2010-02-17
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, have leave of absence today on account of ill health.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to clarify a matter raised in the House last night by the member for Fong Lim relating to the manner in which members should refer to other members.
During debate, it is expected members will refer to each other by their correct titles, for example, the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, minister for a particular portfolio, and not by their electorate title. You will note the Chair always acknowledges members in that way.
During the adjournment debate all members, except for the first member called, who is usually a minister and may have been called to adjourn the House - only a minister can adjourn the House -are referred to by their electorate title as adjournments generally relate to the member’s electorate. If, however, a member chooses to speak on a matter relating to a member’s portfolio, in that context the member should only be referred to by the ministerial title.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Petroleum Act to:
1. assist the Northern Territory’s onshore gas and petroleum industries by allowing flexibility within the act, to more easily accommodate the use of unconventional exploration and production methods;
As members are aware, our mining and energy industries continue to be the biggest contributor to the Territory’s economy, and accounts for around a quarter of gross state product. Further, over the past five years, the expenditure in exploration and mining and petroleum in the Territory has been increasing. Historically, the knowledge of the Territory’s onshore petroleum and gas resources has been limited when compared to the reserves available offshore. In recent times, the level of exploration for onshore reserves has been increasing.
Traditionally, conventional onshore gas and petroleum exploration activities have centred on targeting sandstone and carbonate rock formations. Increasingly, explorers and producers are now identifying and exploring natural gas and petroleum reserves found in low permeability and tight sandstones, gas shales and coal bed methane formations. This new approach, termed unconventional gas plays, is being successfully used overseas, particularly in the United States.
Unconventional gas and petroleum reservoirs can exist over much larger areas than conventional deposits, as explorers are targeting different types of source rocks. The use of unconventional gas and petroleum plays allows for the linking of smaller disparate deposits to each other. This, in turn, can allow for the development of a viable gas and petroleum extraction operation over a large land area, which previously was not possible. As a result, it is necessary for companies adopting unconventional gas plays to seek exploration rights over larger areas of land and for longer tenure periods in order to fully explore, identify and prove up viable reservoirs which can then be economically extracted.
In light of the of the development of new unconventional exploration and extraction techniques, there is a need for the Petroleum Act to be amended to more readily accommodate the changing requirements of the Territory’s onshore gas and petroleum sector going forward.
One of the primary amendments in this bill seeks to provide discretion with respect to the existing requirement under section 24(1) of the Petroleum Act for a mandatory reduction in permit area upon seeking a renewal of an exploration permit. For example, when a holder of a petroleum exploration permit seeks to renew the permit for a further five years, then the holder can only apply for half the land area granted under the original permit.
The purpose of the existing provision is, rightly, to ensure those explorers granted a renewed exploration permit focus their activities into a smaller geographical area in order to prove up the presence of petroleum bodies for possible future commercial development. This provision results in the mandatory turning over of land to allow for new exploration activities to be undertaken, possibly by other companies. However, where there are exploration permit holders actively exploring, and who meet their expected obligations under the act, there are instances in which it is desirable to defer or waiver the reduction in area, subject to ministerial discretion. Such a deferral or waiver can assist permit holders to fully explore the potential of a resource prior to electing to relinquish areas of their permit.
Given the emergence of companies seeking to identify and exploit unconventional gas and petroleum reservoirs, providing greater flexibility within the act is of increasing importance.
The bill seeks to insert a new section into the act allowing an exploration permit holder who is seeking a renewal of its exploration permit, to apply to the minister for an exemption from the mandatory requirement to reduce the number of land blocks held. It is important to note any exemption granted can only be for a period not exceeding 12 months, and an application must provide reasons why an exemption has been sought. Such exemptions may be provided for a deferral of the reduction in area, or a reduction of the permit area by a lesser number of blocks than otherwise would be required under the current act. Prior to the end of a period of exemption, the permit holder may reapply to the minister for an extension of the exemption for a period not exceeding 12 months per application, again providing reasons for such a request.
In making a decision to grant an exemption, the minister must be satisfied the applicant:
has satisfactorily complied with its obligations as an exploration permit holder under the Petroleum Act;
has followed any lawful directions given by the minister when discharging powers under the act.
The minister must also be satisfied the exemption, if granted, will assist the permit holder to more effectively carry out its work program for the discovery of commercially exploitable petroleum and gas resources. Lastly, and most importantly, it must be in the interests of the Territory to grant the exemption.
The provision of a discretionary power, with respect to the granting of an exemption from the mandatory reduction rule, is in line with similar provisions dealing with applications for renewed exploration licences granted under the Mining Act.
The purpose of the second group of amendments contained in the bill is to more efficiently process applications received for the granting of exploration permits issued under the Petroleum Act. Currently, the act allows for more than one application for an exploration permit to be lodged for the same geographical area. This situation differs to that found in the Mining Act where section 18(aa) specifically excludes …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. There seems to be a UFO-type noise coming from the sound system.
Mr Tollner: It does not really matter, Madam Speaker, we cannot understand a thing he is saying, anyhow.
Madam SPEAKER: We are trying to find out what is going on, as I understand Hansard cannot hear anything. An odd noise. I will adjourn the House until the ringing of the bells, which will probably be in only a few minutes.
Sittings suspended until the ringing of the bells.
Madam SPEAKER: We will turn the bells off now. Honourable members, it appears it is the minister for Indigenous policy’s microphone which has caused the problem, so we have isolated it. I will be giving my leave, should the minister require to speak, for her to sit in my seat as the member for Nightcliff during any debates. I would like to say the sound system is being upgraded over the year; hopefully it will not be a problem.
Minister, I would like you to start from the beginning because we do not know how much Hansard has of your speech. Could you start at the beginning of the second reading speech?
Mr HENDERSON: In the interests of time, the minister is reading from a set second reading speech; the parts Hansard do not have surely can be incorporated rather than being re-read for another 10 minutes.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you like to seek leave to have the parts incorporated which may have been affected by the sound problem.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the second group of amendments contained in the bill is to more efficiently process applications received for the granting of exploration permits issued under the Petroleum Act. Currently, the act allows for more than one application for an exploration permit to be lodged for the same geographical area. This situation differs to that found in the Mining Act, where section 18(aa) specifically excludes the acceptance of an application for an exploration licence for the same land, or part of the same land, unless both of the competing applications were received by the department on the same day.
Under the Petroleum Act provisions exist for dealing with applications for the same land area received on the same day. Under this scenario each application is assessed to determine which application will be deemed most appropriate to the interests of the Northern Territory, and only it will proceed. At present all competing applications, whether or not they are received on the same day, are processed in parallel to the stage where they are ready for grant. However, for multiple applications to reach the ‘ready to grant’ stage, all companies would need to have expended significant levels of time and resources. However, for all companies, bar one, there is a high likelihood their application would be ultimately refused as the first application received preceding their own, which meets the necessary requirements, will be successful and granted the permit.
Amending the legislation to allow only one application to be received at a time - and if deemed worthy allowed to proceed to the ‘ready to grant’ stage - will prevent unnecessary resources and time costs being borne by companies, and by the regulator.
New provisions to be inserted will ensure that:
a person cannot apply for an exploration permit on an area already the subject of an exploration permit or licence, or an application for the same area lodged on an earlier business day;
if two or more applications are lodged on the same day, then both will be considered; and
that additional information relevant to the application(s) can be sought by the minister or delegate.
The third scope of amendments in this bill seek to complete the transfer of responsibility for occupational health and safety matters on petroleum production sites to NT WorkSafe, the lead agency for administering the Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act.
The final proposed amendments to the Petroleum Act are to accommodate transitional matters. These include ensuring that:
any uncompleted determinations of competing applications for an exploration permit, prior to commencement date of the newly amended act, are treated as if the amendment act had not commenced; and
if, on the commencement day the minister, or an inspector or workplace safety officer, is exercising a power or performing a function under the Workplace Health and Safety Act, then they can continue to do so to ensure the matter is appropriately finalised.
The proposals put forward in the Petroleum Amendment and Related Matters Bill are in the interests of the Northern Territory, and will assist the onshore petroleum and gas industry with conventional and unconventional activities necessary to identify and exploit the Territory’s valuable energy resources.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr Tollner: May I say thank you to the member for Casuarina for slowing down. I could understand him quite well.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can only rise for a point of order
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement - Member for Arafura and Member for Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document on pairing for the whole of this sitting day for the member for Arafura and the member for Araluen. It is signed by the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I thank the minister for making available a briefing. There was a little miscommunication to which we contributed. We did get off to a difficult start, and some were inconvenienced, and I apologise for that - part of that was from my office. In the end we did get together and it was a very good briefing. I also appreciate the information provided which we were able to take away to assist us understanding the proposed amendments, and being able to apply the current proposed amendments to some practical issues which have come to my notice.
It was in the testing of those particular issues which have come to my notice that I was able to see what is proposed in this amendment bill will advance the object of the exercise; that being, not only the registration of teachers in strengthening the profession but, principally, through the quality and the requirement for ongoing professional development, and the managing of complaints and disputes. They are very important developments. As was discussed, there needs to be a refining of that capacity to ensure complaints which arise from time to time over the suitability or otherwise of someone seeking registration are managed in a way which allows appropriate and careful responses to take place. At the core of this we do not want conflict, or the integrity of the profession to be damaged in any way. The refinements contained within this amendment will go some way in ensuring that integrity is maintained.
Matters of national consistency, of course, are important as the national discussion on education is about greater consistency with curriculum frameworks and so on, with national initiatives. In my time in parliament, I have been pleased to see education issues have now moved up the table of topics people want debated and discussed. For too long, education was something people did not talk much about. Now it has become an issue of greater prominence in public discourse. Also, it being a national agenda, it is important we acknowledge the development of the national agenda, particularly when it comes to the accreditation and recognition of the importance of the profession and its capacity to transact and translate experience across borders, including New Zealand.
I have already mentioned complaints and inquiries. I made reference to one particular case where a gentleman came into my office really hurt by a process which had been embarked upon which put a question mark over him. It appeared to me the way in which the process we had agreed to in the parliament, in I think 2004, had been constructed, did not provide adequate refinement for that matter to be attended to in a more effective way. The result in this case, I have to say, was a clumsy bit of machinery which resulted in unnecessary distress for a long-serving teacher. I was very pleased in the briefing to learn there is that refinement which allows these matters to be attended to in a better way. I am also pleased it has been reported to me that that particular case has progressed.
I also believe the development of two categories is a good step forward, underlining the importance of professional development and ongoing improvements. The two categories are fully registered and provisional registration. That also goes to an issue which had come to my attention: someone from another system which may not exactly match the parameters established in the Northern Territory and may not fit, but with the creation of the provisional registration category, that provides greater flexibility. For someone familiar with the profession, as many in the Chamber are, the last thing you would want is to have a system clumsy and unrefined in its application which causes offence to the instincts of the profession. The refinement we have described in this amendment, in this regard the capacity to grant provisional registration, preserves the core purpose, the core object. That being to strengthen the profession, to ensure there are accredited courses a teacher needs to make themselves available for to refine and strengthen their practices. That ongoing development, I think, will augur well. Ultimately, with all of the debate in education, and many words spoken yesterday which will be echoing around, raising the status and the respect for the profession itself is important here.
Rather than digress into the way industrial matters have been handled in recent times, which still has an effect on the way the My School data has been discussed in the community, how that debate is being conducted, all those matters bear stress upon the profession. When the community is engaged, it is so important we get these things right, that we get the tone right, and we are clear about why we are embarking on such discussions and debates and contests in the public domain.
In regard to the registration of the profession, those matters related to the handling of disputes, the accreditation of courses and programs and professional development, it is very good the board now has that refined capacity. The required maintenance of competence is a central factor here, and that increased power has now been provided.
One point in relation to the broader discussion – being aware professional development is required, we should be very careful we do not have one section of the enterprise being, in this case, the registration of teachers, which sits in the broader enterprise of delivering education - and the purpose of that education is to make a difference and improvement in the strengthening of a child in a classroom - that we do not have a disconnect between one part and the other. When it comes to professional development, I hope there is an eye, and a sense to ensure we do not just tick the box so professional development has occurred.
The development of the profession is the development of the profession for a purpose, and the purpose of that development is to improve and strengthen the academic performance of students. Therefore, there needs to be that higher level of coordination. So, if you are accrediting and conducting professional development, and improving and refining competencies in specific regard, for example, in the primary school, the matters discussed in and around this issue of the national average, where our students in urban schools like-for-like across the country have not performed as strongly as we would like - the professional development which is going to be accredited by the board must match a broader strategy to improve that, and to close those gaps. We must avoid, at all costs, the left hand not in sync with the right hand.
The purpose of professional development is to achieve a result in a classroom with a child, and that should be measured regardless of whether we find this debate hijacked perhaps by politics, as some would say. At the end of the day, these instruments such as the NAPLAN results should bear noticeable change which could be measured and we see the improvement, so we do not put in effort to simply provide professional development.
On another front, I would urge professional development - I have had a meeting with the CEO of Education, and the matter raised in and around the intervention was to strengthen the delivery of cross-cultural training specific to those teachers who are serving remote. There needs to be a connect between that which is accredited by the board and that which is required by the profession, with the purpose of strengthening delivery to kids in classes and ensuring professional development is relevant, and is going to achieve the objective of the whole enterprise.
That is absolutely critical, and I see that as the role of government - to govern like the governor; to govern so the objective of the whole exercise is being achieved. We are talking about a specific instrument which is the registration board, the instrument to register teachers. It is the job of government, as I see it, to ensure that instrument, that part of the enterprise, strengthens the possibility of achieving the broader objective, which is improving the performance of our students.
That is where I would be watching this and ensuring it is not process which is being put in place; it has been tested and tried and found, through consults in different stakeholders, to be the necessary fix, or the tweak to the instrument; it is part of a bigger job. We would ultimately see whatever energy is put in here, whatever improvements are put in place here, provides a result which we will see, over time, with the results through NAPLAN, for example.
We would see it also in teacher status and respect being improved in the profession, because we would start to see results. I can see that compounding; teachers would be recognised and applauded for the efforts which are bearing results, government would be ensuring the left and right hand are working together to produce results. The profession is strengthened, the community feels prouder of the enterprise of education, and they support their kids more because it is all going in one direction. The board is playing its part, as those who are working on the nature of the professional development are playing their part; the board recognises the part they are playing in the broader agenda.
It will bring the parents in. It will ensure they can see their part is important, as the board’s part is important, as the minister’s part is important, as the principal, as the early childhood teacher, as those who provide support for cross-cultural training will see they are part of something, and it is all connected. It is a terrible thing when so much money is spent, so much activity entered into, boxes ticked, and that is the end of it. It is tragic. The object of the exercise is to make a noticeable improvement to a kid sitting in a classroom.
We often talk about whole-of-government. It sounds good, however we have to ensure that that essential aspect is attended to, and it takes the minister to bring that all together. At the end of the day that is the pulse which must be felt; all this has a purpose, a purpose which can be measured and results which can be seen, and if the results are not there, then measures are put in place to improve those results. That is what it is really all about.
Once again, thank you for the briefing, for the opportunity to test two issues on foot with me, and to be satisfied those matters now have a solution, there is a place for them to go, there is a refinement in the practice, and that is good. There was much discussion in 2004 about this. I was there at that time, and it was supported by the Independents and the Country Liberals. We have come some distance since then and, just as people reassess, there has been that reassessment, that refinement and improvement. This amendment has the support of the Country Liberals.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I support the Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. This bill forms a part of our strategy for A Smart Territory. I welcome the proposed changes to the registration requirements to better support, enhance and improve quality teaching.
The Teacher Registration Board has existed in the Territory for five years and facilitates the continuing competence and development of our teachers. We want to strengthen the act to deliver long-term benefit for students and teachers in our schools. The board ensures only persons who are fit and proper, and appropriately qualified, are employed as teachers in the Northern Territory.
As a former teacher, I am well aware we need new teacher registration categories. New requirements and categories are fundamental to long-term reforms aimed at developing national consistency in teacher registration, and a national accreditation system for pre-service teacher education courses. We need to better support young graduates and trainee teachers in finding their way in this great profession. This bill empowers the Teacher Registration Board to accredit initial teacher education courses for delivery in the Territory.
I listened carefully to the second reading speech. I support the move to achieve the amendments necessary to support the national agenda and to accredit home-grown, initial teacher education programs. We want to support our tertiary institutions to better train and equip local students to take up teaching. I believe the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out the nature of rural and remote teaching placements in the Northern Territory as not only being exciting, but also being very much a specialist field in the education and teaching of our students.
We are taking action to ensure programs can be delivered in the Territory which are appropriately recognised. Two categories of registration are proposed: provisional registration and full registration. New graduates will be granted provisional registration. Only experienced teachers will be granted full registration. Teachers new to the profession need a period of supported induction. I have spent many years developing and supporting our young teachers so they can go on to have real, meaningful and fulfilling careers, and recognising the important work they do in facilitating opportunities for the youth of the Northern Territory. Teachers need supported induction into this profession.
The amendments also include teachers returning from extended periods of leave, teachers from overseas, and applicants from other jurisdictions whose registration has lapsed - once again in a supportive environment.
These amendments also recognise professional standards need to align with the national framework, and set clear and rigorous expectations against which provisional and full registration may be granted. We also want to ensure Territory teachers invest in their ongoing professional development. These amendments provide teachers registered in the Territory to demonstrate ongoing professional competence every five years. Our teachers are very serious about demonstrating ongoing professional competence. Professional development in the teaching profession is hand-in-glove with the profession. Teachers will be required to demonstrate they have maintained their competence and professional experience as part of the registration renewal process.
In the past, the board was responsible for ensuring the continuing competence of teachers, but had no power to refuse to renew a teacher’s registration. These amendments ensure Northern Territory teachers are competent practitioners, and also brings registration practices in the Territory into line with other Australian jurisdictions. We must ensure teachers we have in the Territory are fit and proper to perform their role, and the board is appropriately empowered to investigate concerns. This bill provides substantial changes and additional tools for the registration board to conduct inquiries and to investigate complaints. The community must be confident the Teacher Registration Board has powers to rigorously investigate matters of concern properly. Students in our Territory schools deserve the best performing teachers, and the proposed amendments provide the necessary mechanisms to deal with performance concerns.
Madam Speaker, I trust this bill will receive the opposition’s support, as we are committed to improving education across the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this important amendment bill. As the member for Barkly said, we need to do as much as we can to improve the standard of our teachers, especially in line with some of the debate occurring in parliament in the last day or so. I am specifically referring to the issues around NAPLAN. I say again, I would love the government to bring this issue back to parliament away from the heat which occurs with censure motions. I believe the issue needs to be debated fully as it is an issue in the minds of many people. I would also like the opportunity to debate it myself, because I do not agree with both sides on some of the issues. Having spoken to quite a number of principals, many do not agree with what is being said on both sides of this parliament.
I say that believing we are dealing with part of an important debate - that is, education in the Northern Territory - which is vital if the Northern Territory is ever to reach its 2030 goals. If you do not have an education, you do not have a job, and if you do not have a job, the Northern Territory will not advance.
The core behind whether we have good education is whether we have good teachers. There are a number of issues I would like clarified. I will do them here instead of committee stage, although if I feel I do not have the answers I might ask to go to committee. In relation to courses the Explanatory Statement says:
If we are dealing with national standards, and if we are telling CDU its courses are accredited, who is ensuring those courses are accredited or on an equal footing with courses nationally, so we are not picking ours up, which could be of a lower standard than the ones in Queensland? Who is identifying whether we are on the same level? The other issue with the courses is that I am interested to know the role of the department of Education. Is it the role of the teacher registration body to decide the makeup of a CDU course, or is it their role to see what the course is and say whether or not it meets the standard? Who actually sets the parameters for the course? Is it the department of Education? Is it the Charles Darwin University? Are we now saying the Teacher Registration Board will design the course to the standard they think is acceptable for a teacher to be qualified? I would like to get a global answer on that, if that is possible.
When I was discussing NAPLAN figures with several principals I was told that probably the biggest impediment to a school achieving the standard required, or the standard aimed at under NAPLAN, is a bad teacher. This is one of the areas I would like to discuss - you could have 20 classes in a school, and one class could be run by a teacher who does not perform. That can bring the average down. That is one of these deceptive things with statistics about performance. One class could be below average, which could bring the whole school down. How do you approach that? How do you get that teacher to perform, or remove the teacher if they are not willing to perform?
In relation to complaints to the board, would those issues of a non-performing teacher come under Part 6, disciplinary proceedings? That sounds a fairly harsh term. It is like thinking a teacher was not on their best behaviour at school, or had done something wrong. Am I to believe that section under disciplinary proceedings and complaints would cover a complaint about a teacher not performing? If it cannot be done internally, could that teacher then come before the board and be told they are not up to standard, and are given an option to either achieve, start to improve, or do they lose their registration if the board thinks they are not up to standard?
You have a disciplinary system but is it to be used as an impetus to drive a teacher to perform better? I believe 99% of our teachers work hard; they want to do the best for their school. However, you only need one or two teachers in a school to bring the results down. Will this system improve that? Principals have advised me that one of the hardest things to do is remove an under-performing teacher from a school. It is very difficult. They have a permanent job in the department, probably fulfil the hours exactly, however nothing much is happening to improve their performance.
Principals have a certain amount of power. They would encourage a teacher to look at results. Statistics are gathered in classrooms today; you can get a pretty good idea of where the under-performance is. You could bring a teacher in and say: ‘These are the results from your classroom. We need to improve’. If nothing happens after that, is the reason for this part to take it out of the hands of the school and get the board to see if the teacher is up to the standard required, and whether a teacher should still be registered?
It is really important there is a process which does not hamstring a school simply because it is a bureaucracy but allows the system to continually stimulate teachers to improve themselves. You are talking about upgrading; there will be 10 areas of professional learning, so you have to demonstrate professional competence and good character. I believe that is good. Obviously, that is what we are really trying to achieve.
Where we have teachers who are not achieving, that is an area we have to put effort into. As one principal said, one teacher who does not perform can bring down all those results, all the terrific work other teachers have done simply because we only look at a statistic today, and that statistic, unless it is analysed, can be very misleading. I believe is a good area, if that is what it is meant to cover.
All in all, I think it is important. I know we are only talking about the importance of teachers today and it is a narrow band of what we really should be talking about. We should be talking about how our schools are operating as a whole; good teachers, good results. Again statistics, to me, after talking to people who know, do not always carry the whole picture. One principal, who does not like these statistics being thrown around, said if you want to know what a school is really like, walk the playground at lunchtime and you will get a feel for the school. I believe you will get a reflection of the teachers at that school also. If it is a good school, the kids will love the teachers, and from that comes good results. Being a good teacher is not only about competency. It is about fellow human beings with a vocation. I believe teaching is a vocation more than a job and that is reflected in the school. The happiness of the school, the reaction you get from kids, that is all important.
Madam Speaker, we are dealing with this as legislation which is very cold and straightforward. We must remember teachers are more than that. They are part of our community, and they are what make a school tick. The more we can work with teachers to improve the quality of their teaching and give them a workplace they know is supported by us as politicians, supported by the department and loved by the kids, the better schools we will have, and the more we will achieve in overall good education - not just one particular subject - overall we will produce better kids for the future.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. It certainly will assist education, as has been put forward by the minister, in improving the quality of our teachers, and hopefully put in place a strategy which is going to help teachers become better educators. The minister is quite aware of what it is like being a teacher in the classroom. I believe government needs to do all it can to help our teachers deliver a curriculum to our students which is going to not only help them meet any benchmarks set, but exceed the benchmarks.
The member for Nelson picked up on something very relevant, and it is what makes a good teacher of people. We have all seen it in different organisations, even in Defence where, who you think are good people and very hard-working people get promoted into supervisory positions and they make absolutely horrible supervisors. They do not have the same ability to deal with people, encourage people, and lead people. I know minister McCarthy referred yesterday to leadership and driving people. I have seen teachers today who have the wonderful ability of getting the best out of someone. I can remember back in my football days, I had coaches, and I had better coaches, and I believe it is the same with our teaching profession today.
We can provide our teachers with all the courses in the world, and we can put into place strategies to ensure you reach this minimum standard to be registered. But if those …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, would you mind if I acknowledge someone in the gallery?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Steve Hatton. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan.
Mr CHANDLER: With that analogy of sport, some coaches have the wonderful ability to get that bit extra. We see it when we get home late at night and watch the Olympics at Whistler and Vancouver, where you see the coaches are sometimes more excited than the athlete who has achieved. The member for Nelson’s question about how we judge is very important. How do we know what a good teacher is? We can all have standards, we can have courses to meet, I can tick the boxes, I can do those courses, but does it make me a good teacher in the classroom?
I mentioned my son yesterday who, unfortunately, found himself in about Year 9 with the ability of a Year 5. As a parent I did question how in the world a student gets to Year 9 with the ability of a Year 5 without teachers letting the parent know. Things have been rectified today with the help of a tutor, and to his credit he is doing remarkably well. This child has gone through the education system in the Northern Territory and, by all accounts, had great teachers and fantastic teachers. Has the curriculum let him down? And let us not take away from this, I believe kids as young as seven and eight have a responsibility but I believe, at that age, what they need is true leadership and a coaching style, as well as a teacher.
When I went through school I was a shocking student. We had certain teachers who we may have had a personality clash with, or we had teachers who just sat up the front, wrote on the board and before you had a chance to finish writing had rubbed it off and was onto the next thing. There was no teaching; perhaps you were given too much responsibility too young to appreciate what was being delivered. I can recall when I was in about Year 9 at the bottom of the Social Science class, I did not get on with my teacher at all; we just clashed. The school took me out of that class and put me under another teacher, and I went to the top of the class. We were learning the same things, but there were two different teachers. I was the bottom of the class with one, and the top of the class under another teacher. In that class I had a teacher who was more like a coach, and the difference in being able to draw out my abilities was measurable. How can you go from the bottom of one class to the top in the next class? So it is very true.
I am very supportive of this legislation on a number of counts. Today, I have a few questions for the minister which, hopefully, he can clarify. I am supportive because I have some insight into the way schools are run in the Northern Territory. I had the privilege of being a chairperson of the Bakewell Primary School for a number of years and saw the inner workings of the school, the challenges they faced, the wonderful achievements of the school, and to see from students through to teachers – at Bakewell we had Teacher of the Year, Helen Armstrong; what a marvellous lady she is and a testament to our teachers in the Northern Territory. I pause for a second to remind people how important it is to enter awards. I really challenge people to look at their own schools and look at the teachers there. I know the feeling a teacher has when they have been nominated, even if they do not take it to the next level; just to be nominated is a marvellous thing.
The provisional registration is a wonderful thing. I only have one question in regard to it. It says a provisional registration may be renewed only once. Is there an ability for a teacher who, perhaps because of other circumstances, has not been able to reach those courses required, or time in the job, that may be extended - perhaps looked at under certain circumstances? It seems to me there is only one bite of the cherry there and, if you apply and are not accepted because you have missed a course, or you may not have done the required amount of time, you do not get another chance. I am hoping that is something which could be clarified.
As in the current act, the amendments allow an employer to apply to the board for authorisation of an unregistered person to teach at Territory schools. I would like clarification of whether there is any follow-up to that. Is the board keeping an eye on those things and, at some stage down the track, is there an effective follow-up?
In the current act, the board can only hold preliminary investigations if a complaint has been made against a teacher or authorised person. In this bill, section 50 extends the circumstances of when a preliminary investigation or inquiry must be held, or when preliminary investigation may be held. The board may hold an inquiry without first holding a preliminary investigation. It would appear from that that the board could go directly to an investigation, an inquiry, without a complaint being received. I would like clarification. I understand the board, at the moment, can have these investigations if a complaint has been received. However, now it is saying the board can go straight to an inquiry without a complaint. I do not understand that. If that could be clarified it would be fantastic.
From what I have read in the act, there is next to no information contained in the bill as to the requirement for professional development as promised by the minister in the second reading speech. These courses may sit better under regulations; however there does not seem to be much clarification when it comes to the professional development we are talking about. As the Leader of the Opposition also pointed out, it is paramount that whatever professional development is put in place is targeted on the objective; that is, to improve literacy and numeracy.
The bill talks about currency of practice as being one of the prerequisites for registration or re-registration, but there is no defined or quantifiable amount of professional development or experience stated. I am trying to understand how this is going to be measured. This could be corrected by courses, contributions being weighted and given a value - a teacher would be required to reach X within a certain number of years to regain registration. That is not really clarified in the act at all.
I wondered also whether there is some ability to allow for special accreditation for rural and remote teachers. Perhaps part of our problem is we do not prepare our teachers well enough to deal with rural and remote locations.
Some of us came to the Northern Territory many years ago. Some of us were born here. Those people who first arrived, no matter how long ago, were probably confronted with things being different to what they were down south. I know, when I drove across the border in July 1985 from Queensland into the Northern Territory, the first thing that struck me was that the road had gone from a goat track to this lovely broad, open highway. We did the customary thing, pulled the car up and took a photo of Welcome to the Northern Territory. It was different.
Since that time, I have had the opportunity to visit many rural and remote areas - Wadeye, Bathurst Island, and Borroloola. For someone coming from outside the Northern Territory, and even those people from within the Northern Territory, you get a real shock when you go to some of these communities. What can we do to help prepare our teachers a little better for teaching in remote and rural areas? Can we perhaps provide some level of training? Can we provide some level of support? It may be a course; it may be pre-visits, for instance; it may be some kind of strategy which is going to better prepare our teachers for rural and remote areas. Maybe it is something the department is working on right now.
