitable for all.
I thank the …
Ms Fyles: Sorry. I told you it was short this morning.
Mr STYLES: You were supposed to go a bit longer. Coming down stairs at 100 km/h is probably not good for you, but we all get our exercise somehow.
I thank the members for their contributions to the debate. The Agents Licensing Amendment Bill 2015 is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to modernising the Northern Territory legislation by removing age discrimination provisions.
The bill will ensure that all Agents Licensing Boards operate without any impediment and that future boards will have access to the broadest possible range of skills Territorians have to serve on it. It is also about ensuring we do not lose our corporate knowledge. It is quite simple; it just takes the age limit of 65 out and leaves it open so we can engage anyone.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STYLES (Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Remote Telecommunications in
Remote Telecommunications in
Mr STYLES (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I speak about remote telecommunications in the Northern Territory – more good news from the government.
Telecommunication services through remote areas is one of our key priorities. We heard during Question Time today some of the fantastic places where we are putting communications in the bush and across the Northern Territory. We have heard before that we have hot spots around the Territory where we are erecting magnifiers for communication signals.
Telecommunications is an enabling technology that opens the door to so many possibilities and provides the means to create significant improvements in the lives of Territorians. Reliable communication is important to people in our cities and towns, but are even more significant to Territorians living in remote communities where isolation is a big issue and service delivery is much more difficult.
Telecommunications opens opportunities for individuals to stay in contact with loved ones and for businesses to take advantage of an economy that is much broader than the physical boundaries of their community. Through the Internet, NT towns can compete online and be seen and heard on a global stage. Mobile phones are the product of choice for the modern consumer and should be available to all, including our remote communities. With the advent of smart phones and tablets, and the explosion in apps and mobile services, people across the globe are now accessing an enormously wide array of services and information, with powerful computing technology at their fingertips 24/7 in most places, but not in all our remote communities.
Telecommunications will also allow for the range of government services to be expanded, and the efficiency of service delivery to be significantly improved. A great example of this is the health service where services which have not been possible to provide in the past can be delivered online. Specialist medicos will be available to connect via high-definition cameras directly to remote health centres and provide on-the-spot advice for patient treatments. It can save lives.
Over 2013 and 2014 the Country Liberals government, in a joint program with our long-term partner Telstra, delivered mobile and broadband services to 13 remote communities in the NT. Project 13, as it was called, was a substantial success. Broadband and mobile services were delivered on time and on budget to these communities. Telstra and the NT government each contributed $2.88m to this project.
I commend to the Assembly the good work that Telstra has done to deliver telecommunications and services across the Territory over many years. Project 13 followed other joint programs to expand telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory, including the earlier Arnhem fibre project that extended optic fibre connections across Arnhem Land. I doubt anyone would dispute the substantial investment that Telstra has made in the Northern Territory. While Telstra is a commercial organisation with responsibilities to its shareholders and has a need to make a return, it has clearly demonstrated its ongoing commitment to the Territory, particularly our remote communities and residents.
Given the goodwill from Telstra and the value to the Territory from these joint funding agreements, we have entered into another jointly-funded partnership program with Telstra to again expand remote telecommunications infrastructure. Through this new program, a combined total of $30m will be invested over three years.
Northern Territory remote communities that will benefit from having telecommunication services installed under the new current investment program include Umbakumba, Bulman, Weemol, Minyerri, Kata-Tjuta, Yarralin, Manyallaluk and Titjikala. These communities will receive mobile phone services and, where possible, fixed broadband services. Additionally, communities such as Ali Curung, Barunga and Timber Creek, which already have 3G mobile phone services, will now get fixed broadband services installed, which will broaden the benefits of the co-investment program. This co-investment program has prioritised communities based on the need, population, community views, potential business benefits, Telstra service and commercial requirements and costs.
Telstra will now undertake detailed feasibility studies of all sites. These feasibility studies will guide the selection of the appropriate technology platform to deliver the mobile services, and identify clearances and site requirements, and determine the cost of each site. Telstra will conduct detailed consultation and engagement with the communities to ensure they are supportive, ready and have a strong say in the services to be delivered. Community wishes will be respected, and changes may be made to the program in the future if a community has a strong preference not to take up telecommunication services.
The co-investment program will run through to 2018. This remote telecommunications infrastructure program will bring vital services to the bush and improve the lives of thousands of people living and working in remote communities throughout the Territory.
It is significant that in addition to its substantial infrastructure investment, Telstra has committed a further $1.35m per annum over three years to a sustainability plan. The sustainability plan will focus on targeted community education and awareness campaigns that will address issues such as digital literacy, cyber safety and Telehealth. The plan will, at Telstra’s invitation, be jointly designed and ensure the new mobile services make a real difference.
Through supplementing the hard infrastructure program with a softer education program, a complete package will be provided that will deliver even greater benefits to communities. People can find out how to use the technology effectively and, importantly, how to protect themselves in our modern online world. The messages to be developed under the sustainability plan will have broader application and be considered for use in metropolitan and regional areas as well.
I remind the Assembly that telecommunications is the responsibility of the Australian government. Successive Australian governments have made the decision that the National Broadband Network is the answer to the inequity of services and disparate costs that have plagued Australian telecommunications. The NBN will provide a national telecommunications infrastructure platform to deliver telecommunication services to all Australians. Unfortunately though, under the NBN, telecommunication services to remote areas will be limited to satellite broadband. The satellite service will enable community residents to access the Internet, generally with improved bandwidth compared to existing satellite services.
However, the service quality will not be enough to allow Telehealth diagnostic and treatment services or the large downloads required for education, nor will it provide the necessary infrastructure for mobile phone services. We have and will continue to make strong representations to the Australian government for a better NBN solution for our remote communities that have existing access to optic fibre infrastructure.
What is pleasing to see is the importance that the current Australian government is placing on mobile communications. The Australian government’s Mobile Black Spot Programme will deliver 499 new mobile sites across Australia, with five of these sites to be built in the NT by Telstra. The communities are Minjilang, Mount Liebig, Finke, Imanpa and Wallace Rockhole.
By 2019 there will be at least 57 remote NT communities with mobile phone services. I am hopeful that we can expand this number and add more communities to the list over the course of the current investment program. This depends on the results of Telstra’s feasibility studies and the opportunities to leverage from the government’s Mobile Black Spot Program where we can.
In this regard the Chief Minister has written to the Chief Executive Officer of Telstra seeking support for cooperation between these two major telecommunications programs to maximise the outcomes for the Territory. As I mentioned previously, the Giles government understands the value of telecommunications to remote communities. For remote Aboriginal communities, like the rest of the country, mobile phones are invaluable.
Installing telecommunications infrastructure generally incurs a high cost. A mobile phone service in a remote Northern Territory location will cost at least $750 000 to install. Depending on the location, the cost can be significantly higher. The need to transport the phone call from the mobile tower to the connection point in the national network potentially adds millions of dollars. Maintenance costs are also generally high in remote locations. The cost of delivering mobile phone services to every remote community and across the Territory is simply beyond the government, so we are working with national companies and local innovators to explore ways to improve telecommunication services in remote parts of the Northern Territory. The government is looking for other innovative ways to improve telecommunications and supplement the infrastructure programs.
An exciting initiative we are progressing with the Centre for Appropriate Technology, or CAT as it is known, is for mobile hot spots in the bush. This is a sophisticated low-tech solution developed by Central Australia’s Centre for Appropriate Technology to extend critical mobile phone coverage in remote areas. The mobile signal amplifiers, or hot spots, extend the range of mobile services to approximately 30 km. This is about twice the existing usable handheld mobile coverage at a fraction of the cost of traditional mobile services. The user places the mobile phone in a fixed cradle which receives a concentrated mobile radio signal, allowing for a normal conversation either through an earphone or on the speaker.
The Northern Territory government will be supporting this local initiative by providing $360 000 funding over four years to implement 22 mobile hot spots in the Central Australian region. At this stage the proposal will be confined to Central Australia, as the Centre for Appropriate Technology is yet to obtain an engineering certificate for mobile hot spots in cyclone-related areas.
The mobile hot spots are being manufactured by CAT’s Aboriginal workforce, which is welcomed by the Country Liberals government. The mobile hot spot is a 1.2 m diameter parabolic dish antenna on a post, a base and a pedestal. It uses no electronics, requires no power and has minimal maintenance and associated costs.
CAT has installed two mobile hot spots near Hermannsburg to service the road to Finke Gorge National Park. These pilot hot spots are operating successfully and have already been responsible for the rescue of stranded tourists. The technology provides critical mobile access where previously there was none.
Everything is fabricated and assembled in the CAT enterprise workshop by the Aboriginal staff. In addition, the Aboriginal employees have constructed a purposed-built trailer to use for site surveys, testing the signal of the hot spot in the identified rollout locations, ensuring site selection optimises the signal. They will be assisting the CAT telecommunications engineer in the site surveys and undertaking installation and ongoing maintenance of the hot spots across Central Australia. CAT is an Aboriginal-owned, not-for-profit technology innovation company working across remote Australia.
The Northern Territory government will continue to work with service providers and governments to achieve the best outcomes possible for telecommunications services in the Territory, especially in our remote communities. We will provide a further submission to the second round of the Mobile Black Spot Programme and continuing dialogue with the Australian government. We look forward to opportunities to further work with Telstra in our remote communities. We will seek out innovative solutions to telecommunications problems and deficiencies in our remote communities, working with organisations such as CAT.
This Country Liberals government will not give up on getting the best telecommunications services delivered for Territorians across the Territory. We will not sit back and do nothing. We understand what telecommunication means to all Territorians and the benefit it brings, especially for our remote communities. If you take Africa as an example, 70% of all business in the main part of Africa is done on mobile phones – not computers or tablets, but mobile phones. With those lessons in mind, this government will continue to advocate, demand and focus on getting reliable, modern and consistent telecommunication services for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement in relation to telecommunications in the bush. It is a vital and exciting area, as I am sure many members of the House agree. I always get very excited about the opportunity to hear about what local organisations in the Northern Territory are doing, especially the ones which are coming up with innovative solutions to some of our challenges. We should be celebrating innovation in the Northern Territory more than we do.
Telecommunications and the opportunities it brings should be a firm focus of the government. The minister is correct that there are still remote areas across the Northern Territory where the vital infrastructure to provide our communities with the opportunities to connect and grow through technology still needs significant work. We will hear from some of our members who represent remote electorates in this debate, I am sure.
Technology and telecommunications are essential to economic and cultural growth in the Northern Territory. Innovation and investment in information and communications technology, or ICT, is of vital importance to the prosperity and wellbeing of Territorians. There is a technological revolution sweeping the world and no facet of life or the economy will be left untouched, which has not escaped the attention of those in this House. Those jurisdictions, businesses and individuals with the creativity, imagination and courage to adapt and innovate stand to benefit enormously from the opportunities afforded by the rapidly-evolving world of digital technology. Those opportunities should also be afforded to Territorians outside our urban centres and major regional centres.
Those who fail to invest in infrastructure, skills, technology and innovation culture are on the path to lower growth, lower employment and a decreasing quality of life. A culture of innovation in this space must be fostered and requires leadership from the highest levels of government. It also requires collaboration and genuine consultation, particularly with the ICT industry.
Telecommunications provide thoroughly exciting opportunities for health and education, business and enterprise, and community connectedness which is also very important to the wellbeing of our communities. They provide opportunities to increase access to the remote delivery of training and development opportunities, including in governance, business administration and the delivery of training and development for those who work in human services, as many people do in our remote areas of the Northern Territory.
We are coming up to or are in cyclone season, and investment in telecommunications and technology is hugely important in the potential for us to increase and improve our emergency management. Early notification during emergencies is exceptionally exciting in this area of policy.
Expanding the infrastructure capability across the Northern Territory is a positive thing for our community and I commend the government on Project 13, in partnership with Telstra. I concur with the minister that Telstra has made a sizeable contribution to the Northern Territory over a long period of time, and the expansion of telecommunications should be undertaken by any government in the Territory, particularly in this evolving world.
I was very excited to hear about the new project and the rollout of broadband. The minister mentioned a number of communities, including Ali Curung, Minyerri and Yarralin. The work that will be undertaken on prioritising those communities is something I suspect a number of members will be interested in learning more about. I am looking forward to getting a briefing. I will be requesting that so I can learn more about that project.
I congratulate the Centre for Appropriate Technology, or CAT, for the fantastic work the minister has outlined in his remarks about expanding the reach of mobile coverage. The former Labor government was a strong supporter of CAT and its creative responses to the challenges of mobile communications in remote areas of the Northern Territory. Its work truly shows what can be achieved when you think outside the square. These kinds of projects not only improve the delivery and reach of crucial services, but also help to create jobs and deliver skills, particularly for Indigenous Australians in our remote communities.
There are some very innovative and creative change makers in the Northern Territory. It is a very exciting time. The government has a role in creating an environment in which new ideas cannot only be seeded, but can come to fruition and have the best chance of success. Again, I commend the government for its partnership in this space with respected Territory organisations, and I look forward to hearing more about the experiences and results that come from employment in these current and interesting projects.
Territory Labor has been, and always will be, in the business of delivering vital infrastructure. That is why we fought so hard in government to deliver improved ICT infrastructure for Territorians. It was why we were proud to partner with Telstra, Rio Tinto and the NLC to help deliver the Arnhem Land fibre optic project which the minister referred to in his statement this afternoon. It is why we work so hard to deliver better remote infrastructure and mobile coverage whilst acknowledging that there is still much more to do. It is why we fought so hard to secure the best possible deal for the Territory with the incredible opportunities the NBN presents.
I am pleased to see each and every dollar invested in ICT infrastructure regardless of who delivers it. The recent announcement by Telstra and the government to deliver better mobile services in the bush is welcomed, as is the fact that the Australian government is finally getting around to delivering the much-needed mobile black spot funding, because each and every dollar counts.
The minister made reference to the NBN and its impact on equality and access to services and costs in telecommunications. It should be noted that at a time when they should have been supporting Labor governments federally and in the Territory to deliver the best possible NBN services for Territorians, they were playing politics. Locked in step with the Liberal and National parties, they rallied against and failed to see the long-term benefit of world-class infrastructure projects like the NBN and what that will deliver for the Northern Territory.
This ignorance has delivered a substandard NBN project in many of our important regional centres like Tennant Creek. The government may say it has made strong representations to the Australian government in relation to services in the bush, but we have heard very little about this advocacy, certainly during my time in parliament.
Addressing the digital divide is exceptionally important. We need to have a robust discussion about ensuring we do not leave people behind in this digital revolution. I am very pleased to hear about the $1.35m per annum over three years in the plan from Telstra to work with our communities to increase digital literacy, cyber safety and Telehealth, all of which are incredibly important.
These projects should fit into a broader government ICT or digital strategy that shows the sector and the broader community your plans for the industry so the Territory is truly prepared for the needs of the future, both in expectations for capability and the changing nature of the workforce. Given the sheer potential for scaling up innovation in the Territory in our remote and urban areas, a well-articulated position and direction would be well and truly welcomed.
I want to hear from the government about how it plans to use technology and telecommunications to highlight to the world the unique offerings of the Northern Territory. We know from projects such as the language work undertaken by the Ngukurr Language Centre and others using multimedia and online platforms to share culture, stories, environment and languages, that technology can truly expand our reach and the promotion of what is occurring in our back yard.
I want to hear from this government how it sees improved access to IT in our education delivery, particularly given significant changes to Indigenous education in the bush, and how we plan as a Territory to better support our schools in remote areas in their connection to and use of digital tools.
The projects the minister outlined are incredibly and valuable. However, it is disappointing that after three-and-a-half years there is still lack of a well-articulated vision in ICT for both the present and the future. This must include how the government plans to optimise the involvement of our local sector in upcoming work, and it would also provide a strengthened environment in which the sector could have a sense of what the government is looking for when it is doing its own blue sky thinking.
From talking to the sector – and I have met with a number of wonderful organisations in the sector over a long period of time – I get the distinct sense that security and direction are not necessarily forthcoming from the government or seen as a particular priority. So, while we are here today talking about what is an incredibly important and positive project and an important focus for the government, I want to ensure both concerns are on the record.
As our local industry is ready for greater clarity of work in the area of ICT, which is broader than infrastructure. The opportunities that exist through telecommunications and technology are broad and exceptionally exciting for the Territory. To see our young Territorians engaging in related subjects and projects with gusto is even more so, given the changing nature of our jobs. We have to look at the increasing nature of automation and what jobs will be available for people and what jobs we can create through these kinds of projects.
Territorians are launching apps and platforms to increase help seeking and share their languages, cultures and skills. How this develops over the next couple of years will be fascinating.
We remain excited about the potential for growth of such projects in the Territory as outlined by the minister. The government continues to build on some of the foundations established by the former Labor government, as it should. I look forward to hearing contributions from members, particularly in our bush electorates. We have heard today how important this has been to the member for Arnhem and others. I hope to hear a contribution from those members on the needs in their communities and what this means.
We remain excited about the opportunities to work with our ICT sector to realise the potential of new technologies in improving the lives of Territorians and the connectedness of our communities. I look forward to continuing to hear more from our most innovative and creative Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was interested today when I interjected about money being spent in Namatjira and there were great outbursts of laughter and joy over it. It is fantastic it is being spent there.
My concern is that there has been nothing spent in my area. You will not see anything in the budget for Nelson. One road is probably in as bad condition as the Tanami Road. That is the road to Gunn Point, which is used by hundreds of people yet is in really bad condition. It is a constant worry that people will be injured or killed if that road is not upgraded so part of the road is permanently sealed.
When we are talking about, in this case telecommunications infrastructure, and use the word ‘remote’ – there are people who live close to Darwin who feel they are remote. There are people who use and live on the road to Gunn Point who do not see any real long-term financial input into upgrading that infrastructure. There are also people in the rural area who live within a 35 km radius of the centre of Darwin who have 35-year-old telecommunication systems and nobody is willing to do anything about it. We have asked Telstra for a long time and nothing has happened.
This statement from the minister said the Country Liberals government will not give up on getting the best telecommunications services delivered for Territorians across the Territory and will not sit back and do nothing. I will gave the minister an example of what needs doing and ask him in six months whether he has given these people the best communications services he can deliver for Territorians. These are not the only people but I am using them as an example.
A family runs a business from home in Carabao Road in the Girraween area and does not have ADSL. A similar lack of infrastructure also applies to Zill Road and Mango Road in the Girraween area. The subdivision these people are in is approximately 25 to 30 years old and the infrastructure does not allow them to have ADSL. In the immediate area on Florigan Road and Rogers Circuit residents have ADSL, so people within the vicinity have the benefits.
This family can use the mobile network access which connects them to broadband but it is very expensive. As an example, people with only mobile network access will get 25 GB for $165 a month and on Florigan Road where they have ADSL you will get 500 GB for $30 a month. The people who do not get it have to use the mobile network access. People in Carabao, Zill and Mango Roads do not get the bandwidth and do not use the system much because of the cost. It is so costly it precludes them using the system as much as they would like. They told me there are many dropouts, which may occur elsewhere, but they seem to occur when the school kids get home. It seems around 3 pm there is more usage and it affects their business.
A lot of razzamatazz has been spoken about the NBN in the NBN advertising I have heard. It has now come to some parts of Howard Springs. The NBN will not help these people. Unless there is a tower where they can pick up a connection, they cannot see any improvement in the foreseeable future. The reason the NBN will not make a difference is because of the existing infrastructure.
The member for Casuarina mentioned the NBN. Maybe a debate is needed on whether the NBN should go to the house or the end of the street. In the case I gave, when it goes to the end of the street it means some people in the area do not get the service everybody else has.
I am asking the minister if he could lobby Telstra to at least charge the mobile service these people have to use at the landline rate, because the landline cannot deliver ADSL. That would at least be something. After all, if you look up the latest figures, Telstra made a measly $4.6bn last year after tax and was complaining because it had a slight reduction in its profit. I am sure a bit of revenue it might use by giving people with a very poor quality service an upgrade to use the mobile network access at a cheap price, or a landline price, would be appreciated by the people in the area.
The minister also mentioned the new satellite that was launched. I gather it will not be available for seven or eight months yet, but I stand to be corrected on that. The word I have heard is as soon as there are more people connecting into the satellite, the service will slow down. It will take the people who cannot be connected to the standard landlines, so there will be many more people connecting.
This family has been living in the Girraween rural area for 25 years, but Telstra will not replace the ancient system it put in because it will cost it a great deal of money. Minister, if you can spend $2.8m out bush, perhaps you can spend some money helping residents and businesses in the rural area move into the 21st century. This government espouses the importance of small business and how it is helping business get off the ground. Can the minister find some money to scrap the system in this area, which these people have been requesting for years, and improve it?
The federal member has been there. I heard on the grapevine he had a meeting and is discussing this down south, but I have not heard any feedback, nor have the people he was speaking to. I have no idea where that discussion is heading. I only know this needs some proactive work from government and Telstra. If the government can work in partnership with Telstra, as the minister said in his ministerial statement, then I am sure if the minister believes the Northern Territory government supports small business – and many small businesses need good telecommunications – then he will do something about this.
I will be checking with the minister next year regarding the issue raised in his statement:
- The Country Liberals government will not give up on getting the best telecommunications services delivered for Territorians across the Territory. We will not sit back and do nothing.
While we are discussing this issue, maybe the minister could raise with Telstra that it seems there is something called contention, which is another name for congestion. While the NBN is being installed through the suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area, there is no appropriate upgrade of the facilities further south. My understanding is we are now getting what is technically contention. We are putting more people onto NBN in this part of the world, but we are not fixing the lines south to cope with the extra number of people connected. That has come from someone who has worked in the telecommunications business.
I do not know whether the member for Daly has some of these issues where he lives in the southern part of Litchfield, but I know he is a bit of a whiz kid with computers. It can get pretty frustrating if you are running a business and you need good, quick communications.
I am happy to give the details of the problems in Girraween to the minister. The government needs to look at this. It might be expensive, but if the government can take telecommunications facilities out bush for people to get mobile phones, then I ask it to make an effort for those people who live close to town but are in places where the communication system is old and Telstra is not willing to do anything about it. There needs to be some pressure from government to fix it.
I reiterate one other thing, minister. I said this at a conference; I think it was the NT Cattlemen’s conference. With the amount of money Telstra makes, when people cannot get good service on the landline but can get better service on the mobile network access line, I cannot see why Telstra will not charge people the landline price instead of the mobile price. It makes a heap of money – $4.6bn is not chicken feed. It would be good customer relations and would show that Telstra, which sponsors the Telstra Business Awards, also supports businesses by not slugging them because their landline facilities are so weak they are forced onto the mobile network. It could support them by saying, ‘We admit the service you get is pretty lousy, so we will at least treat you equally with other people who get good ADSL by giving you the same rate on the mobile network’. That would be good for the customer but also good for Telstra’s public relations.
I hope, minister, I can give you some details and in six months I hope you can tell me there is a good news story for these people so they can run their business profitably.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to deliver a smorgasbord of information on behalf of constituents.
Minister, thank you for bringing this statement to the House. The Minister for Business is dealing with serious fatigue management that comes with two things: old age and hanging out until 3 am in the Legislative Assembly appropriating – what would it be, member for Port Darwin? – about $30 000 of taxpayers’ money for a completely disingenuous motion and consequent defeat.
Minister, I pitch this at your wonderful staff on the fifth floor. I know how the system works and they are listening to this broadcast. This will be a smorgasbord of what I have collected over a number of trips in regional and remote areas, but most recently reinforced in travels through the Barkly.
It is good to see that the minister outlined in the statement what has been a long-term partnership with Telstra through successive governments. I acknowledge the half-a-dozen words where the minister referred to the Arnhem fibre optic project that was, from memory, in 2011, with a value of just under $12m, a Labor government partnership with Telstra, for those on the other side who continue to trot out that disingenuous rhetoric about previous governments. It was a seriously ground-breaking project. It is great to see that the CLP government has picked up on that and continued the partnership with Telstra. You give credit where credit is due. You tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It appeared in the lengthy statement, and gained about six words.
However, let us move on, because the CLP has now embarked on the same partnership with Telstra, a long-term partner, to deliver mobile and broadband services into 13 more remote communities. The journey continues.