There are three things I would like clarified. Does this new act provide integrity and ensure fairness across the board? I note issues have been raised where someone could be tainted by a complaint. We all know the Territory is a small place. We all know what it is like working in a smaller environment compared to a large department. That a teacher’s name is not damaged beyond repair - mud sticks, we know that. I am sure it is worse in the Northern Territory because of the size of the jurisdiction. Can we ensure any process dealing with teacher complaints is done in a fair - and I would suggest in the first instance, closed-door environment, that no one else knows about when someone is having a complaint investigated. I know in my time as a chairperson, many times I had parents come to me with what turned out to be quite erroneous complaints about teachers. It is always paramount that both sides of the story are listened to and a full investigation made. I believe one thing we need to look at here is clarity, and of course that integrity and fairness are maintained.
If there has been an injustice done, what is the process? Does a teacher who, perhaps through information which is tainted - or found to be tainted at a later stage - have the right to lodge a complaint about the board’s recommendation, or is it off to the Ombudsman? What is the process there? Second, could I have clarity on the ability of the board being able to conduct investigations without a complaint being received? The third issue: that any professional development is targeted at our objectives, which is obviously to improve numeracy and literacy.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill before the House this morning. It is a pleasant change to be the fifth speaker in a row who rises to speak in support of these amendments, and to see members on both sides of the House agree with these amendments.
There is a collective recognition that we need to work towards having a system in place which recognises quality teachers and the need for a quality education program, and also recognising that ongoing commitment to professional development, and for the government’s commitment to be part of that ongoing investment in our teachers.
Member for Brennan, I believe the amendments in this act strengthen the integrity of the profession and the system as a whole. These amendments are also quite timely in light of national partnership agreements with the federal government, and also with the release of the Ladwig and Sarra review into Northern Territory education last year and subsequent to that, the Department of Education and Training’s A Smart Territory strategy which looks at how we are going forward in 2009 to 2012, and how we can strengthen the quality of the profession. I see all these things as lining up.
It was my first teaching job which brought me to Darwin in 1987. It did strike me as odd at the time there was no system in the Northern Territory which required me to register as a teacher. At the time I also happened to be a state enrolled nurse in South Australia, and registration within that profession, on an annual basis, was part and parcel of the process and the profession. While I thought it odd there was no teacher registration process in the Territory, as a graduate it was probably a bonus, given it was one less expense as part of my relocation and start up in the Northern Territory.
In fact, if I go back a step and look at the whole recruitment process I went through in Adelaide towards the end of 1986, it was somewhat relaxed. A senior person from the department was in Adelaide on a recruiting drive, and I had not actually considered moving to the Northern Territory; I thought I would like to stay in South Australia and teach. However, a friend of mine graduating at the same time, following his interview for the Northern Territory teaching service, had a conversation with me. He told me the person interviewing was still looking for teachers for the Northern Territory and passed on a phone number for me to arrange an interview. The following day I was interviewed. I certainly had all the relevant documents which demonstrated I was qualified, including my registration for South Australia.
The conversation with my interviewer will always remain in my mind. It was certainly very pleasant and professional, but in hindsight was probably more like a visit to the travel agent than an interview for a teaching position, especially when we talked about where it was I would like to be located. I was asked if I wanted Top End or Central. I said I was only interested in Darwin, and my interviewer agreed that was probably a good choice, and suggested if I enjoyed travelling I was in a good position to not only explore the Top End, but to travel overseas to Asia.
I am certainly pleased I took the job because 23 years later I am still here. Although I am no longer a teacher, I greatly enjoyed my teaching and the opportunities it presented as a profession, in Palmerston, Katherine and Nhulunbuy.
Our education system in the Northern Territory has come a long way in those years, and I always found the schools I taught in to be well-resourced. For the most part, I was surrounded by committed and professional colleagues with pretty good access to professional development. However, there were times during my teaching career when I came across colleagues who – well, I guess you had to wonder about their credentials and their capabilities and, for some of them, their suitability to work with and teach children. There was sometimes talk in staffrooms about colleagues who possibly the reason they were in the Territory was because it was the only place they could get a job. While there were obviously checks and balances within the school and the department, it did not lend itself to the same level and system of arm’s length transparency and accountability we have today with the Teacher Registration Board, which operates in accordance with the act.
During the time I was a senior teacher, there was a good peer support program which saw neophyte teachers on probation have regular meetings with a panel of peers to assess how the new teacher was going, and to be able to offer support and guidance, as well as classroom support, to help that person get established. I can only recall one teacher, during my teaching years, where we had some serious doubts about his ability to teach. Eventually, after an extension of the probation period several times, that teacher did go on to do reasonably well. It is important to remember these support systems do exist within schools, and certainly play a very important role in parallel with the Teacher Registration Board.
If anything, it is surprising the Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act did not come into being until 2004, after the Labor government came to power. Earlier this week I read over that debate in the Hansard. At that time the objective of the act was to ensure only persons who were fit and proper, and who had the appropriate qualifications, were to be employed as teachers. Back in 2004, like today, there was support for the bill from all sides of the House, with members who were former teachers participating in the debate, as today. Interestingly, from beyond the government benches back in 2004, the views around the act ranged from it was too prescriptive, to was not prescriptive enough.
In 2004 I was no longer teaching, however I do recall when the act was passed, and amongst teachers I knew it was received with mixed reactions. Some saw it as a revenue raising exercise, and the systems in place in the Northern Territory, in their opinion, were okay. I recall those views came largely from teachers who had been in the Territory for many years. Then we went to opposite reactions from those who, rightly, recognised it as an important act which legislated rather than relied on a system of internal regulations within the Education department and, most importantly, brought the Territory into line with the practices in other jurisdictions.
I have to say although I am no longer teaching, I am a parent with children in our schools and take some comfort from the knowledge there is some quality assurance about the people who are teaching my children, and that they are a fit and proper persons. Hopefully, with the passing of these amendments today, that will be made even stronger.
The amendments before the House today have been brought forward to do two things: to allow the Teacher Registration Board to meet the objectives of the act and, also, to bring the registration practices into line with other jurisdictions, because currently the Teacher Registration Board is not in a position to do that. I note at the outset that these amendments have been brought about in wide consultation with all the key stakeholders who support these changes. That includes COGSO, government as well as non-government schools, the Principals Association, the Australian Education Union, as well as the various professional teaching associations.
I understand there are a few main areas of the act these amendments will impact on, and it was remiss of me at the start not to acknowledge the briefing I had earlier in the week. I thank those from the Teacher Registration Board who provided me with that briefing.
One of the important parts is within Part 4 of the act, which introduces two categories of registration as opposed to one. This is the case in every other jurisdiction in Australia, as well as New Zealand. The introduction of a provisional registration category rightly recognises we have graduate teachers entering the system who, while they may by qualified, do not have the experience to demonstrate competency by virtue of being new to the profession. To recognise graduates at the same level as teachers with many years of experience is a glaring anomaly.
The other group of teachers in this provisional category captures people like me. I am currently registered with the Teacher Registration Board until 2012. I am one of those people who always believe in having a plan B up your sleeve. It was confirmed for me when I went online to the TRB website earlier in the week, there I was, teacher registration number 5994. That mechanism, in itself, is a useful tool for anyone wanting to go online, enter the name of a teacher, and conduct a search to see whether, indeed, that person is registered.
I believe I was quite a good high school English teacher, however I have not taught since December 1996. The way the act is currently, I could walk out of here tomorrow and, because I am currently registered, take a job in a school in the Northern Territory. While I believe I have had the opportunity to maintain some of my classroom management skills in the Chamber on those occasions I sit in the Chair, I would have to confess to being out of touch with some of the current methodologies in teaching English. Who would want their child taught by someone who is quite rusty and cannot demonstrate current competencies? Who would want to be looked after by a nurse or a doctor who has been out of the system for a number of years?
Provisional registration provides a separate category for graduate teachers, and for former teachers such as me. Provisional registration, when granted, gives teachers up to three years to demonstrate they have the necessary professional experience and currency of practice such that they can apply for full registration. I note the questions asked by the members for Brennan and Nelson. They are quite reasonable questions to be asking about how within the act, or within the regulations that support the act, will these competencies and demonstrations of ongoing professional development be demonstrated.
As outlined by the minister in his second reading speech, these amendments bring the Territory into line with practices in other jurisdictions and, importantly, raise the bar and ensure quality outcomes for students in the system, and teachers in the classrooms.
There are some important amendments to Part 6 of the act which deal with the inquiry and complaints function of the Teacher Registration Board. It is, clearly, a very important function for teachers and stakeholders, within the education community, to be able to deal with matters where teacher competence or good character is called into question. The proposed amendments which, as the minister for Corrections noted are quite substantial, aim to correct the anomalies in the current act and to refine the board’s capacity to better meet the objectives of the act and, in particular, allows the Teacher Registration Board to better operate within the realms of a preliminary inquiry. As mentioned earlier, we have, of course, within the department of Education system, mechanisms in place to deal with issues of teacher performance. That is an important part of how our schools operate at that level.
I do not have much more to add other than to note the amendments in this act are parallel with this government’s commitment to strive towards a quality education system, towards A Smart Territory, delivering best outcomes for students with competent teachers within our system in the Northern Territory, and an effective Teacher Registration Board, which would be in a better position to assist this through strengthening the act.
Madam Speaker, on that note, I commend the bill to the House.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution in this debate. I believe it has been a very constructive debate, and some very legitimate and important questions have been asked by members opposite, and general issues have been raised.
The consensus throughout this debate has centred on the importance of teaching as a profession, and of teachers as professionals delivering quality education within our schools, whether they are in the government sector or the non-government sector. This act applies across the board to all teachers in the Northern Territory, whether they are teaching within the Northern Territory Education department or within various sectors within the non-government schools.
There has been significant consultation over amendments to the act brought in, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in 2004. It is timely to look at the operation of the act and the operation of the board, and make amendments and adjustments, retaining the intent of the act, but using the experience of what is happening in Australia. National reforms to teacher registration have been mentioned, and we should keep our eye on those and ensure we have a system which works within the Northern Territory.
To recap on these amendments, as people have pointed out there is capacity for new teacher registration categories and requirements. I will come to the questions asked by the member for Brennan regarding provisional registration and categories of new graduates entering into the teaching working force, and the requirements on them in their initial time as teachers. There is also an element of the amendments which accredits initial teacher education courses for delivery in the Northern Territory. There were questions around that, and I will move to that.
As I mentioned with the categories of provisional registration and full registration, the new legislation makes changes to the current provisions for the renewal of registration. Basically, we are coming into line with what happens elsewhere within Australia.
All aspects of the amendments to the act comply with privacy and information legislation within the Northern Territory. Importantly, some aspects regarding the way the board conducts its business with inquiries and complaints have also been addressed within the legislation, particularly around preliminary investigations and full inquiries. They are the elements of change to the act.
I will now turn to comments made by various speakers. I appreciated the feedback from the Leader of the Opposition that he received a good briefing on this legislation, and the fact the opposition is supporting these amendments. As he said, they apply to practical issues in relation to the operation of the board. The aim of the Leader of the Opposition was to build the teaching profession, particularly in relation to professional development. A number of speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, asked how we are going to strengthen the delivery of teaching in the cross-cultural environment. This year, for the first time, there was a three-week induction for all new teachers coming into the Territory. I believe this answers one of the questions from the member for Brennan. People could take an English as a Second Language teaching module within that three-week orientation, and that course is accredited.
Also, in terms of teaching in this cross-cultural situation, I know the funding from the Commonwealth - the $120m National Partnership Agreement to 131 of our schools in the Northern Territory - one of the things around building literacy and numeracy is supporting teachers to further their knowledge, experience and techniques when teaching in that cross-cultural situation, that English as a Second Language situation. There are programs in place. It is a focus of the department, and it is a very important element of building our education system and improving our results in the crucial areas of literacy and numeracy.
The Leader of the Opposition rightly says the results have to be seen. It is no good having programs and policies; results have to be seen. Whilst speaking to the censure debate yesterday, I pointed out we are a government which has targets in literacy and numeracy, and in improvement in student performance in those national tests. We also have targets in students completing their NTCE, which also includes those students undertaking VET courses. We also have targets in terms of traineeships and apprenticeships.
During the first term of government in 2001, Syd Stirling, as minister for Education, set out a very ambitious target of 10 000 traineeships and apprenticeships. The task was picked up by my predecessor, and also the member for Arafura, in our commitment during this term of government. My advice is we are on target with those apprenticeships and traineeships. I appreciate the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition and his support for this bill.
The member for Barkly, as he demonstrated yesterday, has a long experience in teaching in the Northern Territory. I will digress for a minute here. It was interesting, in conversation with the member for Barkly, we discovered he did his teacher training at Armidale Teachers’ College, and I was at Armidale. This was later to become the University of New England. I did not teach in the teacher training area; I taught in the nursing and Aboriginal health worker area. Many of the people who taught the member for Barkly were my colleagues, and still remain very close personal friends today. These are people whom I know are very dedicated to the profession of teaching. I know they imbued people like the member for Barkly with a passion for teaching, with the foundations of knowledge and really set in his mind the journey of teaching, and the wonderful journey it is, because you are interacting with people.
Many of us remember those teachers we had in our primary school, secondary school, and even tertiary - I am sure there are a few who remember me; I know there are – however, you appreciate the work, the input, and the support you get from teachers. That was something the member for Brennan touched on in his own personal experience. We certainly appreciate those teachers who support us and give of themselves and their knowledge to us. That is what makes teaching such a very important profession.
The member for Barkly mentioned the amendments to this act and the benefits which will flow both to students and teachers. He also talked about national consistency regarding teacher registration categories, particularly for graduates and trainees. The act spells out they need to undertake certain tasks as part of their registration path, and they will receive support to do that. Also, the categories of registration; both full registration and provisional registration.
The member for Nelson asked a very important and crucial question – how do we deal with incompetent teachers within the system? This is an important issue; it is a mixture of a management issue at the school level, also the department, and also under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
There are many dimensions to this. Essentially, the answer to the member for Nelson is the Teacher Registration Board must investigate an allegation that the teacher is incompetent, and they can take action. As I understand it, member for Nelson, those complaints can come from a variety of sources. They can come from a parent, or another teacher, and they can also come from the Education department, or if it is a non-government school, the organisation which oversees the school involved. There are a variety of pathways the complaint can take to the Teacher Registration Board. It is important to realise the board must investigate any complaint which comes its way. They can impose a condition that the teacher must undertake a professional learning activity. That was in answer to the question asked by the member for Brennan.
There can often be a step where a teacher is told they need to undertake an activity; their registration is at stake. The charge of incompetence might be so serious, I am advised, registration is removed the teacher. That would be the last resort; we are talking about someone’s livelihood here. Balanced against that is the importance of the rights of the student to be taught by a competent teacher. It is a balance, and we need to safeguard both sides. I believe of paramount importance is ensuring students are receiving quality teaching.
The member for Nelson asked as the board is accrediting teacher education courses in the Northern Territory, would it have to accredit each course offered within an accredited teacher education course. The Teacher Registration Board is not in the business of accrediting particular courses. However, all courses have to fulfil program standards. In other words, if it is an institution such as CDU they have the flexibility to order the entire program they want, but the individual courses, when they all fit together have to fulfil the proper standards. Hopefully that answers the member for Nelson’s questions.
I was involved in the accreditation of nursing courses when I was at the University of New England, and they have to be accredited by the Nurses and Midwives Board, New South Wales. During the accreditation process the board asked many questions about our course and what it comprised, apart from what we submitted to them. Whilst they allowed flexibility in what could be offered to students, at the end of the day the board wanted to be satisfied nurses knew enough about pharmacology, physiology and anatomy, they knew enough about microbiology and, at the same time, they had adequate knowledge for the psycho-social support essential in modern nursing.
Whilst there is flexibility in individual courses, registration boards and registering authorities want to see it is all fulfilled, and when a student passes through the institution and receives their degree all bases have been covered; and so it is with the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory.
The member for Nelson asked about non-performance, about interim investigations. I understand, with the amendments to the act, there is capacity for interim investigations, bearing in mind there may be a number of parallel investigations going on, however not necessarily in every case. There could be a departmental or organisational investigation going on due to a complaint within the system. There could even be a police investigation if it is serious enough and, also, an interim investigation by the board. The board may well reserve its process until other processes are complete. There needs to be flexibility, and I believe the amendment allowing for interim investigations by the board provides capacity for flexibility.
The member for Brennan asked a very good question about provisional registration. Provisional registration does last for three years, member for Brennan, and it can be extended for a further two years. After five years the person needs to apply in full, if you like, to the registration board for a further extension of their provisional registration. I have been advised the board, in most cases when someone has provisional registration, wants to see someone taking steps to getting back to full registration. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, she is currently a registered teacher, and I know she has a long career in this House, but it is always handy to have a plan B. We know in this House there is something called redistribution, there are elections; a whole range of things can happen, so a plan B is always helpful. Provisional registration can suit someone who is going away to study, who is undertaking other employment, but for them to come back to full teaching they would need to fulfil certain criteria.
For your information, Madam Speaker, I have a plan B, too. I remain provisionally registered as a pharmacist within the Northern Territory, and I believe that is parallel to the path the Teacher Registration Board is undertaking. There is a precedent for this, and I would always advise members to have a plan B.
The member for Brennan asked a very important question in relation to preliminary investigations. It appeared to him, in some cases, a preliminary investigation could be bypassed, for the want of a better word, and go straight to a full investigation. My advice is that occurs in one set of circumstances only; when there is a serious police investigation. I believe that is appropriate. The board needs to act quickly in cases of police investigations - it could be for a range of offences – however, we could imagine the type of serious offences the board would need to be aware of, and take very quick action regarding registration.
In all of this, people are not denied natural justice; it is a very important element of the process of the Teacher Registration Board, and also conforming to privacy legislation. I believe you asked the question about that also. You have asked about the requirements for professional development, whether the courses would be specified within the regulations. My advice is the board wants to keep some flexibility; it does not want to be too prescriptive. With the new legislation, both the Education department and organisations such as the Catholic Education Office, will be tailoring their professional development activities in line with the new requirements of the act, and there will be some discussions when a particular course comes up as to whether it is acceptable. The board will be giving guidance to people, whether it is to individuals or an organisation such as the Education department, or the Catholic Education Office. The idea is not to be too prescriptive; people will be given an idea about what is acceptable and what is not.
You asked a question, which will be defined in some degree in the regulations, about currency and practice. The requirement for currency and practice is not spelled out. My advice is, at this stage, it is not settled, however the board is considering 180 days as the amount required for currency of practice.
You raised orientation and talked about your own experience of coming to the Territory and, in this modern day, we should be offering more in the way of orientation, particularly for those teaching in the cross-cultural scenario. I thank the member for Brennan for his offering. He talked about privacy; the Northern Territory being a relatively small place and what we would do to safeguard privacy. I am advised the act does conform to Northern Territory privacy and information legislation. The board would not be making any comments to media or any other organisation likely to publish its results.
I thank the member for Brennan for his offering. I want to clear something up from yesterday, member for Brennan, and it is being done in the right spirit. In the censure debate - and I am looking at the Hansard rush, you said:
I cannot recall making that statement, particularly: ‘We know those benchmarks are below average’. I do not recall making that statement anywhere. If you can show me where I made it, I would accept it. I would appreciate it, when you go through Hansard, if the quotation read, ‘86% of Top End students are achieving national benchmarks’. The rest is your comment which, of course, you are free to make. However, I am more than happy to have a conversation to discover the source of the alleged quote that I know they are below average; I do not recall saying that.
Apart from that clarification, I genuinely thank you, member for Brennan, for a very constructive debate today, asking some very good questions. I thank all members for their contributions and their support.
There has been extensive consultation in this bill: the Australian Education Union, the Independent Education Union, of course the Department of Education and Training, Catholic Education Office, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous and Tertiary Education, Council of Government Schools Organisation, Association of Northern Territory Senior Educational Leaders, the Association of Independent Schools in the Northern Territory, Northern Territory Joint Council of Professional Associations, and Northern Territory Christian Schools Association. All stakeholders, excluding the last, are represented through nomination of members to the Teacher Registration Board. The Christian schools, I am advised, come under the umbrella organisation Association of Independent Schools NT.
I commend the work of the Teacher Registration Board. It is made up of a representative section of the Northern Territory professional organisations, which are, importantly, involved. I also want to really thank the Chair of the Teacher Registration Board, Karen Blanchfield, who is also Principal of Ross Park Primary School, and the Deputy Chair, Steve Carter, who is the COGSO representative on the board. I also thank Julie Wells, Sharon Scurr and John Sarev, the officers of the Teacher Registration Board Secretariat who have done much legwork on these amendments. They also briefed the Opposition Leader, and the member for Nelson. I know the Opposition Leader was very complimentary and grateful for the briefing he received
Without further ado, I commend this bill to the House and I thank members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 25 November 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, once again, I place on the record my thanks to Frank McGuiness and his team for yet another comprehensive Auditor-General’s report to the members of this Legislative Assembly.
The public, and many of the Assembly members, may not be aware that the Auditor-General is, essentially, an officer of this House, rather than a servant of the executive. Whilst it is the executive which comes into this House and places this report on the record, there is no bondage at all on the Auditor-General in his role in the executive, and he is beyond reach of the executive other than in his initial appointment. So it should be, because this is an environment where we would expect close scrutiny by independent authorities of the conduct of the executive - and by that I mean the government.
Once again, we find the Auditor-General is quite capable of casting a wide net which sinks deeply, before it closes. I note with some interest the area he touched on, not least of which is the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for the year ending 30 June 2009 - a financial statement which has been brought into this House and, yet, rests on the Notice Paper undebated and buried down at some point, as the current Notice Paper stands, at agenda item No 15.
It is notable the annual financial statement can be delivered to this House, taken away from this House by the Auditor-General, and put through substantial scrutiny by the Auditor-General. I would expect he has looked beyond merely the realm of his own office, but used part of his $3.1m budget or thereabouts, to look at the annual financial statement, then draft the report - which is 131 pages long - bring it back to this House, and have the matter tabled in November 2009. It sits over the Christmas period and then is capable of being debated out, believe it or not, before this House and this government gets to item No 15 on the Notice Paper, which is the matter he has gone through ...
Ms Lawrie: You have a strange conspiracy mind, have you not?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not a conspiracy theory; it is a straight statement of how sluggish the government is in going about its business. This document, the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2008-09, is in perilous danger of becoming an historical document. By the time we get to this historical document, this government may well have come and gone. Surely, this government is capable of organising its business in such a fashion that it can come into this House and pass the motion required so the House takes notes of the report. We are not being asked to do anything other than take note of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for the year 2008-09.
However, this government is too tired to achieve that. What evidence can we rely on for that particular observation? Yesterday, in this House, government spent a whole half hour passing legislation, despite the fact we have a Notice Paper which is constipated with neglected issues by this government. There are legislative items which we are told consistently are matters of great import to the people of the Northern Territory and, yet, they rest on the Notice Paper, collecting dust like an old trinket collects dust on a shelf.
This particular observation holds true - and consistently holds true, because this is not the first time we have made this complaint. Surely Territorians deserve better than a tired, old government which is not capable of dealing with documents such as the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for 2008-09? Perhaps there is another and far more sinister motive for not wanting to turn your attention to those particular documents. Not any sinisterness on the part of the Auditor-General, I might say; he has been effective, responsive and considered in his observations and statements in relation to this.
I draw members’ attention to page 112 of the Auditor-General’s report relating to the Central Holding Authority. It is worth noting he says:
The Central Holding Authority also funds another little hoary chestnut I keep returning to in this House, and that is the Central Holding Authority is also the touchstone for the Treasurer’s Advance. I know the Treasurer hates hearing this argument - it is probably why I return to it with such relish - not only because it is a serious matter, but it embarrasses the Treasurer deeply, that each year they touch the Central Holding Authority for more than initially passed in the Appropriation Bill when the Treasurer comes into this House with the budget. What does that mean in English?
What it means in English is the government spends more than it budgets for, full stop. In fact, in a perfect world, we would automatically have loaded into each budget for the last few years a $40m surplus. The reason is each year, in a perfect world – and I know we do not budget in a perfect world – however, we would not have to spend the $40m in the piggy bank we give the Treasurer. I know she hates that term too, but that is what it is; it is a piggy bank.
That piggy bank is called the Treasurer’s Advance. The Treasurer’s Advance is basically a little emergency fund in case the wheels fall off in one particular area or another. For example, last year the Barkly Highway was washed out by floods. One could well imagine it is difficult to budget for such occurrences and, for that reason, we allow a bit of leeway, a fat, if you like, in the budget called the Treasurer’s Advance.
However, the Financial Management Act allows the government to touch the Treasurer’s Advance, and if they have drained the piggy bank they can keep going back to the Central Holding Authority, which fills the piggy bank, and they do this. They can do this up to 5% of the appropriation, which turns out to be well over $100m, probably closer to the order of about $150m. It changes from year to year, of course, because the size of the appropriation changes and it is calculated as a percentage.
However, every single year they come into this House and ask for $40m-worth of extra fat, and this House passes legislation to enable them to use that extra fat. They then keep going back to the piggy bank, that place of extra fat, they drain it, fill it up again, drain it, fill it up again, drain it, fill it up again. That is what is produced by poor government decisions along the way, because is it being spent on disasters, is it being spent on things like the Barkly Highway being washed out? Yes, in part, however in the current financial year, it is caused by maladministration. I will give you one example.
Ms Lawrie: Wrong. Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I will give you an excellent example. The infrastructure part of …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If it was maladministration, the Auditor-General would point that out. The Auditor-General gave us a clean bill of health. It is not maladministration.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you asking that it should be done by way of substantive motion?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely.
Mr Elferink: No, Madam Speaker. Okay, I will wait …
Madam SPEAKER: Maladministration, Standing Order 62, you are actually implying something fairly serious there.
Ms LAWRIE: Very. It is a highly offensive …
Mr Elferink: I am not saying that you cannot administer the …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: The standing order is Standing Order 62(3); you would need to do that by way of substantive motion. Perhaps you can reword …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move dissent again your ruling. I am sorry; I cannot accept the word ‘maladministration’ is unparliamentary. It just does not work. I move dissent against your ruling, Madam Speaker. It is not a point of order; it does not make sense.
Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to understand what was being said, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: You have given an instruction, Madam Speaker, and that instruction is the word is unparliamentary under Standing Order 62. It is neither an offensive nor unbecoming word, and I move dissent against your ruling that it is. I will not withdraw it, unless this House votes to make me. I move dissent, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I am happy for you to seek advice from the Clerk on this one. I am more than happy for that because it is highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, call the Clerk back. I thought you were calling a point of order, I am sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, a point of order, Standing Order 62. I find that accusation highly offensive. He often times goes too far.
Madam SPEAKER: I misunderstood. I thought the minister was calling a point of order under Standing Order 62. If she was not, then I am no longer making a ruling.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker, in which case I will return to the use of the word in its correct context – maladministration. This is administration which is poor, and I will give you an example if it gives the Treasurer comfort. If you look at the word ‘SIHIP’ it has a couple of ‘I’s in it, and one of those ‘I’s refers to infrastructure. The infrastructure component of SIHIP was supposed to be picked up by SIHIP itself; that does not occur anymore. The Territory government has gone to the piggy bank Northern Territorians give them every year, and they have started to drain the piggy bank to at least the tune of $20m because of the maladministration by the former Minister for Housing, whoever the Minister for Housing was way back then, the member for Daly. The reason they have been forced to go down that path is because of errors made by him. $20m has been taken out of the Treasurer’s Advance so the infrastructure component of SIHIP can be paid for.
That is my concern. This organ of good governance, the Treasurer’s Advance, is constantly being tapped by this government far beyond what this House authorises. The only authorisation they can get comfort from which comes from this House is the existence of the Financial Management Act which, under extraordinary circumstances, will allow the appropriation to be extended by 5%.
Each and every year they go close to, or to the brink of, that 5%. Each and every single financial year. This from a government which is awash in money. It has had more money thrown at it than it ever predicted, and all you have to do to know that truth is visit the old Treasury books and look at the forward projections to the current years. You will see our projected incomes in those days were nowhere near the incomes we have been receiving up until this financial year.
That reflects on the quality of this government; its capacity to spend, spend, spend under all sorts of circumstances, and not only in the lean years as they claim. That has been the consistent philosophy of this government constantly bailed out by a taxation system and an intergovernmental agreement which, at least as far as the taxation system is concerned, was something they as a party resisted and rejected. It was the very tax the Australian Labor Party said we should not have, it is so unfair, it is horrible, yet they have been abundant in expending that money. When that extra money comes in, the money they did not budget for, the unexpected extra money, do they save it? Do they reduce debt with it? No, no, no. It is spent; it is go out there and throw more money into the system to achieve what? Better results in education, better results in health, perhaps a better power and water delivery system.
The fact is even in the current financial year we know the maladministration of this government has brought about a circumstance where they then had to scramble around and find at least $20m; at least $20m they had not budgeted for. That comes down to the errors and faults and shortcomings of the former Minister for Housing, the member for Daly. That should have caused ructions in the Cabinet rooms; it should have caused the Treasurer to have conniptions when these types of things were happening. Do we see any evidence of that? No, all we hear is a screeching defence of the indefensible and an attempt, sadly, to undermine the freedom of this House with scurrilous and pointless points of order.
Those are some matters of concern which are resting at item 15 of the Notice Paper where this government has, as yet, failed to go. However, I now turn to other aspects of the Auditor-General’s report.
The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education will be referred to by the honourable Leader of the Opposition and, as a consequence, I will not go there. Suffice to say the Auditor-General has been fulsome in his investigation into that particular organisation.
I also note in the Department of Health and Families that the Auditor-General has turned his mind to the arrangements surrounding private practitioners using public facilities, and the trust account which has operated in that area. I note there is no suggestion in that particular entry of any form of malfeasance, but certainly there is a requirement to tidy up the arrangements and, as far as trust accounting is concerned, one can only but applaud improving the quality of financial management of those arrangements.
That is about it for submission to this House. I would have gone to the matter of Batchelor Institute, however, I will leave that to the Leader of the Opposition. I also note, very briefly, the Department of Justice has done much of what is required by the Auditor-General in relation to correcting the matters relating to prisoner finances, and I congratulate the department on that.
These reports demonstrate the very important role of the Auditor-General. He takes his job profoundly seriously, he sees us in this House as his primary client. We do well to pay attention to the good advice he gives, and he is one of the genuinely independent voices existing around this government. I have found him to be fearless, thorough, and restrained in the way he does his job.
I thank Frank McGuiness for his efforts and the folk working in the Auditor-General’s office; it is a small staff, it has a large budget because it farms much of its work out. In my final observations, if the Auditor-General with a staff of five is able to get through the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2008-09, then surely the government, with a staff of 18 000, can get to debating it in this House before we have to wait for the Auditor-General’s report to come back.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, yet again the bizarre member for Port Darwin wanders off into his own flights of fancy, and his own strange and inaccurate, completely inaccurate, interpretation.
It is extraordinary. He is already the laughing stock across the public service with his flights of fancy, and he does a repeat performance today. One wonders when he is ever going to understand the information provided in briefing after briefing. I will go to the mischief and misinformation he deliberately peddles in this House, because it is unprofessional to say the least.
He was attempting to portray maladministration in the operation of an appropriation of $20m in SIHIP. He is wrong - he is absolutely and completely wrong. He has received a briefing by Treasury officials on the $20m provided for through the Treasurer's Advance. He has clearly ignored that. He has come into this House today and peddled a dishonest, wrong, weird and fanciful suggestion. If he wants to be, and aspires to be, a Treasurer, I suggest he stops deliberately misleading and peddling wrongful things in this House. He has been told in briefings - because I go out of my way as Treasurer to ensure he gets the briefings he requests because of his weird flights of fancy, he has been told the $20m in the Treasurer’s Advance was for additional works under the Northern Territory government’s Indigenous essential services program. It provided for expanded sewerage at Borroloola, the Safe Water Strategy, and additional funding for expanded capital infrastructure.
This was also discussed through the Council of Territory Cooperation. He has been advised it was not for SIHIP, as he came into this House today and tried to peddle. He has been advised additional SIHIP houses will result in a greater demand for Indigenous essential services. We are providing an appropriation from government for Indigenous essential services, which are obviously critical to the aboveground housing construction program, which is SIHIP. Treasury officials have told him that, he received that explanation at the Council of Territory Cooperation, yet he comes into this House and peddles mistruths. I find it absolutely abhorrent ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You clearly do not understand. When he comes in here and says …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … we are funnelling $20m of the Treasurer's Advance into SIHIP because our Housing minister could not do it - wrong. It was for Indigenous essential services - sewerage at Borroloola - clearly explained to him - the Safe Water Strategy, and the expanded capital infrastructure. He has been told that time and time again - pretty simple, pretty clear. However, he comes into this House and peddles something completely different - foolish in the extreme.
He steadfastly refuses to understand the role of the Treasurer's Advance. He would like to think from May one year to May the following year, the world stops turning. Things stop happening, and government does not need to respond to anything - any initiative, anything at all. It is all from May to May - the budget as it is, is as it is. What nonsense! The Treasurer's Advance existed, and was used appropriately so for its intentions, under the CLP governance, as it is under the Labor governance. It exists for the purpose of providing appropriation between budget periods.
If he wants to go down this weird, fanciful flight he is on, what are the things Treasurer's Advance is used for? Again, this has been provided in briefings to the member for Port Darwin. We spent the Treasurer's Advance to provide for Buildstart. Why? Buildstart was a swift and immediate response to the global financial crisis which happened in October - not May of that year, October. The global financial crisis hit, in its full extent, in October. By November, we had Buildstart in place to encourage construction of homes in the Territory to bring forward an incentive to build, to prop up the construction industry during the tough times. It had the double advantage - which is why we found it so attractive to do - of providing more housing stock into the marketplace. Buildstart was critical. The federal government had its own initiative, which was boosting the First Home Owners Grant Scheme. We came in, in tandem, with the quick, swift, decisive action of Buildstart.
In the weird world of the member for Port Darwin, we would not have done that. We would have said no, no. No, it was not in the May budget - because only the odd person in the world was saying after the event they had predicted the global financial crisis - we had not predicted it in May, so it was not in the May budget. In his weird world, we would not have established Buildstart. I will tell the construction industry the opposition is absolutely opposed to Buildstart, and has been saying we should not have put money into Buildstart – if you follow his arguments.
Additional money provided for fibre optic; the project to Nhulunbuy. Again, we saw an opportunity with the big telecommunications to provide fibre optics to Nhulunbuy. It is a nationally recognised significant project that occurred, but to make sure it occurred, the Territory government had to put the dollars on the table, had to come into the partnership funding arrangements to ensure it occurred. Again, in the weird world of the member for Port Darwin, we would have said no, no - no, it was not in the May budget so we cannot do it. How ridiculous is that, when we have an appropriation there for exactly that purpose.
We provided additional funding to support the racing industry. The racing industry came to us and put a very cogent argument to us around increasing stakes money for the racing carnivals. They had to increase jockey payments because they were losing the number of jockeys available in the Territory; they were not getting the fields, they were seeing reductions in field numbers.
Again, in the weird world of the member for Port Darwin, this government should have said no, no racing industry, you cannot have the funding you critically need to support yourselves as an industry to build your fields, to build through the stake money, get the horses here for a good carnival and, by the way, forget about increasing payments to jockeys, even though they have slipped below payments to jockeys elsewhere and we were losing jockeys. That would have been the result if you followed the member for Port Darwin’s suggestion of maladministration by spending money, where it needs to be, in between published budget periods.
We account for what we spend in the Treasurer’s Advance; it is on the public record. More teachers were funded. We had opportunities coming our way to increase teaching numbers, and we appropriated more money into teachers. We appropriated more money to improve transport services. We funded the Barkly Highway flood repairs - that is the only thing he recognised as being something you have to respond to. We put money into Police Beats as well. Again, back to the scheme of no, no, do not do Police beats; do not want to do Police Beats. We proudly stand here and say, yes, we will fund Police beats, and we used the TA to deliver those all important Police Beats.
So he is wrong; he is very wrong. What really disturbs me is he has been provided this information by officials from Treasury and he continues to ignore it. He continues to go off into weird flights of fancy that do not represent, in any way whatsoever, the facts. It is disturbing, to say the least, particularly when he comes into this House and does it in the debate of the Auditor-General’s Report, trying to, if you like, add some sort of strange stench around it, when, indeed, the Auditor-General provided an unqualified audit opinion on the TAFR - the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. The Auditor-General, the man the member for Port Darwin, at the end of his speech, acknowledged as fair, expert, independent, and strong – gave the financial appropriations of this government an unqualified audit opinion. The member for Port Darwin would have everyone else think otherwise. I find that reprehensible.
I do not mind the debates around whether we should or should not be spending the dollars. Bring that on and have it! Are we doing it in accordance with the Financial Management Act? Yes, we are, absolutely. Is it getting unqualified audit opinions from the Auditor-General? Yes, it is, absolutely. We make no apology for the funding decisions government must make, as a government, between May budget periods for initiatives such as Buildstart; for initiatives such as Indigenous essential services to support the housing program under way in the bush; for fibre optics in Nhulunbuy; for Police Beats; for more teachers; and to support the racing industry. I am looking forward to having a conversation with TRNT around the member for Port Darwin’s attitude towards that racing funding; looking forward to that conversation.
These are important initiatives government must respond to between May budget periods. The world does not stop turning between May budget periods. Governments must be in a position to respond; that is why the Treasurer’s Advance exists, as an appropriation to respond to these issues which arise between May budget periods. We will continue to respond as any good, sound, reasonable government would.
Here we are debating the Auditor-General’s report. He reviewed the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and provided an unqualified audit opinion. Contrary to the strange imaginings the member for Port Darwin would have people believe, I find it highly reprehensible to come into this House and misrepresent the facts he has been provided briefings on. The $20m in housing was not maladministration, it was not squirrelled into SIHIP; it was to provide for Indigenous essential services.
Agency compliance audits were performed across a number of agencies. The review raised issues including weaknesses in compliance with financial processing and policies. In response, an internal control steering committee across government was formed last year. Treasury staff are also developing internal control procedures, including a financial management toolkit, for use by accountable officers and statutory bodies to discharge their responsibilities under the Financial Management Act and the Treasurer’s Directions.
Yes, the Auditor-General, quite appropriately, identified areas of weaknesses in the agency compliance audits, and appropriately so, agencies are responding. Treasury staff are at the heart of ensuring those toolkits provide the assistance accountable officers and statutory bodies need to discharge their responsibilities.
I thank Frank McGuiness for his work. I know the Office of the Auditor-General is a small staff, but they outsource significant work. They do a terrific job for the taxpayer in honestly scrutinising across government, as it should be. We are a government which welcomes and embraces this scrutiny. From the moment I became a minister it has been drummed into me to pay absolute heed to the Auditor-General’s reports and findings, and to ensure agencies were not dismissive, but rather took on board what the Auditor-General had to say, and took the action required to address the issues the Auditor-General raises.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be a part of the Cabinet which has consistently done that. We recognise the worth of the work of the Auditor-General, and we thank him for the effort he goes to on behalf of Territory taxpayers.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I commence with the words spoken by the Treasurer: been drummed into the Treasurer and am proud to belong to a Cabinet which will pay absolute heed to the advice, analysis, and recommendations provided by the Auditor-General. If that is so we will have, in the case of Batchelor Institute, a substantive response, because clearly the Treasurer would have read the report on Batchelor Institute in the Auditor-General’s report. The Treasurer, and members of Cabinet, would be aware of the ongoing challenges that organisation faces.
I reiterate, as the member for Port Darwin and the Treasurer have stated in this debate, the importance of the role of the Auditor-General. The obligation, as described by the Treasurer, is if something is identified by the Auditor-General then you are to pay absolute heed to that. The absolute heed should therefore result in action, and action is required when it comes to Batchelor Institute.
The story is one of real concern and it requires a substantive response. I was in this Chamber when we debated the change in the structure and the arrangement of Charles Darwin University, previously Northern Territory University. A great deal of work went into changing the structure, the nature, and the alliances of that organisation. That was brought about by engaging someone to help transit from one model or structure to a new one, and now we have Charles Darwin University.
I make that reference and I will go back to it, not for the purpose of linking Charles Darwin University to Batchelor Institute, but to look at two similar organisations and how organisational change occurred in one and, I would argue in light of what we see in black and white in this report, the response is required. The problem is profound and it requires response. If the Treasurer is to be taken seriously, if the absolute heed slogan is to mean anything, action is required.
The situation, for members who may not have read this report, is simply this: the institution is in receipt of two lines of funding, one from the Commonwealth and one from the Northern Territory government. The greatest share comes from the Commonwealth. The higher education section is funded by the Commonwealth; the VET section is funded by the Territory government. The audit came in to assess and test the financial stability of the organisation and it concluded, in order to achieve financial stability, you had to do either of two things - either increase your enrolments or decrease your operational expenses; pretty straightforward.
This is a plain way of saying if you keep going the way you are going we could be, and should be - and I believe it is plain to say - shipwrecked. You either increase your enrolments or decrease your operational expenses. That requires significant organisational structural change, and it is not for the fainthearted. To be frank, it was not an easy matter to change the structures, alliances and the organisation of the Northern Territory University and bring it into alliance with Menzies, and other arrangements, to bring it to the new model. That was not an easy task, however it was achieved. How much harder will it be to bring about the change necessary to ensure stability to Batchelor Institute, to put it on strong footings so it can progress and grow? It has some very significant problems and they are written there for all see, and a response is required.
Financial stability; do one of two things. In order to continue it was reported it received a top-up of $3.2m. An audit was conducted. The audit did not examine the sustainability of the organisation. There was an audit, but it did not test the sustainability. That is the hard question. What do we do with this? How do we get it to flourish? How do we get it going? They audited the reliability of financial statements. It is one test to assess the health of the financial aspect of this organisation. It is a terrible list. Obligations come with funding; those obligations have not been met. There is a significant list. This will be unpleasant news. We may prefer to walk away from it and, perhaps, amplify the responsibility of someone else. I guess this Labor government would be wishing the conservatives were in power in Canberra so they could really go to town there.
However, the fact remains on the higher education component, the funding which comes from the Commonwealth to run it has resulted, in 2008 I believe, a $1.2m surplus. There was a surplus as a result of that operation - the one funded by the Commonwealth. The VET sector, which is funded by the Territory government, ran at a $1.4m loss. If you do your bookkeeping you can see one with a $1.2m surplus, the other one with a $1.4m loss; you would subsidise the surplus and superimpose it on the loss. Of course sums have been done, and it is misery because there is a gap of $200 000.
However, the $200 000 shortfall is not the greatest problem. The greatest problem is the funding stream from the Commonwealth to Batchelor for the delivery of higher education comes with obligations, objectives, and targets. Therefore, if you have a surplus in an operational sense, and that surplus is used to subsidise the sector which is not operating and trying to cover those losses, you end up with the inability to meet your targets and objectives set with the funding stream from the Commonwealth. That brings in not only the financial instability, because some of those funding streams will be threatened, but you bring in the operational sustainability of being able to run programs. You then put a threat on the sustainability of the enterprise. There are terrible fractures which have been outlined and identified by the Auditor-General.
If you do not meet the purpose of your funding, your funding level is at risk. If you cannot be certain you are going to maintain or be supported by that level of funding, you cannot be certain you are going to run the programs. If you are not certain you can run programs, you are not certain you can maintain your staffing cohort. That will affect morale, and students are going to wonder whether it is worthwhile coming. It then gets back to the core problem that, in order to bring some basic stability, you have to increase enrolments and drop operational costs. It reminds me of the story: if income exceeds expenditure that is dandy but, if it is the other way around and expenditure exceeds income that is misery. There is a very serious problem here and I believe most people would know it.
I commend the Auditor-General for doing this diagnosis, this analysis; to paint, quite plainly a serious problem. What has to happen? I started by talking about Charles Darwin University, and I believe the example set by the structural change of NTU to CDU - that whole story - the bringing in of someone to manage that change is the action and type of response required here. I know there have been several changes in the level of administration. However, the core questions are its sustainability as an enterprise, and its financial stability, which can only be achieved by structural change. You cannot continue with this description of a very serious problem.
I would urge the Territory government, with their in friends in Canberra, to bring some courageous action to bear on the issue at Batchelor Institute and to provide the structure, framework, and leadership to address the problems. The last thing we want is for this to fail.
What goes with that is compounding shame for an enterprise which has been put in place to build something - for it to fail would be the worst thing that could happen. To have it as it is at the moment, it is rotting, it smells of decay. Morale must be impossible to maintain in such a situation. What is required is strong leadership, and that leadership must be similar to what we saw when there were structural and organisational changes at CDU.
Further discussion about what could happen in alliances between CDU and Batchelor Institute are stories for another day. I will say now, my view is there should not be that old bogey of one should subsume the other. I do not believe that is the way to go. I believe the bottom line is Batchelor Institute must survive, however it can only survive with a very strong response which will take courage, not process, not gobbledegook, not confusion; strong leadership. It needs a response.
If the Treasurer says at the conclusion –with that earnest expression she is known for - we must take absolute heed of the Auditor-General - it has been drummed into her since she was inducted into this high office - that heed should result in action. Make no mistake, leaving this, delaying, hesitating, caution, election year, and other problems will result in something we cannot allow to happen, which is this organisation, as presented here, is not stable financially, and its sustainability as an enterprise is in question. It demands a response.
I urge Cabinet, the Chief Minister, the minister for Education, and those links which have been spoken of often between here and Canberra, to be activated urgently; a strong response is required.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I too welcome the Auditor-General’s Report. The work of the Auditor-General is essential if we are to ensure open and transparent government, and for agencies to work towards best governance practices.
The report identifies six key findings which required work by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. All matters raised in the report were also identified in the department’s compliance audit, and are currently being addressed in a practical and timely manner.
As part of the department’s restructure, a governance branch has been established which is dedicated to managing and reviewing the internal controls of the department. It is envisaged this initiative will draw up any consequential changes to internal processes and procedures to ensure the department has a robust and sound internal control framework. The recommendations made by the Auditor-General are supported by the department, and all should be implemented by July 2010. The department will continue to provide all necessary information to the Auditor-General to ensure practices and procedures are adhered to.
Similarly, with the Department of Education and Training, the department accepts the guidance of the Auditor-General and systematically adopts his recommendations which are, of course, aimed at establishing governance best practice. In terms of the key findings of his report, the department has: appointed a senior officer to oversee procurement processes and procedures; delegated a dedicated staff member to reviewing and documenting policies and procedures for travel and hospitality; escalated hospitality delegation to the Chief Executive for the interim period; and recently filled the internal audit position focusing the role of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.
With respect to the Auditor-General’s report as it refers to the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, whilst this government provides funding for the delivery of VET, the institute operates independently at arm’s length from government. The internal management and allocation of funding is a matter for BIITE within the context of contractual arrangements with the Territory and Australian governments, and relevant financial legislation and standards.
Last, with respect to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, the Auditor-General found, subject to non-exceptions identified, the accounting and control procedures examined for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment provide reasonable assurance that the responsibility of the accountable officer, as set out in the Treasurer’s Directions and procurement regulations and guidelines, will be met if those systems identified during the audit continue to operate.
The nine exceptions identified in the audit are as follows: the Accounting and Property Manual requires enhancement through the inclusion of additional references to the Treasurer’s Directions. Second, procedure manuals have not been developed for a number of detailed procedures within OCPE. Third, processes and responsibilities for Asset Management are not clearly defined. Fourth, OCPE does not have an effective internal audit function. Fifth, processes and procedures have not been established to ensure all undisputed invoices are paid within 30 days of receipt. Sixth, there are weaknesses in the controls surrounding the procurement process. Seventh, there is no audit trail to support the review of the procurement and payables. Eighth, record destruction processes do not comply with the Northern Territory disposal schedule and finally, requirements of the Treasurer’s Directions and policy manual for travel processes are not being followed.
The Commissioner for Public Employment agreed with the audit recommendations in their entirety, and actions are under way to remedy relevant accounting and control deficiencies. Progress will be monitored by the OCPE Audit and Risk Management Committee, which reports to the Commissioner for Public Employment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, I value the work of the Auditor-General which is instructive to agencies, and aims to establish best practice governance.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General conducted an audit of the arrangements for private practice at the Royal Darwin Hospital as part of his 2008-09 audit program for the Department of Health and Families.
The private practice arrangements of Royal Darwin Hospital were established in 1989 with a trust deed. It provides an avenue for RDH employed specialists to conduct private practice through the use of a trust fund. The trust arrangements were reviewed extensively in 2003 and 2007. The current medical officer workplace agreement provides for full-time specialists employed with the Department of Health and Families to be approved for private practice rights, and may elect to receive private practice payments through the trust fund as a member, or through private practice allowance from the department.
The funds are used as follows: payment of facilities fee to cover the cost of consumables and RDH facilities; payment to the RDH Management Board for essential purchases, repairs and maintenance of office equipment, furniture and fittings used by the trustees. The balance of the revenue is provided for specialists.
In 2007-08, RDH private practice revenue was $1.75m, and was distributed as: payment for use of RDH facilities; trust administration expenses, and distribution to trust fund members. The objective of the audit was to review the rights of private practice at the RDH with regard to the following matters: background of the current agreement; the rationale for the rights to private practice; the benefits to Royal Darwin Hospital; amounts paid to specialists; the nature of the private practice trust fund, and limits on its use.
The Auditor-General found a number of shortcomings with the administration of the private practice arrangements: lack of compliance by the trustees of the fund; member specialists at the RDH Hospital Management Board with a trust deed; and an absence of proper oversight of the private practice arrangements by the Department of Health and Families and the Hospital Management Board.
All recommendations in the report have been accepted by the department. The department is working with the Chair of the Private Practice Trust Fund, Dr Gavin Chin, and Chair of the RDH Management Board, Mr Colin McDonald, to develop robust accountability mechanisms to manage the private practice arrangements. The new Hospital Boards Act commenced on 1 February 2010, and will assist the RDH Board in understanding their responsibilities in managing such funds. Guidelines for the board’s operations have been drafted and provided to the chairman of the RDH Board for finalisation. The original 1989 Trust deed has been updated by the Department of Heath and Families to provide more clarity to stakeholders, including the member specialists. Draft documents based on the Victorian private practice model have been prepared for the Chair of the Private Practice Trust Fund to review this month. These documents will be finalised following legal advice, and in consultation with the Public Employment Commissioner.
With regard to the Menzies School of Health Research, the school’s end of year accounting and control procedure were found to be generally satisfactory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report and the ongoing work he does. The Auditor-General conducted an audit of selected aspects of the Territory Business Centre in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek in April 2009; the audit scope was to examine the adequacy of operating systems to achieve compliance with accountability and control requirements for the Receiver of Territory Monies functions within the TBC.
The auditor’s opinion of the TBC’s internal controls for receipting of Territory monies was generally satisfactory, subject to four minor exceptions, and I will describe those: First, the TBC service level needs to reflect the current organisational structure. The response from TBC has been that an across government governance committee will update the TBC’s strategic directions and objectives to replace the existing service level agreement. All major client agencies are represented on this particular committee.
The second finding was the Accounting and Property Manual used does not currently reflect the accepted business practices within the agency and relates to the former department, of which it was a controlling entity. The response has been that this issue has been resolved. The TBC now refers to the Department of Business and Employment Accounting and Property Manual.
The third aspect was a delegation listing of officers authorised to process ledger transfers has not been established. The response from the department has been that this issue has been resolved. The manager of Darwin TBC and Director of Business Services authorised the ledger transfers in accordance with current delegations.
The last aspect was the lack of record keeping for cancelled receipts. The response has been that a new receipt and tracking system is in its final testing, and this should resolve the issue once implemented.
Generally, as the Auditor-General described, a satisfactory result with a few minor exceptions, which have been rectified. I congratulate the Auditor-General for all his efforts, and I look forward to another report next year.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pass on my thanks to the Auditor-General and his office for the report.
The Auditor-General commissioned an audit of processes and internal controls in relation to major capital works and other projects implemented by my Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. The Auditor-General found that, subject to some exceptions, my department generally has in place satisfactory processes and internal controls for ensuring compliance with the Procurement Act 1995, Procurement Regulations and Directions and the Northern Territory Procurement Code.
I should note the particular projects audited were undertaken in 2007 and 2008. Nine audit issues were raised; four of these were one-off issues which arose prior to my department recruiting a dedicated Procurement Manager in mid-2008. Appropriate controls are now in place and no systemic problems exist. The remaining audit issues highlight opportunities for my department to improve contract management and procurement planning. The Procurement Manager has been working to strengthen processes in these areas, including the development of procedures, templates and staff training.
An internal review of more recent contracts has found significant progress has been made in addressing the issues raised by the Auditor-General. I am advised these reviews will continue to be undertaken on a quarterly basis and, as the minister, I will continue to keep a close eye on this process.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report and appreciate the role he and his office play in checking records and driving government agencies to continue to deliver improved reporting and accounting practices.
With regard to the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the Auditor-General undertook an extensive review of the tender process for the construction of the Rosebery School. He looked closely at allegations made in relation to the tender and found the allegations levelled against DPI and the successful tenderer could not be supported. He also undertook a review of selected agencies’ major capital works and other projects. He made a number of key findings in relation to this review. Whilst this audit was conducted in April-May 2009, the scope of the audit was limited to projects awarded between July 2007 and April 2008.
During 2008 and 2009 and prior to the audit being undertaken, the Construction Division, the government business division responsible for the project management and delivery of the majority of general government capital works, made structural and business process improvements to enable the delivery of an increased capital works program. I am pleased to announce that DPI, and the then Construction Division, have progressively implemented further improvements to procedures and processes to address the findings of this report. This has enabled the delivery of record levels of capital works and repairs and maintenance throughout the Territory in 2008-09 and 2009-10 to date.
I also want to make some remarks about the Auditor-General’s review of Correctional Services. The Auditor-General reviewed the Prisoner Money Management System, which is a database that records all transactions of each prisoner’s trust account. The system records the receipt of any external funds deposited on behalf of prisoners, and prisoner’s earnings within the correctional facility. The system also records the purchase of day-to-day necessities from the prison canteen, and from selected external suppliers. The system also records the transfer of any funds to a prisoner’s telephone system account. There are in excess of 5000 transactions per month at each prison, and the majority of these transactions are processed by manual data entry. In 2005, we upgraded the system to allow the data to be extracted and put into an Excel spreadsheet. This allowed for easier and more efficient evaluation and processing of the data.
We welcome the recommendations made by the Auditor-General to assist us in streamlining this somewhat outdated and complicated system. The Auditor-General’s recent recommendations included improvement of record retention, supporting documentation, transaction discrepancies, prisoner payment summaries, and segregation of duties. We have addressed all these recommendations except for the prisoner payments summaries, as this recommendation impacts on other jurisdictions.
However, this issue will be discussed at the upcoming Correctional Services Administrator’s Conference in December. Some of the improvements we have made on recommendation from the Auditor-General are: retaining buy sheets at the prison canteens; the implementation of weekly reconciliations; a manual register of prison mail; and we are also training new staff in reconciliation and processes relating to the system. I am pleased to say we are in the process of further improving the system, and staged implementation of other improvements will be made over the next three months.
I welcome the recommendations from the Auditor-General, and am pleased to say significant process has been made in improving the Prisoner Money Management System.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I will make some comments on the Police, Fire and Emergency Services portfolio for which I am responsible, and then conclude debate.
The Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services is mentioned in two areas of the report. They are: review of selected agencies’ major capital works and other projects, and agency compliance audits. This audit selected four projects for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The first two projects related to the early stages of the Northern Territory Emergency Response, and are funded by the Australian government. The third project is related to the establishment of a confiscation of assets unit; and the fourth project is part of a cache of equipment funded by Emergency Management Australia.
Police advise while some procurement procedures have had tough time lines to meet, like the fit-out for the Themis stations, the recent centralisation of procurement staff by the Department of Business and Employment has resulted in a much more effective way of processing all projects.
There were five main items the Auditor-General raised in his findings on the four selected cases:
1. There was a lack of evidence on procurement files to support the existence of contract management.
This finding applied to all four projects. Whilst the agency broadly agrees with this finding and concedes Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services does not have any formal contract management in place, contract management does exist in the agency. For example, invoices relating to a contract submitted for payment must be approved by a delegated officer before the contract can be paid. Evidence of this activity does not necessarily appear on procurement files, but it does exist. Conversely, if there is a deficiency in the performance of a contractor, this will be identified, followed up and managed. Consideration will be given to implementing a system whereby a quarterly or six-monthly report will be sought from the relevant contract manager and affixed to the file.
2. A contract was signed prior to exemption approval being provided by the Procurement Review Board.
This finding applied to project 3 only. This matter was brought to the attention of the officer concerned, and should not happen again.
This finding applied to project 3 only. The agency agrees with this finding. The information required could not be located.
5. Lack of post-acquisition review for contracts selected for review.
The need for compliance with procurement directions is acknowledged. With the additional resources provided to the procurement and supply section a much more proactive role in procurement management and planning can be undertaken.
Agency compliance audits: the agency underwent a compliance audit during the period of the Auditor-General’s Report, and whilst controls were found to be good, it was found a number of guidelines and policies had not been strictly adhered to, in particular, maintenance of official bank accounts and procurement guidelines relating to contract extension. Procedures in relation to these matters have been examined and staff made aware of relevant requirements.
Some minor matters were also raised which did not warrant inclusion in the management letter to the Chief Executive. These included some areas of the Accounting and Property Manual which were not up to date; missing paperwork at DBE which resulted in the auditors being unable to verify two transactions; two instances of travel being approved by the delegate without the approval of the supervisor - the delegate and the supervisor being the same person in both instances; and, the lack of a register of ex gratia payments. The agency had only just received notification of the first approval of such payment, and it was only a timing issue that the register had not been set up prior to the audit.
Overall, Police, Fire and Emergency Services acknowledged the items, and have rectified their processes to work better in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report, and take the opportunity to express my full support to the Auditor-General and his staff for his continued independent analysis of government’s accountability on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General, and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls and compliance across agencies and entities, is one of our most vital components in maintaining a policy of open government. I commend the Auditor-General’s statement to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak in relation to the Strategic Review of the Auditor-General’s Office. As I said previously, the Auditor-General provides a fine service to the people of the Northern Territory. He has, of course, decided he himself is not beyond review, and this is the result of the strategic review of his office.