For the Minister for Health, in the statement there is the regular analogy about Telehealth. What a great concept. I discuss that with health professionals in the bush whenever I get the opportunity. They support that. But Minister for Health, a priority that comes way before Telehealth is Internet connectivity to the doctors, the nurses and the health professionals’ houses in the bush. It seems to be a policy blockage in the Department of Health that they refuse to install Internet connectivity. When you meet with your health professionals in the bush you will see that the Internet connectivity is about professional development, their ongoing studies, connection with family, the tyranny of distance and enhancing their professional work. There are examples of nurses leaving their residences and going back to the clinic to continue part of either their professional development, their connectivity with family or their work. It is not satisfactory.
I want the minister to take that on board. I bring that to the House on behalf of many health professionals in remote areas. It is a simple problem that could be addressed through a cashed-up government that really wants to look after public servants in the bush. That is – what did the Chief Minister call it today? – put it in your back pocket. Well, put it in your pipe and smoke it because that is a serious policy initiative I put to this government on behalf of health professionals who work in those regional and remote areas. It is not something difficult, minister, but I offer that in good faith.
When the minister talked about the $30m investment, what came to mind was that there are places in the Barkly electorate that are screaming out for mobile services. I have been continuing to dialogue with businesses, communities, roadhouses and tour operators in these areas of the electorate. I talked about the priorities of road safety and how the government set that very important agenda.
Now they are starting to see mobile services rolled out into remote communities and they have their bids in. The next level I am working on is advising constituents about petitions, lobbying, how to prepare letters, giving contact addresses and encouraging them to drive this agenda.
An example for the Minister for Business is Heartbreak Hotel at Cape Crawford. Management has compiled an extensive petition. It has written a number of times to Telstra. It has lobbied the Territory and federal government, and they need support. Cape Crawford is on an intersection of two regional highways in a very remote part of the Territory. It represents a base for business and tourism outcomes, particularly road safety with some very interesting examples of how they have coordinated emergency aeromedical retrieval, particularly using helicopters for road accidents and pastoral property accidents and trauma. They are screaming out in this area because they have a black spot. There are mobile services at McArthur River mine. One would expect, with Telstra’s technology, there should be an easy link to deliver the system and cover an area of around 100 km.
So for Kerry and Chook at Heartbreak, I am still battling for you. We hope to get there. We have to get you on the list because it is a very good example of how to deliver technology into a fairly easy environment that will deliver great outcomes for the Ministers for Business, Transport, Indigenous Affairs and Primary Industry and Fisheries.
I will talk about the Tara community on Neutral Junction Station as an example of when things go wrong. We celebrated the tower that was built at Barrow Creek. It was quite obvious that the tower was constructed adjacent to service land, which suggests access to power. The tower was constructed with consideration given to the vista within that spectacular range. It delivered the services for the Barrow Creek area and about 20 km south. However, most of the people are on the community of Tara and the Neutral Junction cattle station, which is on the north side of the range, do not get mobile services. They are within 8 km of that tower. It is a major concern to those communities. They have asked if there is supportive technology that can do something about that.
I believe there are booster-type technologies, for want of a better word. I have contacted the regional manager of Telstra, who has offered his support. We hope that situation can be addressed. When you talk about millions of dollars of appropriation and delivering telecommunications infrastructure in the area, yet 8 km away where most of the population live, there is no mobile coverage, people get upset. The pastoral sector is extremely aggressive about this. The Indigenous community is also very concerned.
Minister, it would be good if your great people upstairs monitoring this broadcast could back me up and work with me, give it further weight from the mighty CLP government and let us get some support for people in that area who are so close yet so far away.
It was interesting to hear the Chief Minister talk about the northeast gas interconnector. I was very aware of the APA Group bid and will become more aware of the Jemena bid. Alpurrurulam sits in that footprint where this pipeline will travel. It is a community of about 600 people with no mobile services. Once again, I have been helping them to organise petitions and with lobbying, writing letters and contact details. Alpurrurulam exists in a very remote part of our great Northern Territory yet in close proximity to Mount Isa.
As a lay person, I believe good connections could be made to deliver mobile services to Alpurrurulam, particularly now that this corridor of infrastructure delivering gas will go through that footprint. It is worth exploring because if efficiencies can be created by using Mount Isa and the information communication technology there to deliver into Alpurrurulam, it seems to me to be good sense to prioritise that for a remote town of around 600 people. They are a great mob there. Once again, the Minister for Business has provided us with all the reasons mobile phone technology and improved communications technology can change the landscape completely.
I will move a little left of centre now, minister, because you said Telstra has committed a further $1.35m per annum over three years to a sustainability plan. I quote:
- The sustainability plan will focus on targeted community education and awareness campaigns that will address issues such as digital literacy, cyber safety and Telehealth.
Let me focus on cyber safety. We are in a very interesting part of history and the new technologies that are now arriving in remote communities are providing many new challenges for those people. It is not to be underestimated. There is a regular conversation occurring within communities I represent about the introduction of mobile phone services, Internet connectivity and particularly their youth having access to new social media platforms.
We have already seen some disaster stories and serious incidents around this new access. We have an adult and senior population becoming more aware and a dynamic youth population grabbing it with both hands. The mobile phones and the tablet computers the minister talked about are becoming widespread now. It is pleasing to see Telstra dealing with those issues. The investment is quite small compared to the hardware and the program investment. We need to be cognisant that this has to run in parallel with any investment because we do not want to see deficits and disadvantage from new technologies that are supporting economic and community development in the bush.
The Bully Zero Australia Foundation deals with cyber safety. It provides education and awareness, has contact details and encourages parents and communities to get involved. I place on the public record some of the issues I was not even aware of. This is an important lesson for me, and I will be asking questions of constituents in the electorate about these concepts because the level of different forms of inappropriate use is quite interesting and alarming.
I will quote from the Bully Zero Australia Foundation media release of 16 November 2015:
- The sessions will cover what is not bullying, different forms of bullying, role of the up-stander symptoms, impact consequences, cyber safety including online predators, sexting, child posting, taking pictures, fake accounts, identity theft, outing, flaming, trickery, treats, imitation, blackmail and trolling.
I am not aware of the meaning of some of those concepts, but the member for Daly is agreeing with me. He is the computer whiz, testified by the member for Nelson. There is a member of parliament sharing my concerns. Thank you, minister, because this is a very important part of the rollout of new technologies. We need a parallel approach. Read that level of concern, it means any government should be focused on that.
The minister spoke about the NBN, and on the other side of the House the Liberals have had a great deal to say about it over the years. It is good to see the NBN rolling out. I can give you a personal example of the NBN rollout in Tennant Creek. Before I came to parliament they were in my street. They are bringing many economic benefits to our regional town with the personnel, vehicles, accommodation, food and other expenses, the fuel and social aspects of those guys in our community. It is interesting how infrastructure brings those add-on values and benefits to regional towns. It is good. They are very sophisticated; it is all high-tech. They operate at an incredible level of occupational health and safety. They are bringing money to the town, but most importantly they are bringing this new platform of technology. That is most welcome and will support the town and the region.
I looked at the NBN on websites when they were visible in the streets of Tennant Creek, and I became aware of an issue that is representative of the pastoral sector, which is that families with children in distance education are already concerned about the bandwidths, the speed available and the size – the member for Daly might help me with the megabytes and gigabytes – of what they can access. This is very interesting.
The minister, no doubt, will talk about the satellite that has been launched and how the NBN is complemented by a satellite service for the remote areas. Already a sector of the community is raising concerns about the constraints. When that relates to critical distance education programs for children, the long-term partnership between government and Telstra would be very interested in talking about and planning for that, particularly with the investments we see on the pages in the statement.
I enjoyed your description of the Centre for Appropriate Technology and those new mobile bases. I visited the Centre for Appropriate Technology not so long ago for a tour. I went to the workshop and talked to the techs and tradespeople constructing the trailer to carry the technology out bush. They talked about their other innovations as well. It is good to see it promoted in the statement because it is an incredible organisation that represents great opportunities in innovation. The minister has linked this perfectly to innovations in information and communication technology, which have very direct outcomes. I was immediately interested in talking about road safety and the access points where these facilities will be located, as well as the support they can provide to people travelling and touring in remote areas.
It has been a great opportunity for me to mention that smorgasbord of issues – not too hard or intense, but real issues from the bush. As the member for Nelson said, there are some significant dollar appropriations. Telstra is a very successful Australian company and it is good to see that you have continued that partnership, as will any future government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I reiterate that very important area of cyber safety, as it is a whole new world that is literally opening up to remote communities. As a father and a grandfather, I struggle with keeping up with these technologies with the younger members of our family. No doubt I share those concerns with people living in regional and remote communities, particularly in a cross-cultural context in languages other than English and in understanding that there are very real dangers and social issues that can be created. We need to be equally cognisant about that part of the technology, as well as the implementation and rollout of technology.
Mrs PRICE (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, in contributing to the debate on the remote telecommunication co-investment program, I am glad to see progress increasing access to telecommunications for Indigenous people. I have pushed for improved access to telecommunications since being elected to this place. This announcement is a testament to the virtues of working within a party to secure outcomes for people.
The Country Liberals deliver. We are delivering improved outcomes for people, and we listen. We have listened to communities, and the Chief Minister and minister Styles listen to me. It is great to see partnerships and joint programs with the private sector. Telstra and the Northern Territory government have both committed $15m to the program, $5m per year for the next three years. This is a $30m investment in remote telecommunications infrastructure.
The Chief Minister announced the priority communities on 20 October 2015. I was pleased to see Manyallaluk, Umbakumba, Bulman, Weemol, Minyerri, Docker River, Yarralin, Titjikala and Belyuen are the priority communities.
I recently visited Docker River and it did not have the necessary telecommunications infrastructure. Docker River is on a key transport route and is attempting to attract more tourists and grey nomads. Tourists are more likely to access and stay in an area with phone reception. When tourists are there they are now able to check in with a photo and put something on Instagram, advertising the destination to even more people, providing a personal recommendation and endorsement.
This announcement is an important step in investing in the economic enabling infrastructure for tourism but also for so many other reasons. I was in Docker River not long ago and people asked when they were getting access to mobile services. I was pleased to say that we, as a government, were making sure that Docker River gets access, and they were happy. The people of Docker River were very pleased having heard that we were looking into it for them and they were on the list.
Earlier this year, I visited Bulman and Weemol. These are both extremely isolated communities with limited transport options. Wet Season flooding tends to isolate these Top End communities. This infrastructure makes them so much less remote. It means they can go online and send an instant message to their MLA here. It means they can read a newspaper, not just the NT News but The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times and papers from across the world. It means they are able to expand their vision of the world.
Telecommunication infrastructure is vitally important for remote communities. The path to better outcomes and lives begins with vision. People cannot get vision when they are unable to compare and contrast without this investment. The only way to compare and contrast in a remote community is to leave.
I also mention Yarralin, in my electorate, which asked me for this sort of investment. I am glad the Country Liberals are delivering for Stuart. We listen and we deliver. I made a commitment and I delivered. This means the community can access so many more markets. It means they can access commercial opportunities that they would not have been able to access previously through e-commerce. Instead of selling products to people passing through, they can sell to a housewife in the United States who has never been to Sydney, let alone the Territory. It means they can sell their work to people living all over the world.
We are committed to supporting our communities and homelands. That is why there is this $30m joint investment program that is expanding access to telecommunications services in remote Northern Territory communities. A study of exact requirements for each community is under way. I look forward to hearing updates on the progress on this much-needed investment in our remote telecommunications infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and I commend the Chief Minister and minister Styles on their hard work in making this possible.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister in this statement and congratulate the government on the amount of money it is getting Telstra to co-invest into this.
I listened to the members for Barkly and Nelson talk about some of the problems of mobile phones in remote areas, and I recall speaking on this subject. I first spoke about it 18 months ago. The issue I raised was that while we were installing NBN fibre, Telstra had a 3G network it had stopped maintaining because everyone was going to the NBN. The next change was going to satellite, and now we have gone to wireless broadband.
The problem remote places in the bush have with satellite is that it is not just for their Internet but also for television. Every house will need two satellite dishes. There is a complete lack of coordination between those two technologies. Today most TV programs go through broadband, the Internet and to your TV. You now have a layering of the three technologies.
People remember CDMA. After CDMA we had 3G. We then went to 4G and today we have another technology called 4GX. If I describe the differences between those, you will see some of the problems. The tower that sits at Daly works for 3G phones. If it is not being used, every 15 or 20 minutes, a 3G phone will say to the tower, ‘I am here, are you still there?’ and the tower will say, ‘Yes, I am’. That 3G tower is set up to cater for 100 mobile phones at any point in time based on this polling. If you use a 4G phone it constantly says, ‘I am here’, the tower says, ‘I see you’, and then the phone says, ‘I am here, I see you’. So every 4G telephone sitting in the footprint of that 3G tower takes up a link to that tower. That then creates a problem.
People using broadband is the other issue with these towers. That is a wider bandwidth, which means instead of a simple one-connection telephone line, the wired bandwidth uses the equivalent of, say, five or 10 telephones. When people use a computer connection they cut down on the phones. Telstra controls the towers by setting a limit on the number of phones that will run on a tower, say 150 phones, and when close to that limit the strength of that tower is lowered automatically. They lower the strength by computer control and that automatically reduces the circle around the tower. This is why many people’s signals drop out. People will say to you, ‘When we first had it we got a terrific signal, we did not have a problem, but nowadays we are lucky if we can get it outside standing on the roof’. The reason is these towers have not been updated in remote locations. While I support putting in many of towers, I caution everyone that they need to be maintained and upgraded on a regular basis.
We talk about people in the bush having problems. Someone bought our property at the Daly, which is still 3G with satellite and television dishes on the roof, and we recently moved to Acacia Hills. At Acacia Hills, which is 65 km from the CBD, I cannot get the NBN. I cannot even get wireless NBN. I am stuck with using the old copper network and there are no plans for my area to go to the NBN. I sympathise with the people the member for Nelson mentioned.
The other thing the member for Nelson mentioned was the fact that some people who have old technology, such as copper cables coming into their house, Telstra tells them to go to a mobile and they are charged mobile rates. I spoke to the member for Nelson a minute ago to inform him there are properties that are only charged landline rates but are using a wireless connection. One example is my electorate office. There are no landlines to my electorate office; it is wireless broadband. I should not say this here, but it is probably the fastest Internet connection anyone has. It is possible, and Telstra should be pushed on this.
One thing we look at is cost. The member for Barkly spoke about education. A concern raised with me by the people at Palumpa during the last upgrades was the lack of education. Many of the TOs did not want mobile phones because they were scared of what it would do to the community. They said there needed to be more education. This was provided at Palumpa, was quite good and they are more accepting of it.
A couple of benefits have come from that. First, in the past if the housing maintenance crew that goes to these locations went to Palumpa or Peppimenarti to do maintenance on a house they would be there all day. They would look at the problems at the house, then go back to their home base, and it would be the next day or the day after before they advised Housing of the problem. What occurs now is the people who do the maintenance – I think Scott Hammet’s SH Build is the company doing it – use an app on their phones and iPads. When they look at a Territory Housing house and there is a problem they take a photo and it is e-mailed straightaway. There should be a fantastic saving to the service offered for people in these houses.
We can look at how Power and Water use it. Everyone talks about the power cards that many of the communities use. When there were some disturbances at Wadeye 12 or 18 months ago, I was advised that the meters are no longer being produced and do not conform to some standards so they have to change to a new technology. The technology they have changed to is dependent on wireless. When you go to the store or council office to buy what used to be a power card, now you simply pay your money, they get on to their iPad in the store and send a signal and your power is upgraded.
This was trialled in Nauiyu, which I deem as one of the leading-light communities in my electorate. However, the mistake made was they went from Nauiyu to Wadeye. They went from the best to the worst and are hitting some major problems in how it is being handed out.
Power and Water is looking at that. There is no problem with the technology; it is just access to somewhere to pay. You cannot go next door and get a power card off the rest of your family; you are relying on sending a signal to the power box. While some of the technologies are great, there are downsides to them and that is one of them.
Let us look at some of the things coming out of the use of this technology. In most of these communities there are art centres which put on the Internet pictures, paintings or artwork that can be sold around the world.
One of the other things people need to look at is the use of technology in the creation of art. I am talking about music, lighting and stacks of technologies people can use on this. We should also be looking at those things, not just using a telephone.
Recently the Commonwealth was cutting funding for some of the wireless access to some of the remote libraries. We argued with the Commonwealth and have been successful in getting that funding reinstated for at least the next 12 months. This is one area where the number of people using this technology in the communities was evident to me when I looked at the usage rate in these libraries.
The other thing that needs to be considered is the issue of upgrading these facilities. I mentioned at the beginning that in my electorate Dundee is still 3G. Telstra has committed to upgrading that or implementing 4GX there. I have yet to see that happen. It was supposed to be done in September so I hope they get that upgrade in very shortly.
Adelaide River is in the same position of still running 3G. To me, that is a main centre on the highway. There is a problem, part of which is in some of these places people are getting illegal boosters. We give people access to the Internet and they can obtain illegal products from overseas. If they are just getting the edge of a signal, they are buying these illegal boosters which pretend to the tower that there are 10 telephones sitting there and lock up that bandwidth, even though they are not using it in their house. Telstra has a major problem with this at Dundee and Adelaide River, and they do some tracking to find where these devices are. But when people are going to this extreme to ensure their communications are working, it tells us we have a problem. Government has identified this, which is why we are providing this funding.
There are some other areas, such as Batchelor, from where I continually get complaints about the mobile coverage. Lake Bennett is another one where there are no communications from the wireless network, and that is a place where it could be easily set up on the highway.
We will get one at Belyuen out of this next package, which I welcome. Belyuen is right on the edge of the signal that comes from Wagait.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this statement and the government’s investment into this technology. There is a hell of a lot more to it than just putting telephones in. It is not like copper wires where once they are there, you just plug into the end. This technology has to be updated all the time. While people are getting bigger and bigger smart phones with newer technologies, with greater downloads, you are just putting a bigger strain on some of these old towers that are running some of the old technology.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the ministerial statement on remote telecommunications in the Northern Territory.
It is safe to say that I am not alone in saying that I do not know what I would do without my mobile phone. I am sure my colleagues in this Chamber would agree. These days they are not only a way to call and talk to family and friends or to use in case of any emergency. Smart phones can do so much more, from e-mails to world-wide web and countless applications that make our lives easier. We have world information at our fingertips.
When I say ‘we’ I mean those of us who are lucky enough to live in a place where mobile telecommunication is available, because there are a large number of Territorians who do not have that luxury which many in Australia take for granted. Mobile reception opens the opportunity for individuals to stay in contact with the outside world and for businesses to take advantage of an economy that is much broader than the political boundary of the community.
Many times I have spoken in this place about the work this government is doing to create better employment opportunity in the bush through our focus on economic development. Already in the communities lucky enough to have phones and Internet service we can see these connections with the online economy helping to bring money into the communities. Many of the art centres in these remote communities are using an online store to sell artworks across the globe. To think that someone on a remote community hundreds of kilometres from the nearest town can sell their artwork to people living in a big city in Australia or around the world is amazing. The Giles government is attacking the issue of remote area job creation from all angles and delivering mobile and Internet service to the bush communities is just one part of the plan.
Phone and Internet services are not just important to our plan for economic development; they are important for a large range of reasons, including medical emergencies, natural disaster, when police are needed, providing health service, providing government services like Centrelink and Motor Vehicle Registry, and, importantly, for education purposes.
When I visited Maningrida with the Health minister to see the complete upgrade to the health clinic, we toured the emergency rooms where there was a webcam on the ceiling above the bed. We were told how doctors and specialists from around the world can use a password to log on for access and help to diagnose the patient by using and controlling the camera.
The mental health issues in the remote Indigenous communities are huge. We can use technology to assist the individual in managing and treating their condition at home on their country. In times of natural disasters, police and emergency services can send text messages with warnings and updates to community members. Giving our children access to information from libraries around the world or to interactive learning tools can only be a good thing.
The minister’s statement identified funding programs and the government’s partnership with Telstra. I commend him, the Chief Minister and the relevant staff, as well as Telstra for their work in bringing the outside world to these remote communities.
I also thank the Chief Minister for his assistance in lobbying the Commonwealth government to get the community of Minjilang in my electorate on to the Mobile Black Spot Programme. It was a pleasure to have the Chief Minister come to Minjilang to meet with the local community people and reassure them, after a year of lobbying by people like Daisy Yarmirr, that they will be getting mobile reception. The Chief Minister took the time out on Melbourne Cup day to go to Minjilang to give them the news from the top. The community was delighted to have him there and they look forward to having him back so they can have further discussion about creating jobs in their community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to say I am part of the government that is looking after the bush. As the statement noted, there will be 57 remote Northern Territory communities with mobile phone service by 2019. This government will continue working to get more and more communities online, connecting them to the outside world. I thank the minister and his department for their ongoing work and I commend the statement to the House.
Mr STYLES (Corporate and Information Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the House who have contributed to this statement. It is very interesting to hear about things going on in their electorates. It demonstrates a clear commitment from the Giles government that we are achieving things. The members opposite talk about some of the wonderful things that are happening. In fact, in most electorates there is more occurring than ever before in this area.
There are a number of things that governments need to do, one of which is infrastructure investment. This is at the very heart of infrastructure investment. In fact, there are three types of infrastructure: social; commercial; and economic.
Social infrastructure relates to what we are doing with remote telecommunications in the Territory. It is about providing services to people, such as education, health, and policing. These are essential services needed by people who live in regional, rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory. In fact, we need it for all people in Australia who live in those areas, other than urban and city areas.
Commercial infrastructure relates to essential services, providing power and those sorts of services in the bush. The fields of communications and technology are used to control much of this. Consider remote airstrips for instance. You can turn on landing lights for airstrips which have them with a mobile phone so pilots can land. If there is a mobile phone service at an airstrip, you phone a number and it activates the lights. There used to be special long-range contraptions people used. They pressed the button as they were coming in on final approach and hoped the lights would go on. Now you extend that distance through a mobile phone service. You ring that number and the lights come on so you can see where the airstrip is in the middle of the night and you are not flying blind. These essential services are not only for emergencies but are general services for remote communities.
Economic infrastructure is necessary to bring other services and investment into an area. Today in this House I said what is happening in Africa – a revolution in relation to mobile phones and business where 70% of all business in Africa is now done on mobile phones. Rather than get a computer and running business on that, these people are running them on mobile phones. In remote Australia and remote Northern Territory it gives us the ability to do exactly the same.
A lady by the name of Kathleen Buzzacott is an example of where the Department of Business and DCIS is achieving great results. I will take a minute or so to enlighten the House as to her great story. She lives on a very small community about 18 km out of Alice Springs on the Hermannsburg Road. She was a hairdresser in Alice Springs where she did her apprenticeship and was very successful. In fact, when she decided to leave and start her own business it was a sad day for many of her clients who missed her then and still miss her, so I am told.
To conduct her business she had to do something about getting customers to her gallery, which used to be part of her home. She would sit on the veranda – I must say it is a beautiful home. It was built by ATSIC about 10 or 15 years ago. She tells me it is a very expensive home. It is all block with beautiful big verandahs surrounded by grass and is very well kept. Her husband and her sons do a great job.
She came to the Department of Business through some of our programs and made an application for grants. We gave her two grants, one of which was $30 000 to build what she now calls the studio, which is an air conditioned shed. It is a very nice shed with a concrete pad and tiled floors. It is great. There are some nice little seats out the front she made.
She has niche market bus tours coming to her business. How does she get them there? Through IT. When you drive in and look at what she has there now – she has created four jobs out of this grant. One was hers, one was the apprentice who replaced her, and her two sons now work in the business. This is a successful little family being great role models in the community.
When you drive in you notice this big satellite dish sitting on top of the house which you think is for TV. She said, ‘No, it is not the TV; this is my marketing to the world.’ Through the telecommunications they have on this little community, she used part of the grant money to establish a web page and to have her son taught how to build web pages, how to maintain them and how to get their products online. Her products are Aboriginal jewellery and Aboriginal paintings. This young lady who is in her early 40s, is very successful, a great artist and works very hard, as does her family now.