I note numerous recommendations are made in the report, and I endorse those recommendations. I believe the Auditor-General should be allowed to go about his business in future in accordance with the exercise of those recommendations. I am uncertain as to whether the government is committed to them, but I think they are worthwhile.
We presume the Auditor-General wants to have himself reviewed, and knowing the important role the Auditor-General has in relation to serving this parliament, acknowledge the office continue to be supported wholesomely by the government of the day, no matter who that government is.
I do not choose to add much to the review. I am sure other members will have one or two things to say, if not, the Chief Minister will be wrapping up very shortly.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for his support of this strategic review report. Mr John Viljoen, Australian Assistant Auditor-General in the Audit Office of New South Wales, concluded overall that the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office is performing satisfactorily in a difficult operating environment. The strategic review identified 15 recommendations for improving operations, which had been discussed with the Auditor-General, and a course of action agreed in response to each recommendation.
Arguably, the most significant finding related to perceptions of funding and resourcing constraints. The Territory government has provided strong support to the Auditor-General’s Office through the provision of additional financial resources and capacity. Since the last strategic review in 2006, between 2005-06 and 2008-09, appropriation and cost recovery revenues of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office have increased by 21%. On the tabling of the report I noted supporting evidence of the additional financial resources and capacity, and the Territory government’s capital injection of $230 000 in October 2009. Importantly, the Auditor-General has expressed to me, in writing, he is comfortable with the resourcing he receives. As I noted at the time of tabling, the government’s practice has been to respond positively to any requests for additional resources from the Auditor-General, as evidenced by the additional resources and increased activity of his office. Requests do not compete with other expenditure priorities.
In concluding the debate on this report, I take this opportunity again to express my full support to the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the parliament, the government and the Territory community. The role of the Auditor-General, and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls and compliance across agencies and entities, is absolutely vital in maintaining a policy of open government.
I thank the Electoral Commissioner for his efforts over that period. General elections are difficult animals to cobble together very quickly. They are expensive exercises and we know often they are sprung on the Electoral Commission, no matter how much the commissioner might dream he is immune from an election in a particular cycle. For example, despite the fact we now have fixed four year terms, the truth of the matter is even within that fixed four year term, there is a mechanism, as we are all crushingly aware, in which these things can suddenly crop up. It is still not outside the realm of contemplation that a general election may be sprung quickly.
It has always surprised me the speed with which Electoral Commissioners have been able to deal with snap elections; the last election being no surprise. The election, with all the bump and grind of elections, was still a celebration of democracy in our community. I very much accept the will of the people, and accept nothing less than the will of people. Being the local member for Port Darwin, I am also grateful for the support the people have chosen to give me on this occasion.
Nothing truly remarkable arises from this report. I looked at it when it hit the table during the November sittings, and nothing jumped out in front of me then. I have not looked at it since that time. Suffice to say it is a comprehensive and complete report into the results and issues arising out of the last election. Those areas which need to be tightened up will, in due course I have no doubt, be tightened up by the Electoral Commissioner.
Once again, I congratulate the Electoral Commissioner, his staff and his office for the very responsive services they gave democracy in the Northern Territory in spite of having a snap election called that year. And that is it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Electoral Act provides the Electoral Commission may provide a report on any matter relating to its functions. Where such a report has been provided to the Speaker, statutory obligation is it is tabled within the three sitting days.
Since the establishment of the independent Electoral Commission, and the commencement of the current Electoral Act in 2004, there have been two general elections, June 2005 and August 2008. It has become the practice of the commission to report on issues which arise in conducting each election. The main issues discussed in the current report are: the continuing need for legislative amendments, and the participation process of the election. In his report into the 2005 election, the Commissioner recommended a number of amendments to the act. A number of these recommendations were implemented by way of the Electoral Amendment Act 2009. They included fixed term elections, minor extensions to the electoral period allowing for earlier dispatch of postal votes, and easing restrictions on pre-poll voting. There are, however, a number of the commission’s recommendations still outstanding, and in the current report it reiterates its view that the remaining issues should be addressed.
Consideration of the proposed reforms is somewhat complicated by the fact the Commonwealth released an electoral reform green paper in September 2009. The paper discusses possible harmonisation of Commonwealth, state and territory electoral laws, and identifies areas where there could be coordinated reforms. A number of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission involve areas under discussion at the national level, for example, financial disclosure provisions. In these circumstances, it makes sense for the Territory to wait to see what developments there are in the national sphere before proceeding on its own.
The Territory government will continue to monitor the need for electoral reforms, and will review the Commission’s recommendations in light of any uniform national provisions which are proposed. The Electoral Commission’s report also discusses the apparent decline in the participation rate of voters in the 2008 election; that is the ratio between the numbers of people who voted, compared with the number of enrolled electors. The report noted this decline was the subject of much speculation and comment immediately following the election. The participation rate was 75.7% of enrolled voters, a decline compared to previous general elections. The biggest fall occurred in the Alice Spring divisions, and three Darwin inner suburbs.
The report suggests the decline was the result of a complex mix of factors including quality of the roll, timing of the election, and remote area factors such as the federal intervention, and an apparent decrease in political lobbying in remote centres. The commissioner notes the establishment of fixed elections will enable strategies to be applied in future which will result in a better roll at the next election. The establishment of a joint office in Alice Springs, and funding of the Indigenous Election Participation Program by the Australian Electoral Commission, should also lead to better outcomes in remote and regional areas.
The other recommendations of the commission include: expanding the election period by at least one week, funds to support preliminary planning for the 2012 election, the capacity for the commission to impose fines for non-voting and these be dealt with by the Fines Recovery Unit, and the act be reviewed to achieve harmonisation, where appropriate, with the electoral legislation of other jurisdictions.
The Electoral Commissioner and staff of the commission are to be congratulated on their professionalism and the way in which they conducted themselves in difficult circumstances. In 2008 they had to deal with municipal general elections, the redistribution of electoral boundaries, and the Legislative Assembly general election. In a world where elections often give rise to division and conflicts, and where the results are frequently disputed, the high degree of public confidence in the Australian electoral systems, including that in the Northern Territory, is an important component of a healthy society and a strong democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Electoral Commission Report into the 2008 General Election in the Territory to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I find myself with the second piece of legislation government has introduced today which I am supporting. There has to be a limit to what we can do! However, it is interesting that there has been a little process here, and that process has taught me some lessons; some negative and some positive.
I welcome the minister’s legislation today. Much work has been put into this on both sides with practical and positive achievements. However, it is important for people to know last year the Country Liberals did propose what, in effect, was good legislation, insomuch as it was supported by the government, and the Independent member for Nelson, but it did not get a guernsey - all on political grounds.
In fact, part of that process included issues raised in the legislation the government was uncomfortable with - as was the EPA, in fairness. We rushed through amendments to appease government, the Independent member for Nelson, and the EPA. That was hard work for those people involved in ensuring the right changes were made. Then, unfortunately, the legislation was voted down. I suppose that is where I learned a valuable lesson. We all say we are here for the right reasons, and we are here to do what is right for the Territory, but this was legislation that, unfortunately, on political grounds, was simply voted down. That was a sad thing.
Rather than go through the committee stage this afternoon, I have several questions I would like to put to the minister and, hopefully he can provide an answer in his reply.
The current Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 limits the authority’s function by enabling it to only look into matters on reference from a third party, or on its own initiative in accordance with criteria and arrangements agreed with the minister. That is section 5(1)(b)(i) and (c). This limitation is what previous opposition bills wanted to amend, and the new act delivers that. Again, it is the point I made previously; we raised some good legislation and the question is why it was not supported before. The government’s bill removes this restriction and expands the EPA’s functions to oversee the implementation of administrative procedures as defined by section 7 of the Environmental Assessment Act, and agency responses to respond to environmental incidents.
The bill also requires the EPA, when giving advice on the operations of an agency, to give a copy of the proposed advice to the CEO of that agency. The CEO is invited to make a submission to the EPA regarding the proposed advice within a reasonable stated period - and for reference that is section 5A(2)(a) and (b). My preference, if the minister could consider it is, instead of having a ‘reasonable stated period’, we change it to something like 28 days. Having it open-ended could mean a CEO may take forever to respond to the EPA, which brings me to the penalties that apply.
The question may be: now that penalties are applied to people who withhold information or provide wrong information to the EPA, what would happen if it was a government department? Could there become a time when a CEO perhaps has not provided the information requested, and although given a reasonable stated period, it is not clear. I believe if we had a 28 day period, or a defined time, then it may be clearer. I believe it would take away the risk; there is legislation which says there are penalties applying to people who either do not provide information, or perhaps provide wrong information. I would hate to see a CEO falling foul of the EPA by not providing that information.
The authority, and the minister, are still able to make administrative arrangements in relation to the exercise of the EPA’s powers and functions, but these arrangements must be publicised under the proposed section 7A(5). That is fine, except the government proposes and says the EPA is completely independent. Because this is still there, it perhaps tarnishes the intent. If you are true to your word and are trying to create an independent EPA, this does tarnish it somewhat by providing a minister with powers to discuss its functions.
The wording of section 6 has been simplified and those provisions strengthened with the introduction of the proposed Part 2A, which makes it an offence, with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, to withhold information which has been requested by the EPA. It will also be an offence, with a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units, to provide misleading information or documents to the EPA. Again, my question is what happens if it was a government department? Would the penalties apply? Is there a process involved and, do we need to make it clearer in the reasonable period, CEOs need to provide that feedback?
The bill also amends the provisions of section 24 of the act to ensure the minister tables any recommendations or concluding advice given to him by the EPA within six sitting days. The minister must also advise the EPA of any decisions made by the minister in relation to the recommendations, or concluding advice, as soon as practicable under the new section 25. However, there is absolutely no requirement in the bill to table or publicise these decisions. That is one area which needs to be looked at, because if the EPA is providing information to this House so that it is open, that it is accountable - and I understand it is a good idea the minister at least has some forewarning of what those recommendations are – however, in a situation where there has been a decision made, there is no requirement in the bill to table or publicise these decisions. If we are truly looking for an independent EPA and an independent, transparent process that is the direction we perhaps should be going.
Clause 13 introduces an alternative section 5A to commence at a later date. The additional provisions introduced by clause 1 are: monitor and assess the cumulative impacts of development in the Territory - that is section 5A(1)(c); and to publicly release reports on environmental quality – section 5A(1)(d). The minister’s second reading speech did not explain why this staggered approach has been taken. The Explanatory Statement says a staggered approach is needed as these two provisions are to commence later than the rest in that section. Minister, you have the chance to confirm the reason for this delay today if you know what the answer is.
The cumulative impacts of section5A(3)(a) include the monitoring of discharges of pollution from a particular place, or the monitoring of compliance with legislation relating to pollution from a particular place, section 5A(3)(b), such as the Marine Pollution Act, Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the Water Act, etcetera. While individual compliance with pollution guidelines should remain with the agencies - and we agree with that - surely the cumulative effect of pollution in a densely industrialised area such as Darwin Harbour should be part of the EPA’s functions.
I only have a few questions today, and I truly welcome this legislation. It is built on a process where it was voted down on political lines. However, to the word of the Independent member for Nelson and the Environment minister, there was a course and structure set afterwards, and I was part of that journey. We had meetings with the minister’s advisers. I had meetings with the Independent member for Nelson, and we also had meetings with the EPA. From that it was very clear to me that we are all playing off the same song sheet. In fact, when the legislation was presented in Alice Springs and the briefing provided, I was warmed by the legislation. I know it is very hard to admit; perhaps we are a little further than what was expected. That was very encouraging.
I have some doubts over the government’s whole approach to environmental protection. I have certainly worked hard on the conservative side of politics to improve our past credentials regarding the environment. I go on track records to see if someone has proven they are what they say; proven they are good at what they do, and proven through what really happens in the community. I know the Country Liberals recently released a policy on growth sustainability and the climate change challenge. There are clear objectives in that approach, there are milestones, and there are practical steps which are absolutely measurable. I worry we have a government which on one hand says it is supportive of our environment and wants to protect it - and indeed with this legislation has done a good job - however I look at a media release from the Minister for Climate Change and the Chief Minister which reads:
We saw only last week where we tackled one area of housing, the star rating and efficiencies of buildings, where if you really want people to follow what you are doing, if you are really trying to set an example, you will be taking a lead. I was critical of government that it only tackled housing when it could have done so much more. Perhaps it should have started with government departments; it should have started with practical things the government could do to reduce its own energy use.
We saw through Estimates last year that we spent some $68m on diesel for our power stations because of the lack of gas; that is not good environmental credentials. We can argue all we want; however the fact is we spent $68m on diesel. We also know through Estimates many of our remote parks are running on diesel generators. I know there is a plan in Territory 2030 to work for change.
This government has been here nine years, and I do not believe they have a good track record for doing what is right for our environment. You do not have to cause people additional pain, or additional costs to help our environment. The conservative side of government has often been called climate change sceptics; it is absolutely nonsense. I do not really care who is right or wrong in this argument. I do not care if you believe in climate change or not; it does not matter. If we can do one thing good for our environment, that is good for me; it is good for the environment.
I made this point recently, if by changing to an LED light bulb in your home saves you money in your hip pocket and you do not have to change it for the next 20 years, and the energy you are using every day is saving you money in your hip pocket, and the end result is government does not have to provide so much energy, that is a good thing in anyone’s argument, so it does not matter. It is sensible too. It is about practical steps, and I believe this today is a practical step and I welcome the minister’s legislation. I know a great deal of work has gone into it, but you do not have the runs on the board yet to be able to stand back and say you are the climate change …
Mr Tollner: Labor does not have any runs on the board at all. Zero! They would have been bowled out for a duck long ago.
Mr CHANDLER: Whilst we are talking about this, the government also strongly supports a national emissions trading scheme. Mr Henderson said: ‘This means we can drive real change and reduce emissions’. I believe most Australians now know the carbon reduction scheme is nothing more than a big fat tax and will do little to change people’s habits; it will do little to help the environment. It is going to raise a large amount of money for the government, but it is not going to help the environment. It is going to cost jobs.
The reality is you need to change people’s habits. I draw your attention to your policies when discussing plastic bags. There is more and more evidence every day that we may have been sold a lemon when it comes to recyclable bags. They cost more and they are not such a lovely thing for our environment; the same as the little fluorescent bulbs everyone is putting into their homes because they are energy efficient. Yes, they are. However, they cost more to make; they cost more to transport. There are seven or eight different toxins within these bulbs. Everyone should be very clear that if we are throwing these bulbs with the toxins they contain into our landfills every day we are not good environmentalists. The toxins within these bulbs have a real chance of getting into our water tables at some stage down the track.
My understanding is LED lighting is where we should be aiming in the future. I know the government has made a start with traffic lights. That needs to continue to roll out, and we need to replace every damn bulb we can possibly think of, not with fluorescent bulbs, but LED bulbs.
I discuss this because of this government’s track record. In a media release it says: ‘By 2018 we will ensure the Northern Territory government is carbon neutral’. They are great aspirations, however there needs to be practical steps. By comparison, the Country Liberals had key initiatives including allocation of $10m a year to be used for construction of renewable power generation capacity, with a target output of 100 MW.
The Country Liberals wanted the establishment of a five-year $5m renewable sponge, or promote development of renewable energy sources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the Territory; a 25% renewable energy target by 2025; attainment of an 8-star energy rating for all Territory government buildings by 2017; energy efficiency; solar capacity; and procurement weighting given to green-focused business tendering for government work. This policy, these key initiatives, are backed up with practical steps - not to cost additional dollars to individuals, to householders, because we know we can cut red tape today in the procurement of a home in such a way, and to such a level - improvements in the energy efficiency of the home can be done at no cost to people. By saying: ‘You will do this’, is not the way to do it. There has to be a carrot-and-stick approach.
As I said, by comparison the Labor government today has said the annual rate of land clearing will not be allowed to increase. The Territory will be a low land-clearing jurisdiction. We have had the great water report saying the Territory is not going to be the food bowl of the future, although Territorians have been known for handling tough situations. Given the task there are some hard workers out there. I have seen some solutions across the Northern Territory which have proven, time and time again, they are ‘doing people’.
The reason I brought it up now is that report said the current land clearing, cropping, and growth could go from 20 000 ha to 60 000 ha. We could triple what we are doing across the Northern Territory today. If this policy says the annual rate of land clearing will not be allowed to increase, you are not even going to meet the targets the water people are saying we can do. Do not let me get started on water - look at Mataranka, it is a mess. Even this week we find there are people desperately trying to build homes in the rural area who have been stopped because no water bores are being allowed. On one hand you have a government saying it is caring and is trying to get people into houses and, on the other hand, you have another department which will not even let them put a bore down.
You can design new management programs without stalling things. Look at a highway, for instance. You cannot stop the traffic because you want to put in a new section of road or you want to fix a piece of road. You might put a roundabout in or a detour for a short time while you do the new work, but you do not stop cars coming through. You guys have departments stopping people whilst you are developing programs. You can work on new programs and have things continue.
I raise this because the evidence is not on the ground. When I see this working in a few years time I can come back and say: ‘Yes, look at the challenges that were met. Look at what has been delivered’. I am going to say I was absolutely supportive of what happened here today - and I am supportive. Minister, I am supportive of this legislation because it does put us in the right direction. I have been a little frustrated with the process, however, it is learning for me as well.
As I said previously, the process led us to where we are. We have this legislation; it is a big improvement. I will finish by saying thank you, minister, for bringing it forward. If I can get a couple of answers on why the staggered introduction of provisions in section 5A, and a clearer explanation of the cumulative impact as used in clause 13.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to environmental protection. That is why after …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, if I could call you to order please? Minister, you have the call.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to environmental protection; that is why, after six years in government, we formed the Environment Protection Agency, and the CLP, for 26 years in office, failed to do so over the whole time. It is a fabulous achievement, and I am glad to hear the opposition spokesperson is complimentary of our environmental protection credentials.
These amendments further strengthen the role of the EPA. The Territory’s Environment Protection Authority Act came into effect in 2007, the first time the Territory actually had an independent environmental watchdog. The Labor government recognised it was high time for the Territory to join the rest of Australia in having an environment protection authority, as previous CLP governments had consistently refused to do so. As a government, we are committed to preserving the Territory’s unique environment and cultural heritage. The EPA provides independent advice to government on the management of the environment and how best to protect it, now and into the future.
These amendments will not only give the Environment Protection Authority more muscle to protect our environment and cultural heritage, but they will more clearly define the role of the authority. We know various Territory government agencies administer environmental regulations. While approvals, licensing, and frontline responses to incidents are dealt with by these agencies, the EPA has been given beefed-up capacity to investigate agencies decision-making, as well as their responses to environmental incidents. These amendments give the EPA explicit powers to investigate the decisions and responses of government agencies on environmental issues, as well as a capacity to look at those cases where there are concerns about the management of particular issues. The EPA will also be able to require information from industry, while the public will be able to refer matters of environmental concern to the authority.
Any referrals from the public will be assessed in line with priorities identified by its board in its strategic plan. What the Territory needs is a single agency to audit and ensure the system is working effectively. That is what we have with the EPA.
Importantly, the EPA is a statutory body which makes its recommendations and advice publicly, and is not subject to governmental direction. This independence gives the EPA real power. The authority now has the ability to examine any issue it considers a priority. The EPA’s new powers will include: new capacity to audit and evaluate how effectively recommendations made by the minister on an EIS are taken up in relevant approvals and licences; additional powers to require information of agencies and industry, with new offences created to deal with the failure to provide information or provide misleading information; creation of a new function allowing the EPA to receive and investigate community complaints over adequacy of agency responses to identify whether any regulatory failure has occurred, or whether legislation itself is lacking; and to bring options for improvement back to government.
It also has the capacity to assess frontline responses of other agencies from a system perspective. Last, a new function requiring the EPA to monitor, evaluate and publicly report on the cumulative impacts of development in the wider environment. That is an important capacity given to the EPA because in some areas, development happens incrementally and the incremental impact on the environment can actually have a cumulative effect on the whole ecosystem. It is an important capacity given to the EPA.
The new auditing and monitoring role, backed up by the creation of new offences, is certainly a step in the right direction. In effect, the EPA will have a new auditing role on EIS recommendations and environmental incidents, and it will be like an environmental Auditor-General.
The EPA will be expected to keep a watching brief on environmental outcomes. It will also have the capacity to take on one-off projects as it has done in the past. An EPA does not have to be regulatory to be effective, however it must be independent. We have confidence that independence and these new powers will make the Territory’s EPA effectively a watchdog over the environment for our future generations.
Environmental recommendations and regulations are administered by agencies, but we now have a single entity which has a capacity to monitor those agencies. We do not need duplication; we need one agency auditing and ensuring the system is working effectively. That will be the EPA’s new role. Now the EPA has power to acquire information from agencies in industry, it has the necessary teeth to protect the Territory’s environment. The EPA will also be free to provide advice on any new EIS directed as it sees fit. The EPA can audit the recommendations coming from the environmental assessment.
We are a government very much committed to developing the Territory; however we are equally committed to ensuring any development occurs in a sustainable way, a way which protects those things that make the Territory a unique and beautiful place.
I congratulate the minister on bringing these amendments forward. I am confident these amendments will give the EPA added strength, and will provide the balance required in the Northern Territory between development and environmental protection. Congratulations, minister, and I look forward to the EPA getting on with its vital work here in the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the government for bringing forward this amendment in relation to the Environment Protection Agency. I thank the member for Brennan for his comments. I know he has been champing at the bit on some of these issues in ensuring the Environment Protection Agency reported back to parliament. I believe it shows when we have that level of cooperation to do things which are good for the Territory that you can get together and achieve good outcomes. I thank the member for Brennan for doing that hard work.
What we have today is certainly an improvement. It strengthens the role of the EPA. The area I believe to be one of the most important is in relation to its functions, section 5A(1)(a):
That does not make much sense until you get to the explanatory statement where it puts it into English which I can understand. It says:
review and assess the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations following the completion of an environmental assessment of a proposed action (pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act);
It can comment on an EIS report to see whether the report is being carried out fairly, and I believe that is an important role.
One of the issues raised when big projects are put forward in the Territory is the company employs people to do the EIS. The argument in a small town like Darwin is you would not want to make adverse comments because you may not get a job next time. Having an independent EPA look at it adds balance and removes some of that criticism. We have had some pretty big projects in the Northern Territory which have had their share of controversy. People who felt there has not been enough testing of the waters will now have this extra layer; an independent body looking into things. That is one of the key changes the government has put forward.
There are a number of other issues in looking at how an agency responds to environmental incidents. I remember the government at one point made a song and dance about a Pollution Hotline. I was driving down Stuart Highway just getting out to Holtze - some people call it the Eleven Mile, some people call it Pinelands, it is actually Holtze - there is a big drain before you get to the BP. Driving past I noticed this white, milky liquid filling the drain. I stopped to see what it was, had a sniff, and then decided to ring the Pollution Hotline. They wanted to know what it smelt like; they were going to pass it on to the fire brigade. Nothing happened, and I did not hear what occurred there. Was it something harmful? Was it pollution? The response was very poor. If you have an EPA and you believe there is a poor response to your complaint, you can report that. I believe it is their job to find out if people who were supposed to be doing a job in an area which is advertised as an important way of keeping check on pollution, are doing their job. That was a few years ago, and today things may be better. However, I use that as an example where I did not get a reaction I thought was reasonable, and I believe you could have an EPA doing that as well.
It is also important to look at the bigger picture; the cumulative environmental effect. What effects are the small changes happening in the environment having over a period of time? On their own, maybe very little; overall they might be causing a number of problems. I will give you a classic example in the member for Brennan’s electorate, Mitchell Creek. I remember when Mitchell Creek was a beautiful creek; pristine. It started off with some gravel mining on my side of the Stuart Highway - the member for Goyder probably passed it through the Minerals Council. They mined at the headwaters of Mitchell Creek, and I complained saying: ‘How come you are doing it there?’ They said: ‘It is okay, it is just an extractive mining lease’.
They then commenced at Gunn; looks good on paper, glossy brochures, wonderful place, but what happened to the creek? It turned into, in some places, a lawn with a concrete drain down the centre - very nice in the brochures. On one part they were going to build a road over the top, put a pipe under it, and build houses on the side. A number of people went to a Planning Authority meeting and protested very strongly and the government saw this was a stupid thing, and gave them another piece of land. Under a previous government, the land had been sold as one big block without the environmental areas removed. It should never have happened. The environmental areas should have been removed and the balance sold to Delphin, then we would not have this problem.
Slowly roads are put in. I have seen pipes running straight into the creek. We should not be running pipes into creeks at a subdivision. We should be slowing the water down, putting it through sediment areas. The new design for Bakewell is worth looking at. I have been through there, and I have commented on Bakewell. It has some new designs where water is running off the Bakewell subdivision into recreational ponds, which are fed from water coming off the subdivision, before it gets into Mitchell Creek. We have gone from an extreme at one end of the creek, to a much more improved process at the bottom end of the creek. By the way, it is not Mitchell Creek to Bakewell; it is Brooking Creek. However, we have realised we have done things which, if we keep doing them, would have ruined Mitchell Creek.
A previous Mayor of Palmerston and I visited Mitchell Creek. I was involved part-time with Waterwatch, and I remember testing the water in Mitchell Creek. You would be amazed how many prawns were there. With suburbs only 0.5 km away, the creek was full of prawns ready to be flushed into the harbour. We were emphasising the point that we all say we want to protect Darwin Harbour, however we have a company putting lawns, concrete drains, and running stormwater drains straight into it, with no thought to the effect on Darwin Harbour.
I see the EPA asking what the cumulative effect is of subdivisions if they are not done properly, or what is the cumulative effect of some of our industrial development. One industry might be fine; when you put in 100 industries that could cause problems. I believe there are some good roles for the EPA.
It is also good the minister is required to report to the House. That is important, and something the member for Brennan was pushing for. That, in itself, is really important - that we ensure these authorities report, and the minister reports to parliament to keep this open and transparent system working; otherwise people think it is being brushed under the carpet.
We had a debate on climate change and the member for Brennan discussed several issues. I had my ears pricked up, and I will probably say a few words in relation to that later. However, there are some areas the EPA could request information on from the government, even if they are not allowed to investigate.
I support the diversion of the McArthur River, however reports I have say it was not revegetated. Part of that is due to its closure. When it closed it also closed the nursery, and I am not sure what happened to the plants. My understanding is there are issues, and I will be asking some questions later in parliament. There may have been a role for the EPA to ask what was happening, if the department had not done so. If they feel the department is not making enough noise, perhaps they need the power to step in and ask: ‘What are you doing?’ We see the EPA as looking at who is doing their job. If no one is doing their job with the mining company, then the EPA asks what is happening. I believe they could be given a little leeway when it comes to important things like that. That was a big project, and it was a big change to the river. I visited it when it commenced, I visited it when they broke through, and I was expecting to see trees everywhere. However, I will make another visit to make sure myself.
There are many things we could discuss. I need to comment on 8-star houses the member for Brennan mentioned. I am concerned we will have houses up to 9-star or 10-star. It is terrific, however how much will they cost, and are they really going to be energy efficient for the Northern Territory? There is much talk about 5-star houses, but they were 5-star for down south. We want 5-star tropical houses, not 5-star Melbourne houses.
One thing which really disappoints me is every time I drive past Palmerston I cannot believe we have black, blue, green, and red roofs on houses. If anyone looks at the figures for how much extra a red or blue roof - or whatever colour it is - increases the inefficiency of our house in cooling, you wonder why we are doing it. Is it because we have companies in the Territory tied to a covenant? Do we have new subdivisions such as Johnston and Bakewell tied so someone cannot build a house with louvers, flywire and a big verandah because it will not match the covenants of that company, or it will not fit in with the government’s view the buildings should all look roughly the same?
I laugh a little. I went to a school - I will not say which school - and the kids were all saying: ‘Turn it off, turn it off, you are saving energy, saving energy’. They were standing in the dark with all the air-conditioners going. The rooms were beautifully cool, but the lights were out. The facts are schools have to rely on …
Mr Styles: Was the member for Daly anywhere near it?
Mr WOOD: I am not sure. My grandsons attend St John’s, and one of them sits in a classroom with no air-conditioning, the old louvers, and he says it is hot. I do not say we should not have air-conditioning; I believe sometimes we are kidding ourselves if we are saying, save power, save power, and on the other hand, we promote air-conditioning. By all means have it, but we are mucking about when we want to turn a few lights off. The main source of energy bills in a school would be air-conditioning by a long way. We will probably get on to that at another stage. I will not get into the climate change debate until tomorrow, if we get to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the work he has done, especially working with the member for Brennan. It is important these changes occur and it is something I have been pushing through the agreement. I believe the important thing is you and the member for Brennan got together and achieved something Territorians will be pleased with. The way it was done is nearly as important as the outcome. I thank the minister, and I thank the member for Brennan.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. The member for Nelson mentioned was the Pollution Hotline. I have used that a few times in the last 18 months, and I have found them to be very responsive, particularly with dust control around building sites. They have been very helpful. I have letterboxed their contact details around the electorate, and my contact details. I know people sometimes prefer to contact the local member rather than the Pollution Hotline. However, I have found, in those instances, the Pollution Hotline has been very handy. I had a similar experience as the member for Nelson where there seemed to be an oil leak, the Pollution Hotline checked it out and fixed it. Member for Nelson, my recent experience of the Pollution Hotline has been very good.
However, we are here today to debate the passage of amendments to the Environment Protection Authority Act, not the Pollution Hotline. The amendments do give a new auditing and monitoring role to the EPA, and they strengthen its powers and backup the EPA with new offences.
The creation of an EPA, with the original passage of the Environment Protection Authority Act in 2007, saw the Territory finally have a mature mechanism for protection of the environment. We finally had a strong independent environment watchdog. We are now debating amendments which see the EPA take the next stage in its evolution of a sensible progression of the powers and responsibilities of the EPA. It is one of the advantages of establishing a new system, bedding it in, making sure it works, and then when you take the next step of strengthening what it does, you can do it in a way you know will work. What we have in the Territory is a decentralised environmental protection system. Several agencies have environmental responsibilities in the Territory, and the effect of that is to mainstream the environment in the Territory. I believe that is a very important policy decision.
There are some who believe we should lump it all into one body; there are always pros and cons for different models. History is littered with examples where lumping things together does not work, just as there are examples where the opposite works, where decentralisation does not work.
What we have achieved here with the EPA, and what is central to this decision, is we are ensuring the environment is never seen as someone else’s problem. That is an important policy effect of the decision to ensure environmental responsibilities are not decentralised. What we have recognised as essential to ensuring the decentralised system works is the heart of the body, in this instance the EPA, has a big picture view that can see how the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit together.
The EPA addresses the positive weaknesses of a decentralised system. It can say these bodies need to talk together, or there is a system missing here. It has been described as an environmental auditor-general, or an environmental ombudsman, or even a coordinator-general.
The minister highlighted this big picture view in his own contribution, his ability to coordinate, and he quoted some of the clauses within the act that give the EPA this authority. Quoting from the minister:
(b) setting objectives, targets and standards for the public and private sectors;
(e) issues affecting the Territory’s capacity of achieve ecologically sustainable development;
Mr Tollner: Did you write the speech yourself?
Mr GUNNER: … and:
(f) emerging environmental issues.
I was quoting a little from the minister, and from the act. Thank you, member for Fong Lim; you will get an opportunity soon.
The EPA is provided with legislative guidance on how it goes about its work. It is important the EPA is plugged into the local community; that it works with stakeholders, businesses, agencies, and the public. That is what the EPA needs to do, and it is important it never forgets the principles as set out in section 7 of the Environment Protection Authority Act: ecologically sustainable development, sound science, best practice, consideration of regional variation, the desirability for strong growing and diversified economy, and a well informed and engaged private sector, the need to adopt cost-effective and flexible policy instruments, the need to be transparent in information availability and decision-making, and importantly government economic policy priorities for the Territory.
The EPA is effective in the work it does and how it works with businesses, agencies, and the public, and how it adheres to principles because it is independent; that is outlined in the act. Section 8(1) says:
Section 8(2) of the act goes on to provide:
These clauses guarantee there will be a strong, independent environmental watchdog with an EPA that makes the difference. It addresses systemic issues, it addresses strategic issues, and is accountable to guiding principles not political masters. This bill will ensure that what the EPA already does well, it will now do even better. The amendments will better align the EPA’s work with the emerging needs of the Territory and Territorians.
We are, as members are aware, on the cusp of major industrial expansion. Those amendments ensure, as we move into exciting times, the environment is not forgotten and we have, as the minister says, the necessary oversight for the overall environment protection framework. There are essentially three new capacities that make this possible:
We have a decentralised model which ensures the environment is everyone’s business. We have a body, the EPA, which audits the system, which makes sure the system works, and there is no duplication with agencies which administer the environmental regulations. Where the EPA does have teeth, it has new powers and offences to ensure the EPA gets the information it needs from agencies and industry. That guarantees transparency. It guarantees the information we need is on the table so the EPA can make informed recommendations and provide clear advice, and the agency can act on EPA determinations.
The EPA now has the ability to ensure not only are recommendations enforced, they are effective. This will ensure the community can trust the environmental assessment process, there is not a disconnect between original advice and final outcome, and there is someone between those two times to ensure the environment is being protected. To quote from the minister:
The EPA supports the proposed bill. I have their media release from 26 November. I am sure members know the Chair of the Environmental Protection Authority is Dr Andrew Tupper. He welcomed the announcement. I quote:
I support this bill. We created the Territory’s first EPA. We took the Territory into the 21st century by having an independent environment watchdog. We are now moving to make the EPA stronger with an auditing and monitoring role, and we are backing it up with new offences. That is why I am happy to support this bill, and commend it to the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, before you commence I remind members that at 5.30 pm we will be moving to General Business. You will be interrupted if you are not finished at that time.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): I will keep it concise, Madam Deputy Speaker
It is great to see the government has finally done something in relation to the EPA and, from the outset, can I say well done to the member for Brennan. He has been an outstanding advocate for the environment. I listened to him intently. He did not let me down, and I am sure he did not let anyone in this Chamber down. He has driven this issue right from the word go, and it seems to me government has fallen into line with many things he has been calling for. I put on the record publicly, right here and now, the debt of gratitude I, and most Territorians, owe to the member for Brennan for the great work he has done.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: It has been interesting to listen to the member for Fannie Bay, the member for Daly, and those on the other side talk about the wonderful job this government does in relation to the environment. It is like many things with this government, it is all talk and very little action. For several years now we have been hearing about climate change; the greatest moral dilemma facing Australians. I believe the Prime Minister says, backed up strongly by this government: ‘We have to get on board; climate change is the major issue’.
Now we find ourselves in the parliament today, and we see them in the federal parliament; Kevin Rudd wants to talk about anything but the ETS. It is a funny thing, the Liberals under a new and revived leadership team, are keen to get out there and talk about ETS. They are keen to bring on the debate, but where is the Labor government federally? Nowhere to be seen; they are ducking for cover. Why is this? Because, fundamentally, the Prime Minister went to the 2007 election saying he would sign up to Kyoto, he would put in place an emissions trading scheme, introduce legislation - the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That fell in a complete heap. The legislation the Prime Minister put in place was amended a number of times in the Senate.
What he originally put forward would have absolutely crippled the Territory; put us back a hundred years, would have killed off all agricultural industries in the Territory, and would virtually have ensured we would have no gas developments happening in the Northern Territory. It was absolutely dreadful. However, due to some hard work by a number of people in Canberra, that bill was amended, in a range of areas. We saw agriculture exempted, we saw concessions across the board but, fundamentally, people recognised the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was a flawed scheme. As Tony Abbott says, it is a great, big, new tax. A great, big, new tax on everything is what Mr Rudd wants to do. He wants to tax Australians, he wants to tax business for their carbon emissions, and with that tax money he wants to send it overseas to other countries where he would purchase carbon credits.
We saw what happened to the Prime Minister’s grand plan in Copenhagen. The world did not adopt the strategies the Prime Minister had spent millions and millions of dollars promoting around the world and, by the way, increasing carbon pollution by flying hundreds and hundreds of people around the world trying to convince countries they had to do something about this great moral challenge of our time. No, he absolutely failed! That policy was rejected in ‘Carbon-hagen’; it was a complete and utter shemozzle - a shambles. The Prime Minister has come back to Australia with egg all over his face, to the point where he wants to talk about anything but the emissions trading scheme he was trying to introduce.
Nowhere along the line would the Prime Minister debate it. Nowhere along the line would the Prime Minister outline his plans. We saw on the ABC - the name of the show escapes me - a bunch of high school students made him look like a complete jerk ...
A member: Q&A.
Mr TOLLNER: Q&A - made him look like a complete and absolute dill. If the Prime Minister cannot explain his scheme to a group of high school students, what hope does he have of convincing some of the great minds in this country it is a good thing to do? A complete failure!
We have seen that shemozzle take place, and now we see their little brothers and sisters in the Northern Territory facing the same problem. They have egg all over their faces too. We have ministers who have berated the Country Liberals for not supporting Kevin Rudd; for not kicking Nigel Scullion, our Senator, in the bum and getting him to support Kevin Rudd’s great, big tax on everything; and who expect a Country Liberal Senator would go to Canberra and argue with his colleagues and cross the floor in order to put a new tax on Australians on everything, and see the money raised go overseas. That tax is supported by this government, and that is what they have hung their whole environmental policy on for the last two years: Kevin Rudd’s great, big, new tax. That is what this government has hung its hat on for the last two years.
Meanwhile, we have seen other practical things completely ignored. In the time since the last Territory election, we have seen sewage continue to be pumped into our harbour - no plans from the government as to when they are going to stop that. For the record, it is worth noting Darwin is the worst polluter in the nation per capita for pumping sewage into its harbour. That is a national shame I do not like. It is something which affects me personally; to think I live in a city, that I am part of a legislature, which allows sewage to be pumped willy-nilly into our harbour with no effort at all by government to at least put in place plans to change it.
I looked through the Territory 2030 document and I could not find where government said it would stop pumping sewage into our harbour - nowhere. There is nothing in there - nothing even about pollution. This is a visionary government which is laying down plans, which has wonderful ideas about the environment, but their plans, their vision, hang on one thing - and that is a great, big, new tax on all Australians. What a shame.
There is nothing in the Territory 2030 document saying they are going to clean up Indigenous communities and remove the rubbish and litter which plague practically every community the length and breadth of the Territory. The Pollution Hotline - I wonder what the point …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, it being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93 debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence of Government Business until 9 pm.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. l will continue my remarks later.
Debate suspended until a later hour.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
This bill seeks to introduce minimum sentences of 12 months imprisonment for those who kill or maim while being intoxicated on our streets. This is a bill I hope is never needed. I never want it to be used. This bill sends a message which clearly spells out that you will go to gaol; you will not get off if you kill or maim somebody while drink-driving. This bill responds to public interest, seeking to punish those responsible for killing or permanently incapacitating someone through negligently drink-driving and causing such injuries.
The Country Liberals are seeking to send clear signals that, as an opposition, we are about changing the culture of drink-driving in the Northern Territory. We are strong, determined and committed to reform in the Northern Territory for the betterment of all those who reside here.
We have all heard the stories of those drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle, those who drive at high speed and kill or maim someone. I do not wish to go into specific cases for fear of traumatising families, however one can recall the many in our community who, to this day, suffer the trauma of losing a loved one, or the daily reminder of confinement to a wheelchair, only to see the culprit let off lightly. The pain one must feel upon receipt of that phone call, or the knock on the door one must never want to receive. Let me reiterate, I do not want to see people locked up forever and a day, but for this type of negligence, there must be a minimum sentence.
We know drink-driving in the Territory is at very high levels, and we know many of those recorded incidents of drink-driving are at high range. Unfortunately, many of those who drink and drive on our roads have driven before, not learning the lessons of the past. I have said before, get caught once and you can declare it is an honest mistake; get caught a second time and you are a bloody idiot; a third time, you have no regard for law or human life. Unfortunately, one cannot bring a life back once it has been taken by a drink-driver.
If you have not learned your lesson and kill or maim someone, this bill prescribes you must serve a minimum sentence of one year, with the judicial process to identify the extent of penalties beyond that. What concerns me is the number of drink-drivers in the Territory. I could go through a number of statistics which show specifically the amount of people caught drink-driving in the Northern Territory.
I have referred in a previous speech to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Report into Expenditure in the Northern Territory, a report which, in anyone’s eyes, lays bare the failures of the Henderson Labor government - the dysfunctional Henderson Labor government. One of the areas of particular concern in this bill, which is affected by the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, is in the area of Corrections. Within this report, despite all the pontificating of this dysfunctional Labor government, we see in 2007-08 the Commonwealth Grants Commission assessed the Northern Territory government needed to spend $137m on Corrections. The Commonwealth Grants Commission assessed the Northern Territory government had $24m available from within its own funds, and the Commonwealth would contribute $112m.
Madam Speaker, $137m to spend on Corrections in one financial year can go a long way. Instead of spending $137m as the NT government should, according to the assessment by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, they spent only $78m. Let me make it clear - that is an underspend of $58m - $58m which should have been used to break the cycle of recidivism in the Northern Territory with repeat drink-drivers who pass through our gaols. The Minister for Transport, who is also the minister for Corrections, would know the majority of inmates in Territory gaols are there for short periods of times for drinking or drink-driving related charges. This underspend occurred at a time when this government was locking up black males at a rate five times greater than under apartheid in South Africa.
Let me go into more detail. In 2006-07 the government underspent by $62m; in 2005-06 it underspent by $49m; in 2004-05 by $46m, and in 2003-04 it underspent by $39m. It continues to get worse as we go on. This is the government the member for Nelson has given his support to. Five years ago the underspend was $39m, and in the last financial year reported to date was $58m. Who are the real criminals here, spending only 58% of the assessed amount required to deliver on corrective services in the 2007-08 financial year?
Let me break down the prisoner statistics for the purpose of explaining my argument. The Northern Territory has the highest recidivist rate in the nation with 45% in 2007-08. Compare this to South Australia, which has the lowest rate in the nation at 33%. During the same period 2007-08, South Australia invested an additional $22m over the assessed figure required by the Commonwealth Grants Commission; the NT government underspent by $58m. I suggest people do the maths. South Australia invested in its future, and is rewarded with the nation’s lowest recidivist rate. The Northern Territory massively underspent on corrections and our citizens are punished with the highest recidivist rates in the nation - and the highest road toll per capita. It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to work out what is going on here.
The solution is rehabilitation. However, you cannot rehabilitate when there is a lack of resources in the sector. How can we expect to see a rehabilitative state where short-term prisoners on drink-driving charges are not dealt with as people who have a chronic alcohol problem, or given the training and guidance to teach them not to drink and drive? The current situation with rehabilitation at Alice Springs highlights the use of the majority of 28 beds at the Central Australian Aboriginal Program Unit for prisoners from the local gaol. Unfortunately, more than 28 prisoners in the gaol have drinking problems, or substance abuse problems. It is estimated there are 500 people in Alice Springs gaol now. Rehabilitation of repeat offenders requires a firm hand, however what choice is available to a prisoner who is part of a grossly under-resourced rehabilitation or corrective services system?
I have spoken about the need to rehabilitate prisoners. Let us not forget the real victims of crime who suffer from the life-threatening drink-drivers on our roads. They are the innocent mums and dads, the sons and daughters who drive, are driven, or walk on our roads. While the government fails to address the issues surrounding drink-driving and repeat offending drink-drivers, more people will be killed or maimed. This underspend on Corrections highlights the point I made earlier: this government is not correctly managing the Northern Territory budget. This government is presiding over a failed state: the emperor has no clothes. Notch up another for the Henderson’s dysfunctional Labor government.
Regardless of the specifics of this bill, it seeks to amend the Criminal Code Act. In doing so, I note in the Territory we have a disproportionately high number of people caught drink-driving, or dying on our roads as a result of drink-drivers. We need to send a clear message that this is part of a comprehensive package of action. Members will be aware I have introduced other motions in relation to drink-driving, and I will be introducing more in the future.
On this side of the Chamber we have comprehensive plans, and with these comprehensive plans, timetables for action; action to change the drink-driving culture in the Northern Territory. The specifics of this bill are as follows: clause 1 sets out the short title of the bill; clause 2 describes when the act will commence; clause 3 indicates the act to be amended by this bill is the Criminal Code Act; and clause 4 inserts a new section 174FB into the Code to impose a minimum penalty of 12 months imprisonment for a driver convicted of causing death or serious harm as a result of driving while affected by a blood alcohol content of greater than 0.15%, and that driver is at fault in the crash that causes the death or serious harm.
This bill is targeted at people who have undertaken a specific action, and caused a specific outcome. However, it is also meant to send a clear message about a consequence for action - prevention rather than punishment. If you undertake this activity, that is, if you are stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car when you are intoxicated, then there will be a consequence for action. Make no mistake, I will continue to pursue measures to address this behaviour for as long as I am in this House - which I hope is some time - and until such time as attitudes change, because one death on our roads is one too many.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the explanatory memorandum.
I have mentioned before the Territory has a disproportionately high number of people being caught drink-driving, or dying on our roads as a result of drink-drivers.
This bill specifically will require a first time low offender to be placed on a three month temporary zero blood alcohol level, with a penalty of loss of licence for a three month period, and if that driver breaches the zero blood alcohol content during that restricted period, they will also be re-offended. Specifically, the clauses of the bill are as follows: clause 1 sets out the short title of the bill; clause 2 describes when the act will commence; clause 3 indicates the act to be amended by this bill is the Traffic Act; clause 4 amends section 23 of the act to present drivers such as P-platers being charged under this section of the act; clause 5(1) introduces a new clause to section 24 (1A), which will apply to drivers who have committed a first offence against section 23 of the act for a temporary period of three months after being found guilty of that offence, and (1B) stipulates when the three month temporary period will begin, depending upon the offenders response to that charge.
Clause 5(2) is a minor amendment to section 24(2) omitting the words ‘the person’ and substituting the words ‘a person to whom this section applies’. Clause 5(3) introduces new subsections (7) and (8). Subsection (7) states these provisions only apply to an offender who has breached their three month temporary zero restriction, and if that person breaches those conditions then they will loose their licence for three months. Subsection (8) defines the term Fines Recovery Unit as used in proposed section 24 (1B). Clause 6 provides for transitional provisions to ensure these provisions will only apply to offences committed after the commencement of this section.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time and, in doing so, table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Respected Northern Territory writer, Nicolas Rothwell, late last year wrote in The Weekend Australian that the Northern Territory was a failed state, and successive governments have simply plundered money and resources earmarked to alleviate the terrible disadvantage we see around us to more palatable or mis-administered areas.
Nowhere is the legacy of this practice more obvious than our regional roads. We have all seen the wrecks which pass for motor vehicles; the problems are easily identifiable. However, it behoves us in this House to find solutions and explanations. There are many reasons why people might drive one of these cars. It may be because of lack of income and therefore lack of capacity to service a car; it may also be lack of capacity to register and insure the vehicle, and it might be lack of want.
There are those who are simply too lazy, or are negligent, and put their fellow Territorians lives at risk. Many people in the Territory find themselves paying for ongoing repairs and maintenance to their cars simply because of the condition of our roads. I do have compassion for those who wish to do the right thing but, for one reason or another, simply cannot. Think for one minute about the people whose cars become derelict because of the condition of our roads. Law abiding Territorians going to buy a second hand car for $5000 take it onto regional roads and within three months it looks like a candidate for the next episode of the Bush Mechanics.
In a normal jurisdiction - a place that is not a failed state, I should say - cars destroy roads, but in the Northern Territory roads destroy cars, and we do not have to look hard to find these roads; they are all around us. Whether you are on the Tiwi Islands or driving the Tanami Highway out to Yuendumu, the Sandover or the Plenty Highways, the Arnhem Highway, the Mereenie Loop, the Daly River Road - which the member for Daly has promised to fix many times, including the bridge, or the Fog Bay Road – which is also in the member for Daly’s electorate and which he has promised to fix - road works commenced before the Wet Season started, which was quite smart. It is as if they do not have the money to fix roads in the Northern Territory.
I previously referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and its report into Northern Territory spending. The Commonwealth Grants Commission topped up the Territory by $190m, to a total of $270m, in the crucial area of roads funding in 2007-08. The Henderson government had $270m to spend on roads. Guess how much they spent? $98m - a shortfall of $172m in the financial year 2007-08. They spent 37% of their funding - which was $25m less than they spent the previous year. No wonder regional roads are of a third world condition. In the last five financial years, the Henderson Labor government has underspent on roads by $484m. That equates to nearly $0.5bn underspent in a five-year period, which could have improved conditions and reduced wear and tear on cars.
This is a tough bill. This is a bill which says: ‘Get your crappy cars off the road. Get your derelict cars off the road’, the cars with no brakes that are not safe but still driven. This is what this bill is about. However, I understand both sides of the equation. I understand people who spend their hard-earned cash to buy a car and expect to drive it properly. However, it is neglect by this dysfunctional Labor government to spend money on roads to ensure people can use them safely. This is the reason these cars are on the road. I do not want to penalise people who want to use their vehicle, however I have no choice. There are people who put lives at risk by driving unroadworthy vehicles. It is tough legislation; I would like to implement both parts. Unfortunately, I only have the capacity to introduce the legislative instrument. I cannot make the Labor government, which is dysfunctional, cannot manage the budget, or fix our roads, do anything. The member for Nelson could but I do not think he will.
In addition to the lack of regional focus on roads spending by this dysfunctional Labor government, we have seen the regions go backwards in economic trade and provision of goods and services. It is harder to go shopping, attend school, or find essentials at uninflated prices. What we see is an increase in travel to obtain such services. In turn, more people are driving on bad roads.
It is important to understand the reason behind some of the social issues which force more and more people onto our roads. What situation encourages greater road network patronage - if you can call it a network? We should be finding ways to take more people off our roads. One such model is rural transport for school kids so parents do not have to drive their kids to school. We can have a public transport model. I like to call it remote bussing. I have been an advocate of remote bussing for some time now, and continue it in this House.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission report makes for some riveting reading. I will run through some of those figures. One of the most interesting areas is the financial amount spent by the dysfunctional Labor government on transporting rural children to schools throughout the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth Grants Commission tells us the Northern Territory government had $8.1m available from its own revenue source, as assessed, to spend on transport of children to rural schools. The Commonwealth Grants Commission determined the Northern Territory government needed an additional $6.6m to enable the Territory to provide the same level of service as other states and territories. So, we received extra funding which took our available funding for the 2007-08 financial year for the transport of rural schoolchildren to $14.7m.
Do you know how much the dysfunctional Henderson Labor government actually spent? Of $14.7m, how much did they spend on transporting rural children to school? I know the minister for Corrections knows this, because last week he gave someone advice that - with three hours notice, how quickly can you quote on getting a bus to transport rural kids to school ...
A member: Is this a ministerial opinion?
Mr GILES: Yes. Three hours Mr Palmer said, three hours. Of $14.7m to transport rural children to school, they spent $1m in 2007-08. It is not about the inputs - and I know my colleagues behind me, the members for Brennan and Sanderson like to castigate the government …
Mr Conlan: Dysfunctional.
Mr GILES: … the dysfunctional Labor government for the inputs they talk about - they spend $1m. The Territory is a fairly big place. I am not bus expert, but I believe it will cost more than $1m to transport all Territory kids to school.
Let me go over it again. The Northern Territory government, according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, should have spent $14.7m; they spent $1m. If you are a numbers person, they spent 7% of the assessed budget on transporting kids to school. Here we have the member for Casuarina, the minister for Family and Community Services, talking about what they are doing for kids, and how they stand up for child protection. Five ministers in nine years; four of them women, two of them Indigenous, and we are in the worst state ever with child protection – the worst state.
A member: National disgrace.
Mr GILES: A national disgrace - the Little Children are Sacred report. Here we have no money being spent on transporting rural kids to school. This is relevant to this legislation; this is why we see derelict cars being driven on dodgy roads, because the government does not fix the roads and does not provide bus services. It then wonders why the Little Children are Sacred report is out, why the Bath Report is out, and issues regarding kids. You are not looking after them. All five of the children’s services ministers are failures. Four of them are women – mothers; two of them Aboriginal, gee, can it get any worse?
In the same period the Commonwealth Grants Commission topped up the Northern Territory government requirement of $23.18m with an extra $2.2m for urban transport. However, instead of the Northern Territory dysfunctional Labor government spending $23m on urban transport in the Northern Territory, they actually spent $57m - nearly $34m over budget. It is not a problem to over-service, but that is 246% more than required to be spent to provide urban transport to Territorians, as assessed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, at the national average.
In 2007-08, the Territory government overspent in urban transport by 246%, when the transport of remote schoolchildren - a year after the Little Children are Sacred report, a year after the worst crisis in the Northern Territory in child protection - they spent 7% of the budget. Where is the priority? Who was the family and children services minister then? Who was the Transport minister; the Infrastructure minister, because you are all failures! You are bloody pathetic with kids.
We now see more free urban bus travel announced to ensure Labor stays in power. Great policy. I told you I supported it in my response. However, it is only good if you can afford it. Free travel everywhere, but the kids who have to get to school - education the great focus of Territory 2030 - you will not even transport them to school. You are even offering to build bike paths in the rural area in order to stay in government. They will build a bike path in Nelson, but they will not send a kid to school in the bush. How does the member for Nelson sit with that? How can you do that; it is a disgrace. You have to get kids to school; it says so in this lovely Territory 2030 document. You are not even sending kids to school. You are an absolute disgrace.
What about the kids in regional areas? What about cars driving over those bad roads to take kids to school? You will go to bed tonight; you will be right. Death traps on many occasions. Death traps which venture into our towns and cause hazards on our roads. I hate introducing this legislation because I know I will be taking precious vehicles from people in Alice Springs, in Braitling, and across the Territory. However, they are not safe and they are not safe because you will not fix the roads, and you will not look after the kids.
Dysfunctional Labor is not providing funding to transport rural schoolchildren, money set aside so bush kids can get to school. The Brady bunch over there, the ones playing Family Feud when the member for Johnston hates the member for whatever, and they all hate each other. Pork-barrelling the seat of Nelson with bike paths, yet it will not send kids to school. Is it only me, or does someone else have a problem with this? Where is the choice for Territorians? There is no choice in this House. Yesterday was a joke in this House.
The thievery is not limited to 2007-08. No, the big urban spenders have been doing this for the full five years of the CGC report last year. In 2003-04, the underspend on transport for rural kids to get to school was $12.1m. In 2004-05, they underspent by $10m; 2005-06 by $11m; 2006-07 by $13m - they are getting worse. The underspend is $60m for transporting rural school kids in five years. What sort of government does that? $60m should get transport for school kids in the bush. $60m directed somewhere else by this dysfunctional Labor government. Where did it go?
This bill is important because it seeks to amend the Traffic Act and introduce a concept of a Class C prescribed offence. A Class C prescribed driving offence will enable the impounding and forfeiture provisions to apply to unregistered vehicles as required. The bill has been written to accommodate the government’s hooning offences, Class A prescribed driving offences, and on the assumption the bill titled Traffic Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 38) has been passed by the Legislative Assembly.
For the purposes of explaining this for Hansard and for the minister and for government, this is talking about - in another piece of legislation before this House for debate - we have created a Class B prescribed driving offence for confiscation of vehicles where someone is caught at a high range for the third time in five years. This creates a Class C prescribed driving offence for the confiscation of vehicles, in line with the hooning legislation, which has now being reclassified as Class A. You have Class A for hooning, Class B for high rate drinking driving repeat three times, and Class C for unroadworthy vehicles.
The bill has been written to accommodate the hooning offences. I will repeat that - Class A for prescribed driving offences - and on the assumption the bill titled the Traffic Bill Amendment 2009 has been passed by the Legislative Assembly. The specifics of this bill are as follows:
clause 1 sets out the short title of the bill;
clause 7 amends the heading and provisions within section 29AH to accommodate a Class C prescribed driving offence and enable the courts to impose an impounding order for a second Class C prescribed driving offence;
Today we take a step forward to ensure all Territorians accept their responsibility to have a vehicle which is safe and roadworthy. The great challenge which remains is getting the dysfunctional, arrogant, tired and lazy Henderson government, to meet its responsibility to spend funding earmarked to tackle disadvantage responsibly.
It is a gargantuan task, possibly one beyond all of us, that is unless you are the member for Nelson. We might die trying, particularly if it involves venturing out onto regional roads. Whatever the future, it will be a work in progress for my friends on this side of the Chamber. While we live under this dysfunctional Labor government we will continue to have no choice, and will continue to be the laughing stock of the country; a pimple on the backside of the federal government and, as Nicolas Rothwell said, a failed bill.
To rest my case, I will quickly go over drink-drive statistics in the Northern Territory. According to the Police annual report - and I will quote here for the benefit of the member for Barkly:
The numbers of drink-drivers that come in are only relative to the people tested. In the Northern Territory, in the period 1 July 2008 to 31 August 2009, 13 months as indicated here, it says 155 000 breath tests were conducted, which I believe is good. I believe the Minister for Transport has increased the drink-driving - I am not sure if comes under you or the minister for Police, but is a good thing - 49 000 in Alice Springs and the southern region, 63 000 in the Greater Darwin Region, and 37 000 in the Katherine Northern region.
The highest number of people caught are in the Greater Darwin region - 1487 in that period - which is quite interesting because they had 63 000 tests, and picked up nearly 1500 people. Alice Springs and the southern region had 15 000 tests and picked up 1300. Proportionately there appears to be slightly more in the Greater Darwin area. In the Katherine region, there were 37 000 tests for 862 people; of the people picked up for drink-driving 3000 were male, and 760 female.
An interesting component is who is picked up at low range, medium range, and high range. This is all relative to the legislation. Of 3700 people drink-driving, there are about 1400 at high range, which is significantly higher than 0.05%. There were nearly 2000 at medium range, and 360 at low range. When more than 90% of drink-drivers in the Northern Territory are at medium or high range, that is a clear problem. It is interesting when you look at the people who were picked up. There were 87 people picked up for drink-driving in the Northern Territory in that 13 month period under 18 years of age. Two 13-year-olds were picked up at medium range, and eight people picked up who were 15-year-olds. It is a problem.