This is a classic example of what you can do when you have a small amount of technology which is not that expensive. It is about telecommunications for individuals opening up their lives. Not only does it open up the life of that woman and her family – and gives her family a fantastic future – it is also role modelling for all the others in the community. I am quite proud of the fact that our business development officers have identified the opportunities that Kathleen would have if these grants were approved. They approved them, got her going and now she will never look back. As she said to me quietly when I went to see what she achieved, ‘Without those grants I would not have got going and I would not have been able to realise my dream’.
It does not matter where you are in the Territory, it is important that government tries to spread this out across the Territory. Obviously, we cannot do everything straightaway and it will take some time. The Territory government and people from the Centre for Appropriate Technology are working with Telstra, trying to identify sites. Once we advertised that the Centre for Appropriate Technology was doing these things, Telstra picked up on the media release. Telstra asked them, ‘How do we work together to use your technology?’ The product they make is patented.
They are now working with Telstra to test all the sites for where they can spread communications and telecommunications further. They will install the towers and then try to extend the area of the tower to 30 km in every direction so people living in the regional, rural and remote Territory can get access. It is interesting because once they know they have this very inexpensive option to extend in every direction, they talk about shifting the towers to different locations because if you move it here you can extend 45 km there. It is very good.
I highly recommend, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that you reside in Alice Springs, that if you are ever driving past, pop in and have a look. They will be very nice to you; they make a great cup of tea and a nice morning tea. They also make great wood heaters as well, although that is not part of telecommunications.
I thank all contributors. As a government we are very proud of what we have achieved with Telstra. It has taken a while and it has taken some intense negotiations. I congratulate the CEO of the Department of Business, Mr Michael Tennant, and his deputy, Mr Andrew Cowan, and all those involved with this negotiated outcome.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Annual Financial
Statement 2014-15
Treasurer’s Annual Financial
Statement 2014-15
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2014-15. The statement forms part of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2014-15 and presents the government’s fiscal performance for the 2014-15 financial year. The report also satisfies, very importantly, the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Under the Giles government, the fiscal outcome has improved yet again in 2014-15, following strong economic growth and the successful implementation of a number of efficiency measures across government. These measures were aimed at limiting expense growth, increasing efficiency through restructuring and reorganising services across government, and introducing greater contestability for government service delivery.
In the 2015-16 budget I demonstrated that this government’s focus on fiscal restraint paved the way to eliminating the fiscal deficit by 2017-18. I am now pleased to report that in the 2014-15 year the fiscal balance returns to surplus, which is continued proof of this government’s ability to successfully manage the Territory’s economy and finances. The fiscal balance surplus is the first achieved since 2007-08 and it is three years ahead of the fiscal strategy target to achieve a surplus by 2017-18.
As a result, for the 2014-15 outcome most elements of the fiscal strategy have been achieved well before their stated targets. The fiscal balance surplus of $286m for the non-financial public sector is a $1bn improvement from that projected in May 2014. It is also a $343m improvement from the estimate presented in the April 2015 budget. The improved fiscal balance outcome since the original budget is a result of increased revenues of $891m and around $118m in overall lower combined operational and capital spending.
Almost half the increase in revenue is associated with the one-off proceeds of $411m relating to the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. As foreshadowed in the April 2015 budget, around $200m of the proceeds from the liberation of TIO from government ownership was allocated to a number of Building the Territory projects that will be constructed over the 2015-16 and 2016-17 years.
The remainder of the proceeds will be used to establish the recently-announced Northern Territory infrastructure development fund that will be dedicated to promote further investment in economic infrastructure. The fund aims to leverage up to $1bn of investment from Australian super funds, Australian institutional investors and international investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, to create a self-sustaining pool of capital. The fund will support the long-term economic growth of the development of the Northern Territory by investing in new infrastructure projects and creating new jobs and opportunities for local businesses.
The balance of the $480m in additional revenue largely comprises of the following: Territory taxation revenue of $141m, reflective of the strong economic growth experienced in 2014-15; increased GST of $96m, primarily due to the growth in national GST collections; Commonwealth tied funding of $132m for new and expanding initiatives; $60m increase in revenues due to the transfer of the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme into the general sector; $34m increase in interest received as a result of the 2013-14 and 2014-15 improved outcomes; and $17m increase in other revenues across government agencies.
The reduced spending outcome was a result of continued focus on fiscal restraint with an emphasis on efficiency and service delivery improvements, and enhanced budget monitoring; revised timing of Commonwealth-funded expenditure with the effects of any timing differences to be included in the 2015-16 mid-year report; and lower capital spending across government, reflecting the revised timing of Commonwealth-funded programs and the realignment in the timing of capital works commitments.
In regard to the general government sector, the operating balance is in a surplus position of $887m, an $824m improvement when compared to the original 2014-15 budget. The improvement is consistent with the improved fiscal balance position excluding capital spending. The 2014-15 surplus is this government’s second consecutive operating surplus, and as highlighted in the 2013-14 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, means this element of the government’s fiscal strategy was also achieved three years ahead of target.
I now turn to the Territory’s balance sheet. The improved operating outcomes have flowed through to the net debt position. For the non-financial public sector, net debt is $2.2bn for 2014-15, $852m lower than the 2013-14 outcome and $1.8bn lower than the original 2014-15 budget projection.
As outlined in the April 2015 budget papers, as part of the sale of TIO the Territory retained ownership of the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme. As a result, the scheme was reclassified from the public financial corporation sector to the general government sector. The effect of this transfer, combined with the better than expected fiscal balance outcome, has contributed significantly to the reduction in net debt.
Net debt to revenue has declined to 32% from the 67% projected at the time of the original 2014-15 budget. It is also a reduction of the 2013-14 outcome of 53 percentage points. To put this in perspective, at the time of the pre-election fiscal outlook report prepared in August 2012, Labor’s net debt for 2014-15 was projected to rise to $5.1bn. The actual result is that almost $3bn has been wiped off Labor’s projected net debt since the CLP assumed office in August 2012. In addition, the net debt-to-revenue ratio of 32% is around one-third of that which was projected under Labor. This is nothing short of astounding.
The 2014-15 year was the first financial year of operations for the newly-separated utility government-owned corporations. From 1 July 2014 the Power and Water Corporation was separated into three distinct government-owned corporations – Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation – each having accountability for their own financial outcomes and reporting. The separation was undertaken to allow for competition in the Territory electricity market and to ensure the entities operated more efficiently and effectively.
It was expected that the process of separation would take time, be challenging and potentially cause problems disaggregating the information within the financial systems. Due to the complexity of these changes, and in order to meet statutory deadlines for the finalisation of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, the numbers contained in the normal public non-financial corporation sector for the Power and Water Corporation and its subsidiary, Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd, have been included on the basis of provisional unaudited numbers.
At the time of submitting the Treasurer’s annual financial statements to the Auditor-General, the Board of Power and Water Corporation had not submitted signed financial statements for the Auditor-General to issue an opinion on their account. As a result, the Auditor-General has not expressed an opinion on the public non-financial corporation sector balances contained in the 2014-15 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The inability for the Auditor-General to express an opinion highlights that in financially separating the corporation, processes and systems which may have in the past been appropriate in a consolidated entity are no longer adequate, particularly when taking into account all of the complexities that come with changing systems and business processes in order to produce separated financial statements. I have been given assurances that the Power and Water Corporation has commenced an extensive program of corrective actions to systems, processes and controls to address the issues by 30 June 2016.
Irrespective of the issues associated with the Power and Water Corporation, of the $1bn improvement in the non-financial sector fiscal balance since May 2014, $962m relates to the general government sector, which is unaffected by the modified audit opinion. As such, the modified audit opinion does not detract at all from the achievement of the improved 2014-15 fiscal balance and related key fiscal aggregate outcomes.
In summary, the 2014-15 outcome is testament to this government’s fiscal responsibility, with the fiscal balance returning to surplus for the first time since 2007-08. While deficits are projected for the next financial years, 2015-16 and 2016-17, due to the expected substantial infrastructure spending, the government will continue to focus on the challenges of restraining expenditure growth to below revenue growth in order to return to the surplus projected in 2017-18.
Completely unlike those members opposite, we are committed to reducing the Territory’s debt burden by cutting government waste, making sound economic decisions and promoting a sustainable and diverse economy that benefits all Territorians. Almost every day that we come into this place, government is berated by those opposite for not spending enough money. Members opposite lecture us on the fact we are not spending money on this or that.
The most recent example that is receiving headlines is Richardson Park. The government made a decision to try to limit its expenditure as much as possible while still maintaining and promising a first-class, first-rate rectangular football stadium to be developed at Richardson Park. Yet the opposition constantly comes in here lecturing us that we need to spend $100m or more at the Marrara sporting complex or, even worse, at Freds Pass Reserve.
Their view is that rugby league is best off out of sight, out of mind; throw a lot of money at it, turn your back and walk away. No one wants rugby league in their suburbs, according to members opposite. They seem to ignore that in pretty well every other city in this country, rugby league rectangular stadiums are contained within suburban locations.
The opposition comes in here lecturing us that we need to spend more money on a range of things. Another classic example is my good friend the member for Brennan, the Minister for Education, has done a sterling job reforming the education system. For the first time in years we are seeing a turnaround in results for Territory schoolchildren. This government and this minister are particularly focused on outcomes and making sure children get the best possible education. Whilst he has done a great job at restraining expenditure in the education system, there is more than enough money to fund schools and education programs, and the results are there for all to see.
Education has turned around but almost every day we come into this place we are lectured by those opposite about how we need to throw more money at education. Clearly what members opposite are really saying is, ‘You need to throw more money at school teachers because most of them are good union members who pay into registered organisations and get us elected’. They try to cloak it in some sort of empathy for schoolchildren. I find that somewhat alarming and distressing, but if the comrades opposite feel that is the way to go, well good on them.
There is a range of other areas. We are lectured about our health system. I look at my good friend the member for Port Darwin, who is the Health minister and the corrections minister. He talks to me on a regular basis saying, ‘It would have been good if we had $1.8bn to spend on a hospital. It would have been a marvellous thing if this government could have spent $1.8bn building the new Palmerston hospital.’ The Minister for Health also greatly enjoys his job as the minister for corrections, but he would much rather see that $1.8bn invested in the health system than making more luxurious digs for criminals.
But no, that is the Labor way. They come in here and lecture everybody on how tough they are on crime. As we saw under their government, crime was rampant across the Northern Territory. What was there response? Improve the digs of criminals and make sure when they were sentenced and put away they got to stay in a nice, luxurious, purpose-built, $1.8bn prison.
Their response to the second hospital at Palmerston was a measly $110m. This government would like to spend more money on the Palmerston hospital, but such is the nature of the debt and the deficit legacy left to us by the former government, that we are making do. The Health minister is doing a fantastic job of meeting our election commitment to see the Palmerston Regional Hospital built, developed and operating on the time lines we have committed to. I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, for his hard work in that area.
It is also interesting to see the way those opposite want to deal with criminals. I have noticed recently they have been calling for the end of the Sentenced to a Job program. This is a stellar program, a glittering example of how a lateral-thinking and quick-footed corrections minister can turn a system around. We have seen a big reduction in recidivism and more prisoners leaving prison with skills, somewhat rehabilitated and ready to join the community to start working and ensure they live a decent and profitable life after their period in prison.
These are just a couple of examples of how an irresponsible Labor Party would act in government. If the Leader of the Opposition has his way, he will get a majority of people in here to throw this government out at the next sittings and we will go to the polls. If he gets his way we will have another Labor government. As sure as God made little apples, we will be burdened again by debt and deficit for years to come. The reality is the Labor Party members do not care about intergenerational debt; all they care about is themselves and getting re-elected. The legacy they leave for our children and grandchildren bothers them naught.
This Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is an excellent demonstration of how this government has managed to reign in Labor’s debt and deficit problems, how we are still focused on returning budgets to surplus and how we achieved a surplus last financial year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and commend it to the House.
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2014-15
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2014-15
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the paper be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Inquiry into Foundation 51
Inquiry into Foundation 51
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that:
this parliament, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act, appoints a person qualified to be a judge in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to inquire into and report to the Administrator regarding the operation and activities of Foundation 51 Pty Ltd, and
the qualified person referred to above be selected for recommendation to the Administrator of the Northern Territory based on the process outlined for the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge in Appendix A of the Review of The Processes for the Appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory, with the exception that the panel outlined in the process recommend one name instead of two for consideration.
The terms of reference for the inquiry are:
1. the extent of the relationship between Foundation 51, the Country Liberal Party and the Northern Territory government
2. whether Foundation 51 Pty Ltd has complied with the provisions of the Northern Territory Electoral Act (the act)
3. the extent of any conflicts of interest between the Directors of Foundation 51 and their public duties under government appointed positions
4. the scope and method of the investigations conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and NT Police into Foundation 51 and the outcome that prima facie breaches of the Electoral Act and a reasonable chance of conviction existed
5. any other matters the inquiry thinks fit
6. the inquiry will report back to the Legislative Assembly no later than 31 May 2016.
I put to this parliament that there is a need for a judicial inquiry to finally get to the bottom of what happened with the now infamous Foundation 51. This has been a murky issue which has received much media coverage and has been subject to investigations.
However, we believe Territorians still do not have the answers they are seeking. Territorians want those answers so they can have faith in the electoral system and know it is free from corruption. They want to know there is transparency around political donations so they can have faith in the decisions and processes of the operations of government.
There is no doubt Foundation 51 is a CLP slush fund. It was established with a deliberate intent to avoid disclosure of donations as required by the Northern Territory Electoral Act. These disclosure provisions are designed to protect the integrity, transparency and strength of our democracy. But evidence available on the public record confirms, unequivocally, that Foundation 51 and the CLP have conspired to avoid the disclosure and reporting of donations mandated by the Electoral Act. What is the proof that points to this? We have an e-mail from the Foundation 51 Director, Graeme Lewis, of 26 November 2012 to the then CLP President, Braedon Earley, that states in part:
- You will recall that in 2009, the NT was dealing with a hung parliament, and the CLP was preparing for a snap election. We worked bloody hard to place ourselves in a strong position for that election – which of course never happened but it could have.
Lantry and the strategists spent a bundle of money – more in fact than was raised. The income in the year to 30 June 2009 was $206 090, including your welcome contribution of $20 000. However, spending reached $240 083, which included $187 374 of professional fees to researchers and pollsters. All the money raised was spent and overspent.
It then went on to say:
- In the year ended 30 June 2012, it was much easier to generate funds, both directly and through very successful functions. Revenue totalled $237 227. Expenditure in that year amounted to $224 780, which included the following:
polling and associated research for the August election, $195 050; concept development for the August election, $21 523.
I seek leave to table that e-mail, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Ms MANISON: Why would Graeme Lewis be mortified if this information becomes widely known? Why did Graeme Lewis say the information must be closely held for obvious reasons? Why did Foundation 51 and the CLP not declare these donations in accordance with the requirements of the act? Only an independent inquiry will get to the truthful answers of these questions.
Despite the denials of the Chief Minister, there are close links between the CLP and Foundation 51, also confirmed on the public record. Why did the Chief Minister deny a relationship between the CLP and Foundation 51 when the connection between them clearly exists? Why is the Chief Minister hiding this from the Territory community? The exposure of Foundation 51’s operations, including the relationship with the CLP, is something the Chief Minister will avoid at all costs. The Chief Minister seems to be avoiding answering those questions. The only way the unlawful operation of Foundation 51 and its relationship with the CLP will be fully exposed is through an independent judicial inquiry with the powers to summons witnesses and compel the production of documents.
The four elements of the motion before the Assembly provide lenses through which the activities of Foundation 51 will be fully exposed to the community for the first time. The first component of the terms of reference captures:
- the extent of the relationship between Foundation 51, the Country Liberal Party and the Northern Territory government
On many occasions the Chief Minister has denied that there is any relationship between Foundation 51 and the CLP, but that is simply not the case. In an e-mail dated 26 November 2012 to members of the CLP executive and then Chief Minister Terry Mills, Foundation 51 Director Lewis said:
- I have discussed the MO with Terry Mills …
On another occasion as reported by the ABC, Mr Lewis said:
- ‘I am the sole director and shareholder, with Terry Mills for obvious reasons, not appearing on the registers, but adopting a directorial role throughout ...
There is no indication of what the obvious reasons are, but we could make an educated guess. Yet again, Mr Lewis has provided a clear demonstration of the links between Foundation 51, the CLP and the government which were previously denied by the Chief Minister, Adam Giles.
In an e-mail to members of the CLP Executive on 24 March 2012 with reference to the current Chief Minister, Mr Lewis stated:
- ‘He and I have on many occasions discussed the matter of the Foundation, and he is well disposed to having the Foundation continue its activity ...
Territorians could reasonably ask why, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, the Chief Minister continues to deny any connection between Foundation 51, the CLP and the government. What does the Chief Minister have to hide and why is he hiding it?
Despite the Chief Minister’s denial that it exists, the relationship between Foundation 51, the CLP and the government is myriad and complex. In addition to the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and the CLP executive members mentioned above, these relationships certainly include Terry Mills’ former Chief of Staff and CLP operator James Lantry; Chief Minister Adam Giles, Treasurer Dave Tollner; and the then Foundation 51 director and former magistrate, Peter Maley.
The second element of the terms of reference for the proposed independent inquiry into Foundation 51 focuses on:
- whether Foundation 51 Pty Ltd has complied with the Electoral Act ...
Section 208 of the Electoral Act requires that the financial controller of an associated entity must provide the Electoral Commission with the return showing the amount received by or on behalf of the entity during the financial year; the amount paid by or on behalf of the entity during the financial year; the outstanding amount of debts incurred by or on behalf of the entity; the details of each person who contributed to the entity’s capital; and the total of each person’s contribution.
Section 215 of the act provides for fines of 200 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment for a person who fails to provide a return required under the provisions, or 1000 penalty units if the offender is a body corporate. These strong penalties reflect the intention of the parliament to deter and punish breaches of the disclosure provisions in the interests of our democracy.
It is an indisputable fact that Foundation 51 has breached these disclosure provisions, but the full extent of these breaches has not yet been exposed. That is why we need an independent inquiry to expose all of these breaches of the Electoral Act by Foundation 51.
The third element of the terms of reference states:
- the extent of any conflicts of interest between the Directors of Foundation 51 and their public duties under government appointed positions …
An article published in The Australian on 14 November 2014 is directly relevant to these conflicts of interest. I quote from it to inform debate on this important issue:
Foundation 51 was established in 2009 by CLP stalwart and former party Treasurer Graeme Lewis to conduct polling, market research and lobbying on behalf of Territory businesses.
In interviews with The Australian, Mr Lewis has acknowledged receiving advice that the definition of an associated entity as ‘wholly or significantly for the benefit of one or more political parties’ could apply to Foundation 51. He said that previously he had believed it did not.
Foundation 51 and the CLP recently lodged late and amended donations disclosure returns.
Mr Lewis has acknowledged that conflicts of interest did not occur between his former roles as director of Foundation 51 and CLP Treasurer.
For a brief period, he also held the chairmanship of the NT Land Development Corporation, a crucial organisation for developers.
While he has acknowledged that potential and perceived conflicts could have occurred between his former position on the LDC’s oversight committee and roles as a lobbyist and CLP fundraiser, he strenuously denied that that ever took place.
There is a telling exchange of e-mails between the Chief Minister and Mr Lewis that springs into sharp focus conflicts arising from Lewis’ appointment as the Chair of the Land Development Advisory Board. I will read some of that e-mail as well. The e-mail from Mr Lewis to Adam Giles dated 22 May 2014 reads:
- Hello Adam,
Ross C has tracked me down, and has faithfully briefed me on your concerns re the Land Development Advisory Board, and my position there.
Firstly, whilst I acknowledge that perception is everything in these matters, can I assure you that nothing that I do or have done with so-called developers would ever have conflicted with LDC issues, F51 or the Party itself. But having said that I fully accept your concern.
I must say that I have been very proud of the work I have been able to do in this position over the last year. John Coleman is a gem in your government and it has been a real pleasure to serve alongside him. I know that good things have been achieved.’
The e-mail later said:
- I really need to talk one-on-one with you about all this, and will be back in Darwin on 5 June. The real issue is that, given all that is happening in the CLP, even before this last fiasco, it’s clear that my time is up. And as I have said to you before, it is likely that Foundation 51 has also reached its use-by date.
- Frankly, I can see a logic in me continuing to serve your government, with the experience I have, completely away from all other Party relationships. That was in fact, part of the plan, when I applied for and succeeded in these appointments which were, I believe, endorsed by Cabinet.
In the interest of probity and accountability of the Chief Minister, he must tell Territorians what was discussed at the foreshadowed meeting with Mr Lewis and what the outcome was.
The fourth aim of the terms of reference for the proposed review is:
- the scope and method of the investigations conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and NT Police into Foundation 51 and the outcome that prima facie breaches of the Electoral Act and a reasonable chance of conviction existed ...
A media release by the Northern Territory Police on 21 October 2015 stated:
- The Special Reference Unit … of the Northern Territory Police has completed its investigation into the activities of Foundation 51 Pty Ltd, and a brief of evidence has been provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions ...
The DPP has determined that, notwithstanding a prime facie case and reasonable prospect of conviction, it is not in the public interest to commence a prosecution against Foundation 51 Pty Ltd.
With respect to its investigation into Foundation 51, a media release issued by the Electoral Commission on 15 April 2015 stated that:
- This investigation is now complete and the Commission has reached the view that there has been a possible breach of the compliance provisions of the Electoral Act ... This view is based on information collected through the investigation and legal advice from the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory.
- The information collected from the investigation has now been referred to the Northern Territory Police ...
The scope of both investigations is unclear, and it is not possible, without an independent inquiry, to determine all the breaches by Foundation 51 of the disclosure provisions mandated by the Electoral Act. These provisions are important to the integrity of our democracy. The public has a reasonable expectation that all breaches of the act by political parties, candidates and associated entities will be investigated and prosecuted. That is why we need an independent inquiry into Foundation 51 and why I commend this motion to the House.
We are at a time where we are entering into another election period. We know there will be a federal election and a Territory election coming. It is a clear and reasonable expectation of Territorians that they receive full, frank and open disclosures of political donations as they occur so they can have faith in the electoral system and can see transparency around political donations and that they do not influence political decision-making.
In the case of Foundation 51 there seems to be a clear relationship that has overstepped that line between Foundation 51, the CLP and relationships within government.
From the media release that was issued from police we still do not know the full information that was at hand. There are still many questions about the operations of Foundation 51 and exactly what was found. Now is the time to get all those answers on the public record so people can have full confidence in the electoral system and that governments are operating using best practices and best governance as opposed to being influenced by political donations.
Given where we are in the electoral cycle, it is a very important question, and Territorians deserve to have transparency on this issue. We are at the point where the very serious questions about Foundation 51 are still unanswered. We need an inquiry to get to the bottom of those questions.
Previously in this Chamber, we saw the member for Nelson make some ground in trying to look into political donations and succeeded in securing work for that to happen. However, we also saw this parliament overturn that.
Times have changed; things have moved forward. Since the last sittings of parliament, we have seen this media release from police showing, on face value, there are some questions regarding the operations of Foundation 51. We, on this side of the House, want to get to the bottom of those issues.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we want to ensure Territorians can have utmost faith in the electoral system and know governments are operating free from influence driven by political donations. At the moment, we feel people do not have that transparency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the press asked me recently what I thought of the idea of an inquiry into Foundation 51. I said I would support it as long as there was also an inquiry into Harold Nelson Holdings.
If you go back to the debate on this issue, the inquiry under section 4A of the Inquiries Act which was passed in this parliament included a section which said:
- 3. the role of politically allied companies, such as Harold Nelson Holdings and Foundation 51, and any other third parties to see if they are being used as fronts to avoid the disclosure of political donations
There were six matters I asked the inquiry to look at. When the government decided to rescind that motion of 20 August last year and suggested an inquiry of its own. It used three of my original references, slightly changed, and got the late Frank McGuiness to look at them.