I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to the debate.
Debate adjourned.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that –
I know we have a new Education minister. For the previous Education minister, I have to say, the pressure mounted towards the end of last year. In Alice Springs, the community pressure mounted on the Northern Territory government with relation to these issues, and the state of Acacia Hill School has dragged the government kicking and screaming to address some of these issues. The government has coughed up to the tune of about $5m for Acacia Hill School to address some of the deplorable issues surrounding the school, as highlighted in this audit.
In the interest of time, we can save some rhetoric and commend the government for listening to the community - well overdue I believe. Granted the school has been around for a long time; it was built in 1980. It was not really built to special school standards and, of course, previous governments need to take some responsibility for that. This side of the House certainly does accept some responsibility, despite none of us being in this Chamber at the time. Nevertheless, this government has failed that school in the last eight years by, essentially, turning its back on some of the issues.
I do not know whether the new Education minister has toured the school. He has only been in the job a short time. I hope he will have a look at the state of the school. There are also Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue schools; there are special schools across the Northern Territory, however Acacia Hill School is the stand-out case of government neglect. It is really quite appalling. By virtue of being a special school, the children, parents and teachers do not really have a strong voice in the community. The special needs and special attention required by the children, and given by the staff and parents, does not leave much time for advocacy in the community. Hence, they turn to local members, and their elected representative in various ministerial portfolios, for some representation and voice to have those issues resolved.
I can go through some of the issues the audit highlighted. The front entry door is automatic and is no longer working. The issue is use of a manual sliding door. I believe that was rectified before the money was allocated. The furniture in the learning area is not adjustable; therefore, not adequate for special purpose use. Circulation is non-compliant in the special learning room. In the male toilets, the door handles are non-compliant, and circulation is non-compliant. Clearance to hardware is non-compliant. Door handles in the female toilets, circulation, and clearance are non-compliant. In the learning areas, the door handles are non-compliant, and the sink and bench are not adequate for disabled access. Disabled showers: again circulation, clearance, and door handles are all non-compliant. The corridor to the shower room is only 990 mm wide, which is non-compliant for special purpose learning.
We must remember, while you may be able to get a wheelchair through some of these areas, again, by virtue of the disabilities some of these children have, they do not sit up in a wheelchair like we might expect. Sometimes, the leg might be sticking, or their arm is out because of their disability. So, a standard doorway that takes a wheelchair is not always adequate for special purpose needs, particularly in this case, as identified in the audit. Nearly every single entry and doorway in Acacia Hill is non-compliant for special purpose learning and special purpose needs. Cubicle doors do not have door handles. The shower is domestic type and non-compliant. Again, when this was built in 1980, it was pretty much built to a mainstream school standard, not for special purpose needs. It was basically built to a 1950s standard model in 1980, under the previous government. We did not do everything right but, in the last nine years, none of this has been addressed; it has been left. The same goes for Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue.
In the craft room, for example, only 770 mm for the door, which is non-compliant, and circulation is non-compliant. In the learning area the sink and bench are not adequate for disabled access; clearance, again non-compliant. Circulation is non-compliant; basin, bath and washroom were all too close and do not have required circulation space.
I am sure the government has seen this; I hope they have. There are about 70 to 75 non-compliant items in the Acacia Hill Special School audit. The audit was done five years ago, and the school is still operating like this. We do welcome the money spent. As I say, the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming as a result of some of the political pressure put on through the community in the media, and also the intestinal fortitude of the current administration of Acacia Hill School. They have said: ‘I know I work for the Northern Territory government, but it is the kids who are important, so I am prepared to put my neck on the block and cop whatever comes if it means standing up and getting the best deal for these kids’. The children, staff, and the parents do not really have a strong voice in the community because they are so swamped, and so busy with what they are doing.
The $5m, we really need to see that addressed. We hope the government will address it. We want to see a time frame; exactly when we are going to see this brought up to speed. It is a matter of urgency. I hope the minister will tour the school. I hope the Minister for Central Australia has been to the school; I am sure he has - I hope he has - and I hope he is advocating the cause to the new Education minister. He can go there and see how appalling the conditions are - and they really are. It is not running the school down, they do a fabulous job in the face of adversity; they face this adversity every single day.
One of the restraining methods they use is like something out of a torture chamber. It is so heartbreaking to see these kids in old leather straps tied to a bench. As I say, something you might see out of the House of Horrors; it is terrible. We need to bring it into the 21st century. We really need to show some compassion for special needs children. They often get left off the radar; they do not have a strong voice and hence, they do get overlooked.
We have spent time talking about mainstream education in this House over the last few days, Indigenous education; however, there is also a group of special needs children out there. Acacia Hill School is in the electorate of Greatorex. I am very proud to represent it; I have a great relationship with the school. There are also schools at Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue.
We want to see these issues addressed immediately with that $5m. I would like to seek a briefing from the minister and the department, as the local member representing the school, where we go from here and where the money is going to be spent and, if indeed, it will go to addressing these serious issues and bring the school up to a 21st century standard.
The other part of the motion is the Northern Territory government develop a master plan for construction of a purpose-built special education facility in Alice Springs. I believe you could extrapolate that and suggest we need one in the Top End also. However, Acacia Hill School was built in 1980 to a 1950 standard. Not very good, and certainly not best practice when it comes to special education and special care needs. There has been advancement in special care; there is better training. Our staff, teachers and parents are better equipped to deal with special care and special needs children. I believe that should be reflected in a special purpose education facility.
I believe it is incumbent on this government to develop a master plan to build a special purpose education facility for Central Australia. The place is burgeoning at the seams as a result of being the only special care needs facility in Central Australia. The catchment is all Central Australia and, in fact, moving up towards the Top End; there is nothing in between so it is a huge catchment area. There are many children in remote communities who need special care, who require this sort of education facility, but are unable to access it purely because of the lack of room and facilities in Central Australia. If we are serious about education, if this government is serious about education, we need to not overlook those children requiring special care needs.
There is nothing in the Territory 2030 document to say that. I guess it is a broad brushstroke of what we aim to achieve. Education is mentioned in Territory 2030. I hope while we look at Indigenous education and mainstream education in our urban centres, we do not neglect those children who need support more than others, who do not have a voice, and as a result do not have a champion and therefore, do tend to be overlooked.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory government develop a master plan for the construction of a purpose built special education facility in Alice Springs. I commend this motion to the House, and I hope others in this Chamber will take interest in this motion. It is very important, and I hope they will see their way clear to support it.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for bringing this motion into the House. I also commend him for his advocacy for Acacia Hill School. It is true to say the Chief Minister, as the former Education minister, certainly was a driving force in securing the funding for special schools right across the Territory, and I commend him for that. He is someone who has engaged with the special schools and, like the member for Greatorex, has realised the great need within those schools.
The member for Greatorex has acknowledged there is expenditure planned for Acacia Hill School. I have a chart which will show the year-on-year expenditure up to $5.6m in Acacia Hill School, as well as Nemarluk, Henbury, Kintore Street, Palmerston High, Woodroffe Primary, the new Palmerston school and also Palmerston rural to a total, at the end of the 2013-14 financial year, of $33.65m. To some degree, as the member for Greatorex acknowledged, the planned expenditure does address the issues raised within the audit. Also, government would argue very strongly the significant amount of funding is part of a plan for special education facilities, not only in Alice Springs, but also Darwin and Palmerston and Katherine.
I acknowledge what the member for Greatorex has said. In the interests of time, and the efficiency of General Business day, I certainly will not be speaking at length on this motion. However, it is important to place on the record why government will not be supporting the motion. I have already outlined the reason, and what government is doing.
I will table this chart, and I have passed on to my office the request by the member for Greatorex to have a briefing on Acacia Hill School, and what expenditure is planned at Acacia Hill School. That will occur.
The Department of Education and Training has undertaken considerable work to identify the current and future facilities required for special schools, and special school annexes. Based on this and demographic work, there is a predicted increase in the number of students with disabilities. The department has identified capital works programs for all our special schools in our capital city, and towns. These works will provide our special schools students and their families with the infrastructure and facilities needed to deliver high quality special education programs.
On the issue of advocacy for special schools mentioned by the member for Greatorex, I can say as a local member, at various times I have been approached by parents with children with special needs, and in the special education system, and more often than not I have found those parents to be very articulate and very strong in their advocacy. They are certainly a group who are well informed, and who know what should be done in relation to their children and special education.
Since 2001 government has focused on large scale improvements across the education and training sectors. We have had Building Better Schools, middle years and senior years, Closing the Gap and Northern Territory school infrastructure upgrades delivering up to $30 000 to allow primary schools, large group schools and special schools to improve facilities. The program is delivering improvements such as an early learning centre at Minyerri, and refurbishments to classrooms and administration buildings at various locations across the Territory.
This year we have also seen the Australian government target stimulus spending into the Building the Education Revolution, or the BER. By 2011, Northern Territory government schools, including special schools, will receive $204m in infrastructure investment through this stimulus package. Now is the turn of our special schools. I acknowledge what the member for Greatorex says, it is really the right time and it is coming after advocacy by a number of people in relation to our special schools, however, I am glad it is happening now.
The $30m investment over five years will build and upgrade special schools across the Territory. It will allow us to better accommodate the growth of the Territory’s special education needs. It will see improvement across special schools, and special education annexes in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs.
I will go through the various locations. At Nemarluk, this funding will enable infrastructure and improvements to complement the $1.15m BER investment. A working group, including the principal, school staff, parents and departmental representatives have already started planning how to use the funding to advantage students and the school community. Over the next three years the additional $4.6m will deliver facilities such as new classrooms, attend to the drop-off zone, resolve draining issues, and rebuild the hydro pool.
At Acacia Hill, which is the focus of this motion, the additional $4.3m will build on the $1.3m 2009-10 BER and Northern Territory government funding to construct new classrooms, refurbish and extend existing buildings, install a hydro pool, as well as replace outdated demountables with buildings.
At Henbury School, an additional $2m by 2012 will complement the current $850 000 BER investment to provide much needed upgrades to core facilities, as well as the replacement of demountable structures.
At Kintore Street School, in 2012-13 the government will deliver $2m to construct a new ablution block and replace existing demountables with buildings.
Further to this, works are also in the pipeline to upgrade facilities and expand capacity at the Palmerston High annexe for an additional 20 students; and at Woodroffe Primary for an additional 10 students.
In order to ease existing capacity pressures at special schools around Darwin, and to accommodate future population around Palmerston and Litchfield, it is proposed a new $10m special education purpose built facility be constructed in Palmerston. This new school will cater for primary students providing capacity for up to 100 students in the long term, and it is anticipated the construction of the new school will commence in 2011-12.
The rural area of Darwin and Palmerston will also see an additional new P6 special education annexe catering for up to 20 students. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure will work with DET, and other stakeholders, to identify appropriate sites to locate the new school and special education annexe.
This investment in facilities and infrastructure has come from extensive work by government to analyse factors such as demographic and enrolment trends, transportation needs, as well as parent desires for their children to access education through satellite classes in either mainstream schools or special schools. It also complements the development of a comprehensive policy framework around the models for delivery of special school services which ensures future infrastructure provisioning aligns with the needs of the Northern Territory community. This includes looking at service provision to schools.
The Department of Education and Training has already commenced implementation of the Smart Territory strategies to take us on quality early intervention and identification programs, working on a funding model for special needs students to ensure funding practices best meet the needs of students and schools, and is developing online professional learning packages with teachers to upskill and build capacity of teachers working with students with special needs in our mainstream and special school context.
This government is committed to providing the infrastructure and services needed to manage the growth of the Territory. Our Smart Territory strategy is committed to providing quality infrastructure to support the diverse needs of Territory students. For the reasons I have outlined previously, we propose the Northern Territory government has addressed the issues identified through the departmental reviews and audits of special schools, including Acacia Hill School, and the Northern Territory government announcement, on Thursday, 19 November 2009, will direct and deliver significant funding improvements in special education facilities in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs to the tune of some $30m.
I commend the member for Greatorex for bringing this motion before the House. I believe the government is acting and investing significantly in this issue. I commend the work of all those in special schools across the Territory and, for the reasons outlined, we will not be supporting the motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why you would not support the motion, whatever the reasons outlined. It is ridiculous that any government would not support such a motion. There is nothing abhorrent in it; it is simply saying you are going to immediately address issues which have been identified in a 2005 report - an audit of schools - and you would develop a master plan for construction purposes to build special education facilities in Alice Springs. What is the problem with that? Where can you find issue with that? I know the member for Nelson abhors politics, but not to support such a motion is base politics at its worse. It is burying your head in the sand.
I am speaking today particularly to implore the new minister for Education to take a stand and get out and have a look at Nemarluk Special School, a school in my electorate. The principal there is decorated in glory. Last year, he won the Principal of the Year Award - a significant award. He does a great job.
I was interested to hear the minister say parents of kids with special needs are great advocates, and great at getting their messages to government. That is absolute nonsense. These people generally suffer in silence. They are one of the least vocal groups in our community. You only have to check out some of these schools to know how badly they are doing. It is an absolute disgrace! I understand the Four Corners program last night drew attention to these problems in another part of the country. Goodness me, if they are any worse than in the Northern Territory, things must be absolutely dreadful.
The minister said that Nemarluk School has been promised somewhere in the vicinity of $5m or $6m. This is not even going to touch the sides of work required there. They are massively oversubscribed as far as students go; the principal is lending his office to teachers and students to do work. It is ridiculous that you have a situation where a principal has to vacate his office so kids can learn and teachers have a place to meet. They are massively cramped; they have a massive lack of space. $5m-odd is not even going to touch the sides; it is simply a stop-gap measure.
Minister, I am putting you on notice right now: this school is not kicking up a stink in the media; they are not running to Channel 9, the ABC or the NT News. My goodness, they should be, because they should be embarrassing the hell out of this government because these things cannot continue the way they are. I do not intend to talk for long. I just want you to know, minister, you are on notice.
We are watching very closely what happens, particularly at Nemarluk School but also all those other special schools around the Territory. The situation we have cannot go on. Before you all jump up and blame past governments, everyone is at fault here. The fact is, everyone is at fault. We need to get in and fix this problem as a matter of urgency. Quite frankly, the situation at special schools around the Territory, and the situation of special needs kids, is appalling and abhorrent. None of us should settle for what is happening at the moment.
I know government has been dragged to the table and is looking at some of these things, but to say: ‘We have this wonderful program’, and that sort of stuff, is a plain nonsense. I know exactly what has been going on. I have been involved in school council meetings. I know government is dragging its feet, however, your attention has been drawn to it and I hope you start to act on it.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Greatorex for the work he has done in Alice Springs, visiting with and speaking to parents and educators, witnessing the very challenging circumstances the very dedicated staff have to work in, without raising complaint to an unreasonable level. In fact, their quietness is a reinforcement of how serious this need is, and if we cannot respond to the needs of those who are suffering as they are, then we really are not worth recognising as a civil society.
I have visited Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue twice in the last couple of years, and of course Palmerston, and I acknowledge the fine work of the local member, the member for Fong Lim, in engaging the parent community. I go one step further - and the challenge has already been raised - that the minister attend, if he has not already attended, a parent meeting at Nemarluk and Henbury, and to take a tour through the school, and do the same at Acacia and listen to the stories of those parents, and explain to them how it was that, in 2005, a review was conducted which identified the infrastructure requirements of the whole system, including Alice Springs; and how was it that survey, that work done in 2005, prior to an election, resulted in the impression things were occurring - and nothing flowed from that?
I was aware of its existence. At that stage I had visited Henbury and parents there told me in their view they felt they had been given a snow job. They were responded to by the minister for Education at that time, Mr Henderson, by saying, yes, we will now commission an investigation of the infrastructure needs. Those infrastructure needs were assessed. They went away. They thought now something is at least going to happen. Of course then the heat went out of it and then we had an election - 2005. In 2006, they woke up again and thought they had been duped; the parents of kids who have so much demand on them to look after these kids had been duped.
Then in 2007 the pressure started to mount again: do not worry, we will have another one of a slightly different type, but this time we will provide a strategic response, short-term and mid-to long-term, with a number of options. They were placated to some degree again, but they have been once bitten, and these parents should not be treated in such a way, nor should the educators be treated in such a way. Those dedicated assistants should not be treated in such a way. There was another one in 2007, and believe it or not, after repeated requests - informal for starters - no problem we will give it to you - it did not arrive; it never arrived. Then I had to go through the formal process; then I had to call in the media. Finally, we get this, which was produced in 2007. I do not know why this is such a secretive document. You can only judge now it was for the purposes of managing a political situation rather than providing clear and honest communication to parents who should be spoken to and respected for the struggles they go through. We now have Planning for Future Service Provision for Students with Disabilities in Darwin and Palmerston. I finally received it after calls to the media in 2009. It was done in May 2007, and we now have it.
I heard the phrase: ‘And so I have outlined the reasons why government will not be supporting this’. I would like an explanation as to why this had to be demanded. Why there have been two investigations. Why those parents have been misled by the response of government which was effectively to say: ‘Do not worry, we are onto it. We are going to conduct a review - bury it’, or when the heat comes on: ‘Do not worry, we are going to have another look and this will be slightly different. It will be beefed up’, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and it is buried. All the time these parents - you should meet them - have to wonder how this could occur.
This motion should be supported because contained in the review of 2007 is an outline of the strategic response required. I believe all we need to know is where we are going, not just to mention there is a problem and money is going to be spent here, there and everywhere - hope it goes away now; politically solving a problem - but we actually now have a clearly described and committed to strategic plan. I believe the short-term stuff has happened, however the mid- to long-term has three options which have been outlined. Which one of those options is being committed to, and what serious discussion has now been entered into with those parents so they have some sense of a future. They need some assistance; they are the ones who really need our help.
I urge honourable members, irrespective of the statement made by the minister, for goodness sake, for the sake of those parents - f you spent some time with them, and then look at that motion, how could you not support it? I cannot understand it. I would like someone from the other side, apart from the minister, to explain. Give me your argument of why you will not support it. Stand up and explain why the government will not support it. Read it; just read it. Just read it and then explain. Someone stand up on their hind legs and explain why they will not support it. It must be supported.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the motion the member for Greatorex has brought to this House. I am the grandparent of a child who was at Acacia. He was 15. He was born on 25 December 1994, and died on 26 December, a day after his birthday last year, at the age of 15. I believe it is really important, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we do understand the parents and grandparents, and mums and dads of these children. One of the things people from Acacia Hill said at young Jordan’s funeral was he loved green balloons. The member for Fong Lim raised something very important. Jordan was one of those little children with a disability who needed a huge wheelchair because he could not sit up straight. He had to have a wheelchair he could lie down in.
They do a fantastic job with the resources government has put in. The opposition has taken some blame for the things they did not do while they were in government. The minister has acknowledged the slowness of acting on Acacia Hill School, and any school which caters for children with disabilities. It is really important. As the member for Fong Lim said, these are the silent children in our community, and their parents are also silent because they are a minority. I believe it is really important, and I want to reflect on young Jordan’s life - my little grandson. He was born with meningitis, and we did not have the facilities at Papunya to look after him as he got older because he needed therapy in the swimming pool. The houses out there did not have bathtubs, so as family, we took the initiative to put him into St Mary’s, in the grey house where all children with disabilities live - it is now Life without Barriers - and he went to Acacia Hill School.
The people at St Mary’s, the teachers and carers, were tremendously beautiful people. These people became part of Jordan’s life. They were his grandparents and his mums and dads, his carers in moving him from Papunya into St Mary’s. We had the occasional visits on his birthday and Christmas and spent those times with him, and when my nephew and his wife had a car to visit him in Alice Springs, they would come in on a monthly or quarterly basis.
It is really important we see the human side, the real side of these children with disabilities. When you go into the grey house, you will see it is Indigenous children with disabilities. I know there is a young girl from my own electorate of Docker River, her mother put her there - she is a baby with a disability. The only contact she has is when she goes home to Docker River on holidays, but her real parents are the people who give her the day-to-day care at the school, and also where they live.
It is really important, not just as politicians, most of us in this House are mums and dads, grandparents now, and we really need to reflect that we are dealing with the most vulnerable; the silent of our community. I want to place on the public record that I support the motion the member for Greatorex has put to this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting motion because it goes back a while. I suppose I could be a little cynical in saying perhaps the solutions to some of the problems announced since this was first put to parliament might have been due to some publicity. I believe the Leader of the Opposition did a trip down to Alice Springs and had problems working out how a wheelchair could access a certain building; so I could be cynical in saying the government was going to do something. I could also say perhaps the government needed a bit of a shove up the backside, and the Leader of the Opposition did point out, along with the member for Greatorex, there were some serious issues in relation to some of these buildings.
Whoever is right or wrong in that argument, it appears something has happened, which is good. I must admit, I had problems with why the government would not support this if it has supported it financially. It recognised there was a problem, we fix it financially, and then we say we do not support it. It sends an unusual message.
I also have been concerned about special education, and I regard myself as a learner in this area. It is one of those subjects I need to learn more about. In Bees Creek Primary School, we have one of the best special education facilities. The reason we have that terrific facility is simply because one of the fathers, who is a builder, who has three or four children, was able to put his expertise into being able to nearly double the size of the facility the government had funded. Bees Creek Primary School is extremely lucky to have someone who was able to double a certain amount of money simply because he was donating his own work and expertise.
That is the building; sometimes the buildings are not the only thing. I know too, and I will not mention any names, a friend of mine who was recently teaching special education children - up to 120 who would come to that place and go back to the classroom. I should say, while I am talking about it, this is one of the problems with pulling out statistics in regard to NAPLAN. If you have a school with a large number of special education kids, that will reflect in some of the figures. You cannot use plain data to make a statement; sometimes that data has to be analysed according to each school to see why those matters occur.
Getting back to special education, the amount of work required by that person was enormous. The amount of paperwork was enormous. The amount of time spent on weekends working for these children was enormous. In fact, that person decided to leave simply because the workload was too great. That is an area where we have to be careful. People who deal in the special education area are special people. They are dealing with special kids with special needs, and it can be very wearing. We need to ensure we do not burn out those people. We need to ensure they have adequate resources. It does not matter where you are in the Territory, we need to emphasise special education.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned Nemarluk. This particular builder and I had a meeting with the department of Education. Being a builder, he recognised Nemarluk has some major failings; it is trying to squash in extra buildings on a slope. Because he has experience with children, he understands some of the problems. That is where I, as an ordinary bloke in the street who has not had to work through issues of autistic children or other issues, am learning. I am learning things I never knew; about the way children react, the way children need to have buildings in a certain manner. Even colours can affect kids.
I am speaking from very limited knowledge. One thing I do know is this is an area which is not decreasing in need; it is increasing in need. For what reason? We are not here to discuss that; we do not know. However, it certainly is something that is increasing, and we have to do something about it. It is pleasing to see the government has put in some money. The $10m for the new PS special school in Palmerston, which will take up to a 100 students, is a great move. That will not only serve Palmerston, but also the rural area. That money is welcome.
Getting back to the original motion, until the government sometimes get a little boost, or a bit of bad publicity, it can get into that nonchalant mood. It has to be far more proactive. Even if it does not have the money available now, it should be promoting what it is intending to do. We can check that you are going to do it, but it has to be more proactive. Tell families out there you support them - make the statement that you support them. It is hard on these parents; there is no doubt about it. You can see why they want a weekend off sometimes, because they need a break. The more I get to know the issues in special education, the more I respect the teachers who look after these children, and I have great respect for the parents.
To some extent, they are nearly heroes because their life is taken over by this. They have to live their lives as well, with jobs and the normal things any other parent has to do, but they also have to take on the special needs. Of course, these kids are loved just like anyone else, but there are probably times when the loves gets stretched because of the stress. Underneath it all, they are very much loved. We, as parliamentarians, should encourage the government to ensure the best is - from the government’s point of view - there to help these young children to live as normal a life as possible in the future, and also show support for parents doing it hard trying to bring up these children.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion. The government has said it has dealt with all these issues, so it is difficult to understand. I hope it is not a matter of pride, because I do not believe it does any harm to support this motion. The member for Greatorex - love him or hate him - is a passionate fellow at times. Sometimes he wears it on top of his head, and that is why he has no hair. However, he could be used by the government to help, in a bipartisan way, in the master plan and all that work. It is good if we can use our local people who know the issues. I do not think it does any harm at all.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who spoke. I thank the member for Macdonnell for her passionate speech; obviously a real attachment to Acacia Hill School and the needs of the children, and the pressures on staff and parents at our special schools across the Territory. I thank the member for Nelson for his support. I think it is a no-brainer. There is nothing controversial in this motion: the Northern Territory government immediately addressed the issues identified in the 2005 Department of Infrastructure and Planning Environment Special Schools Audit of Acacia Hill School and resolved with urgency.
By the government not supporting, you do not support that we get compliant circulation, or compliant hand rails, or compliant bathrooms, compliant showers, or compliant learning areas for our special school needs. The member for Stuart does not support a compliant special school - is that right? Is that what you are saying by not supporting this, member for Stuart? I assume you are going to vote with the government, so I can go to the school and say the Minister for Central Australia and member for Stuart does not support addressing the issues identified in this 2005 Acacia Hill School Special Audit? I can confidently say that to them, and I will be correct? Is that correct, minister?
Dr Burns: I will see the funds expended, so I will know what is going on.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. I can also say the minister for Education does not support bringing up 75 non-compliant issues, and immediately addressing these issues to bring the school up to some sort of 21st century standard. I can say that, can I minister? Because …
Dr Burns: You can say what you want to say.
Mr CONLAN: … you have said you will not immediately support and address the issues identified in this 2005 report. What can we draw from that? What can we conclude?
Dr Burns: You can draw whatever you draw, which is usually a …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You can play games with intellectually and physically disabled children’s lives, and their parents, and the staff if you like, but shame on you. This is absolutely pathetic. The Northern Territory government does not support the special needs school to bring it up to standard.
Dr Burns: We funded it.
Mr CONLAN: You do not support it.
Dr Burns: We have already funded it.
Mr CONLAN: You said you will not support it.
Dr Burns: We have already funded it.
Mr CONLAN: Every one of you is a parent, every single one. Member for Nhulunbuy - I can say the member for Nhulunbuy does not support addressing the 75 non-compliant items to bring that school up to the 21st century. I can say that. I can say that about the member for Karama, the Attorney-General and Treasurer – she does not care; she does not want to support addressing immediately the non-compliant issues in this report. Can I tell them that?
Ms Lawrie: You can tell them we have already funded it.
Mr CONLAN: You have? Well, support the motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Why will you not support the motion? You may have the funding, however, we have not seen these issues addressed. You said you have addressed it.
Dr Burns: We have done it.
Mr CONLAN: You have not done it. You have not done it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You have not addressed these issues. Go to the school and have a look. Go to the school yourself, minister.
Dr Burns: I have been there.
Mr CONLAN: Go there again. Go there next week. Go there on Friday and see exactly how many of these things have been addressed.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Hampton: I have been there.
Mr CONLAN: You have no idea. You are heartless …
Mr Hampton: I have been there.
Mr CONLAN: It is an absolute disgrace, and a blight on the human nature of this parliament. I can say to my constituents, and the people I talk to, not only every single member of the Northern Territory Labor Party, the minister for Education, the member for Nhulunbuy, the Attorney-General, who smirks and thinks it is all a big joke …
Ms Lawrie: I am not smirking.
Mr CONLAN: You are. You are sitting there laughing and scoffing at the whole thing.
Ms Lawrie: I am not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You are taking the mickey out of people who work under these enormous pressures, with special needs children, the parents and the staff, and the children themselves, by not supporting this motion.
The member for Nhulunbuy, the Minister for Central Australia - the Minister for Central Australia, for goodness sake, does not support the motion.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Why do you not have the courage of your own convictions and cross the floor?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Someone on the 5th floor has prepared a speech for you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You have no idea. Member for Daly, why don’t you show the courage of your convictions, a bit of gumption, cross the floor and support it? We know the Treasurer - you do not even need the air-conditioning in this House because as soon as she walks in the temperature lowers by five degrees. The member for Arnhem is the minister for Indigenous affairs. There are an enormous number of Indigenous children in communities requiring special education facilities. Here we have a government, and every single one of you, all of you sitting there, do not support the immediate addressing of 75 non-compliant items to bring this school up to standard.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry? Did you say you do or you do not support it?
Dr Burns: Get on with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Do you support it? Can I ask the Minister for Central Australia …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Greatorex should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I encourage you to remind the dysfunctional government of Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. All members, member for Braitling, including you, should not be interrupting.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The silence is actually deafening from members who should be saying something, namely the Minister for Central Australia, who has abrogated his duty as the Minister for Central Australia, a local member, someone who lives in the electorate where the school is situated; he has abrogated his duty. I can confidently walk down the street and tell anyone interested - and many people are very interested in what is happening at Acacia Hill School in Central Australia, and indeed, right across Central Australia. I can tell them this government does not support special education facilities in the 21st century. They do not want to create a master plan for construction of a purpose built special education facility in Alice Springs.
You say you have put some money on the table - $33m over five years is not even going to touch the sides of special care education; it will not even touch the sides. You think that is enough; you can walk away and wash your hands. It is an absolute disgrace across the Northern Territory, and it feeds right into the national disgrace not only this government is, but the Australian Labor Party.