One of the issues I was looking at was political donations over 20 years because I wanted to see whether both parties’ policy decisions had been affected by donations in that time. We would have looked at both governments equally. In Question Time on 23 October, the Chief Minister was giving the reasons why he did not support the motion. He said:
- The 20 years was completely unworkable. It was not going to work in the interests of Territorians. From a cost point of view, we needed to identify a better way of doing that.
He dismissed the idea of looking into political donations over the last 20 years. But he did not dismiss that we look at the role of politically-allied companies such as Harold Nelson Holdings and Foundation 51, in the sense that he did not have an excuse for not looking at those. The motion the member for Port Darwin brought before parliament did not include that. There was much debate at the time, and I remember the Chief Minister talking about the slush fund. There was a great deal of toing and froing across the table.
My feeling is if the Labor Party wants this to come to an inquiry – and there are many issues in relation to Foundation 51 – it must be even-handed and willing for the inquiry to look at its own Harold Nelson Holdings to see if it has been above board. I am not making a judgment on either of those bodies, but it would make good sense and, from the public perspective, look like the motion was even-handed. I have heard the debates back and forth across the table, and there have been plenty of accusations about both these organisations. If we are to have this request for the inquiry, then the best thing would be to have both of those bodies inquired into.
I will move an amendment now. I am happy if people do not agree with it, but it puts forward my view of how this debate should go. I have the following amendment, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
In the first paragraph, after ‘Foundation 51 Pty Ltd’ insert ‘and Harold Nelson Holdings’.
By the way, I have this printed if people want a copy of it. I will have it distributed in a minute:
After paragraph 1 insert:
1A the extent of the relationship between Harold Nelson Holdings and the NT Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
I do not think it destroys what the opposition is trying to do, but it gives an element of fairness. When we discuss the issue of political donations, it is not always one side I can be critical of. Both political parties received $150 000 from the AHA. I do not think that is particularly good because that can influence the decision-making of those political parties.
Without getting into all the detail of what the opposition prepared for this debate, I support an inquiry as long as it looks evenly and fairly at both political parties. If someone else believes there is another allied – as I think was originally called …
Mr Elferink: You can throw Emily’s List into that lot.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand what you are saying, minister.
In my original motion I had ‘the role of political allied companies’. I am happy if someone would like to add that to the amendment, because it is important, if we have an inquiry, to make it as broad, even and fair as possible. That way we can clear the air because this has been hanging around for an awful long time. People get a bit tired of something when it hangs around like a sore tooth. The inquiry that is being requested is a way to clear the air, sort this out once and for all, and let us move on.
The other issue is – and I do not know whether we will ever get to that part of the debate – it was great to hear that the High Court challenge by certain people in New South Wales who tried to show that the New South Wales legislation which restricted where political parties could receive donations from, such as the gambling, tobacco, alcohol and development industries, was correct and it was something they were entitled to do. I was considering bringing legislation for people to debate here earlier this year, but on advice from the Electoral Commissioner at the time that the challenge was in the High Court, I held off bringing that forward.
It is good legislation. Obviously it needs to be worked on very carefully, because as soon as you say who can give money and who cannot – is it uncle, aunty, sisters, cousins, brothers-in-law? Where do you draw the line on who can receive money? You have to make sure this legislation is not only useful but is workable. That is something we can consider.
On a slightly different note, which I might have raised – I must admit I like the idea – I again bring Canada and its Northwest Territories into the argument. Everybody there has a maximum amount of money they can spend on their election campaign, which is $30 000. No matter where you live you can spend $30 000. Whether you get that money from friends or contributors it does not matter; it is a flat amount, a maximum $30 000. You have to show all your receipts. If you go on to the Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission website, you will see that even failed candidates have photocopies of documents there showing where they bought food or a share in a table, if it was part of their election campaign. That is very different to here, but to me it is very refreshing because it puts everyone on an equal playing field and makes sure everyone does the right thing.
Mr McCarthy: I have 483 000 km2.
Mr WOOD: You will just have to tighten your belt. The member for Barkly has raised a very good point, but I will put that to the people of Northwest Territories, which I can tell you now is a lot bigger than Barkly, and Nunavut has no roads. The principle is a good one and maybe, member for Barkly, it could be adjusted for the Northern Territory. It might be that you have a formula based on the size of the electorate ...
Mr Elferink: Ah, an electoral allowance.
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say that. No electoral allowance for elections.
There are issues about political campaigns that are not healthy, but sometimes you see other ways of doing things and think maybe we should look at that and see whether we could use that for ourselves. I offer it as an idea. The member for Barkly is a smart bloke; he knew that amount would not get him around. It would probably get him out to the Rankin River and that would be about it. You need more money than that.
All I am saying is that there are other ways of doing things which ensure people who want to stand for election know they are on a level playing field. They do not have big brother parties which have lots of money to run big election campaigns, which, for many people, makes it very difficult to get into politics.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have moved that amendment to the motion because I believe it would make it a fairer inquiry, if it ever reaches that stage in this debate tonight.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my feeling after reading the motion and listening to the debate is that this is becoming tedious. I will not say this is the umpteenth time an attempt has been made to call for some sort of inquiry into Foundation 51 in this parliament, but enough has been done about this to make it tedious.
It is childish that the members opposite move this time-wasting motion because they do not accept the decision of the umpire. Frankly, I am surprised that the member for Wanguri has gone down this path. I guess she is under instruction from political masters on the other side of the House to pursue this. I assure you in both the amended form and the original form the government will not be supporting this motion.
It is interesting that the member for Nelson raised issues about Harold Nelson Holdings. There are a couple of stark differences between what has gone before us with respect to Harold Nelson Holdings, the Labor Party and the unions contrasted against the Foundation 51 matter, which has already been inquired into a number of times.
As members of this House are aware, Harold Nelson Holdings is an Australian Labor Party-run company which owns a part of 38 Woods Street. It is now called the Northern Territory ALP Investment Trust. I will come back to Foundation 51 in a moment, but some of the questions that arise for me need to be asked of the opposition – the Labor Party. One is whether they can tell us if there are any other assets or income for Harold Nelson Holdings that are not registered under the Electoral Commission financial disclosure requirements. That is probably a pretty good question for them to start with. I do not know whether they would be prepared to answer that question in this debate, but it would be pertinent and relevant to do so if they are talking about Foundation 51. In their efforts to see whatever it is they want to find or see laid bare to do with Foundation 51, perhaps it might be appropriate for them to also lay bare some of those answers to questions about Harold Nelson Holdings, about which I am sure many other people have questions.
They could also address any issues around donor returns as well. It might be something worth canvassing. Perhaps those opposite – as they sit in their glass house throwing stones – can shine a light on this important issue about which taxpayers should know. The redevelopment of 38 Woods Street is the centre point of the transfer and lease of the Stella Maris building. It has been identified that a key driver of the lease was so the business of Unions NT could continue at Stella Maris while 38 Woods Street was being redeveloped as a high-rise building.
Let us not forget that this was done using industry super or union funding. Perhaps something else needs to be teased out about Harold Nelson Holdings, perhaps we should ask the question rather than make the statement. Does Harold Nelson Holdings owe the Australian Labor Party thousands of dollars through intercompany loans?
I suppose you could delve into the nitty-gritty of all that, and I am sure an inquiry would eventually tease all that out. There could be some interesting times ahead should an inquiry look into Harold Nelson Holdings, I am sure. The Secretary of the Labor Party NT has always been the head of Harold Nelson Holdings, and I wonder whether those opposite can see any conflict there as well.
Another question that might be asked about Harold Nelson Holdings is whether they failed to lodge their financial returns on time with some, I have been advised, being as much as 253 days late. What does that work out to, about three-quarters or two-thirds of a year? I am sure there will be many people in this House who would think those issues would not pass the pub test either if they were teased out through some inquiry.
I remind those opposite, yet again, that the matters around Foundation 51 – I will move to Foundation 51 now for a moment – have already been canvassed in a number of forums. The member for Wanguri knows that. She mentioned during the course of her speech that she was aware the DPP has decided not to pursue a prosecution around Foundation 51 because it was not in the public interest. It seems to me that this is just a case of the Labor Party not liking the umpire’s decision and looking for another umpire. They are looking for another adjudicator who will somehow find the answers they think exist despite the fact Foundation 51 has already been through a number of processes.
I understand the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has inquired into Foundation 51, as has the Australian Electoral Commission. Both decided, ‘Nothing to see here’. The police have also investigated Foundation 51 and handed that over to the DPP which, as the member for Wanguri rightly pointed out, decided not to prosecute because it is not in the public interest.
The gall of the Labor Party to bring this matter into the House again and waste the parliament’s time really irks me. It is bordering on being a disgraceful waste of time in parliament.
Perhaps because of the policy vacuum – that there are no policies emanating from the Labor Party – all they have is the time, the penchant and the ability to sling mud around the place, desperately hoping some of it will stick. Perhaps they are trying to muddy the waters and draw attention away from the icky mess of the Stella Maris Inquiry.
While Foundation 51 has been cleared by those numerous investigations thus far, the findings of the Lawler inquiry were not. They were ugly and reflected on most of those opposite, who dare to sit in this House today and push this ridiculous wagon.
I will walk down memory lane a bit, if I may. The Northern Territory Supreme Court revealed Labor’s deceit for all to see. The court found in the course of the Stella Maris Inquiry that the member for Karama, Delia Lawrie, and her lawyers engaged in a ‘conscious and deliberate strategy’ to make ‘false and completely baseless allegations’ against Commissioner John Lawler to discredit the ‘ugly’ report coming Labor’s way. We all know this scandal is and was much bigger than the now Independent member for Karama. The tentacles of this saga reach deep throughout the Labor Party, its MLAs, its officials and union affiliates, not to mention its collaborators in the legal community.
As much as they like to distance themselves from this entire episode, let us not forget many of those sitting on the Labor benches today worked in the inner sanctum of the Labor government in the lead-up to the Stella Maris decision, or at the time the gift was made. I have a very nice infographic here which shows the lovely web of deceit that emanated from the Labor Party in relation to the Stella Maris matter, as well as the involvement of, to some degree, all those members opposite.
Let us look at a few of them. Before he was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay was Deputy Chief of Staff to Chief Minister Paul Henderson, as well as working in a range of other offices. He was a government backbencher in the Assembly when the Stella Maris gift was made to Unions NT.
The member for Barkly cannot go unnoticed in all this, given that he was the Planning minister at the time of the Stella Maris lease decision. He was well and truly dealt with in the inquiry into the Stella Maris matter, and there will be more to come on that.
The member for Wanguri was an adviser to Chief Minister Paul Henderson, who led the Cabinet in question. She was also the adviser to the member for Karama – as well as Chris Burns – who was a Cabinet minister when the decision was made, and tearfully defended Labor’s actions in the inquiry last year.
The member for Nightcliff was an adviser to former Cabinet minister Karl Hampton at the end of 2012.
The member for Johnston was an adviser to Sports minister and Cabinet minister Karl Hampton.
The member for Casuarina worked in the office of Cabinet minister Rob Knight, who was around at the time as well. He was part of the Cabinet that approved the deal.
The member for Nhulunbuy was a parliamentary secretary in the Labor government when the decision was made. Although some of them are mentioned here, we will not canvass or include Matthew Gardiner, one of Labor’s union mates who were the main beneficiaries of this stinking, smelly eleventh hour deal.
Unions NT was gifted a 10-year rent-free lease over this prime piece of land. This entire episode shows the lack of integrity running through Labor’s veins and casts a dark shadow across the opposition benches.
Yet, those opposite sit in this House today and point the finger at Foundation 51, which, I will say again, has already been through a number of investigative processes through the Electoral Commissions – two of them – the police and finally through the DPP.
Based on all that, it would probably be more appropriate to hold an inquiry into Harold Nelson Holdings, as opposed to Foundation 51. I will not amend the motion this afternoon because I do not know that the wording of the motion that is passed through this parliament – particularly one that has been worded by members opposite, probably and most likely without any form of legal advice – would be sufficient to duly deal with the type of inquiry needed to successfully examine Harold Nelson Holdings, the Labor Party and the associated unions.
Consequently, we will not be supporting the amendment the member for Nelson has suggested in relation to this because it does not change the wording of the motion, only insofar as adding Harold Nelson Holdings, etcetera. We will not be supporting this motion in its original form to inquire into Foundation 51, given all the reasons I have stated in the last 15 minutes or so.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is becoming tedious in this House. The Labor opposition should finally accept the umpire’s decision and that Foundation 51 has been inquired into by the Electoral Commissions, the police and the DPP, and stop hunting around for some adjudicator or umpire who will give it the answers it is seeking.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, before I start, I acknowledge the arrival in the visitor’s gallery of the Darwin Sea Scouts, if I am not mistaken, which I notice also has the presence of one Eleanor Elferink. Hello Eleanor, how are you today, sweetheart? That is a coincidence isn’t it? I get to my feet and there they are. I also acknowledge …
Ms Fyles: Best behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, now I really have to behave properly. It will be very difficult for me.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is wonderful, but I will keep everybody’s behaviour nice because I do not like it when people are rude in front of children. There is everyone’s warning.
Mr ELFERINK: Too right, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a good and personal friend of mine, Mr Andrew Price, who is sitting up there somewhere. No, lost him in the crowd. I am pretty sure I saw him before.
Back to the matters before us. There are a couple of issues with this that I would like to touch on for administrative reasons. Even if we were to agree to the inquiry, it would not work because of a number of issues, one of which is it is nowhere near prescriptive enough as there would be no control over the expenditure for the operation of the inquiry. I will get back to the reason for raising the issue of expenditure shortly.
This organisation, Foundation 51, has now been investigated by a number of independent bodies which had no political influence brought to bear on them at all. Not least of those organisations is the Northern Territory Police Force. Also, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has gone through a process of collecting information and evidence. Another organisation that looked at that evidence was the Director of Public Prosecutions. There were three independent arms looking into the Foundation 51 environment which are not influenced by government and, in particular, politicians.
The vast majority of my knowledge of Foundation 51 is collected from the public domain, and those documents show me it was a company which was ultimately declared to be an associated entity of the CLP for the purposes of the Electoral Act. This is, of course, the foundation for the member for Wanguri’s assertion that Foundation 51 is a slush fund for the CLP. That is an erroneous way to describe Foundation 51. I understand it was established and Mr Graeme Lewis, who was one of the final directors of the organisation, had certain obligations under the legislation to make reports to the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
One of the first organisations to investigate was the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. From what I can make out from what I have seen in the public domain, there was a point of difference between Mr Lewis and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission as to whether or not Foundation 51 was an associated entity.
An associated entity is a definitional construct under the Northern Territory Electoral Act, so it has to meet certain criteria to be declared an associated entity. Harold Nelson Holdings would be one of those types of organisations. I argue that, depending on how you read it, you could even say like Emily’s List is an associated entity. However, I am not sure whether Emily’s List does much more in the Northern Territory than merely donate money. If it does, then it has to be declared by the recipient and Emily’s List declared as the donor. I am curious to know if all of those requisite donations have been declared if Emily’s List has been donating to Labor women, which is its charter.
The great discovery of the Electoral Commission was the point of difference between Mr Lewis and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission that Foundation 51 was an associated entity. The response from Mr Lewis was, ‘Okay, if that is the case I will make all the people who have provided money to Foundation 51 available publically as is required by the Northern Territory Electoral Act’. In the dispute the Electoral Commission made a determination that Foundation 51 was an associated entity and said, ‘Declare your donors’. Mr Lewis complied. Did he do it within the time frame that was required? No, he did not because he did not think he was an associated entity. So the matter was then referred to the police and the police investigated and came to certain conclusions.
You will note in a recent media release the police stated that they determined there was a prima facie case. A prima facie case, by the way, is not a finding of guilt or close to a finding of guilt. If you translate ‘prima facie’ from Latin into English it means on the face of it, at first blush, the immediate appearance of. The Labor Party would take that comment to mean some assertion of guilt on behalf of Mr Lewis.
Mr Lewis is an innocent man. He has not been convicted by any court other than the star chamber the Labor Party hatch together in their lobby in this place. He stands not charged or convicted, yet we find the pursuit of Foundation 51 remains relentless by the members opposite.
What is it that has the Labor Party so excited? It is this reference to a prima facie case, but the DPP said, ‘Do not worry about it’. Why did the DPP say not to worry about it? Because the offence was of such a trivial nature that it was not worth pursuing. It was not in the public interest to pursue the matter through a court house, simply because it would cost too much and the offence – I presume, without having looked at the legislation – was little more than a summary offence – a traffic offence such as not wearing your seat belt. You would get bigger fines for swearing in the street than Mr Lewis was potentially subject to through any breach of the legislation should it have been proved.
I reiterate that no such offence has been proved. Mr Graeme Lewis is an innocent man and I defy the members opposite to start going outside of this House in the public domain saying anything other than that about Mr Graeme Lewis. I am sure Mr Lewis would be delighted to separate some of the members opposite from some of their houses in pursuit of the defamation case. But no, they use this place.
If you look at this motion you will get an impression of how ridiculous it is. This Labor opposition, in pursuit of something that has been established at the very worst to be a summary offence, would hire a judge to pursue the matter through an inquiry under the Inquiries Act at the cost of what? $200 000 to $300 000? Is this Labor opposition suggesting we should chase down a person for a summary offence at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars when the independent head of the DPP, Jack Karczewski, has said it is not worth chasing through the auspices of the lower courts because it is not a serious enough matter to pursue? What the member for Wanguri is suggesting is patently and abjectly absurd, and reeks of exactly the witch hunt she would accuse the CLP of launching into.
Let us compare what was inquired to in relation to the last time we had an inquiry established under the Inquiries Act in the Northern Territory. The amount of money being investigated was probably worth millions of dollars in benefit to Harold Nelson Holdings. The inquiry into Stella Maris was about moving the unions out of 38 Woods Street – if I have the address correct – and into a taxpayer-funded facility for a period of a number of years. The net result at the end of that would have been that 38 Woods Street would have likely been vacant. The unions were part owners of 38 Woods Street. Who was the other owner? Harold Nelson Holdings!
That part of the Stella Maris Inquiry was never pursued. If you want to look at something that is really dodgy, there was a multimillion property development mooted by the Labor Party and Harold Nelson Holdings whilst the tenants got free rent at taxpayers’ expense in Stella Maris. You talk about shonky, dodgy and out of control. That is shonky, dodgy and out of control. If it was ever established, that would attract the word ‘corrupt’.
Yet, what does the Labor Party want to do? It wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing a seat belt offence. This is an unconscionable approach by the Labor Party, and a fascinating strategy it has employed. It would make anything it accuses us of doing on this side of the House look like child’s play compared to the cynicism being advocated today by the member for Wanguri.
This is balderdash; it is unsupportable nonsense. It is driven by the most base of political motivations. Suck it up that three different organisations have looked at Foundation 51 and said, at worst, they may have committed a summary offence but it is not worth pursuing.
Yet the member for Wanguri would happily turn a blind eye to an inquiry which demonstrated some pretty dodgy behaviour. The only reason, I suspect, Mr Lawler was not able to make a finding of corruption in that inquiry is there was no suitable definition on the Territory statute book of ‘corruption’ to justify such an assertion.
Nevertheless, after that shonky, dodgy deal was bolted together at the death knell of the last Labor government, we saw the unedifying response from the member for Karama. She engaged in a deliberate strategy to create a fiction that due process had not been afforded to her in the inquiry. She could then go into the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which was invited, as a result of that strategy, to make an incorrect finding through the conduct of the member for Karama.
Part of that process has seen the member for Karama become subject to a criminal investigation in relation to affidavits filled out as part of that matter before the court. I make no further observation or comment because, as far as I know, no determination has yet been made as to whether the matter should be pursued by criminal processes or not. That is a matter I will leave with the DPP, the police and whoever investigates these things. It is a matter I will leave entirely in the hands of the court. It is not for me to postulate on that.
But where is the outrage and indignation from the member for Wanguri when that sort of behaviour is conducted? She will get herself into a lathering state of agitated excitement over a seat belt offence, and want to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money in pursuit of such nonsense, but remains utterly silent about the connection between Harold Nelson Holdings and the Stella Maris arrangements struck by the former Labor government.
Whilst I appreciate what the member for Nelson is trying to introduce, his amendment will not go far enough because it does not add Harold Nelson Holdings every time the words ‘Foundation 51’ occur. If it did, the structure of such a motion – especially if you put together a motion for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act – would by its very nature demand a much more prescriptive and descriptive motion.
If the member for Nelson is keen to pursue this, I invite him to speak with me and the Chief Minister at some point. We can put together a motion that may well be acceptable to the member for Nelson to look at Harold Nelson Holdings. Let us look at exactly what was said by members of the Labor Party who govern Harold Nelson Holdings and union members who sought to benefit from this deal over Stella Maris. Let us get those people, whoever they are, into an inquiry and answering questions about what conversations they had and what was proposed going forward. I note the member for Nelson is now listening about the offer I am making. I would make sure the member for Nelson was properly negotiated with in relation to this matter ...
A member: It will get rolled anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps not. I was talking to you.
Mr Wood: Huh?
Mr ELFERINK: I will talk to you later. It is all right. I note the member for Nelson may have been momentarily distracted.
Perhaps I can make the offer again so there is no uncertainty. The problem I have with the motion as it is at the moment is that if you compare it with the one that established the Stella Maris inquiry, it has to be a lot more prescriptive. I note that the member for Nelson has made a number of suggestions in relation to inserting ‘Harold Nelson Holdings’. I do not mind; let us look at Harold Nelson Holdings. But even if we insert those – and we would have to insert them every time ‘Foundation 51’ occurs – it is not prescriptive enough in the structure of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. It would attract the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As a consequence of that, what I was suggesting to the House, and to the member for Nelson in particular, is that we will defeat this motion today, but we are happy, as a government, to have a conversation with the member for Nelson about how he would like to step through an inquiry of this nature, to see if we can find a way forward.
I would like very much to look at Harold Nelson Holdings, particularly in relation to its arrangements with the union movement and the Stella Maris lease, because 38 Woods Street would have been bulldozed and been worth millions of dollars on a property redevelopment. This would have cashed up the Labor Party for a long time to come, and the taxpayer would have footed the bill, and put the tenants of 38 Woods Street into Stella Maris. I ask the member for Nelson to be cognisant of those facts.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in short, we cannot support this motion simply because, for practical reasons, even if we wanted to support it, it was not prescriptive and descriptive enough. The second reason is that chasing an organisation like Foundation 51, when it has already been established that the worst it has ever done is the equivalent of a seat belt offence – if proven, which it has not been – and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to recover that is silly, nonsense and politics at its most base.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson and other members opposite for their contributions, even though we look at this issue very differently.
We brought this very serious motion before the parliament because we believe there are still too many unanswered questions when it comes to Foundation 51, relationships within the CLP and with the government. We feel that those questions need to be answered. That clarity is still not there for Territorians. People want to know the answers and we feel there is a case still to answer.
I keep referring to the investigation into Foundation 51, and the Electoral Commission media release on 15 April 2015 that stated:
- This investigation is now complete and the Commission has reached the view that there has been a possible breach of the compliance provisions of the Electoral Act ... This view is based on information collected through the investigation and legal advice from the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory.
I also refer again to the media release issued by the police on 21 October 2015 that stated:
- The Special Reference Unit … of the Northern Territory Police has completed its investigation into the activities of Foundation 51 Pty Ltd, and a brief of evidence has been provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions ...
The DPP has determined that, notwithstanding a prime facie case and reasonable prospect of conviction, it is not in the public interest to commence a prosecution against Foundation 51 Pty Ltd.
We believe there is public interest and concern. People want to have faith in their electoral system and that political donations are fully disclosed. At the moment I do not believe people have that confidence given what has happened with Foundation 51. That has been made absolutely clear. There are still many unanswered questions.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been put on the record that the government will not be supporting this motion. This will not stop the opposition from continuing to pursue this matter to add light and get to the bottom of what has happened with Foundation 51. We believe it is important that Territorians can have confidence in their electoral system, and that governments go about business free of influence driven by political donations. That is a very great concern and something we do not want to see in the Territory.