I thank the member for Nelson for supporting this, and I thank the member for Macdonnell for supporting this. They obviously have a conscience; they understand; they can see it. It is not rocket science. The government will not support it; the two Independents support it, and with the support of the Country Liberals, I hope this motion will get up.
So, shame on you, shame on you, minister. I am looking forward to telling people the government does not care. They will say it is more of the same. It is disgraceful, and I do not understand it. I do not understand how you can allow children to continue in that environment right across the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Giles: Maybe we should have a division.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot call a division when it has been decided in the ayes.
Mr Giles: It was a joke, Madam Speaker. I wanted to see the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government –
(a) support the development of rural residential land near the Alice Springs Airport as mentioned in the Draft Alice Springs Master Plan 2009;
I know some of this was debated at the Alice Springs sittings last year, however, I still believe the issue needs discussion. I also understand the government has written to the federal minister, Mr Anthony Albanese, to urge him to deal with this matter as a priority. I understand they have received an acknowledgement but, so far, nothing has occurred to say he is going to make a decision one way or the other. I have also written to the honourable minister asking him to expedite this matter.
I understand the government is getting close to doing the headworks for the Arid Zone Research Institute site which has the potential to produce around 1400 sites; something we all know is desperately needed in Alice Springs. I refer to the Centralian Advocate of Friday, 12 February, which describes where the land will be, and shows a picture of the AZRI land site, and it says there is an opportunity to develop between 1168 or 1453 dwellings at AZRI; which is extremely important.
I believe the concern is, as stated in this paper, the government might not release land quickly enough in an attempt to bring the price of land down to where it could be regarded as affordable. There has always been a concern by the government if you release too much land it might affect the market. I believe the market is healthy enough to take a bit of a battering. There is no doubt people have seen extraordinary increases in land prices far beyond what you would normally expect for investment. I believe sanity in the market would not do any harm at all.
Forgetting that side of it, it is time we were able to help people stay in the Territory, especially our young people, especially people starting work in the Territory, because if we give them some land at a reasonable price they can build a house.
I am interested in what is happening with AZRI, but AZRI bounds the Alice Springs airport land. That is why I believe we should be pushing hard for that land to be developed now. How long has it taken to develop the AZRI land? Quite a while - I have known about it for some time. AZRI was cited in a future plan for Alice Springs, and I have been told it takes about three years to develop land. Not only have you all the normal things such as native title, the environmental side of things, you have also to work out where you are going to get the water, the sewerage, the electricity. You have to work out the headworks, which are separate from the subdivision. That has to be planned and designed. You have to ensure you have enough water to supply the number of people in the community. That takes time, and AZRI is not ready to go yet. One of the reasons is the headworks have to be designed and built, and someone has to pay for those. Hopefully that will not be too far away, because I believe that will relieve the housing shortage.
With the possibility of another 2000 properties on the federal airport site, the government needs to convince the federal government to approve this use of land. By the time we start to develop the AZRI land, we want to have most of the hard work done on the federal airport site.
It really is important. In fact, the master plan says, when commenting on this:
This is the development of this land:
I am not sure what ASA stands for.
Mr Giles: Alice Springs Airport.
Mr WOOD: Alice Springs Airport, thank you. Acronyms are not my thing.
You have the opportunity to develop a small rural subdivision - it talks about 2000 lots; there are quite a number of lots to be developed there - and do it in a smart and intelligent way, being able to reuse water and, where possible, using solar energy.
There are times when the government has to go past writing a letter. If the government believes the development of land in Alice Springs is a goal which needs achieving, it has to meet with Mr Albanese, or get Mr Albanese to visit Alice Springs Airport and see for himself.
We are not talking about land in the A and F contours; we are looking at land outside, so there are no noise problems. We are dealing with land to the north of the airport. The areas where you do not want to build, of course, are the approaches; that is the area to stay away from. Mr Anthony Albanese comes from Sydney; I believe his electorate is near the airport. He obviously has a fair amount of interest from his constituents about airport noise. I would not want to see a repeat of Sydney, but the master plan shows there is land available around the Alice Springs Airport which will not be affected by noise, and is sitting there waiting to be developed. The master plan says, yes. Comments on the master plan have closed.
The NT government has to say to Mr Albanese: ‘Come on, have a look at the issues, talk to the locals, talk to the council, the airport managers, and ascertain if this land can be developed in relation to its proximity to the airport. If so, give it the okay and let the locals, the NT government, and Alice Springs City Council be involved in this development, along with the airport management’.
If we do not drive this, we will release AZRI land and then find ourselves behind the eight-ball again. It is better to have this land waiting for development so we keep providing affordable housing. I have had people ring me saying: ‘I have come up from south as a teacher; I cannot afford the rent. It is better we pack up and go home’. We do not want that situation. We have to make it attractive for people to stay in the Northern Territory. We talk about having the right people in special education, the right people to lead our schools - we are looking for 17 principals. If we want those people to come, we have to ensure they are not worse off than in the southern states. We need to attract people, and ensure we have affordable housing.
The other aspect of this motion is to ask the federal minister - if this land is developed – to give permission for the Alice Springs Town Council to rate it. If that is not allowed to happen, you will develop 2000 lots outside the control of the Alice Springs Town Council which, by their very nature, will place a burden on the council. Even if someone attends to the roads in that area, those people will live in Alice Springs; they will visit Alice Springs, they will put their rubbish in the bins, they will use the parks and the facilities.
As part of this request to Mr Albanese, there needs to be a request that the land developed is handed over; it is made rateable by the local council. Otherwise, the burden will be taken up by Alice Springs residents, because the council will not be able to afford it unless they increase rates to existing residents. It might sound a small thing, and not be of interest to many people but, having been in local government, the last thing you want is a development in your back yard which requires services from you, and you do not receive funds to cover those costs.
I believe that is an important issue. Mayor Damien Ryan raised it with me. He believes if land is to be developed we have to ensure, hand in hand, comes ownership; at least ownership from the point of view of being able to rate the land, otherwise it is very difficult to not increase rates in other parts of the city.
I do not know whether the minister for Lands has any comments, but when I was at the Coolabah Estate subdivision, which has been going for a long time - I think even when I was in local government. It is one of those subdivisions which has been given approval but has stalled, partly because of the economic climate, and other reasons. It is located to the south - my geography is a bit wonky on Alice Springs. It has been around a long time, and I do not know if the minister has seen the subdivision. It is partially developed, but has come to a dead end. I believe it has well over 100 blocks of land that could be put on the market fairly quickly.
I am not sure whether the minister has had contact with the owners of Coolabah subdivision. They had me out and about when I was in Alice Springs for the sittings, and they certainly had some problems. They were developing part of the subdivision for sale to fund further development. There were some financial issues, and there might have been some engineering issues, but it is something the government should look at and decide if it has a role to play. As I mentioned before, throughout the Territory, especially Alice Springs and Darwin - and I hear from the member for Katherine there is a shortage of land in Katherine - we have to work harder to get more land opened up at an affordable price.
It is not only a Territory issue, I must admit. I was in Melbourne during the holidays. Unfortunately, it is a similar problem throughout Australia. I was listening to Tony Delroy last night on the way home; the key still seems to be lack of good planning and lack of land availability. We are not the only place with those problems, but that is not an excuse. We have plenty of land. We have a fifth of Australia’s land mass; surely we can find enough land for our young people, and people coming to visit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask members to support this motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to the member for Nelson, having entered this portfolio as a lay person, it is a very steep learning curve. One thing I can share in my early learning is releasing land is not a matter of going out and whacking a couple of pegs in the ground, let me tell you. What you touched on there was a development of headworks. Headworks and trunk services cost millions of dollars, and it is imperative to get them right in any good planning process. When you hear the banter about land release, land release, land release - it is a very complex business, as you know. I know you have spent time in that planning area, especially from a local government perspective.
In relation to the private sector – absolutely! We are about supporting land release, and we are about supporting the fast-tracking of land release. I am very interested to talk to the private sector, and we are interested in pushing forward any good ideas which will deliver land and affordable housing for Territorians.
The government supports this motion. The Alice Springs Airport Master Plan Preliminary Draft 2009 was released for public comment on 2 November 2009, and the former Department of Planning and Infrastructure prepared a response to the draft master plan.
Alice Springs Airport is situated on a large tract of Commonwealth land, most of which is not constrained by aviation activities. This allows the concepts in the draft master plan to propose large portions of airport land for non-aviation development. Of importance to the government land release strategy, the draft master plan proposes rural residential development adjacent to the government’s proposed residential suburb on Crown land at the Arid Zone Research Institute. The proposed new suburb is a central element in the south of the MacDonnell Range area plan currently on public exhibition, and as a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme. Closing date for submissions is 19 February 2010.
The rural residential element of the airport draft master plan has the potential to dovetail very well with the government’s land release strategy. The former Minister for Planning and Lands wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Honourable Anthony Albanese MP, advising development of the AZRI site would be complemented by rural residential development on Alice Springs airport land. I am pleased to be able to table a letter to Honourable Anthony Albanese from the former minister.
The Territory government, and the NT Airport Corporation, will continue to collaborate to achieve an integrated development south of the MacDonnell Range. I support the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought the Planning minister might have more to say. Very interesting; very interesting indeed! Perhaps he cannot say much because he has not been in the portfolio long enough.
Whilst the member for Nelson has taken an interest in Alice Springs, can I say the motion is very short-sighted; short-sighted in the sense we have a demand for land now. The government has admitted they dropped the ball on land planning across the Territory. They have admitted they dropped the ball on land planning and land release particularly in Alice Springs. The situation of housing in the town of Alice Springs and surrounds, and particularly my electorate of Braitling, is dire. I have people visiting my office telling me their housing concerns and it relates to the private sector, the community sector - not that there really is a community sector - and the public sector.
Public houses are full; or they are empty because the NT government and the Housing minister do not have any money to fix them. Private real estate is full; you cannot get a house. I have constituents, like everyone else, coming into my office saying: ‘We have a housing problem’. The issue in my electorate - I know the real estate agents, I ring them and ask: ‘Can you do me a favour?’ I know the Housing staff: ‘Can you do me a favour? Do a reference to get people onto priority housing’. In my electorate, where the caravan parks are full, I have to tell people to leave town. That is how dire it is.
People are crying; grown men are crying and leaving town because there is nowhere to live. That is how serious it is. The skill shortage in the Territory is bad. The skill shortage in Alice Springs, because we cannot bring people to town and provide housing, is terrible. Every time the intervention comes up and says: ‘We are going to announce another program. We are going to send more experts to Alice Springs to fix things’, and they end up not fixing things, that puts more pressure on the housing industry. There is nowhere to live.
I am not knocking the idea of development outside the Gap. Do not get me wrong. It is short-sighted because it does not talk about the immediate problem. I have been banging the drum for ages, and I am pleased the member for Nelson has brought this on. However, let us look at what this is all about. This is about writing a letter to the federal government, trying to transfer responsibility, trying to wedge the Country Liberals. That is what is happening here. If we were really trying to do something here, instead of lobbying on behalf of the Mayor and the committee trying to move AZRI forward - and we know the situation with the committee that is trying to move AZRI forward. They are telling us the government is to blame for things being delayed. The government is saying it is native title issues and blaming Darryl Pearce at Lhere Artepe. Well, it is not his fault. It is the government which is dragging its heels.
The Opus Report from the future planning session held in June 2008 - here we are two years later and we still do not have land released. The Opus Report goes into specific details about the cost structure of releasing land. The situation of land must be seen in short, medium and longer term. The motion on the table today is part of a longer term - very long term - land release in Alice Springs. The member for Nelson spoke about 2000 properties; the Territory government says Alice Springs needs 100 properties per year. We are talking about 20 years worth of land, at the longest projection, for Alice Springs. There are short, medium and longer term areas we can look at. The infill which could be taken up in Alice Springs is significant. There are many infill components in Alice Springs where we could develop land immediately.
I have spoken previously, at length, about opportunities. Some of the opportunities put forward in this document, the potential to immediately look to expand Albrecht Drive subdivision in Larapinta; the opportunity to develop Lot 7411 at the end of Ellery Drive, Larapinta that can produce 200 blocks of land. I note the Opus Report identifies a number of cost factors, and how difficult it would be to get Larapinta Valley up and running. I am no engineer but I note this report suggests there are an estimated 200 blocks which could be released. I do know those blocks could commence immediately; I know there is power and water, and I know sewers are there. I know the road will need to be extended, but these are things which can happen in the short term to help solve some of our problems; and this is where the government has dropped the ball.
I know in south Sadadeen, as detailed in the report of the Northern Territory government by Opus delivered at the Alice Springs land forum by the previous Lands and Planning minister, there is potential for 158 blocks. I know the cost structure is beneficial so the Northern Territory government can make money from those blocks. It is easy to proceed, however the government will say: ‘There are salinity problems there’. These are the things which can be solved. Kilgariff and Mallam Crescent are already built in the same topographical and geological circumstances; these things can happen.
I am not saying south Sadadeen is the answer; I am saying there are some short to medium term solutions which could happen before the land at Alice Springs airport. Let us put this into context. AZRI land will cost a certain amount of money. The benefit of bringing the Alice Springs airport land on is it will bring about greater economies of scale so the Northern Territory government, which is broke because it is dysfunctional and cannot manage money, can make more money. This is exactly what this is all about - where they can make the most money.
I am not negative towards AZRI; I believe we should go forward, however we need to have a comprehensive plan. The government is making decisions on where we are going to release land, and we do not even have a structural plan for Alice Springs. We do not have a structural plan for Darwin.
Within the first 100 days of the Country Liberals being in government, we will commence development of a structural plan for Darwin, for Alice Springs, for Katherine, and for Tennant Creek. We know where we are heading. Based on the 1990 information, in the 1999 Land Use Structural Plan for Alice Springs - this is where the Territory was heading. What we are talking about with this motion today is not even part of a plan. I would think one of the first things the Northern Territory government would do would be develop a new plan.
Within the first 100 days of the Country Liberals coming into government we will start on this. We will get it done so we know where we are going. When we are talking about land at this site, I can tell you the traffic management flow report supposedly done by the Northern Territory government has not been released to the committee attempting to recommend pursuing the interests of AZRI, or Alice Springs airport land. We have not heard about the social infrastructure costs of building new schools, shopping centres, police stations or fire stations in the area so we know the overall cost. These are important things to consider. It is not negativing the motion; we need to have a comprehensive understanding of how everything fits together.
There are short-term plans with the ability to use the social infrastructure within Alice Springs to grow the town immediately. There are short-term things we could do; there are medium-term things and there are long-term things.
Mt Johns Stage 2 will cost $5 or $6m - I know it is a large amount money - to extend the road from Stephens Road to Sadadeen Road so we can open up the extra land at Stage 2A for Mt Johns Valley. This will open more land and provide great benefits to the Lhere Artepe people, the native title holders, and provide jobs and economic opportunities for those people. We could have some long-term sustainability for many families in Alice Springs. We could have a plan. If Alice Springs knew where it was going, the feeling and tone of Alice Springs would lift. We have nothing to look forward to. The people of Alice Springs are bleeding; Central Australia and the bush are bleeding. We need something to look forward to.
We are talking about writing a letter. The minister said that minister Albanese responded, so things are continuing. However, we need a comprehensive plan of how to move forward. We need a land use structure plan which includes things we are discussing at AZRI, Ilparpa, White Gums or Emily Hills. If not, we are flying in the breeze trying to play catch-up on bad planning decisions which were made when they disbanded the Planning Unit in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This is why this happened in the first place; you removed the Planning Unit. Now we have a backlog, and you are coming up with ideas which are not systematically organised, and that is a real problem.
Where is the whole-of-town land release compensation package, including the infrastructure requirements, that has been negotiated with Lhere Artepe? That is something the Country Liberals would look to do immediately. Change government next week and, within three months, we will sitting down with Lhere Artepe and the Central Land Council, and calling Planning department officials in Alice Springs to get things moving. We would be developing a land use structure agreement. This is not only Alice Springs, it is across the Territory. These are the things that set our direction. The government does not have any of this.
What we have is the Territory 2030 plan, which has no plan on land release. It does not have anything. There is no land use structure plan in this document. We have these fancy, fuzzy things calling Greening the Territory …
Ms Purick: Living the Territory.
Mr GILES: We have Living the Territory, we have Working the Territory? We have these fairy things, but there is nothing to say: ‘This is where we are going’.
This is a motion to say we are going to support the development of Alice Springs Airport land. Of course we want things to go ahead in Alice Springs. However, where are the short-term and medium-term solutions for the people who are in my office, who are crying on a daily basis because they have nowhere to live? Where are the short-term solutions for the 800 to 1000 homeless people who live in the Todd River on any night? Where is their solution? Where is the solution to get Mt Gillen Hostel up and running? How long has that been empty - more than 12 months? It can house up to 50 people and is sitting empty again tonight. You have hundreds of people living in the river and the hills - hundreds. I know this is a little blas for many people, but it is not like long-grassers in Darwin where people choose to be homeless - not everyone, but some people. Alice Springs people are homeless because there is nowhere to live.
The antisocial behaviour, the violent crime, the chronic alcoholism, the kids not going to school - all these things are linked together. This is what makes me so wild. I know you cannot click your fingers and there will be apartment, a house, a villa built immediately, but put something out there. There is nothing out there - absolutely nothing.
It is nearly two year since the planning forum and we still do not have an answer to what is going on. The Mayor of Alice Springs and all the people who sit on that committee tell me the Northern Territory government is dragging its heels. If they hurried up, we could get land released. That is what they say. I was talking to the Mayor last week. It is exactly what it is all about; it is about the government not doing anything.
Digressing for a minute, Madam Speaker, there have been many law and order problems in Alice Springs recently, as there always is, however it got really bad. I decided to have a look around the streets myself to ensure I did not have things the wrong way, and was not repeating other people’s commentary. I looked, and then I invited the member for Macdonnell to look with me, and knowing how bad it was and some of the terrible situations I saw, I invited the media to come along, because it is time we educated Alice Springs, and the rest of the Territory, about what is going on. That is what it was all about. The member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, got on the radio and said – I do not know the exact words - Adam Giles was sensationalising it, and trying to get publicity out of it.
That is not at all what was going on, and you do not get it. I tried to educate people; it is an issue. I tried to educate the member for Nelson that it is an issue; we need to solve these problems, this is what is going on. People are homeless. We have 13-year-old kids punching each other up; 14-year-old kids on Bradley Terrace, nearly smashing the windows of TIO, so drunk - a boy and girl so drunk, hit the member for Macdonnell, punched her when we tried to break up the fight. This is what going on. It is a law and order issue, yes, but it is because people have nowhere to live
This is what the motion should be about. I am not complaining that you did not put it in the motion; I am saying this is the housing situation. Somebody has to - I say someone, and I know I am in parliament, but I am not in government. If I was in government, I would be out there tomorrow saying: ‘Minister for Planning, what is happening with the Melanka site?’ What is happening with the Melanka site? These people are waiting for approval to go ahead and you are sitting on it. The people at LJ Hooker are saying: ‘Oh, Adam, can you find out what is going on with the Melanka site when you go to parliament?’ You are sitting on an approval process to get 100 units built in Alice Springs; there is housing we could deliver straight away, but we do not get any answers.
While the Alice Springs Airport site is one which could have housing, we have no certainty. I go back to this document on land size in Alice Springs. If you ask DPI, Alice Springs for a copy of the draft master plan, they will not give you one - your department will not give you one. They will let you look at it but they will not let you photocopy it, or take it. I was there with the member for Greatorex, and some Alice Springs residents, builders and developers, trying to solve some of these issues. They will not let you look at it. Can we go below 800 m2? Can we get down to 450 m2? These are some of the things which need to be included so we can debate them and move forward. We cannot sit here for 12 months, or 24 months arguing about it. We have to debate it and move forward.
If your arrogance will not allow you to debate it, come up with a plan. Tell us where we are heading. Alice Springs will change overnight if we have some certainty in what we are doing. We are in limbo with a noose around our neck, beholden to this arrogant and dysfunctional Labor government. While the government continues to pursue making as much money as it can out of its land - it would hate to develop AZRI and not the Alice Springs Airport land because the yield on the property would not be as positive as it could be.
Mr Wood: I am presuming infrastructure, headworks - that makes sense.
Mr GILES: Sorry?
Mr WOOD: Sharing headworks makes commercial sense.
Mr GILES: I wholeheartedly agree with your interjection, member for Nelson, but we could have a plan about where we are going. When is AZRI going to commence? I ask the minister, when is AZRI going to commence? We are told it is not going to have a block turned off until 2013 - which is five years after the planning for Alice Springs in June 2008. This is the information coming from the committee designed to implement it.
That is all I will say on this. The Country Liberals in government within 100 days will develop a brand new land use structural plan. We will start on it immediately, so we know exactly where we are heading. We would go straight to reviewing whether we should be going with the Larapinta-Albrecht Drive extension; the Ellery Drive extension is Lot 7411; the Sadadeen redevelopment; and we would make Melanka happen. We would progress things and provide a sense of opportunity, direction, of growth and development. Developing jobs for people, ensuring people are not homeless. This is what any good government should be doing. We are not having any of this done.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I am a little confused after the member for Braitling accused me somehow of being part of wedge politics; that I need to be educated. I did not know where we were going there for a while. I have no doubts there are planning issues in Alice Springs. I am a great supporter of a Darwin land use master plan coming out. Well, there is one coming out, but it is taking a long time. I am pleased to say we still have one in Litchfield. It is amazing how it has lasted that long. We have an NT Planning Scheme, and you will find in that scheme the major centres of the Territory have some strategic plans.
I must admit I prefer the plan you have in the front there, where each town has a more strategic plan which you can work to. Plans are flexible, and anyone who has been involved in planning and thinks that, because the land is at this point now it will always stay that way, needs to consider there will be changes. Those changes do not always have to be drastic; they can be mild changes, however planning needs to be flexible and also needs to stick to a plan. If you have ad hoc planning you can end up with a shemozzle.
Whilst I understand and agree with many of the issues, I believe you have to put this motion into context. I am not sure if the member for Braitling understood it. The master plan I have belongs to the Darwin Airport Management Group. It is not a government document; it is a private document. This is private land. It belongs to the Darwin Airport, or Alice Springs Airport Management Group. I have said this land is private - in other words it belongs to a body - and the only person who can approve that land being developed is the federal minister. It has nothing to do with the Northern Territory. This plan came out for comment. It did not ask for comment about homelessness or social behaviour on the streets of Alice Springs - they are certainly important issues - this is about developing land on the Alice Springs Airport.
I do not take exception to those social issues; they are very important. My comments are about ensuring we responded, in adequate time, to this master plan. It had a beginning and an end date, and I had discussions with Ian Kew about this master plan. He is very supportive of the land being developed, but he said the land cannot be developed until we get approval from the minister.
Regardless of whether you have other pockets of land, when you read this master plan you will see there is an opportunity to have affordable housing. I have not seen affordable land turned off in the inner parts of Alice Springs for donkey’s ages. Tell me the price of a block of land in Alice Springs when you have to deal with native title, salt issues, geographical issues, all those issues? What is the price of a block of land in Alice Springs? It is not cheap. One reason it is not cheap is all those other things which cause the price to lift.
When I was in Alice Springs, Damien Ryan was saying he supports AZRI. The reason is we can develop a total kit package, and we can get a large number of blocks hopefully at a reasonable price. Do not forget you are dealing with Alice Springs airport. It was probably always regarded as Alice Springs airport and probably not regarded as part of a strategic plan for future housing. I do not know whether it was mentioned in that document at all. The point is, an opportunity has arisen where we might be able to join the Alice Springs airport land and the AZRI land together. There is an article about this issue which discusses airport land use:
It goes on to say:
Straight away you would have to say we would be fools - even though we might want these plans, and even thought there might be room for infill – when there is a master plan out saying: please comment. There is an opportunity here if Planning, the federal government, Alice Springs airport and the Northern Territory government can get together, we could halve infrastructure cost. Is that not what it is about; trying to produce affordable land at affordable prices?
The other issues mentioned, I am not saying they are unimportant; however you have to deal with things as they occur. Of course there will be planning. I notice the Centralian Advocate has a picture of the AZRI site, and without it being coloured, I know someone has done some planning. I can see some commercial, there will be some residential, probably some community purpose for a school. I imagine AZRI will develop it as a suburb with the facilities you would expect in the suburb, and the plan next door could be developed.
We certainly need planning, and we do have documents which have been put forward as part of the Alice Springs land use study - Planning for the Future. I am not going to comment on what is good and bad because I am not an Alice Spring resident, but I know a number of local people are involved in the development of this, and that is the way it should be. If there are issues concerning this being developed fast enough, or whether there is a need for a more accurate strategic plan, then I would expect to hear it from those people involved. If they think the government is dragging its feet - I cannot say it is, because I do not know - especially on the development of AZRI, I would imagine there would be some noise made about it.
If I read the beginning of this article, it says:
You are only talking 12 February. Alice Springs has now given approval in principle because they are part of the planning process. I imagine it cannot be too far away when that study or time for comment is finished. The key is, and the minister has said he is a new boy on the block, that land use structure plans and changes to the land use structure plan are not easy. I encourage the minister to expedite things if most of the work has been done - get the headworks in because it will take work to get them in and they are costly.
I believe the government has been slow. It has been driven by many a statement in this parliament that we are worried about the market. I have heard that so many times and say, yes, the market is important, but it is not so important that we cannot start to turn off more blocks. The trouble was the government was caught with its pants down. The demand was great; they held it back because they were concerned about those people who would lose the value of their blocks. I do not believe they would lose the value of their blocks.
There were blocks of land in the rural area that went up $100 000 in one year - in one year - you can go back and look at the records. No one in their right mind would have expected their investment to go up at that rate. If the market comes back a bit, it will probably come back to a level where it should be. It is inflated because we simply have not had the land to compete, and to keep price rises at a reasonable level.
I hope, minister, you can get some good news. I am sure, once those headworks are in, you will get someone in there to get this off the ground. Alice Springs people tell me 0.1% of rentable properties are available to rent. What do people do if they cannot rent?
Ms Purick: Live in a tent.
Mr WOOD: Yes, or go to a caravan park. We need to be doing better. The Territory 2030 strategy talks about having accommodation for all Territorians by the year 2030. If we really think - and it is a pretty big goal - that is the goal we can achieve, we cannot be waiting. We have to do it now. I will come back in a few months time and I say: ‘Right, where is AZRI? Has anyone started to scratch the land with a few bitumen roads?’ That is what I will be pushing for.
I have made an agreement with the government about affordable housing. I am going to keep pushing it and pushing it. Weddell needs to be opened up. Humpty Doo needs to be opened up. There are parts of land in Goyder which are zoned 1 ha rural subdivision and have been sitting there for about five or six years and not been touched. There is land around which could be opened up without great expense to the government. It would send out the message that you have really put yourself into top gear and intend to make a difference to the housing situation. We do not have to be like the other states which have land issues. We have the land; we have to get the will. We also have to get the finances; I understand that. However, if we want to retain people to keep our economy going, then we have to be able to ensure they can stay here.
Madam Deputy Speaker, naturally I support the motion. It was a specific motion which gives people a chance to talk about a broad range of issues - fair enough, that is what motions sometimes do. It was done so we could act quickly on a specific case which, in theory, could produce 2000 rural lots. Of course, that will not happen in one hit, however the potential is there. If we want affordable housing, as it says in the master plan, we could halve the infrastructure costs if this block of land is built in conjunction with the AZRI land, because that is where you start to share your headwork costs. It is really something worth pushing.
I ask the minister, if you are not getting an answer, see Mr Albanese, or get him to come here. If he really believes, from his side of government, he should help the battlers, the families - I have always said that is what Labor should be doing. If he believes that, then he should make every effort to see if this land could be opened up so we can get affordable land for people who need it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government investigates –
Although we can build nice prisons and state-of-the-art places, we need to deal with the people in our prisons who are Northern Territorians, and are different from prison populations in Victoria, New South Wales and other places. They are mainly Indigenous; and we need to find solutions for all people, especially those people in the Northern Territory. The minister knows that.
What I am hoping for is a package; we do not have one solution fits the problem, we look at several solutions. We say yes, we have to have a prison. I know Glen Dooley, from Aboriginal Legal Aid, spoke on Stateline recently about the reason we should be moving away from that system. However, the reality is, I do not think the public are ready for that. I know where he is coming from; he believes that is not the way to deal with Indigenous people. That is another issue for another day.
I believe there are options we can utilise to change the way we think about this. We had a prison farm at Gunn Point and we closed it. There have been many theories as to why that was - industrial, transport difficulties, I do not know the reason. It was a good farm. Some people said it did not achieve its goals. It did some training, it had a bakery, it had cattle, it had vegetables, and it had hay. When people finished work, they would go to the mangroves and collect a few long bums and crabs. It was a good place for the people it was trying to help.
We had Wildman River. I do not know how many times I have spoken on Wildman River in this House over the last nine years. We closed it down - and I still believe it is a mistake. We had Beatrice Hill. The previous government closed that, as they did Gunn Point. That was unfortunate. Beatrice Hill was a small prison facility where Windows on the Wetlands is, and work was done in that area. In fact, they built a chicken farm on the side of the Arnhem Highway more or less opposite the front gate of Windows on the Wetlands. It lasted about a year then they decided to close it down and that was the end of the chicken farm. I wonder about long-term decisions sometimes - how we get there.