Amendment negatived.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Sessional Order for Question Time
Sessional Order for Question Time
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly suspends Chapter 12 of the standing orders in relation to questions seeking information and replaces the content of Chapter 12 with the following sessional orders for the remainder of the duration of the Twelfth Assembly or until otherwise determined by the Assembly:
1. Ministerial Reports
- (1) On each sitting day at 2 pm ministers will be permitted to provide three-minute oral reports.
- (2) No more than eight such ministerial reports may be given on any one sitting day.
2. Question Time
- (1) At the conclusion of ministerial reports, any member who is not a member of the government may ask oral questions without notice to a minister during Question Time.
- (2) Question Time will last until 12 questions and any supplementary questions (which if asked must be directly relevant to the answer given) have been answered by ministers and any further questions have been asked of members or the Speaker and been answered.
(3) The opposition party will be allocated a total of eight questions and members not aligned with a political party will be allocated a total of four questions. A non-party aligned member may defer their opportunity to ask a question to another member who is not a member of the government.
3. Questions to Ministers
- (1) Questions may be asked of ministers on matters relating to their portfolio responsibilities or related to public affairs by any member who is not a government member.
(2) Questions may be no longer than one minute each in duration; answers may be no longer than three minutes each. Supplementary questions may be no longer than 30 seconds each and answers to supplementary questions may be no longer than 60 seconds each.
4. Questions to Other Members
At the conclusion of questions to ministers any member may rise and ask another member a question relating to a bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House in which that member is concerned.
5. Questions to the Speaker
At the conclusion of all other questions being asked during Question Time any member may rise and ask the Speaker a question relating to any matter for which the Speaker is responsible.
6. Questions on Notice
- (1) A member must give a question on notice to the Clerk in sufficient time, in the opinion of the Speaker, to enable it to be published in the next issue of the question paper.
- (2) The question must be in writing and signed by the member.
- (3) The reply to a question on notice must be given by delivering it to the Clerk within 30 days of receipt by the minister. A copy must be given to the member who asked the question, and both the question and the answer must be printed in Hansard.
7. Language of Questions
The Speaker may require the language of a question to be changed if it seems to him or her that it is unbecoming or is in breach of the standing orders or conventions of the Assembly.
8. Content of Questions
- (1) A member asking a question must not:
- (a) offer argument or an opinion on the matter
(b) give facts or names of persons, except when strictly necessary to explain the question
(c) be critical of the character of a member or allege misconduct by that member.
9. Content of Answers
- (1) All answers to questions must:
- (a) be direct, factual and succinct;
(b) not introduce matter extraneous to the question nor debate the matter to which the question relates.
And I further move that:
the sessional orders outlined in this motion be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration by the committee to then report to the Assembly on best practice for Question Time with a view to adoption of new standing orders
the Standing Orders Committee must report to the Assembly by no later than the last scheduled sitting day of the second sitting week of 2016.
I note that this motion to reform Question Time starts off with:
- … that the Assembly suspends Chapter 12 of the standing orders in relation to questions seeking information and replaces the content of Chapter 12 with the following sessional orders for the remainder of the duration of the Twelfth Assembly or until otherwise determined by the Assembly …
You will notice further down it says:
- And I further move that:
the sessional orders outlined in this motion be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration by the committee to then report to the Assembly on best practice for Question Time with a view to adoption of new standing orders.
the Standing Orders Committee must report to the Assembly by no later than the last scheduled sitting day of the second sitting week of 2016.
Whether people agree with this or not, the motion is putting a case for changes to Question Time which would then go to the Standing Orders Committee where it would need more discussion. The idea of some changes to Question Time has come from a number of sources. I thank the Clerk for some assistance in putting this together.
When I was in Canada I liked the way they conducted their Question Time and the way ministers were able to give statements before Question Time. I also note that some of these reforms are similar to reforms introduced to the Victorian Legislative Council.
Canada has a minority government with eight ministers who can present reports if they have a subject of interest. The members can make a report which is a like our adjournment debate, which is called the member’s statement or report. If they wished, all minsters could give a report regarding their portfolio or a subject they would like to inform the House about. When that is finished, Question Time starts. There are no Dorothy Dixers because the ministers will have made a three-minute statement.
Some ministers may not want to make a report. For ministers with a number of portfolios, I imagine that minister may have two lots of three minutes or three lots of three minutes if he, say, was the minister for Primary Industry, and he may also deal with fishing ...
Mr Chandler: How big is the parliament?
Mr WOOD: The parliament has 22 members so it is very similar to us. Northwest Territories has 19, though it is my understanding they are going to increase it by a couple of members.
It then allows the rest of the parliament to ask questions. I am asking to give everyone a chance. Theoretically, if you have 12 members you will have 12 questions. It says in the motion Question Time will last for 12 questions. I will come to how that is split up.
I will start at the beginning. There will be ministerial reports, and we have had those before. There has been some discussion about whether we should or should not have them, etcetera. Victoria has changed its standing orders to get rid of the Dorothy Dixers. Instead of being fed a question to give a report on something, the minister just makes a report. When that is finished, 12 members can ask 12 questions with a supplementary.
That is a slight variance from the Canadian experience. In Nunavut members can have two supplementary questions. Northwest Territories allows three supplementary questions with the last one being short. They keep an eye on it. Basically, you can only ask one question but if you get three supplementary questions you get a pretty good bite of the cherry. I am saying that every member on this side will be able to ask a question.
I am deviating from my paper. Item one of the motion is ministerial reports:
- On each sitting day at 2 pm ministers will be permitted to provide three-minute oral reports.
Do we have nine ministers? I hope I am right there. That takes 27 minutes, nearly half-an-hour. When that is finished there will be Question Time:
- … any member who is not a member of the government may ask oral questions without notice to a minister during Question Time.
That is standard now.
- Question Time will last until 12 questions and any supplementary questions (which if asked must be directly relevant to the answer given) …
We try to follow those rules. If I ask the minister about education, the supplementary cannot be about growing melons; it has to be about education.
- Question Time will last until 12 questions and any supplementary questions … have been answered by ministers and any further questions have been asked of members or the Speaker and been answered.
I will get to that in a minute.
- The opposition party will be allocated a total of eight questions and members not aligned with a political party will be allocated a total of four questions. A non-party aligned member may defer their opportunity to ask a question to another member who is not a member of the government.
I realise that needs some discussion. That will be part of what would go to the Standing Orders Committee because, for argument’s sake, the Independent numbers shrink. If some of them went back to where they came from there would be fewer independents. Should they still get four questions?
Mr Chandler: Is there still a time limit?
Mr WOOD: No. I will get to that. The time limit will be the length of time you can have for every question. It does not matter which party is in opposition; sometimes the Leader of the Opposition might want to have all the questions. So he takes all the questions from the other members and says, ‘I want to have seven or eight questions. I am going to hit the minister for something or other and this is what we will do today.’ Otherwise, each person can have a question. That allows everyone here to at least have one question with a supplementary. I will get to the supplementary questions in a second.
- Questions may be asked of ministers on matters relating to their portfolio responsibilities or related to public affairs by any member who is not a government member.
- Questions may be no longer than one minute each in duration …
… answers may be no longer than three minutes each. Supplementary questions may be no longer than 30 seconds each and answers to supplementary questions may be no longer than 60 seconds each.
I saw again in Canada that most people have a second question ready on a piece of paper; I was watching how they were working. They ask a question and then they refer to the Speaker and say, ‘Speaker, a supplementary question’. They are much more formal in some ways than we are. It is deliberately polite in the way a member’s name is called every time. If you ask for supplementary question, your name is called and then you direct your question to the minister.
- Supplementary questions may be no longer than 30 seconds each and answers to supplementary questions may be no longer than 60 seconds each.
Item 4 is, Questions to Other Members, which is interesting:
- At the conclusion of questions to ministers any member may rise and ask another member a question relating to a bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House in which that member is concerned.
You might ask a committee chair who may not be a minister. The Acting Deputy Speaker is the committee chair for the port, and you might ask him a question about what is happening in that committee. It does not happen very often, but someone may put forward a motion to be debated and – you have to be careful to not ask a question that pre-empts debate – you might ask a general question about what the motion was all about. There is the option to ask other people who have a position in the parliament, such as the chair of a committee. It would not be used very often, but the ability is there.
The other one is about questions to the Speaker:
- At the conclusion of all other questions being asked during Question Time any member may rise and ask the Speaker a question relating to any matter for which the Speaker is responsible.
We know there are not many questions to the Speaker, but it at least allows people to ask the Speaker a question at the specific time. When that is finished, that is the end of the questions.
This is the item regarding questions on notice which are basically written questions:
- (1) A member must give a question on notice to the Clerk in sufficient time, in the opinion of the Speaker, to enable it to be published in the next issue of the question paper.
- (2) The question must be in writing and signed by the member.
- (3) The reply to a question on notice must be given by delivering it to the Clerk within 30 days of receipt by the minister. A copy must be given to the member who asked the question, and both the question and the answer must be printed in Hansard.
That is pretty well what we have at the moment.
Under Language of Questions:
- The Speaker may require the language of a question to be changed if it seems to him or her that it is unbecoming or is in breach of the standing orders or conventions of the Assembly.
It is straightforward, but makes sure people are not using abusive or inappropriate language.
The Content of Questions says:
- (1) A member asking a question must not:
- (a) offer argument or an opinion on the matter
- (b) give facts or names of persons, except when strictly necessary to explain the question
- (c) be critical of the character of a member or allege misconduct by that member
- (2) All questions must be direct, succinct and seek factual information.
I should have checked the standing orders. I know the Clerk will tell me straightaway about the existing questions or answers. I do not know whether we have that ...
A member: Standing Order 112.
Mr WOOD: Standing Order 112 is …
Mr Elferink: The very oft quoted 113.
Mr WOOD: Yes. We already have a fairly lengthy section about questions in standing orders, which states that questions cannot be debated, should not contain statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated, should not contain arguments inferences, imputations, epithets – that is a good one for the member for Port Darwin; he likes that one – ironical expressions or hypothetical matter. Also, questions should not ask ministers for expressions of interest to announce new policy of the government or for legal opinion.
The motion has a slightly more truncated version of that, as I said:
- (1) A member asking a question must not:
- (a) offer argument or an opinion on the matter
- (c) give facts or names of persons, except when strictly necessary to explain the question
- (2) All questions must be direct, succinct and seek factual information.
That is fairly new and is different to what we have at present.
Content of Answers says:
- (1) All answers to questions must:
- (a) be direct, factual and succinct
Am I right in thinking ‘factual’ is the new word there? That would be different from the existing standing orders:
- (b) not introduce matter extraneous to the question nor debate the matter to which the question relates.
I thank the Clerk for suggesting that. I put some alternative ideas to a few people to test them, which were based on other places I visited. For instance, in the two Canadian territories, where the minister gives a three-minute statement to the parliament, a copy of each minister’s statement shall be filed with the Clerk one hour prior to the sitting of the Assembly during which the statement will be given. I do not know how that would work in practice, because in the territories they start parliament at 1.30 pm so there is the morning to get that ready. As we start earlier there might be a problem with that.
I am checking what else is here that could also be looked at in relation to this. It is pretty close to what I saw in Canada. The reason I raised it is it would make our Question Time more open for questions from this side of the House. I am not trying to be silly, but if you fill up Question Time with Dorothy Dixers – I am not saying every minister has a Dorothy Dixer but a fair number of questions are. The government could still have that but not part of question time per se. We could have a Question Time where we try to, in theory, give everyone on this side the ability to ask one question. That is a good thing to do.
I would love to hear more local questions sometimes. In Canberra they are doing something like that by allowing people to ask local questions. You will never get away from the bigger questions, and that is fair enough, but we need to allow our members to ask some local questions about their electorates. That is what people expect from Question Time as well.
I am not saying people will necessarily agree with this, but it is worthy of discussion. It is not setting the government to agree to this; it is simply saying to the Standing Orders Committee, ‘Would you like to look at this?’ I am on the Standing Orders Committee and I would probably bring copies of the standing orders of Nunavut and Northwest Territories. It is amazing how similar we are. People might ask what I did over there talking about that, but we are so similar in many ways, except for that big table which does not exist in those places. Instead, there is a big polar bear skin or a sled with a man with a drum.
They are discussing the similar issues in Nunavut, such as fracking – a big issue. Why? Because Nunavut and Northwest Territories are heavily dependent on federal funding and many people are unemployed. Many communities are highly dependent on government funding because they are way up north above the Arctic Circle, which is a tough country to live in without federal government supplying the funds to do it.
We have much that is similar. It is good that we learn from other places. I have brought back that this is not a bad idea.
I might digress while the Chief Minister is here. He may think about this. I am not trying to put people out of work here by any means …
Mr Giles: You are reflecting on my presence in the Chamber?
Mr WOOD: Oh sorry, yes. In both those places they had pages. You see them in Canberra; they are very official people. The pages are young schoolchildren, probably 15 or 16. They are the ones who take the water around. When you water is empty they fill it up. When you want to send a note to the Chief Minister you put your hand up and they take the note over to him. Where I have been, they also have a cloak area where you have to drop off your coats, because it is cold weather and people leave their coats behind. It is partly security as well. If you want to listen to the language you get a little ear plug and a small radio that you can change to pick up the translation you want.
What is good is that they are picking kids from schools who are being rewarded for attending school. It not only gives those kids some pride – in the case of Nunavut they dress up in traditional costume and in Northwest Territories it is a more formal style but it is still a costume – but they learn about parliament. Sometimes they are shy. I noticed that they sat in different corners, and there might be two at the back because sometimes in those parliaments there is a table where, during the Committee of the Whole, the minister sits and is questioned by the parliament.
I liked it because it was rewarding kids for doing well at or for attending school. My understanding is kids really look up to someone given that privilege. It may not be something the government will be in a hurry to do. It is an idea for getting kids interested in parliament. They only come in for the sittings or part of the sittings, say one week. That was good for young people, to not only be rewarded for attendance and trying hard at school, but also they get an interest in politics or the way parliament works.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not speak any longer on this motion. It is simple. I am happy to hear any responses but, as I said, it is not asking the government to agree to it now. It is asking if you will allow it to go to the Standings Orders Committee to have further discussion.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I can advise the member for Nelson that government will be supporting this motion.
In doing that, member for Nelson, there are a few things I would like you to consider on the committee, one in particular being the intent of parliament to have debate. There are many complaints about Dorothy Dixers, but we are telling the story of what we are doing in government. Many of the non-policy questions designed as personal attacks from the opposition are something you could look at. That would be quite good.
The opportunity for someone who has been asked a question to seek clarification about it would be handy. Quite often, if it is a local issue, a bit of clarity on the question is helpful because you may not know the context of the question. Sometimes you talk about a range of things in an answer because you may not know the context of the question.
For example, fortunately I knew a lot about the question from the member for Araluen to the Sport minister today so I could answer in detail. But if that question had been slightly different and the detail not known, it would have been a challenge.
I note you want this taken to the Standing Orders Committee. I do not have an issue with that nor any problem with the time frame. If it was earlier or later is not a particular worry of mine. There would have to be some scrutiny by the Standing Orders Committee to look at the affects in this area. The Standing Orders Committee would recommend some things as suitable and others unsuitable.
There are some things in here it would appear we already allow, such as questions being put to any member who has a bill. That is in item No 4, Questions to Other Members. I understand that is already part of the standing orders now, but I am happy to be corrected on that. The Standing Orders Committee will have to go through that.
My key point is that whatever improves the standard of debate in the Chamber is good. I also recommend the member for Nelson, through the Standing Orders Committee, looks at the latitude given to Standing Order 113 during Question Time. That would be handy because the use of Standing Order 113 on a regular basis is not adding any value to debate. It is designed to stop comments that could be picked up through television cameras. We know exactly what the opposition is deliberately doing in that regard. That could help the process.
The member for Nelson could look at some of the personal slurs that occur, which are not welcome or warranted, and not ruled upon. It would be suitable to strengthen the standing orders in that regard.
In this regard, there is a range of things I would throw into this if I had more time to consider the motion; it only came in yesterday. I am happy for the Standing Orders Committee to look at a range of different areas in regard to debate, all in the interest of improving it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not about setting this up to attack government, because I will not support it if that is what it proves to be. If it is about improving debate I will be happy to support it.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy to support the motion before the House. I thank the member for Nelson for raising it. As the member for Nelson knows, on this side of the House I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee, as is the member for Nightcliff.
We all know the member for Nelson is very passionate about sharing the ideas you learn from your travels to other parliaments and your discussions with other parliamentarians and the community. It is exceptionally positive that you bring that contribution to the House for consideration. We should be encouraging positive contribution from members in the House about how we might improve the quality of debate, reform parliamentary processes and all of those things. It should be open for debate in the House. So, thank you.
I will keep it brief. We welcome discussion and debate of ideas and believe we should be working hard to open our parliament up further for more participation from the community. As you may well know, we have released a discussion paper about some of these themes as well, which also looking at different aspects, including Question Time.
Politics, after all, is about people, engaging the community and how we can make sure the processes are doing exactly what they should be doing, and that we have ample opportunity to represent our constituents in the way they expect and in a way that provides them with confidence in the integrity of parliament.
I do not see any issue or reason why we would not support this motion to go to the Standing Orders Committee. There is no reason why members on the Standing Orders Committee – of which there are members on all sides of the House – cannot talk to their colleagues about the ideas they have and bring them into that debate as well. It is very clear that people around the Chamber have ideas about what might work, might not work and what the implications might be from the proposal put forward.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we support the motion to discuss this further in the Standard Orders Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not a short motion. It is probably one of the longest ones I have ever had to debate. Nevertheless, I understand what the member for Nelson is trying to do.
I have a small confession to make. It is funny how you mature in this job. I remember when I came into this place in 1997 and there was a very strict way of doing things, which was the way things were always done. I had that wrapped into my parliamentary procedure DNA.
When the new Labor government came into power in 2001 it then made some changes. It introduced the idea of the ministerial report and changed Question Time from 10 am every day to 2 pm, and those sorts of things. Perhaps it was a lack of my political maturity, but I thought this was some sort of villainous and evil act that the new government was doing simply because it was a Labor government.
With the maturity that comes with hindsight, I have realised they were probably trying very hard to improve and tweak the system. Under the old system, General Business only occurred once every 12 days when the Labor Party, when in opposition, got the whole day. They effectively got four or five days a year to pursue their own business. They introduced this system we have now of GBD every Wednesday night for three hours which, time-wise, is probably about the same as one full day every 12 days because there was no time limit on the length of the day.
That prejudice came with me when we formed government after the 2012 election, which is why I was happy to see Question Time go back to 10 am. I was always critical of the ministerial report, because by its very nature it was not debated. This is a parliament and, by literal definition if you translate it from the French parlement, it means the place where you talk – parlez vous francais, parlez vous anglais, parlement.
As a consequence, I was always twitchy about the idea of a ministerial report because it could not be debated. I railed against that when the Labor government was in place, and I am well on the record for fighting my way through that. Eventually the Labor government caved and we ended up with a five-minute report with a two-minute response and a one-minute rebuttal at the tail end, which made it the equivalent of parliamentary tennis.
The problem with the reports, as they were envisaged by the government at the time, was that opposition did not even have to turn up. There was no point. There was no invitation to debate. The ministers could stand up and the opposition could turn up half-an-hour late to parliament. You would come if for prayers and walk out. The ministers were talking to an empty room, and it had an odd look to it as a result of that.
However, as I have grown a bit in this job I sense there might be a place for such a thing as a report. I am cautious about it by virtue of the fact this is a House of debate. Anything that truncates debate in that fashion, where there is no opportunity for anything other than a minister to speak on an issue, is something I remain instinctively cautious about.
Nevertheless, this is, on face value – and I accept it as that – a genuine attempt at reform to make the system work better. There is a certain amount of pantomime with the Dorothy Dixer approach; it is still used in every parliament in the country. But there is legitimacy in one important way. A member of parliament who is not a minister of the Crown, even if they are a member of the governing party, may choose at some point or another to ask a question of the minister which is not a Dorothy Dixer. I can imagine any number of circumstances where that may occur.
The reason the Dorothy Dixer exists, of course, is so government can equally get its good news stories out, as well as having to deal with the bad news stories that are invariably implied, particularly from a hostile opposition. If Question Time was a feeding frenzy on government alone, I have to ask how government also gets some of its better news stories out.
What will happen in the practical world is the press gallery will only turn up for Question Time. A minister is standing in a room, talking to an empty set of chairs with nobody in the press gallery, trying to tell the people of their jurisdiction, as well as the opposition, the good things they are doing. It is lame. Then comes Question Time. All of a sudden the press gallery is full and you get all these questions with nasty edges to them, which makes for good fodder for the press.
Having made those observations, this motion does not ask or demand of government anything other than a reference to the Standing Orders Committee. I am not sure about the system of timing, but again this is a suggestion by the member for Nelson, a starting position for an improved process. That is how I read this. The member for Nelson is not delivering this to the House as a fait accompli. He is suggesting we should sit back and soberly and sensibly look at the systems we have in place and see if there is something we can do to improve them. I agree with that. Any system is worth looking at.
I signal now that the government will accept this motion unamended. I understand you need to make an amendment in relation to the suspension of standing orders, member for Nelson. We will happily navigate that. As a government we are prepared to take this motion pretty much on face value, because you are not suggesting to this House that this is a fait accompli. You are saying that the matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration by the committee, and then to report to the Assembly on best practice for Question Time, with a view to adopting new standing orders, and that the Standing Orders Committee must report to the Assembly no later than the last scheduled sitting day of the second sitting week of 2016.
For something of this magnitude over the Christmas period, that timing might be a big call. However …
Mr Wood: The second sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but in any instance, if the committee determines that it is looking at something that is too substantial, it can come back and say, ‘We need some more time’. As long as that case is made then the sponsoring member of this motion might turn around and say, ‘That is not an unreasonable suggestion.’
Mr Wood: There is no urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: No, there is no urgency involved in this; I get all of that.
What he is suggesting is any number of things. This will, of course, invite some broader research. I note that the new standing orders which have been produced should be debated shortly. In fact, the Clerk dropped one of the most subtle hints I had ever heard in recent times in this House by pointing out that the standing orders had a particular consequence to me, thus jogging my mind that we need to debate those. So we will see if we can get that into the business of the House tomorrow.
This idea is to see how we can improve systems. With the maturity I have gained, albeit excruciatingly slowly over the last number of years, particularly now that I have seen the world through the lens of the Leader of Government Business, I am not at all disinclined to say we should improve systems. I will to be much more liberal in my approach to how we deal with these sorts of things, because the test and the yardstick has to always be whether it produces a better result for the people who put us here.
The observation I make is that whilst I am a great and strident champion of democracy, there is, and can be, a tendency to over-democratise. I believe the people should be allowed to elect their government. This is the Lincoln idea of government – for the people, of the people, by the people. I have absolutely no problems with that at all. But governments, when elected, should also have the right to govern, because tough decisions have to be made from time to time by responsible governments. If a government is too vulnerable to overreach in the committee-isation of large slabs of its work, then you push the balance too far the other way, because the whole thing gets bogged down.
I know the member for Nelson is a great champion of committee’s scrutinising legislation and those sorts of things. I hear and understand what he is saying, but he has not seen the role of government through the lens of a minister’s eyes. I sometimes wish he had. In the former government he may well have had an opportunity, if he wanted to, and he chose not to go down that path ...
Mr Wood: Both sides offered me something; I declined.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I get all of that; you declined. But it changes your perspective on how this place operates and what government is trying to do, particularly on a daily basis. You say government has to work harder to get things through this place because it sits in a position of minority. That may well be true, but it may work much harder to the point where it starts to not embark on things because the work is too hard. That is also an important consideration that needs to be taken into account. If government thinks something is too controversial, too hard or will be too unpopular, it tends to slow down to the point where it becomes non-responsive. If that is the case, then is it acting in the true interests of the people it represents? That embodies the idea that politicians do not like to make unpopular decisions.
Politicians who know there is some space between their decision and the next election, or there is some latitude around them, will make tougher decisions. One example is TIO was a difficult call on the part of government. We were not sitting around the Cabinet room popping champagne corks, laughing out loud and having rollicking good times when we made the decision to sell TIO. We knew there was a mountain of pain with that, but I am convinced to this day it was the right thing to do. If the parliament had been super sensitive to large crowds out the front, then that necessary decision would have potentially exposed the Territory to a substantial loss. That is one of the concerns I have.
The other component is that budgets, by necessity, are tough. We just saw the TAFR hit the table here today, and the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement shows we inflicted pain, particularly a couple of years ago. We did not do that with any sense of relish or joy. We knew we were hurting Territorians, but we had to do it because we knew that two or three years down the track there was a $5.5bn overreach. That was a debt we could not have suffered in this jurisdiction.
I wonder if this House had effective control of the budget, if it could bring itself to do those necessary things. Sure, a handful of members would be here to do or call for those things, but then the tough decisions could not be made. Governments have to be accountable. They are regularly accountable through this place, and ultimately, once every four years in this jurisdiction, to the people of the Northern Territory, who decide who forms the majority in this House. We all know how the system works.
We have to strike a balance which enables the government to be tough when it needs to be. We have to get the balance right of leaving everything structured in such a way that we as a House do not interfere with the necessary decisions of government – not just the fun decisions but the necessary ones. I am cautious about overreach in relation to that principle.
There will always be issues which will divide members in this House, often for political reasons, sometimes for practical reasons. I understand you will object to some legislation I present. You have also supported legislation I have brought to the House. But there were times when I brought legislation into this House and have simply relied on the numbers of the CLP because it was necessary to get that unpopular but necessary legislation through. I do not shirk from the reality of having to do that. Is it a blunt instrument? Perhaps, but government needs to be about more than populism; it needs to be firm and strident at times and occasionally even controversial and confronting.
I have strayed into another area of our structures, but nevertheless it is valuable to look at how we do what we do. That is what is captured in the member for Nelson’s motion. We are, in the absence of a strict separation of powers, particularly at the state level level in this country, driven by the long-held common law doctrine of responsible government. The doctrine of responsible government is that the executive arm of government serves and answers to the Crown and its interest in this parliament, which is representative of a bigger philosophical sovereign being, the people themselves.
There is nothing in this motion which confronts the notion of the doctrine of responsible government. In fact, it seeks to enhance it or make suggestions as to how it can be enhanced in how it works in this jurisdiction. To that end, the motion is not in any way repugnant to that doctrine or in any way offensive to the members of this House or this government. Nevertheless, this is a motion of some physical magnitude in its size and is not something we could readily agree to unless it went to a committee to fully and carefully consider all of the implications herein. That is exactly what the motion suggests.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as a consequence, the government indicates that we are happy to see this go to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration and that the committee then report to the Assembly on the best practice for Question Time with a view to adoption of new standing orders by the second sitting week of 2016. We support this motion and will work in good faith to see if there is a way we can improve the systems this House has for the benefit and true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I indicate that I will move an amendment in a moment or two.
I thank the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General for their support. The Attorney-General wavered a little on to more philosophical matters. I understand, to some extent, where he was going. He reminisced about the days of parliamentary reports.
The issue about backbenchers on the government side asking questions and how that would work in practice is something which should be discussed at the Standing Orders Committee, if that is how the government feels. However, Question Time is generally about the opposition asking the government questions.
I feel this is an opportunity for government to put out its good stories. I like that questions can then be asked about the minister’s answer. That is where the debate, to some extent, can come from. If the Minister for Education wanted to talk about a motion where no one is allowed to write with their left hand but must use their right, and he gives us a reason why, then he will attract a fair number of questions from people like me who happen to be left-handed. It is not just a matter of the minister making a statement, but because he makes it so close to Question Time, there is an opportunity for people on this side to ask some questions. The added help of a supplementary question will make questioning even more fulsome – if I can use that word.
I also have memories of the original ministerial reports. I always think of one which I had a bit of a laugh at in the days when – it is hard to know if it was a ministerial report. Mr Peter Maley was the member for Goyder then. He was also the shadow minister for Primary Industry. The minister started talking about the vine leaf rust that was a bit of a scourge in Darwin at one stage. All grape vines had to be destroyed and there were various places around Darwin you could not go past if you had any of that material on you. I remember the minister made a statement. There was a follow-up report of two or three minutes and Peter Maley started talking about weeds. When I had my opportunity I reminded him that even though he was shadow minister for Agriculture he should not have been talking about weeds at all but vine leaf rust. We had some interesting times in that system because people had to quickly get on their feet and respond to a report, and sometimes that is what happened.
I try to bring things to parliament that make it work a little better. I am not patting myself on the back, but explanatory notes and remarks in legislation is something I suggested many years ago when I first came here. I cannot say it was my idea, given it was used elsewhere, but occasionally you will see notations in legislation that explain something. We did not have that or explanatory notes before, which are an improvement. There is nothing nicer when you are reading legislation than an example of how the legislation works. It is good to have that within legislation.
This is a similar approach, not necessarily for legislation, but being able to improve processes by not making them over-bureaucratic, but making some sensible changes that hopefully will enhance Question Time.
I also note that the minister talked about the government having to make hard decisions. Without bringing on the debate about TIO, if you want to go back to this second phase of TIO and not the first phase, which was a different kettle of fish, I understand the government had to make a tough decision. But my criticism – and the Chief Minister knows this – is they fell down badly in putting the facts before the people. They did it too late, which is why many of us were cranky.
I heard the member for Fong Lim yesterday talking about communists. Hey, the two people who helped me and came to see me were panel beaters, not exactly communists. If you want to call them anything, they were capitalists. They did not want their businesses destroyed by seeing the company that always gave them good service, TIO, closed down. They were not sure what the future held nor did they know what was going to happen. Many of them did not know the reason the government was moving down that path. I will be honest with you; when I knew the reasoning – and I had discussions with Richard Harding – I asked for a public meeting at CDU to allow people to put their sides of the debate. That is what it was about. Tough decisions have to be made, but sometimes it can hurt a little less when people know the answers.
I was the President of the Litchfield Shire Council for quite a while. I know how tough it is when you put the rates up. You might think that is simple, but, by gee, you can cop a lot of flak if you put the local rates up. You have to do it because otherwise the council will go broke ...
Mr Chandler: Or spend less.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but sometimes the lawn still grows. I suppose you could stop watering it; that might save money. Thank you for that, member for Brennan; I will tell the Palmerston City Council. However, I digress.
The one thing the minister said in the way he described the government approach to legislation is that the government also needs to be careful what it does and know fully the consequences. It is one thing to be tough, but it is not hard to be silly. The legislation I think he was talking about was not carefully thought through.
I thank the government for its support. I need to move an amendment because technically if we agree with this, we suspend Chapter 12 of Standing Orders.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will move an amendment. This is fairly simple. I move the following amendment in the first paragraph:
Omit:
- … suspends Chapter 12 of the standing orders in relation to questions seeking information and replaces the content of Chapter 12 with the following sessional orders for the remainder of the duration of the Twelfth Assembly or until otherwise determined by the Assembly
Insert in its place, ‘considers a new model of’.
I put that motion.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I place on the record, so we understand and are of one mind on what this amendment means, that the current wording would have the effect of essentially suspending standing orders, and that is not what you want to achieve.
Mr Wood: Yes, that is right.
Mr ELFERINK: What you want to achieve is having the operation of the standing orders in relation to Chapter 12 packaged, put together, then sent to a committee for consideration to report back within the time frame described by the motion. It makes the motion benign, where in fact the current motion would have an unintended consequence which we are now trying to remedy. That would be a fair way to describe it?
Mr Wood: I think so.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case the government supports the amendment to the motion.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Order of the Day Postponed
Order of the Day Postponed
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 153, that General Business Order of the Day No 3 be postponed and made an Order of the Day for the next General Business Day.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am double-checking. I do not have any problem with it; I want to check one thing. Standing Order 153 says:
- Orders of the day shall have precedence of each other according to the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper. An order of the day may be postponed on motion without notice and moved by the Member in charge of the order, or, in their absence, by another Member at their request.
The member for Wanguri has a matter which is to come up after the next motion and she is seeking to postpone it to the next sittings. So there should be two motions for the sake of completeness. The first motion should be the order of precedence, and then this occurs. But I understand what you are doing, the intent is clear, and the government will not make a song and dance about it. So, yes.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Polling Day Considerations
Polling Day Considerations
Continued from 25 March 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, ‘it has been a long time comin’ and it has been a long time gone’. That is Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; I better reference that. I this part of the debate I was talking about Mr Wood’s suggestion that we be located 100 m from the polling place and no closer. I was explaining that in the electorate of Barkly in some of those polling places that would put me in the bush, well and truly outside of the boundary of town. That is, from memory, where I left off.
Essentially, this motion was about a climax in the NT’s general election history and its procedures. The election of 25 August 2012 received serious comment in the NT general election report by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and some mobile polling booths got a special mention. There were many comments about unruly behaviour, spruiking and the level of aggressive tactics that have been used.
As a supporter of mobile polling for over 30 years, I can testify that I never saw a more aggressive campaign in the bush than in 2012. It was due to many reasons. If I looked a Hansard, I would probably find I have already put some of those on the record.
The Electoral Commission no doubt had to do a reality check after the 2012 election. That was not the only entity because the Independent member for Nelson also brought this motion to the House to try a stop-the-bus approach and get a sense of decorum and reality back into the system. He has those changes expressed in the motion.
Going back to the Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s report on the NT General Election 25 August 2012, the booths that received special mention were in the electorates of Stuart and Daly. There were a number of booths mentioned. I remember Nyirripi, Wadeye, Yuendumu and Daly River.
I took the stance that the controversial issues in the bush polling places which led to concerns about the operations, procedures and protocols were attributed to either a lack of trust and integrity or an adversarial inducement approach to conducting the elections. The trust and integrity approach was what I saw over many years. But in 2012 what I witnessed in the Barkly – and I covered the majority of polling booths except a few in the tablelands – was definitely the adversarial inducement approach. That is reflected in the report and has created the concern. The member for Nelson’s motion proposes changes and moderation, so to speak.
I collected notes of the estimates hearing of the following year in 2013. The questions from the opposition and the answers from the Chief Minister were quite interesting. A line of prosecution I was using was about the training and professional development of the Electoral Commission’s officials who operate those booths. There seems to be a pattern that they are experienced people who have great goodwill and dedication, but they are not Territorians. They come from interstate, from the south. Put them in a bush environment and it is a wonderful learning experience. Some I have talked to share stories about coming back for each election and the different areas they have worked in. They developed, it seems, a cultural trait: they are great people but easily exploited.
I can testify that in the 2012 election the adversarial inducement campaign in the bush, particularly run by the CLP, was intimidating to that type of electoral official who had goodwill, integrity and experience in the south. But in a booth in a remote area of Barkly – it could have been Epenarra – that very aggressive, loud, visual style of campaigning and the inducements to be part of a political persuasion was way too much.
I remember an example at Epenarra. It is a community I lived in for quite a number of years. My Alyawarr was not up to speed but I had a very aggressive encounter with an Alyawarr man who was campaigning for the CLP at Alpurrurulam. That was an amazing experience because suddenly all my Alyawarr started coming back. We had a set to and it was not something I was comfortable with.
We travelled on through the electorate and when we got to Epenarra to poll it was quite clear there was a first language speaker who had contravened all the protocols by going into the 10 m secure area. This person was coaching people in their first language and spitting out a very clever CLP rhetoric. There was no doubt, as I found out later, that this person had been influenced by quite a number of inducements to carry out this role.
It was my wife who picked it up, and she was quite concerned about what was going on. She alerted me, but I could not go into that area so I used first language to call that person out over the fence. When I got that person out of that area where we could have a conversation, it all started to unravel. She told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It was an interesting situation that I remember today. I then went back to my trust and integrity approach and gathered all my male ex-students under a tree. I basically said, ‘What is going on here?’ They were very honest and very open, as they are; they are great people and they told the truth. They told me what had been going on behind the scenes, about the offers that had been made and why they were encouraged to throw me out and put the CLP candidate in.
I used a very basic grassroots tactic and turned it into a classroom. We started to deconstruct the promises and the rhetoric that had been espoused to them and then compare that to what the Labor Party had to offer and what we had done. Lucky for me I won that booth.
To me, that is a reflection on why this motion came about and what this motion hopes to achieve. Throughout that estimates process where I asked questions about the Electoral Commission – what is new, what will change, what will moderate this situation – I remember, without reading back through all the notes, that there was not a lot forthcoming.
It will be interesting because the planned election for August 2016 will be another test case in the bush. I am interested to see if we have another 2012 campaign by the CLP – cashed up, aggressive, lots of inducements, mobile, the tactics of engaging first language speakers, heavy dialogue and rhetoric. It was an amazing experience all round. I am wondering whether that will be the case again.
Essentially, now that this motion has been floating around for so long, we will not have changed anything. If it is game on, then game on. Bring it on because I have some great experience from that 2012 encounter. I suppose I am a bit nave; I will share it with my colleagues. The first hit was Minyerri and I honestly thought that Giles was coming after me. Then I realised that no, he was not, he was going after everybody. It was not until I got back in phone range and checked in with base that I was told, ‘No, the CLP is coming after the lot of us’.
I remember the Chief Minister’s great disappointment when we came back into this House. He got four of my colleagues but he had not got Hector the Safety Cat, and he could not hide his displeasure.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is what this motion is about. If it will be the same in 2016, bring it on. I am really looking forward to it. I survived the last one; I will survive again.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Hector the Road Safety Cat – I remember that, it was very funny ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Mr Giles has spoken on this already.
Mr Giles: I do not think I have.
Mr WOOD: I have Hansard here. You can check with the …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise, Chief Minister, you have already spoken on this debate.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! With the indulgence of members opposite and the member for Nelson, I seek leave for the Chief Minister to make some further comments in relation to this motion before the House. I understand the Chief Minister’s comments will not be displeasing to the member for Nelson and would put the seal of the head of government on what this motion seeks ...
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not trying to be clever; I am trying to find a resolution to the satisfaction of the member for Nelson and, hopefully, for the members in this Chamber.
I seek leave for the Chief Minister to make some further remarks in relation to the motion before the House.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I am sorry, I cannot reflect on the member for Barkly but I would have liked to have paid him a compliment from his Hector the Road Safety Cat commentary.
It has been quite some time since this was last on the agenda, member for Nelson. I think it was 25 March, so reflecting on Hansard debates – I do not have it in front of me so please excuse past remarks and I will provide commentary as of today.
Had we not been busy in recent times with things such as the gas pipeline and all the environmental matters we announced today, we would have introduced a bill into the Chamber this week about electoral reform, had it gone through Cabinet. There is a process we are working on right now. I will not breach any confidential matters except to say we will be taking a paper to Cabinet next week and seeking to bring that paper to parliament in the following sittings with a view to introduce it, have the second reading, then go to consultation for months. I will detail the time frame when I introduce that bill about electoral reform.
There will be a committee consultation process – you do not rush electoral reform – which will address a number of things. For those things, which I will detail in a moment, we will support this motion before us now.
We will take it a bit further – I will run through six points, not to say that will be the exhaustive part of the legislation. Government will seek electoral reform through a consultation process that will seek to make it clear that enrolment is compulsory. It is a technical element, but very important.
Given there are many concerns about voter turnout and informal voting, particularly in remote parts of the Territory, we will canvass the idea of changing the current voting system from preferential to optional preferential, thus giving people more opportunities to have a lower level of informal votes.
We will seek to allow voters to choose whether to vote at an early voting centre, by way of a postal vote, or attend a polling booth on election day without having to satisfy any criteria. This has recently been changed for the purposes of local government elections, as I understand it technically. Previously if you wanted to vote at an early enrolment centre you had to justify that it was because you were going on leave or away for work, or something like that. This will allow you to vote at any time during an election campaign period.
It also seeks to support those who are postal voters, particularly in remote areas who rely on mail planes. If the mail plane only comes once a week, and it might miss one week, many of those voters are not counted. Allowing for alternate options for a postal vote, particularly an additional week, would help. That is why we seek to allow an additional week for eligible ballot papers to be received and included in the count of votes to support some of those votes that go missing.
Regarding allowing the draw for positions to be held on the ballot paper to be conducted at sites to be determined by the commissioner, I will give you a hypothetical. If there was a by-election to be held in Nhulunbuy right now, the ballot of the draw would be in Darwin at the Electoral Commission. This will allow for the ballot to be held at Nhulunbuy.
The other item is that we would seek to prohibit canvassing within 500 m of a polling booth, including how-to-vote cards and other political literature. The Country Liberals will be putting legislation forward, I anticipate next sittings, for consultation that will seek to remove the running of the gauntlet at polling booths.
With that in mind, with the agreement of members around the Chamber, we will support the motion. It is only asking for consideration. Clearly we are considering those things you mentioned and more. If it passes through Cabinet we will bring a bill into the Chamber with a commentary that will detail a range of electoral options to go to consultation, and then come back into parliament sometime next year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is not a fast process but a process that will seek to benefit Territorians through an electoral reform process. Thank you for allowing me to make a few comments.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the comments by the Chief Minister. I also thank members in this House for their indulgence in relation to this matter. I suspect the member for Nelson is somewhat surprised. I am not sure what was said when this motion was initially partially debated before it was ...
Mr Wood: Had support from the Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: At the time. There you go.
Mr Giles: I could not remember.
Mr ELFERINK: I could not remember either. The point is we have discussed this matter. Of course, I cannot talk about what is discussed in Cabinet, but outside of Cabinet I took part in a few discussions as well.
I am one of those people who think that the three-ring circus which is an election both in the bush and in town needs to have some restraint placed around it. Polling day at a city polling booth is exhausting. But there is no such thing as polling day in the bush; it is polling days. It is now extended out to about 10 days.
There is something inherently undemocratic about the first component of it, in that the resources of covering all those remote communities in the bush are the purview of the major parties, particularly if you have a massive seat like my former seat of Macdonnell, Barkly and Bess Price’s seat, Stuart. European countries are dwarfed by some of these seats. So covering those seats is often very difficult for somebody who is trying to stand as an Independent. The resources it takes to cover all those booths in the bush – even in a seat like Macdonnell – means you had three teams going out – when I used to do it originally – for a week covering those booths, and it was exhausting and hard work.
I am a little critical of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s overreach when it comes to trying to cover every small booth in these remote communities and areas because these remote area booths will have somebody standing there for two or three hours when there are only four people on the bloody roll at some of these outstations. Frankly, that is overreach by the Electoral Commission.
Whilst I know it has a mandate to bring democracy to the people, to go to some of these outstations is often overreach and unnecessary. Some of these outstations are but a stone’s throw away from a major community. They would be physically closer to a polling booth in a larger community than some people live in relation to a local polling booth in a remote or rural area, or even in suburbia. The bizarre act of driving 2 km down the road into an outstation near somewhere like Papunya and then standing by a booth for three hours because two people are on a roll there is just dumb.
I understand the remit of the Electoral Commission, and I will not tell them how to do their job; that is what they do. Nevertheless, I am critical of some of what I have seen in the bush. It is unconvincing to me that what happens in those places is necessarily democratic.
If you go into a place like Papunya, where I imagine it is similar to larger communities in the Top End, when voting day happens, the booth is set up for eight hours. Everybody votes within the first hour. There is a massive line-up out the front, everybody votes, then you end up standing there for seven hours and one or two people will trickle through towards the end of the day. Sometimes we spend too long in some of those communities.
We also have the resources of the Labor Party – a couple of Toyotas running around for them and a couple of Toyotas running for the Country Liberals. They do on those booths exactly as others do in the town booths during polling day on the Saturday whenever the election is. The people there still have to run the gauntlet. You have the usual fights about where the boundary is and those sorts of things.
Every time I have done those remote booths – in fact every time that I have done a booth in town – I have always been very keen to speak to the Labor person and establish ground rules of friendly exchange at the outset. It is so much easier than having to deal with somebody who is constantly on edge and trying to get excited about the polling system.
In the remote communities there are things we could improve. We are allowed to say we will not spend too much time in those booths, and when we go to an outstation where there are only four people on the roll, we will open the booth for 10 minutes; do not stand there for four hours. They will either be there or they will not. Assuming somebody is going to drive out of the bush in a two-hour period is over-servicing the electorate.
Having made that observation, town booths have become almost comical or farcical in the way they physically appear, and they are becoming more so with every passing election. In those elections you will see thousands of dollars’ worth of corflutes, posters, wraps, signs, banners, fliers, DLs, how-to-vote cards, etcetera, being shoved into people’s hands. Most people find that an intrusion. Those people who are actively seeking a how-to-vote card are essentially asking the Country Liberals or the Labor Party which way they would like them to cast their preferences. They trust those parties to give them guidance.
I would be very surprised if many people relied on the how-to-vote cards when they have already made up their minds. It is a matter of politeness that those people tend to simply accept the cards. We have the unique situation in the Northern Territory where the photograph of the candidate is on the ballot paper – that does not happen in the federal election – and the person looking at a ballot paper can determine, on the basis of the photograph, who they want to vote for without necessarily having a how-to-vote card.
Contrast this with a New Zealand election. A New Zealand polling booth is a surprising thing to behold. I remember the first time I watched one of those election specials on a New Zealand election. We are all hopelessly addicted to election night broadcasts from various state elections or even a federal election. Sky News started covering New Zealand. They went to one of the booths. There was essentially nothing at the booth. There was a small sign placed out the front of the booth which said Polling Booth. There was no other indication whatsoever, or presence of any party or party campaign worker at all. The voter went into the polling booth utterly unmolested, went about their business of casting their vote and walked out. If the voters want a conservative party – as is the case in New Zealand with John Keys enjoying the first majority government for a long time because they have a system of multi-member proportional electorates – then that is what the people of New Zealand choose.
If the people of the Northern Territory choose a CLP government then they are capable of choosing that without having 15 bloody campaign workers out the front telling them that is what they want.
I would love, quite frankly, to not turn up to polling booths. The problem is if you abandon the field then you send the signal that you are not engaged and the other party – whose people are standing there with all their banners out the front – is engaged. That could have an influence. The effect of standing in front of the booth does not necessarily change the outcome of an election; it simply neutralises this notion that one party does not care. If that is the case, then have no parties present and allow the voter to enter the polling booth unmolested to exert their democratic right.
The longer I have observed our electoral system in the Northern Territory, the more I have warmed to this notion. The robustness of our democracy will not be diminished by an absence of paraphernalia ...
______________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the Adult Migrant English Program, accompanied by Veronica Bagshaw. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________________
Mr ELFERINK: I do not think paraphernalia has necessarily changed the outcome of an election. It is interesting to note that when you do polling properly – I have read a number of party polls over the years – you get a sense before election day of whether you will win or lose. So come election day there are not that many surprises.
When the polling is done well and professionally you know the issues that you have to deal with in an effort to steal a seat-for-seat result. Generally speaking, there are a few surprises. Occasionally a seat will swing one way or the other. When a seat is close one or two weeks out from an election, it is generally difficult to pick. On polling day you look at those seats more carefully because they will be a surprise to you. When the polling was done on the seat of Port Darwin prior to the last election, whilst I continued to campaign hard as I have done for several years, the only question I had was how much I would win by.
All of the paraphernalia in the world at the polling booth did not change the result of the booth’s pre-poll polling that we had done as a political party. So what does the paraphernalia do? Do corflutes change people’s minds politically? Does a picture of John Elferink hanging off a tree 20 feet off the ground cause a voter to say, ‘There is John Elferink; I will change my opinion of the world because there is a picture of him stuck up in a tree’? It is an introduction of John Elferink for those people who do not know him, but they will check quickly to see whether there is a Liberal, Labor or Greens tag on the banner to make their mind up, which will familiarise them with the candidate. Corflutes do not change people’s opinions. The only thing a corflute can do is raise the profile of the candidate, and you can do that with other systems of advertising.
All the junk paraphernalia – wraps, etcetera – at a polling booth is often more to keep the party faithful occupied, thinking they are making a contribution – which they are in a minor way – than to change people’s minds. The big wraps you see nowadays, those plastic adornments which go for a distance of 50 m or so, are a one-message last-gasp thing at the booth. They may have an effect, because if an issue or personality is very positive or very negative, the presence of a large wrap may influence a voter as they walk into the polling booth. Again, I do not see that in relation to what you see in pre-polling polling the parties do and the actual results you see on the night. You get a pretty strong correlation between the two, so what does all that other stuff do? All it does is show a level of commitment. As I said before, if that level of commitment is shown by one party, the other party and other players feel obliged to show that commitment as well.
Here is the truth of it: elections are won and lost basically on the performance of the government and the mood of the electorate. There is nothing you can do about it. What we do is load up these booths and stick mountains of crap around them and keep ourselves occupied. There is an assault on the senses for any poor old voter who wants to walk in and simply do their civic duty in a democracy.
The pantomime is now writ large to the point of being silly. If that type of behaviour or material around a polling booth was ever sublime, it has now clearly and unequivocally drifted into the domain of the thunderously ridiculous.
The reason the government can easily accept this motion is that it asks a single thing of the government. I quote for honourable members the motion, as produced by the member for Nelson:
- … that the Northern Territory government consider that on polling day in a local and Territory elections …
And then he makes certain suggestions.
The answer to the member for Nelson is yes, we can consider it, but we will do a lot more than just consider it. We will attend to each issue you have raised in these bullet points and then go further with other suggestions, with a bill that will sit on the table for the purposes of being a discussion draft going to the next Territory election.
Let us make polling day an exercise of the democratic principle rather than a three-ring circus which offends the sensibilities of so many average, normal citizens who simply want to come in and exercise their democratic values.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward, because it captures the mood of many people. If the member for Nelson is one thing, he is a good barometer of the public mood. I am often critical of him for other reasons, but he gets a good sense of what people are doing because he talks to them.
I enjoy a similar relationship, probably not as profound because of the time I do not have doing my street corners. But I speak to many people as well and I get a similar sense from them. If you start talking to them about their experience of the election or the electoral environment, you find their experience is generally negative. They do not like having to run the gauntlet. Few people do. You can see it in their faces and their eyes. Sometimes I even feel a little embarrassed trying to approach certain people because all they want is to put their head down, bum up, and get through it as quickly as they possibly can.
Why should it be that one of the greatest privileges we have in the modern world, the right to cast a vote, becomes a burden because people are trying to badger you as you go into the polling booth? That applies equally in Yuendumu, Ipolera, Daguragu, Yirrkala, Nhulunbuy, Casuarina and the seat of Port Darwin. It is time we look at how we conduct ourselves as parties and individuals around booths and what structures we should put in place to make, once again, the exercise of a civic duty something people embrace as a right to be protected and cherished, rather than something dreaded because of a process of badgering when you walk into the polling booth.
Madam Speaker, I fulsomely support this motion.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I will tonight say hopefully quite a few words about this motion because it is something that interests me. In many ways I will be furiously agreeing with the points contained within the motion. Also I have been listening to the member for Port Darwin and agreeing, in many respects, with what he said in his contribution.
However, by way of pre-empting what I will say tonight, I will run through a typical election day in my seat of Katherine and talk about some of the things that happened on election day, some of the concerns I have about the matters that are up for discussion and what is being proposed and asked of government to consider on polling day.
I have been around the political scene now for two elections. My first polling day came a bit out of the blue in some respects. The way my pre-selection went in Katherine in 2008 was a little unusual, insofar as I went through the normal pre-selection process for the seat of Katherine and was beaten by another candidate in the first round.
I will not going into the details of the how, when, where, why and what occurred around that, but suffice to say that a few weeks after the pre-selection process there were some changes. Ultimately I was asked by the local branch in Katherine whether I was still interested in becoming the candidate. The other candidate stood down. On a Sunday night, I recall getting a phone call to say, ‘Congratulations, Willem, you are now the pre-selected candidate for the CLP for the next election’.
That was all fine. At that point in time, we did not know when the election would be called, but it did not take long to discover when the election was to occur. The next morning I was at my property on the outskirts of Katherine at Maude Creek and received a telephone call to say, ‘Willem, we have just received notice that the election has been called and you have 19 days to campaign’. From Sunday afternoon not even pre-selected through to being advised the next morning that I had 19 days to campaign was an interesting situation I found myself in.
During the course of the campaign, albeit short, I exhausted myself with doorknocking and all manner of things in order to raise my profile. The obligatory corflutes were rushed through and printed, and any other material that needed to be printed was.
I felt at the time that 19 days was not enough for me to raise my profile, so come polling day – I do not recall the date, it might have been 25 August 2008 – I found myself feeling grateful that I had the opportunity to stand at a polling place all day on that Saturday. I moved from the main polling place at the Katherine Civic Centre to the MacFarlane Primary School and spent a bit of time there. I jostled between both, but spent most of the time at the Katherine Civic Centre.
That was an opportunity for me to meet and greet people as they came through. These were people I had not necessarily met during the course of that very short 19-day campaign. I was able to engage briefly with a number of people. I remember having brief conversations with people who asked me what I stood for and what I would do for Katherine and those types of things. Under those circumstances I found it valuable to have the opportunity to stand at a polling place on election day and continue with my campaigning, effectively. That suited me at the time.
Leaping forward four years to 2012, I did pretty much the same thing; I spent most of the day at the polling place at the Katherine Civic Centre then went to MacFarlane and back again. It was an opportunity to engage with the people of Katherine, who I was asking to vote for me. By that stage I knew a few of them. It was more of a social event for me to shake hands and say g’day to people and give out a how-to-vote form to those people.
When I read the motion and thought about some of the other things government has been considering already, which the member for Port Darwin has alluded to in his contribution, I got a bit jittery about it. I thought, polling day is a great opportunity for politicians to have that last-minute talk to people, ‘Hi, how are you going? It is nice to see you again. I hope I can count on your vote today when you walk up those stairs.’
I am supporting this, but I am in two minds about it. There is a part of me that says polling days are a fantastic final opportunity for local members to engage with the voting public. But, that said, my other experiences with polling booths are not so positive.
Again, I hark back to the 2008 and 2012 elections, the only two I have been directly involved with as a candidate. Notwithstanding that both of those occasions were excellent opportunities for me to engage with local voters, there were a large number of people who came to vote on the day who did not want to engage. You were able to quickly slip a how-to-vote form into their hands as they walked past, but they were not interested.
I got the impression they were not interested, not because they did not like me or they did not like the other candidate or candidates, but because of walking through a great throng of people, past all of these marquee tents with corflute, bunting and banners all over the side along with every manner of printed material you could think of being shoved in their faces. The member for Port Darwin used the word ‘assault’. I am sure some voters who turn out on polling day feel at least a bit affronted and perhaps even a little assaulted by some of the carry on.
For the sake of the average voter on polling day, giving consideration to these types of matters you have raised in your motion is a worthwhile pursuit. There is a part of me that says it is great opportunity for candidates, but it is not just about the candidates; it is also about the voting public. That is what elections are for. Sure, a candidate is ultimately elected to represent those people but it is the people who count, not the candidate. The people who are turning out on polling day and making the effort to ensure they receive the representation they want are the important people in this equation. Giving consideration to changing the modus operandi of political parties and candidates on polling day is worth having a darn good think about.
In a more practical sense I turn my mind back to those days leading up to and the night before polling day. It is quite well accepted that the first person or party to get their tent, marquee or whatever up the night before will get the prime position. At 6 pm on a Friday afternoon before election day, you can go to a school – I think it is 6 pm when they say you can set up – and there is almost a queue of mad party people trying to jostle for the very best position to put their marquees and their material together. I have to admit it is almost a little uncivilised. Some of the things you see at polling booths is – goodness me, fights almost break out ...
Mr Higgins: What do you mean ‘almost’?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. He said, ‘What do you mean almost?’ You are quite right, member for Daly. There are physical altercations that occur at certain places just to get that very best spot so your party can stand there and canvass for votes the next morning at the opening of the polls at 8 am. It seems rather uncivilised.
I have even found myself caught up in that, not that I ever had a physical altercation, but I recall at the last election in 2012 in Katherine at the main polling booth at the council chambers, as I mentioned before – at the previous election, we missed out on what I thought was the best spot as people walked past, where the best tent site would have been. I vowed then and there that I would be there before the Labor Party the night before to set up where I wanted my tent. I went there and cased it all out on Friday afternoon and I knew exactly where things would be.
Almost childishly, I found myself in my car at midnight – in fact it was slightly before midnight on Friday night before the last election. I was waiting with my tent, my marquee and all my other bits and pieces in the back of my car ready to race in as soon as I was able and set up. It is a bit of a funny story. The council was so keen to ensure nobody set up before midnight that they hired a security guard who put barriers across the entrance of the Katherine Town Council chambers off the Stuart Highway to make sure no one got in there before midnight. The security guard was patrolling to make sure there was no one there. I went there a bit earlier than midnight; it was probably 11 pm. I thought I might sneak in a bit early only to discover this great security system had been set up to prevent people from doing what I had intended to do.
I drove around town and around the back of the council chambers into Kalano and parked the car. I sat there and watched, and saw the security guard still there. I could see the lights from his car. So I drove back around to the front and parked my silver Prado across the road from the front entrance of the council, in the shadows underneath the trees, away from the lights. Lo and behold, I had only been parked there about 15 minutes or so and the security guard clearly saw me and came over. He walked across the road; I saw him coming. I sat there with this feeling of horrible resignation that I had been sprung, and waited for him to come up beside the car. I put the window down – I knew him – and he said, ‘What are you doing?’ I said, ‘I’m waiting for midnight, Rob, so I can set up over there’. He said, ‘Yes, that is all right. It is almost midnight so you will be able to go over shortly.’ I have to admit, I felt like a bit of a clown.
That is an example of the things individuals or the parties do and the extent to which they will go to try to get that very best position on a Friday night to prepare for Saturday morning. I got in after midnight, even though one of my competitors turned up at midnight as well, and I managed to get a good spot.
The story illustrates just how important it is for us to think hard about this motion and what it means to polling day. Not only would it take a lot of pressure off the candidates, but the parties would have some restrictions placed on them and people would not have to sneak around at midnight. On polling day it means people will not be accosted. Some feel quite affronted having all this paperwork shoved in front of their noses when, in the vast majority of cases I suspect, people already know what they will do when they get there.
As the member for Port Darwin already pointed out, the government has been considering these matters and we are looking at matters relating to polling day that go a bit further than those outlined in the motion before us tonight.
As I said earlier, a part of me is still a bit jittery because I like the people of my electorate. I relish the opportunity to catch up with them whenever I can. I spend way too much time in Darwin as a result of the ministerial work I do, and I relish every opportunity I have to get back to Katherine and engage with those very important people of my electorate. Those people placed their faith in me and elected me to represent them on two occasions, in 2008 and 2012.
Giving up that Saturday opportunity, for me, will be a bit like a five-year-old giving up their favourite toy, or having to sell your first car. It is like you are giving something away that you are close to, which you relish, enjoy and think is important. At the end of the day, I will get over it. I am sure the electors who turn up on polling day will, by and large, appreciate the fact they are able to walk into a polling place unaccosted and not have all manner of things thrown in their faces.
The reason I believe the majority of people will appreciate this is if you look at the pre-polling statistics – and I do not have the numbers in front of me. For the elections I have been involved with I have noticed that the number has increased of people who visit a polling place set up as a pre-poll in the two weeks before polling day for those who say they cannot make it on polling day ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, I am one of them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the injection from the member for Port Darwin, who said he is one of them. Port Darwin is clearly in the same boat as Katherine. That is probably because most people do not like to be affronted and accosted at the front of a polling place on a Saturday.
At least this motion raises some issues that are most worthy of some further discussion. I am happy to stand in this House and support this motion for the government to consider what changes might be necessary to make polling day a better place for those people who are important in this equation – as I said before, not the candidates or the parties, but the people, the electors, the voters of that electorate.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support this motion tonight.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, after listening to that, you definitely know the difference between an urban seat and a bush seat. I can assure you I will not miss it like I missed my toy when I was a child.
I fully support all the suggestions that made tonight, both by the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. When I attended the CPA conference a couple of years ago at Westminster it highlighted to me that in Australia sometimes we go overboard with much of this. There was an example given to us there.
There was an election 12 or 14 years ago where a fellow was pre-selected to run in one of the seats. I cannot remember which party he was running for; it was one of those times when there was a big change in the number of seats. Anyway, this fellow was elected. The party had produced a how-to-vote form for him in some way or form. He did not rock up to any of the polling booths, no one had seen him doorknocking and he had not done any doorknocking. But he won that vote.
In the UK it is a bit different to Australia or the Northern Territory. They are not provided with electorate officers; they are given an allowance. There can only be 200 in parliament at any one time and there are about 600 members.
This fellow did not bother to set up an office or publish his phone number and never rocked up to parliament. That was about three elections before I was there. I was advised he had done the same thing at every one and he had increased his majority. He had never made himself available, he did not have an office and had never been to parliament. It proves that sometimes if you did nothing you would be better off.
That is the other end of the spectrum, but it highlights the fact that sometimes we think the best, closest spot, the more bits of paper, the brighter the paper, the bigger the paper, the nicer the picture – all of that will win us votes. I do not think it does. Many Territorians would be very happy to see changes made to how the voting system in the Northern Territory is conducted.
I wanted to get that story across about how someone can do nothing and increase their majority. The fellow probably still has not been to parliament, but I hope he is still elected because it is a very good story about people who do nothing.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the previous speakers. There are some interesting things to consider when you look at the issue we are talking about.
One of the things I want to talk about is electronic polling. As technology and the ability to get onto the Internet and vote for your favourite person improves, we will see eventually that people will not go to polling places and it will all be done online. If you do not have a computer or you are not computer literate you go to the local library and someone will help and direct you as to how you can vote. Picking up on what other speakers have said, it is done in various places in the world now.
I worked on my first campaign in 1983. I was a young bloke and had just arrived in Darwin. I thought it was pretty good stuff and that I would work on a campaign. It was all fairly benign in those days. It was pretty quiet and everybody was jovial. Most people knew each other. I remember walking into Tiwi Primary School, as it was known in those days, and I was introduced to a few people. I was thinking they were all part of the team. They said they were the Labor people, but we all got along. We had barbecues at lunchtime, and everybody stood around and talked.
I do not know what happened, but along the way some people seemed to get a little too passionate, because some adversarial issues occurred at polling booths. I have not been a big participant in mobile polling. I have heard stories about it and looked at the things they do. I looked at photographs and videos, and talked to people about what happens across the Territory at mobile polling booths. As was rightly pointed out by the member for Daly, it is a different world. But when you go to work on these polling booths as a member of a party or as a volunteer, it can be quite daunting.
I can only imagine what it is like for people who are different to me when you front up. I was a police officer in 1983. Not much bothered me except 12 gauge shotguns being pointed at me. But you get used to that. I am a tall guy and was trained, so not much bothers me. But for other people in our communities who run the gauntlet at these polling booths, it can be quite intimidating. That is something I am very aware of when I talk to people who volunteer to help me.
We have a barbecue generally a week or two out so we can train people on how to deal with people who are coming into vote. You do not want to intimidate people. I do not know what other people want, but I do not want people feeling intimidated. You have to train people. A whole lot of stuff has to go on and we have heard various bits and pieces.
There is not only a financial cost but a human cost. You have to find people. We have heard about the night times. There is no set time when you can got to the polling booths to set up. There are various times; some will let you on Friday afternoon, some Saturday morning at 6 am, others when the sun comes up. You almost need counselling and mediators to make the decisions. People rush in to do things and it causes problems. I have seen people almost have stand-up fights. I have not seen a fight; I have heard about them. I have had to get between people and say, ‘Pull the reins up here, folks, this is not worth having a huge physical fight over. Everybody take a chill pill and step back for a few minutes and go back to your corners.’
These are some of the issues you have in current day polling. I remember in 1983 and 1986 or 1987, everything was fine. Things started to change a little in the 1990s and by the time the 2000s arrived, things had definitely changed. But so had the makeup of those people who were working on the booths. I know my people were local, but other people who were participating in the polling booths were from interstate. People had been flown in to work on booths and had an interstate attitude, not a Territory attitude. That caused an enormous number of problems. Various people running for electorates bring people in if they cannot get enough volunteers locally.
I remember the Blain by-election where Irish backpackers were handing out how-to-vote cards. I do not think they had any idea what they were doing. The poor girls obviously did not have much money because they could not afford many clothes. But they were handing out how-to-vote cards for candidates in that by-election. They were fine – they had a great sense of humour as the Irish do – but there were some people who were flying in from interstate who were belligerent. They were pushy and were provoking people, not only volunteers, but also voters. They would affront people and almost intimidate them.
When you see people kowtowing with their heads down, not looking at anyone, you can see they are intimidated. I agree with the member for Nelson that we need to have a good look these things and make considerations. When you have to set these booths up at night time – there are people who want to drive in star pickets and tent pegs when there are irrigation systems – you have to pay bonds because schools will not let you put in a pin. You have to take great lumps of concrete there, running around in the middle of the night. People will ask, ‘Where is your public liability?’ An issue some people and school councils do not realise is they are responsible for the people on their premises. Some do not have a full suite of public liability cover – maybe they do, maybe they do not, but I have heard in some cases they do not – for all the events and activities happening on school premises.
The government carries its own insurance on schools and students, but when you are collecting monetary gain to run an electoral booth at your school, you need to have some public liability insurance. If you do not, everyone is exposed. You are running around at 4.30 am or 5 am in the morning, as we have been required to do – if you do not, you just miss out. You have to be in it to win it and be in the game.
There are some serious issues in relation to OH&S at all these polling places. That goes not only for the urban areas but the rural and remote areas as well. People go in four-wheel drives and many people are there. We have had instances where there have been accidents. A range of things, sadly, has happened to people at polling booths. Teams of people fly around the Territory. That is a cost.
The member for Nelson was at some stage talking about – as others were – taxpayer-funded election campaigns, where you cannot get any donations. The taxpayer will say, ‘Here is what you have; go and spend it’.
These are the things that will drive us all into electronic polling. The technology is there. People start to say, ‘I do not want to go to a polling booth’ – as is indicated by the number of people going to pre-polling booths. There is a rapid rise in these numbers. In the previous council election there was about a 300% to 400% increase in people who, for some reason, could not make it to the polling place on a Saturday. I agree with the member for Katherine. There are times when people will say, ‘I do not want to run the gauntlet at the polling booth. I do not want to be intimidated by someone trying to shove material down my throat, into my pockets or into my hands.’
I train people not to do that, but there are others who relish that confrontation where they want to get their message across. They want to leap in front of everyone and shove things into people’s hands, and make a real scene of what they are doing. If that is their nature, I cannot blame people for not wanting to go. There are people who probably do not go and do not realise they can go to a pre-polling booth, or that they can do a postal vote if they cannot get there. We will make sure, in all our deliberations, that we consider these various things.
Regarding damage to property, I have been in the situation where we have to pay for damage we did not do. It becomes a very combative and competitive environment when everybody turns up to set things up, either at midnight or 4 pm, or when school finishes. It is election Olympics. When you get there, everyone has brought a tribe of people with a certain amount of gear – X marks the spot and that is where you have to go. We have had to do it because others have done it, so you have to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.
We have a whiteboard and a picture of the place from last time. You say, ‘When they let you in the gate, please stand here and you stand there. You take the tent over there. You do this and you do that.’ It might take 20 or 30 people to do that.
If people from one party get annoyed because they have missed out on the best spots, as the member for Katherine was alluding to – and sadly this happens – people might tear down what you have put up and destroy it, so then there is criminal damage and we have to call the police, who investigate. I do not know how many corflutes I have seen where the eyes are cut out and rude things drawn on them. There are numerous problems with the current system.
The government, the member for Nelson and the opposition might want to look seriously at electronic voting, even if it is only in suburban areas. If rural people want to do it – they may not so perhaps we can look at a hybrid model. We can seriously look at models from around the world so we can move from our current system with a combative environment. People can go online, look up the candidates and read about them. If you choose to, you can put your CV online to do an entire marketing campaign in people’s homes, which they can see at their leisure.
It is hard sometimes, when you front up at a polling booth. I quite enjoy the day; you get to see your mates who come to help and on Saturday night you are either celebrating or commiserating. There is always a big barbecue somewhere. It becomes a serious social event, and I like that part of it.
I do not know whether the punters enjoy the experience because more of them are going to pre-polling and not showing up. When they do come in and you ask if they would like one of your brochures, an increasing number are saying no, as they know how they will vote.
Madam Speaker, those are a few things we should consider as part of this debate. It is a good debate and I thank the member for Nelson for bringing the motion on.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will wrap up. I thank all members for giving their points of view.
The Howard Springs Volunteer Fire Brigade will not support the idea of voting from home, otherwise they will go out of business. Those days of turning up at the polling booth are very important to many of our community groups.
On a serious note, I have concerns about voting that way. I am not saying the case of what happened in Florida a couple of years ago – I think it was between George Bush and…
Mr Elferink: Not Dole. What was his name? Al Gore.
Mr WOOD: Al Gore. It might not have been a flash system but it had some problems. The other thing that will concern people is the security and things like hacking. As much as it is very simple and you might even say even primitive, putting your mark on a ballot paper is pretty hard to fiddle with, unless you have a whole pile of ballot papers stuck away in your pocket we do not know about ...
Mr Styles: That is what my mother said about a bank book.
Mr WOOD: That is right. It is worth discussing and things will improve.
The other thing I am concerned about with early voting – and I will probably write a letter to the NT Electoral Commission – is that voting for Litchfield Shire started last Monday week. I do not think early polling should be three weeks of polling. There are two sides of the coin here. The people who are standing need sufficient time to tell people they are standing and get around the shire, especially in a rural area as big as Litchfield. It is not easy to get around the whole shire.
I am not sure we want to have polling spread out for that length of time. It is meant to be that if you cannot get there on the Saturday you can vote a couple of days earlier. Having this extended period does not seem right, but that is another issue.
I thank the Chief Minister, who gave support for this when I presented this motion. The beginning of the motion asks the government to consider these changes. The Chief Minister has brought forward some concepts. I am not a great fan of optional preferential. If you cannot fill in three numbers for three names then you should go back to school. I believe to have optional preferential sometimes favours governments. It is not that hard to fill in a ballot paper. Maybe if you have 50 candidates it might be, but generally speaking we do not have those numbers of candidates, so I am not a great fan of that idea.
I raised the issue of 500 m clear of a polling booth when I first debated this in March. It can be an issue, especially if you start to cover people’s private property or the local car park at the supermarket where the guy has the sign on the back of his car. Looking at 100 m was more reasonable. Again, I am happy to have that debate. Yes, there are areas where the distance away from the polling booth is considerable.
The issue of postal votes was interesting.
With regard to not having any literature at the polling booth, if the person in charge of the polling booth was in charge of a rack where you could put standard how-to-vote cards and candidates or their supporters had nothing to do with the rack, I would not object to that so much.
We are trying to say that it has got out of hand. I enjoy going to the polling booth too, but as the member for Katherine said, it is a fight for the best position. Sometime some parties want two sites because people will enter two ways. Then it is pushy, pushy, pushy – it is rude. I do not like that. I do not like stuff shoved in my face. Most people know when they go to the polling booth who they will vote for.
Look at the Litchfield council voting now. You might not know who the person is from the point of view of what they stand for, but you would have seen their pictures by now. You would know by now which one you will push a pin in for. We have eight candidates for the mayor. It will be a very interesting preferential voting system. Once people have gone past about two, it might be pot luck who gets the preferences. We will see what happens.
The other thing that is a sad reflection on the way we operate is all the paraphernalia. There were times when parties had plastic, roll-out signs which ran along the fence for about 100 m, as if they own the fence. There is a fight for the fence. There is a fight for the spot. The poor old person in charge of the booth has to mark it exactly where you cannot step over. We should have moved on from that.
We are not the only place looking at that. There are other cities in the world and Australia where you are restricted. In The ACT you cannot have paraphernalia all over the place. Does it make a difference to them? I do not think so.
The member for Daley mentioned something about a bloke who did not turn up and was still elected. I can give you a bit of local advice: you can put a chook on a poster and it can get elected for four years running. So who cares about who the person is or what they look like? They can look as ugly as a chook, and still be elected.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Okay.
We drifted off the issue a little there but in the end, I understand where the member for Katherine is coming from. Yes, it is nice to shake hands with people but if there are 10 candidates, it can be a bit pushy about who wants to shake hands with whom. Some people push their way in to make themselves known when all the person wants to do is go from A to B. They are confronted by people of all parties who believe that by shaking your hand they have won your vote. It will probably put them off voting for you because they will think, ‘What are you? Why do you treat me like that? You have never done it before. You have never visited my house in your life but now you are very friendly on polling day.’ I see that occasionally.
The original motion, proposed a long time ago, was:
- not to permit a person to canvass for votes, solicit a vote or induce or attempt to induce an elector not to vote for a particular candidate or candidates within 100 m of a polling place
and/or not permit the distribution of any advertisement, how-to-vote card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice containing any electoral matter on polling day. This would also include advertising or comment in a newspaper on that day.
Not many people have commented on that. There was also the issue of how far you want to take advertising as that also drives people up the wall. That is an issue we also need to look at. We have the danger of people putting dishonest ads in at the last minute. The way to stop that is to say, ‘Sorry, from so many days out, there will no ads in the paper’. I have seen the last-minute shock ads: ‘Fred killed his cat, don’t vote for him!’ Fred did not, but if you can get it into Saturday morning’s paper, cat lovers will not vote for him ...
Mr Styles: Absolutely not. I would not.
Mr WOOD: That is right. However, the real story is the cat was sitting under the back wheel of his four-wheel drive when he happened to reverse out to get the milk at the local shop. Yes, he did kill the cat, but it was an accident. That is not the way the headline looked so that is why sometimes …
Mr Elferink: It was a cat-tastrophe.
Mr WOOD: I am glad we are closing the debate after that joke.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution and I appreciate the government’s support for this matter. I am interested to hear what the government is bringing forward because it will create lively debate on the future of how we run polling day.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports from the Members for Arafura, Casuarina, Johnston, Arnhem, Greatorex and Drysdale
Travel Reports from the Members for Arafura, Casuarina, Johnston, Arnhem, Greatorex and Drysdale
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table some travel reports from the members for Arafura, Casuarina, Johnston, Arnhem, Greatorex and Drysdale in accordance with tribunal requirements.
Casuarina By-Election Report October 2014
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also table the Casuarina by-election report from October 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, tonight I want to speak about public housing tenants not being good neighbours. I believe I can speak for everyone here that we strongly believe everyone should have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. For many Territorians this comes in the form of public housing administered by the Department of Housing.
Those who have been able to survive the increased exorbitant wait times for public housing dwellings find themselves in a privileged position of calling one of these dwellings home. But with this privilege comes conditions and obligations, just as renting a home in the private market has.
One of the expectations of a public housing tenant, as detailed in the Territory Housing policy documentation and guidelines, is that a tenant be a good neighbour. On the Department of Housing website under the good neighbour policy, tenants have an obligation under the terms of the lease to not cause a nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours. If the Department of Housing receives a complaint it will investigate the matter thoroughly. If the behaviour is not a breach of the tenancy agreement there are other courses of action open to the Department of Housing.
I want to make it very clear that I am not generalising public housing. I am sure that for every bad housing tenant there are numerous ideal tenants. But I can tell you there are a few Territory Housing tenants in the Johnston electorate who are not fulfilling their obligations to be a good neighbour. Sadly, there appears to be no recourse for them.
The Minister for Housing, on 2 September this year, issued a media release titled ‘Housing three strikes policy just got tougher’. People living alongside these bad public housing neighbours would be forgiven for thinking that the minister’s title was in fact true, but the new toughness was directed at them and their difficulty in getting their complaints heard for any of the three strikes registered, not a new toughness on their bad neighbours.
Some of these tenants have earned themselves impressive notoriety amongst their neighbours, the police and the frontline staff at Territory Housing, yet no action is taken, certainly not by the failing Minister for Housing. My office has received countless complaints from families living alongside or within earshot of public housing residents where antisocial behaviour such as yelling, fighting, intimidation and other acts is not indicative of a good neighbour.
These complaints have been relayed, reported and retold to the department and to the minister’s office on numerous occasions, yet night after night – in some of cases for months and years – these families and people are still subjected to the suffering that comes with living alongside these bad neighbours.
One in particular – where there is meant to be a senior’s area in Hazel Court, Coconut Grove – has now been identified as a hot spot for antisocial behaviour by the Northern Territory Police. Residents have relayed to me that a unit in Hazel Court is the hot spot with over three years of complaints. I was told there were over 170-odd complaints against this one unit. There are nightly visits by the police, groups turn up in buses with alcohol and then there is swearing, fighting, loud music all night, and sadly our senior Territorians are threatened. This is a disgrace.
Imagine how distressing it is for these senior Territorians to witness and put up with the ongoing antisocial behaviour, and being threatened, and how afraid they are feeling. This stress and anguish is taking its toll on their health, as you can imagine. One resident who has suffered sustained stress from living alongside a bad public housing neighbour was rushed to the emergency department at RDH with stress-induced symptoms which she described as feeling like a heart attack. Another family, sadly, has chosen to pack up and move to a new suburb because they were completely fed up with the ongoing problems with their public housing neighbours.
There is also a public housing unit in Moil Crescent where there are issues. I struggle to comprehend how the tenants are still there. The families within the units are fed up with the constant drinking, swearing, domestic violence, property damage and fighting and the threats to them and their families. The police are their regularly and the neighbours have had enough.
There are families taking their children to pick up a family member from a midnight flight because the children are terrified to stay home by themselves because of the out-of-control behaviour witnessed at this unit in Moil Crescent. There is a massive problem with bad neighbours and bad tenants.
Early yesterday the Minister for Housing rattled off a list of statistics she claimed prove antisocial behaviour has been reduced in public housing, and subsequently a reduction in the number of strikes being recorded against bad tenants. Many Territorians who live alongside bad public housing neighbours take no comfort from the minister’s statistics and would question their legitimacy. I suspect it is more a case of creative accounting and spin by the minister’s office, where the reduction in numbers for antisocial behaviour recorded by the Department of Housing would be a result of the neighbours of these bad tenants giving up calling the department.
I ask this question legitimately and I hope to get an answer: how many people have been evicted from public housing under the three strikes policy since the CLP came into government? I also question how many of the reports to the police by the neighbours are passed on to the department and recorded against the tenancy – an obvious flaw and disconnect in the complaints process.
Along with the current government’s flawed alcohol management policies that contribute to many antisocial behaviour complaints received by my office, this is becoming a real problem that needs a solution. I place on the record the fantastic job the police do in meeting with me and with tenants in regard to the issues I raise tonight about antisocial behaviour and bad neighbours in Hazel Court and Moil Crescent.
While I would never advocate making a person homeless, it is clear there are some tenants in public housing who are abusing their privilege of safe, secure and affordable housing provided to them by the Territory government. But under the current minister and government, these tenants are sitting pretty. Something needs to be done.
After three years of complaints about one property in Coconut Grove, they are still there. I went there to speak to the residents and witnessed a bus which arrived full of people who got out with their alcohol. The door is never closed in the unit and people go in and out. There have been accusations from neighbours that the person who stays in this unit is not there three or four months of the year. They go to Alice Springs and leave the unit open for anybody who wants to use it.
Madam Speaker, something needs to be done. It is a privilege to be in Territory public housing, not a right. I urge the Minister for Housing to do something now to protect the people doing the right thing in public housing and as citizens of the Territory. They need the minister to stand up and take some action against the people who are doing the wrong things in Territory housing and look after the people who are doing the right thing under the Tenancy Act.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House and the minister two e-mails I have received from a company called Diamond Louvres Australia, which is based in Deception Bay, Redcliffe, Queensland. The managing director is Rob Bugeja, who sent me these e-mails. I said I would raise this issue in parliament. I am not using anyone’s names, except I gained permission to use Rob’s. So if there are any other names here besides the minister’s, I will not be using them.
He said:
- It has been suggested that we contact you directly regarding a long-standing issue we have encountered with anti-competitive behaviour by the DoH and DoI in relation to SIHIP, NPARIH and now New Future Alliance Housing Projects in the NT.
It came to our attention during 2013 that our product had been excluded from these projects for some time. During the course of 2013 to late 2014 we tried in vain to work with the DoH/DoI to get an explanation and to also get approval so we could equally compete for these projects. Over this period we gathered much evidence which clearly shows breach of both the Commonwealth and NT procurement rules.
It soon became very clear to us that the department was working to conceal the fact that our product had been excluded from significant projects over a period of time. And were also rejecting our product to avoid liability in legal action between AJL Contractors and the department, over forced removal of our product at Barunga. It should be noted that AJL Contractors won the legal action with significant damages awarded with the ruling that the department forced AJL Contractors to ‘remove perfectly good windows for no good reason’ ...
During this process we contacted Minister Matt Conlan who was the Minister for Housing. Minister Conlan assured us in writing that we would be subject to a non-onerous process of assessment to gain product approval, that would be equal to our competitor, whose product had been specified as the proprietary product. (Please note specification of only a proprietary ‘branded’ product is against procurement rules, it can only be used as a guide to the type of product required). Over the next few months we were subjected to a very biased and difficult process of assessment that was proven to be incompetent at best on many occasions.
During the assessment we provided the relevant documentation and test reports which confirmed our product complied with the specification, Australian Standards AS2047 and was fit for purpose. There were several misguided attempts by the department to reject our product mostly on technical basis that they did not understand or simply did not exist. There is also evidence of collusion between our competitor and the department during this assessment process. Finally, we were advised by …
… that no assessment had taken place and that our product had been rejected, the reasons were not explained to us.
Through freedom of information (FOI) we were able to obtain that we were not told the truth. In fact an assessment was conducted contrary to the advice from …
The results reported directly to
… were that it was strongly suggested that the Diamond Louvre be approved due to the fact that the product did comply with Australian Standards AS2047 and the fact that we had supplied documentation and tests that confirmed this. Further it was noted in the communication to …
Mr A:
- … that the competitor product, that is the specified proprietary product, had no supporting documents or legal tests reports that showed similar compliance. It was after this advice and results were sent to …
… that he rejected our product. Clearly our product was rejected purely to avoid liability in the legal action taking place at the time between AJL Contractors and the department.
It should also be noted that from FOI we can confirm that no assessment was ever conducted on the competitor product prior to being named by brand as the proprietary product in the specification, nor has there been an assessment completed since. So the proprietary brand was selected in the specification and fiercely defended and protected by the department for reasons not explained, but clearly not based on any technical assessment or compliance.
It is clear that the advice of Minister Conlon that we would be treated equally was not the case and he was deceived by his own department.
Moving forward we have just reviewed the new specification for the New Future Alliance housing projects and I can confirm that once again our product has been excluded. It would appear there has been an attempt to alter the specification to further exclude our product, and to ensure no other branded louvre window product other than the proprietary product can be used. The specification is now written in great detail describing unique characteristics of the proprietary product. These characteristics have absolutely no bearing on compliance to Australian Standards AS2047 and are only written to exclude any other products. It should be noted that the unique characteristics detailed were not known to the department before, so suggests further collusion with the competitor, to ensure the monopoly continues. As a comparison descriptions written for all other window and door products only state the product must comply with the relevant Australian Standard, leaving it open for competition. But the louvre specification is written with such exact detail of a particular branded product. Why? So all other products are excluded. Also there is a reference to performance criteria that again is not relevant to the Australian Standards.
This specification is further evidence of anti-competitive behaviour by the department and collusion with the competitor, designed only to exclude our product and any other similar product.
All we have ever sought was the opportunity to compete on an equal basis. But the way this new specification has been written one louvre brand still has monopoly.
They sent me another e-mail today. The previous e-mail was dated 10 November. Today, 18 November 2015, he sent me another e-mail which said:
- Further to my e-mail I would like to provide you with some further information to substantiate the claims we have presented to you. As you can imagine there is a mountain of correspondence and evidence we have collated over the period of time since we became aware of our exclusion from these projects. So I have collated some important stages of the struggle so far into four chapters for you to review.
Each chapter has a summary or story page where I have explained the context and technical jargon to assist you. Each point in the story page is referenced to a number that coincides with a number on the actual e-mail or document. Please note that most are e-mails so the numbering system works backwards …
There are four chapters in total …
1. Incompetent Product Assessment
4. Reassessment for Product Approval.
From the complete storyline you can see clearly that the departments have gone to great lengths to exclude our product and to continue the monopoly for Breezeway our competitor. This has ensured many years of lost business for our company and stopped any competition to Breezeway, which undoubtedly has cost the taxpayer excessively.
As you can see, the tactics used by the departments have been incompetent, biased and dishonest. Not only have the Commonwealth and NTG procurement rules been breached, there has been a high level culture of anti-competitive behaviour and cover up. We have been put through such a long, difficult and obstructive process, which was orchestrated to reject us and frustrate us into submission.
I believe we have tried our best to engage the departments to resolve this matter using the appropriate processes. Clearly from the evidence we have accumulated over time and through FOI the departments were only ever trying to find ways to exclude us rather than provide us with equal opportunity. I guess time will tell if this matter will stand up to public scrutiny.
Diamond Louvre does comply for these projects and has been used in NTG housing projects from 2002 to the time SIHIP began. For some reason that has never been explained we were unapproved around the time that Breezeway were written into the specification. Our product is used in extreme environments across Australia and the South Pacific. We are long-standing members of the Australian Window Association (AWA) who police that their members comply to the relevant standards and policy.
That was signed by Robert Bugeja. I have brought them to parliament because after reading them I believe the matter needs some response from the minister. This company has sent me a pile of information in relation to this. I do not know if all the facts are correct, but they have been brought to my attention by a company that has been operating in the Territory for quite some time and feels there has been a problem as the use of its product has been excluded.
I hope the minister will take this up as a matter of urgency. I am happy to give all the information I have here and I hope she investigates whether the issue Rob Bugeja has addressed is true, and that there is an independent assessment of what I have put to parliament. I hope the minister will give us a response as soon as possible because this sounds like a company that believes it has not received proper and fair treatment in relation to using products in houses the government is building in the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I commemorate the life of Bunny Nabarula – RIP – 6 June 1930 to 25 September 2015.
Nabarula’s formative years, set in the shadow of the 1928 Coniston massacre, saw her family traversing ancestral land among drovers, mining prospectors, Overland Telegraph Station workers, police and outlaws.
In 1942 Darwin was bombed by the Japanese, with many Aboriginal people relocated to ‘control camps’ and restrictions placed on travel.
In 1945 Aboriginal people on Lord Vestey’s Northern Territory cattle station received rations, inadequate housing, no running water or sanitation and were paid less than five shillings a day.
Nabarula was born in this historical context, in 1930, at a soakage on the Gosse River east of Tennant Creek into an Aboriginal clan walking on country, living their traditional ceremonies and law.
In 1945 Nabarula’s people were moved to Phillip Creek Mission where Nabarula attended school and learnt domestic duties. However, in 1956 the mission was relocated to Warrabri Aboriginal Reserve.
In 1957 Nabarula ignored Commonwealth law, leaving Warrabri to return to station life, a 300 km journey undertaken on foot carrying a baby to Banka Banka and then Muckaty Station.
I met Nabarula in 1980, the year my mother died. I was teaching at Kargaru School in a transitional unit for Aboriginal students, many attending their first mainstream education. Nabarula was a parent visiting the class and after witnessing a chaotic series of lessons before recess, uttered the most profound words, ‘You look like you need some help’, adopting me as her son.
Nabarula campaigned against Australia’s nuclear waste facility on Warlmanpa land, defining leadership and activism. However, those who truly knew Nabarula witnessed a formidable advisory for social justice, human rights, Aboriginal land rights and reconciliation all her life.
Nabarula’s Warrabri walk-off in 1957 represented an action protesting relocation of Aboriginal people and restriction of nomadic movement. Nabarula chose station life over an Aboriginal reserve for connection to country and ceremonies. Nabarula’s move to Tennant Creek – an economic powerhouse for seven operating mines – provided a platform among influential people supporting her active community work for land rights, language and culture, child protection, health and education.
The themed float ‘Warumunga People 1930’ launched in the 1980 Tennant Creek Gold Rush Festival parade marked Nabarula’s visionary presence, emphasising Aboriginal traditional owners to 5000 European locals.
Behind the scenes, Nabarula practiced traditional culture and law, bridging two worlds in health and education and once supported a witch doctor visiting an old Aboriginal man hospitalised in Tennant Creek with health staff approval.
Nabarula was a beautiful soul, fostering children all her life, supporting the vulnerable, champion of Aboriginal languages and culture, loved by everyone and leaving a legacy of cross-cultural community service and survival on the last frontier. Nabarula gave so much but asked for so little.
Nabarula’s funeral took place in the Tennant Creek Town Hall. It drew a crowd in excess of 300 people who came from all over Australia. Many community people organised what was our little state funeral. It was a brilliant, solemn event and the speeches were endless from some very influential people from varying walks of life from all over the continent. Nabarula’s family was very proud of that day, and to witness and listen to the stories of her life from quite a diverse crowd that had come to commemorate her life and times.
Nabarula was truly an activist, noted very much for her leadership in the campaign of what would be Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste facility, on Warlmanpa land. However, it was important to retrace her steps and define her activism in her total life, from very early days through to her fine 85 years. Nabarula had lots of stories; I told many.
I was very privileged to be adopted by this old woman, because as a young teacher starting out in the Northern Territory, she guided my teaching practice and understanding of the diversity within the classrooms I chose to work in.
One of her first lessons was teaching me about home visits. I knew home visiting was a good methodology for parental engagement. I practiced it in Walgett in northwestern New South Wales. But in Tennant Creek in 1980, traversing the fringe camps located around the town, sitting down with families that were literally living behind corrugated iron, bow sheds and vegetation thrown over small shrubs, was quite an eye-opening experience. Looking back, I understood that was very much the first real point of engagement that put me ahead of the game.
Nabarula was fascinated with European society. She learnt about it and she understood Europeans very well.
She also had a visionary approach to supporting people. Someone who understands Aboriginal kinship and the cultural traditions and responsibilities will understand that as her son, I definitely did my fair share of supporting Nabarula and her extended family over the years.
One of the stories I told was about crowbars. She always humbugged me about crowbars, and was always on the hunt for good metal that would be good for shaping and fashioning crowbars. Every time I completed the assignment, the next time I saw Nabarula she would put in an order for more. Being a whitefella I got a little disgruntled at this continual pressure.
I was delighted that Nabarula had enrolled herself in a welding course with the old Northern Territory Open College of Education. At the welding course she discovered two older gentlemen in Tennant Creek who took her under their wing. She discovered the resources of the Northern Territory Open College workshop. I asked my mum, when she finished the course, how much she learnt about welding and she told me not much, but she had a cache of great crowbars. I remember counting at least eight brilliant crowbars which were very well designed.
A month later I was back in town and, sure enough, I got the order again because the crowbars were all gone. It took me a while to work out what was happening. Nabarula gave the crowbars away because it was something to get women out of town, back on country, taking children hunting, speaking in their language in their environment and teaching the children. It was one of many examples of Nabarula’s true vision.
The 1980 Gold Rush Festival parade was another one where she seconded me to organise that for her. Stepping out in a community of 5500 people, including miners, meatworkers and non-Indigenous people, was a challenge. But I am glad I took it up and went through with it. We ended up with a truck as a float. She had her sign saying Warumungu People 1930. She presented those people in a community of 5500 people and was very proud to do it. As a young teacher it was a great experience for me logistically, socially and culturally to pull that together.
There were many more stories told. She is greatly missed in Tennant Creek. Nabarula, in the Muckaty campaign, blocked the Stuart Highway when told by one of the activists that was the best way to do business. She was rescued by friends and countrymen, and brought back to the footpath. It is a great story, told often. Nabarula blocked a national highway again upon her funeral, when we escorted her to the Tennant Creek cemetery. Nabarula will be sorely missed and may she rest in peace.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Barkly reminded me of my younger sister who the member Namatjira spoke about, who has worked in the back blocks of Docker River. There are three key things the women carried with them: one was a crowbar, one was a hub cap and one was a bottle of water. You could hunt with the crow bar, cook on the hub cap and you had your water to drink. I know exactly what you are talking about with the old lady.
This evening I pay tribute and talk about some of the exploits of people in my electorate, young and not so young. The first is a young girl who became a barrel racer interstate, and her name is Georga Hollingsworth. She is 12 years old and qualified for the national rodeo finals in Dalby, Queensland. Qualifying for the finals, she says, was a big achievement for her and she dreams of competing in the barrel race in America one day. I am sure she will get there.
Georga is a fourth generation rodeo competitor. Her great-grandfather was an Australian Champion, her grandfather was all-round NT champion, and her mother competed all over the Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. Georga says she loves barrel racing because she loves to go fast, particularly around corners. She was so happy when she was selected to represent the Territory at Dalby in a sport she loves.
Her horse is called Homebrew and she said, ‘He is amazing; he is the most loyal and loving horse. He may be small, but he has a huge heart and loves to barrel race as much as I do. Homebrew is the foal of my mum’s horse she used to compete on.’ Homebrew is 17 years old, which in horse age is not that old and probably just run in.
She was after sponsors and fundraising, in which I was happy to help her and her mum, Cody. These people who go off on these expeditions with horses, children and dogs are very brave indeed. It is sponsored by the Northern Territory Cowboys Association. It was the junior barrel event in late October in Dalby. While she did not get the number one ticket, she performed exceptionally well, given that not many young people go from the Territory to these amazing events. It would have been an adventure of a lifetime, taking two horses, two dogs, children and one adult all the way to Dalby and back again.
So well done, Georga, your mum Cody, and to grandma Sue, who has the plants at the Coolalinga Markets – a lovely family. I wish her well and I am sure she will go on to much more barrel racing, if not in Australia in America one day, as that is her dream.
I also pay compliments to those wonderful people at Smile-a-Mile. You know them, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Recently in October the Minister for Education announced the Education Care and Excellence Awards. Smile-a-Mile Fun Bus and Toy Library picked up an award for outstanding education care services in budget-based funded services. A big congratulations to it. It provides a huge service to the greater rural area as far down as Dundee and out to Adelaide River and Pine Creek.
Smile-a-Mile Fun Bus and Toy Library was established in 1987 so it has been around for quite a while. It is funded by the NT government to meet the needs of local and rural communities. Although government funded, it also gets some private sponsorship. It was at Humpty Doo but has moved to its permanent site, which is near Freds Pass Reserve Police Station. It became an incorporated group in the 1990s. It provides all manner of services which I know people are familiar with. Not only does it have a toy library, but you can hire out the toys for birthday parties. There is the Fun Bus, which goes, as I said, as far down as Adelaide River, Acacia/Larrakia, Batchelor, Cox Peninsula, Daly River – for the member for Daly – Douglas Daly and the Territory Wildlife Park.
People subscribe to it. I was talking to some mothers at the Humpty Doo shops last week with little girls about five or thereabouts. They said Smile-a-Mile toy bus coming and going to them was a lifesaver for their children.
During Children’s Week, which I think was about three weeks ago, Smile-a-Mile organised a children’s week activity at the Humpty Doo Village Green, which was amazing. It organised all manner of things, not only that it is associated with, but it had the fire people and other people there with activities, face painting, jumping castles – things that young children enjoy. By its counting, there were about 412 children who had come from preschool and Transition from all the rural schools, plus there were about another 200 people who came – parents and grandparents of little tackers – to enjoy a lovely day.
I went to help with Trish from my electorate office. I had never seen 400 icy poles disappear as quickly as I did that day – hugely popular. We have to get double for next time because many of the adults wanted to get icy poles as well.
To Jacinta and her team, congratulations, you run a great show. I know you are well loved and well supported by the community. To all the other Smile-a-Mile people – Lenore Dawes, Viki Ross, Lynley Wilson-Nichols, Carmel Coutts and Toni-Anne Thorpe-Roots – congratulations, well done, not only for Children’s Week but what you do generally and the services you provide to the rural area for all the young children and young families. Thank you, well done.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016