There has not been much else in dealing with our prisoners. In fact, we seem to have pulled back from our ideas. We have pulled back from Wildman River, Gunn Point and Beatrice Hill and put people in two big prisons and said that will do. I do not believe we should do that.
The minister has announced a work camp to be constructed at Tennant Creek and that is great. We have great potential for work camps throughout the Territory. They do not necessarily have to be based in big towns. They can be in communities, or near communities, where prisoners can work in national parks and on environmental programs. People can learn a range of skills and pay back the community. That is what people want to see. They say ‘you have done something wrong and we would like you to recompense the community’. That is what we have to look at.
Prison farms also have an option. I have visited prison farms in Western Australia and New South Wales. In Victoria, I visited the big prison. In New South Wales, I saw some excellent prison farms. We have to use the word ‘farm’ cautiously here - those farms are not only about cows, sheep, lettuce and onions; they are also about industry. St Hilliers prison farm in New South Wales is just outside Muswellbrook. It is a large old farm which has been taken over, and was a juvenile detention centre at one point. They are given all the furniture in bad condition from schools – you can imagine furniture from some of our schools after a few years, it would have dirty marks, chewing gum, and the paint scratched. They get the furniture, pull it apart, re-weld it if necessary, bring it down to the bare metal, repaint the legs, they have a special process to clean the plastic, and they turn out chairs and tables that look absolutely brand new. What do they do with those? They sell them back to the schools at half price; they create an industry.
When we are talking about prison farms, let us not get locked into the idea if we have a prison farm at Katherine it is about walking Brahmans around all day. It has to be about other activities, and I cannot say what those activities will be. If they go into a community, I would be looking at the Katherine community, and look at possible occupations for those people there. They might grow vegetables; we know there is beautiful soil in Katherine and plenty of water. They might be able to do some work for the hospital in the laundry. They might be able to help with other things. The work camps could be based on a farm and work in national parks and on cattle stations - you name it. We have to look at all options as we develop these places.
Central Australia is no different. We have a prison in Central Australia which is pretty well full. The minister announced they have opened a new female section. That is good to hear because we have a relatively small proportion of females in our prison system. However, we have to ensure they are catered for in a different way than the male section of the prison. It is a prison with many people in it, and there are opportunities to develop a prison farm or farms in the area.
When I was in Alice Springs I visited Centrefarm, which is similar to a commercial arm of the Central Land Council. My understanding, after meeting them, is they are opening up land opportunities for traditional owners by getting clearances on the land. If a business comes along, instead of waiting two years to deal with native title and this and that, they are doing it now. Potentially, the land is ready when a person walks in. They googled many sites and showed us there are numerous options between Tennant Creek and Aputula. I have a map, and I am willing to table it. It shows a series of large basins with potential for horticulture. One is at Aputula. They are trialling 6 ha at the moment; they have 1000 ML of water a year available; not a huge amount, but enough to do some work.
Alice Springs has a series of possible sites; some are better than others. There are eight blocks around the southern Alice Springs area, some at Deep Well, Undoolya Pastoral Lease, and in the Alice Springs area as well, where the effluent is being reused - I believe that is at the AZRI site, where it is being pumped underground.
There are sites in the Ti Tree basin area, and one which was mentioned to me - you already have horticulture development in that area - might be the Woodgreen Pastoral Lease. It is on the other side of the railway line. It was an outstation, and there are possibilities it could be used as a farm.
You have Dulcie Basin, which is at Utopia. That might be getting too far off the main road because you have to take into account the area involved. The Singleton-Murray Downs basin; there is a fair amount of water in that area – 5000 ML a year. A community market garden has been proposed there. Willowra has areas which could be developed. There is also the Wiso Basin, which is to the southwest of Tennant Creek. In fact, on my return from the last sittings I sought directions on how to drive there. There is a mining road that runs west - it runs west all right, it keeps going - out from the Tennant Creek railway station. I was driving at about 6 pm and it was getting darker and darker, and I did not get out there. I thought: ‘I am not heading out; I could end up in the Tanami and never be seen again’. There is an outstation there which I wanted to see. It is abandoned but it has the potential for a farm. There is good water in the area. So, I am saying if you talk to organisations like Centrefarm, there are great opportunities.
In relation to this motion, whether the farm is near the existing prison, up the track, or out from Alice Springs, are issues we have to look at. I believe we could grow more food for our prisons. I have always said if you have prisons in the north, in Katherine, and prisons in the south, in Alice Springs, you have the best of both worlds. You have tropical fruits and the temperate climate; and there is transport up and down the track. We have a railway line; the potential for supplying food is good. If the abattoirs could open in Katherine - and many people are thinking about it - the farm could produce its own beef. It could be slaughtered at the abattoir. In fact, some of the prisoners could work at the abattoir, as happens in other places. They could package the meat and send it to other prisons, or to hospitals. There is no reason the government cannot produce its own food for this government organisation.
The important issues for a farm is to have soil and water; if you do not have those two, do not waste your time. There has to be some good work done on this, and I would say much has already been done, minister, because Centrefarm has done some of it. I am sure the department of Primary Industry has records indicating where the good soil and water is, because Alice Springs has been farmed, either pastorally or horticulturally, for a long time. Much of that information should be available.
The idea of a separate prison farm away from Alice Springs, or in Alice Springs, is an issue worth looking at. Having it near a town is, I believe, a better idea - relatively near a town - because you will need Corrections people to work in those communities. However, I do see potential - and I believe the minister agrees - when you have a work camp, for instance, in Tennant Creek, there is potential to employ people who live in the town.
There is some concern around staffing farms. Initially you may, but one of the benefits is they will help the economy of those towns. You may have to bring more trained officers in at the beginning, but if you can employ more local people, especially Indigenous, because the majority of people in these communities will be Indigenous, it is good for the community.
When I was in Katherine for our CTC meeting, I spoke to Anne Shepherd, Mayor of Katherine. She wants the prison, because she knows the prison farm will benefit the economy. Katherine is the centre of quite a large Aboriginal area so you have people in a facility which is relatively close to family. That is important when you read the Deaths in Custody recommendations. One of the recommendations was not to incarcerate people a long way from their home. At the moment we have two places in the whole of the Territory where people are in prison, which does not seem to fit comfortably with the recommendations.
This issue is about looking at the options of creating a prison farm. If it could be built right next to the Alice Springs gaol, so be it. However, my understanding is the water is not good there. If it cannot be, then we have to look at other possibilities whether it is in the Alice Springs area, or whether it is further up the track. They are what we need to look at.
I must not lose sight of the fact that this is only part of the picture; it is only part of the package. I will say time and time again we are looking at the facilities, and we have to look at the changes these facilities could bring. We have to look at education. Many have alcohol and drug problems and we have to look at helping people work through their problems - which is difficult over a short length of time. Half the people in prison are there for less than six months, and to create jobs and programs for those people is a challenge. They will be classified for several weeks before they come in - those weeks have gone - and then you have to work out their education standard, they have to get used to a fairly regimented life, and before you know it, they have left the prison. So, there are challenges.
The other big challenge when you are dealing with prisons is we are dealing with in and out; we have to deal with before and after. That is one of the reasons we looked at prison farms. We try to create skills and we try to create some worth in people. None of that is any good if they go home to the same old place with no job. I believe that unemployment is one of the main reasons for boredom, and when you have boredom, you have problems. You get on the grog; you get up the missus, fly around in the car. If we do not have employment we will be putting people through this system time and time again. We will give them the skills but that is a waste of time if there is nowhere to use the skills.
It is the same at the other end. If we do not put effort into youth, or even parenting - it probably goes back a lot further. I welcome this inquiry into family and community services because I see some outcomes I call early intervention. We should be looking at early intervention; getting in and helping these families and protecting these kids so they do not end up in gaol. I had teachers from Taminmin High School come to me last year who said: ‘We have kids who are a problem. They do not want to go to school, they do not want to be educated, and they just do not want to go. And when we get them to school, they get kicked out, or they are just a pest’. We need to be smart in helping these young people, because I can guarantee they will be in gaol.
We are talking about a system where a small part is how we develop a prison farm in the Alice Springs area. The prison farm is a small part of the cog in a system we have to develop to reduce the number of people in prison. If we want a target for Territory 2030 – I know there are many targets there – the one I would like to see is less people in prisons. If there is one industry in the Northern Territory which needs to be on the decline, that is the industry. That is a big effort, and is going to take some really dedicated people in government to drive it, and make it work.
Madam Speaker, this motion is worth it, simply because it is part of a cog; an overall plan which has to happen if we are to change things around, especially in our Correctional Services.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate over this motion - a rational, informed debate which, so far, is devoid of any theatrics or any politicising, or any of the wild allegations we hear with the experts who are engineers, psychologists, teachers, trainers, town planners, and brain surgeons. It is good to get into this debate. Let us walk through the first 12 months of my time as minister for Corrections.
The Territory was changing, and Territory Corrections was changing. The Henderson government knew we needed some serious changes to address the cycle of reoffending. The member for Nelson has mentioned the most disadvantaged Territorians in our Corrections system, on the wrong side of the law, and who are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty. That is what came about. We decided we needed to look very strategically at a process to turn that cycle around. It is going to need time, commitment, and resources. The first issue we touched on was infrastructure, and we saw it was not only ageing but inappropriate, and the need for better infrastructure. That was the announcement of the new Correctional Services facility.
In this first 12 months, I have enjoyed the debate, working with the member for Nelson, and specifically working with the expert review panel. They are real engineers, real architects, real people who know what they are talking about - real people who do not rabbit off at the mouth, on their feet having fun. They are members of an expert panel who are delivering the best information possible to work this forward for all Territorians. That is the space we are in. In the 12 months, it has been a real pleasure to work with the Correctional Services Department, with the education and rehabilitation services being delivered, and to start looking at fine-tuning and working with a real cultural shift representing the Henderson government’s new approach for Corrections to really change outcomes. In the first 12 months of my time as minister, much work has gone into targeted education and rehabilitation under the most difficult circumstances.
In those 12 months, as I said, I have had the honour to work with the member for Nelson and real experts, and to take that to a national scale and look at other jurisdictions; big jurisdictions that operate on large economies of scale.
In New South Wales, for instance, there are 10 000 prisoners in their system. It is a challenge no matter where we go in the Northern Territory because of our small population and large area. At the end of the day, we have the same problem when we talk about Corrections - how to reduce the cycle of reoffending?
Let us walk through some of the knowledge the member for Nelson and I have acquired. Let us go to Ballina, a program in Northern New South Wales concentrating on Indigenous offenders and focusing on a therapeutic model designed to provide not only the social and emotional support, but also the educational awareness and understanding of why they were being incarcerated, and how they can move on and do better and get back into their community and become productive members. They were in a rural environment. It was an environment to support their social and cultural needs. However, there was not any real link with the agriculture going on around them. That program was focused on psychosocial outcomes, and on therapeutic benefits. It used education and awareness to achieve results. They told us there are links planned however, at this stage, early in their developmental stage, they were purely focusing on the individual offender, and how to turn that cycle around.
We then went to another example, which was a very sophisticated prison farm, a long history in the corrections industry. Yet, the majority of programs at that farm were industrial based; they were dealing with heavy industry. There was an operational sawmill on the prison farm, and what I took from that prison farm was great ideas about the New South Wales correctional system, very sophisticated, very welcoming and very enlightening. They were linking the opportunities to provide prisoners with skills, and they were linking their industries together, from the sawmill industry right through using by-products, through connecting with the rural and regional areas, and producing a product for sale. There were people incarcerated there who had degrees in accounting who were employed to be part of the business model. They were prisoners running the accounting section of a major business. There were also many unskilled people learning how to have a job. From that we learnt there are very basic starting points; there are also very sophisticated points within the system.
This industry, for me, reflected a very important point - work ready. How do you have a job? As the member for Nelson has shared with us, 82% of our prison population in the Northern Territory are disadvantaged Territorians, many of those who have never had a job. We have a very basic starting point; we have to make people aware of what it is like to have a job, what it is like to go to work, and the off spin of that is what it is like to experience self-esteem, achieving something and, at the end of the day, being able to tell somebody a positive story about your life, what you did - very basic starting point from looking at a massive industry model. Where are we at in this model?
We then travelled to a pure heavy correctional facility; one of the high traffic areas in the New South Wales Corrections system. What we saw was a model which we do not get much from and we do not want to go there. We need to look at alternatives, and this is what is developing into our sweep of Correctional Services opportunities, programs, rehabilitation, and education.
We then went to probably what was the premier correctional facility in New South Wales looking at the model of prison farms, and that was St Hilliers. Once again, we looked at broad acre agriculture. We looked at a prison farm model producing food, but in the economies of a population of prisoners which represented 10 000 across the state. Food production at that level creates economies to make it sustainable. Food production anywhere under that level is not sustainable; it is cottage industry stuff. When you are dealing with and allocating taxpayers’ money, it is very important we do not set ourselves up to fail, that we do not set ourselves up for industry opportunities which will fail and cost the taxpayer money. In New South Wales, they were able to generate a model which was saving taxpayers’ money, but on a large scale - 10 000 prisoners across a complex nature of big correctional facilities.
Once again we saw industry base. The member for Nelson touched on it: the restoration of Education department furniture right across the state. What I took away was industry skills; people who had never had a job, or people who were highly skilled participating, but people who had never had a job being able to understand about occupational health and safety, about the reasons for being at work, about the reasons for being safe at work, about the reasons for producing, and being a productive member of a workforce. Very simple things which start to create awareness in the individual of a choice: I can choose to re-offend, or I can choose the opportunity I have, experienced, clean and sober, in a supported environment and make a choice to go forward not back.
The member for Nelson mentioned the work camp; the outreach program the Henderson government is developing, the first one in Tennant Creek. Ironically, the land deal is the most important part. We must get the infrastructure on the ground before we can move forward. The work camp in the Barkly commenced at a good level within the community, which is with a consultative committee. The committee in Tennant Creek and the Barkly is already making decisions about repatriation to their community, what they think these offenders owe the community, and how these offenders should pay back to the community. That needs fine tuning as well. That needs to be balanced between a punitive approach, and an education and rehabilitation approach. There will need to be more input to process. We want to encourage, not discourage. We want to raise up, not knock down. We want to support people, not run them down and tell them they are wrong and they do not know what they are doing. We want to build, not demolish.
We are talking about land, we are talking about infrastructure, and we are talking about consultation. What we are talking about is creating an environment to make a difference, and the environment will be focusing on education and rehabilitation and training to once again allow people, in a clean and sober supported environment, to start experiencing mainstream cultural opportunities which can be life changing. When we get down to a grassroots level, that can increase your life expectancy, and that of your family.
We make no apology on this side of the House for the numbers of prisoners we have to deal with. It is a most unfortunate circumstance, however, we will put every energy into reducing numbers by giving people a choice.
The work camp in the Barkly has another opportunity in the new era, which is to attach prisoners to real world employment. We have local contractors and local businesses interested in giving people a go: people who can pass a drug and alcohol test; people who are at work on time; people who are productive. The unfortunate part of this story is many of our offenders are not at the starting line in any of those areas. They need to be supported, and the unfortunate part is they are in a correctional facility which provides that. Let us make it a one-stop shop; let us not have them come back a second time, or a third time, let us get it right.
The other thing about the model with the outreach program, the work camp in the Barkly is that we can duplicate this. The debate has gone around, pure horticultural models, work ready models, links with the community, links with real business. My position on horticulture is we have some very well run, professional, industrious, horticultural projects across the regions. We have experts in this field who are making millions of dollars out of it. Why would I not want prisoners in the correctional system attached to those businesses? Why would I not want them with the best brains in the country? Why would I not want them in a positive environment where they will experience success? I believe the outreach programs have the opportunity to demonstrate this.
Our community work parties in Alice Springs and Darwin do this everyday. We are attaching accredited training to it, we are attaching our people to the real world industry, and we are going to make the links. The BIITE program, which has constructed a 24-bed demountable relocatable facility at the Berrimah Correctional Centre, has produced people who have gained jobs; some of them working on the SIHIP project in remote areas. I certainly hope we do not see them back at Berrimah - unless they are driving a motor car into town to come and swim at the wave pool.
This is life changing stuff. This is what the member for Nelson and I have been working on, debating, and working with an expert panel to deliver – a raft of initiatives, a combination. We get back to the fact we have to have the infrastructure, and the Berrimah Correctional Centre is ageing, inappropriate infrastructure which is holding everything back. We need to nail this one; we need to have this job completed so we can then look at the whole sweep of initiatives through a new era to deliver what we all want. That is what this motion is about. So, let us fine-tune this.
Member for Nelson, the government supports this motion and I support this motion. We are looking at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, we are testing soil, we are looking for water resources and utilising the land we have around the correctional facility, and we are about doing that very soon, and we are interested in horticultural opportunities. I did not have a chance at the Alice Springs sittings because there were time constraints - the agenda went on different twists and turns – however I received a basket of fruit and vegetables which were produced at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The message from the prisoners who produced that food was: show the parliamentarians, show the member for Nelson, yes, we are in this space, we are small, we are doing accredited training around this, but we are doing it. I was very proud of that. Those vegetables ended up with the Missionaries of Charity, who would have cooked them up and fed them to the disadvantaged kids they work with on a daily basis. They were much appreciative of the basket as well.
The Alice Springs Correctional Centre is a really good example of where we can test the field of horticultural opportunities. As I have said, I am much more interested in linking offenders who fall into our correctional services system with Centrefarm, with the Ali Curung melon farm, with farms in Katherine, with people producing Asian vegetables in the rural areas around Darwin. I am much more interested in linking offenders with people who know how to do this, who do it on a large scale, and will offer people opportunities to go forward in their lives, and offer life-changing experiences.
Member for Nelson, the Alice Spring facility, and this opportunity, is a great way to start expanding this concept while we are working through all the options and developing the bigger model. The motion is a good one because it, once again, gets this debate into parliament and the public arena.
We are changing, we need to change, and we need to make a difference with our offenders, and the re-offending rate. The facilities are one part of it; the programs and rehabilitation are another part of it, and government can provide that. However, it also comes down to a great measure of community responsibility. Governments can provide the resources, can set up the systems, but it comes down to community responsibility. At the moment, I hear too many stories about offenders who have turned their lot around and returned to their community, only to fall into the trap, the cycle, of crime that creates the re-offending, and the return to a correctional facility.
We know the challenges across the Territory, in our urban areas, in our regional areas, and in our remote areas. We know the physical, infrastructure, social, and the cultural. We know all these areas are challenging. However, at the end of the day, I say to each and every Territorian: ‘You can make a difference’. You can advise that young man not to get in that car and drive it. ‘You do not have a licence’, or ‘you have been drinking’. The community will support what we are doing. We cannot do everything. That is the reality of it. However, sometimes I am led to believe in his House it is my fault, my responsibility, for every possible disadvantage we experience. Well, thank heavens I do not believe that.
When we talk about our Correctional Services facilities and prisoners - we need them to start focusing on a positive, not a negative. We need their families to start focusing on a positive. A great example of this is the Elders Visiting Program. This is one program where, when people are challenged with their offending behaviour, they are then given some clarity in their space through an ordered, supported, environment, and are then immersed in education and awareness, when they approach their elders - maybe for some considerable length of time - they approach that space with a clear understanding and vision, with the acceptance of what is being said, with the hope of change.
There are many things happening in our Correctional Services facilities. I am very proud of the people I meet on the front line doing the work. The member for Nelson mentioned the women’s section which we will open on Friday. We have a small population of women prisoners in the Northern Territory, and we do not want to see any increases. Once again, the infrastructure component of this will support a more normalising of the Correctional Services system, and the support structures these people need. Also, it will release other space, where education, planning and programming is moving in.
This is a small step, but a good step within exiting infrastructure. We are talking about the new era, and moving outside into more creative space. We are talking about a new era ...
Ms Purick: A new era!
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, we are talking about a new era.
Mr Conlan: We need a new era.
Ms Purick: Especially in power.
Mr McCARTHY: We can make fun of it; we can gibe about it, and use it in politics. In the 12 months I have been working with the department, I am very impressed, and very proud of my term, and we will move forward, and we will move forward working together.
The member for Nelson is definitely in that space. I encourage anyone to join that space because, when we start to make real differences, and when we start to see the reduction in the cycle of re-offending, we will start to see a reduction in the social issues so often thrown in my face from that side of the House, from an opposition who often, I feel, live very miserable lives.
It is unfortunate to live a miserable life. Come to Tennant Creek and smile; that is what I can offer. If you want to cut to the chase, we are in a hard space and it is going to take work and energy to get through this, however it will be part of the solution we are looking for. It will be part of the solution for remote communities. It will be part of the solution for regional communities, and it will be part of the solution for urban communities - not everything, but it will be a big part. I get the feeling people are starting to suffer now. What, he has gone on this long! They are not happy.
Ms Purick: No, you are boring.
Mr McCARTHY: I am boring. Very good! Bring it on member for Goyder, bring it on! You can call names, you can run people down, but you cannot take it. Bring it on!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: If that is boring, member for Goyder, you should advise me on what is exciting. What is meaningful? What is life changing for Territorians, and I would take your learned advice. As far as boring, no, I am not going to accept that, because there is too much to do in this new era of Corrections. There is far too much to do. We have spent a very measured, a very hard slog in my first 12 months as minister, and we are now going to see the results of hard labour. We are going to see the results, and Territorians will celebrate this.
Member for Nelson, it is funny, in a portfolio which does not have a sexy feel, in a portfolio which does not get much glamour, one thing I have found in the community as I travel throughout the Territory is we have support for the new era in Corrections. We have support from Territorians who say: get out there and have a go, try something new, try something creative, try something different. We have heard enough of the negativity, of the run down, of the put downs; get out there and try something which will make a real difference. That is what the Henderson government is about. It is not about soft options, it is about taking on the difficult, about taking on the challenges, and we will make a difference.
A member: A talkfest.
Mr McCARTHY: I pick up on the interjection; a talkfest. In this House, in my debate, I am allowed 30 minutes, and I am using my time, as I notice the members of the opposition used their time. If it is too tough to endure 30 minutes, hit the lobby. There is too much work to be done, and I support the motion. I commend the member for Nelson for bringing the motion forward, and I am proud to say the Henderson government supports this motion.
Members interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: In terms of my background as a teacher, if a student did that, normally I would stop.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you ask the honourable member to direct his comments through the Chair?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Minister, could you direct your comments through the Chair?
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly. Madam Speaker, I apologise for falling into the trap of picking up on interjections from the other side in this most important debate.
Member for Nelson, thank you for bringing this motion forward. The government supports this motion. We have learned much on the journey so far. I encourage other members to take an interest in that journey, to take an interest in the options being developed in the new era, and to be part of the solution rather than the problem.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am sure everyone in this House knows the Country Liberals policy on prison reform which we took to the 2009 election; what we proposed for Katherine, and what we have previously spoken about for Alice Springs.
This motion is confusing. I understand there is land next to the Alice Springs gaol which has a farm for the prisoners. I am not sure …
Mr Wood: It is a commercial farm?
Mr GILES: There is a commercial farm next to the prison which has not been maintained, and has things growing on it. I am not sure what this fits in to. In relation to the investigation, sure it is an investigation. As I said, there is already a farm next door, there are houses next door for low security, and there is already water at Alice Springs farm. As a party, we support prison farms. There is not a great deal of information here to go on. It is some sort of utopian touchy feely thing - like Independents not wanting to get involved in policy, I suppose. Of course we support it, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his contribution - if you can call it a contribution. I also thank the member for Barkly. It is a pity the member for Braitling gave some very off-the-cuff remarks which show little regard for what was being put forward.
Mr Giles: You want to do an investigation about something which is already established.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You had half-an-hour to give your speech, you could have used half-an-hour.
The motion put forward is to develop ideas; that is why we have motions. You asked if the government does the investigation. If you say …
Mr Giles: They are the government. They should have already done it. The government should have already done it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr WOOD: Excuse me; you have had your 30 seconds of intelligence. Member for Braitling, this says …
Mr Giles: Investigate something that is already there.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me. That is right, and the information I have been given in relation to a water supply close to - within the prison or adjacent to - an adequate water supply is that is not so. It might be, with more investigation. They might have a small farm there, but I have never known them to have a commercial farm. They obviously do grow some things.
The member for Barkly did bring a basket of goods in - we should have shared them and eaten them down the back, member for Barkly. It was a very impressive basket of fruit and vegetables, and shows it can be done.
We are looking at developing industries more on a commercial basis rather than having little cottage industries. I have been through the Alice Springs prison, and I have noticed the Indonesian fishermen who were housed there. They were growing vegetables on a small amount of land which was available. You have approximately 650 prisoners in Alice Springs. You have a large township; 25 000 or 27 000 people. You have communities surrounding that area. There is a possibility of developing a farm to supply fruit and vegetables for a large number of prisoners.
To do that - if you happened to study this area - you need to do proper studies into the soil types. You want to ensure, for instance, there is no salt; you want to ensure the pH is suitable; you want to ensure the soil is suitable, and you want to ensure there is adequate water. You also want to ensure the slope is okay, because that can cause erosion. It is not only water being available. Horticulture is a science; commercial horticulture is a science and requires careful planning and development.
To set up a prison farm is not cheap, nor is equipment to run a prison farm. To have tractors, spray equipment, ploughs, rotary hoes, putting in irrigation systems, putting in dams or tanks, putting in pumps, fencing, buying fertiliser, buying sprays, and buying your seeds requires money. It is not just: there is a garden. It requires careful planning; and it requires feasibility studies to see if it will work. That is what this is about, and if it is some utopian idea, I am sorry; I come from a different school.
This is about practical changes. This is what I was brought up on; this is one area I can talk about, because it is why I came to the Northern Territory; to do this. I have some understanding of it, and it is not utopian. Was Gunn Point Prison Farm utopian? It failed for other reasons; not because it could not grow vegetables, could not produce meat, could not produce poultry and could not produce bread. It was for other reasons, but we can do it, and I believe it is important. In the Territory, as I said before, we have a different clientele; 80% Indigenous. We need to have industries in those areas where they live, where they feel they can get some skills and training.
I know the member for Sanderson asked what programs we have to deter people. I believe the member for Barkly and I know there have to be deterrents, and one of the issues we agree on is structured programs. We need structured programs where people go to work; they get up, they make their bed, they have their breakfast and they go to work, and at the end of the day they do programs. Programs might be at the beginning of the day, work might be at the end; however, there will be a structured day. We do not want people sitting around in prison having a nice day. They are in there for a reason, they are in there because they did something wrong. However, we use that captive audience, if you want to call it that, to achieve better things for them, so they do not come back.
If we are discussing policies on Corrections, if the CLP has a policy it wants to put out, I say to them the test of a good policy, when it comes to Corrections, is whether your recidivism rates drop. We have high recidivism rates, and we have to change it. We have seen recidivism rates drop in places like Ballina, in northern New South Wales near Lismore. I have seen recidivism rates at 20% when I visited a prison in Ohio, where it was a therapeutic community. I still believe we need to look at that particular type of facility. It is a self-help facility where prisoners, under strict regime, help themselves to change their world around.
We can say, yes, we should do this and we should do that. You also have to realise prisoners are sometimes in situations they would rather not be; they are drug dependent, they are alcohol dependent, they have other problems in their life, and we need a holistic approach. Yes, this is part of a holistic approach.
I do not know if the member for Braitling understands that this is not the be all and end all. This is an approach which is part of the big picture; it is part of believing those humans in our prison are worthy of trying to change their lives around; if it is totally about punishment, let us stick them in Berrimah. I say to people who think Berrimah is a good place, have a look. I have been there several times and if you talk about sheep and cattle yards, that is what parts of it are like. That is not the way we should be treating human beings, regardless of what they have done. We need to have punishment, we also need to help those people turn around so they pay the price to the community, they learn some skills, they can overcome some of their problems, so that they do not come back, and they become better citizens.
It is not simple; it will not be easy. Unless we have early intervention and follow up, we are not going to achieve anything except a pile of fences, sheds and tractors. We have to look at the total picture; this is a small part of it. It was a motion for the Alice Springs parliament saying to people in Central Australia it should be debated while we are in Central Australia. Unfortunately, it did not happen because we ran out of time. It is important to put this debate into the community, as the member for Barkly has said.
He has taken the debate about work camps into Tennant Creek; he has the community looking at the issues. Most communities, enlightened communities, people who think well, would believe these facilities if well run in their community are of benefit to the community. We have to take, as human beings, responsibility for the problems of society, not always the government.
I have heard about problems in Alice Springs. The member for Braitling - good on him - is out there and knows there are antisocial behaviour problems. There were antisocial problems when I went there too. I went specifically to talk to police, the mayor, and business people about antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. You cannot always blame government. I asked people recently: ‘What is the motto of Litchfield Shire? It is Community Effort is Essential’.
John Maley and a few people got together many years ago and created it. John Maley left me with something I have always believed is great: you can have all the regulations in the world, you can have all the rules in the world but sometimes we have to take responsibility as a community. I use the example of a dead dog on the road and someone rings up the council and says: ‘Can you pick this dead dog up?’ We are in a rural area; do not think we are in Nightcliff. At $95 an hour and travelling time, it costs the council $300 to move a dog they could have picked up, thrown in the bush and let it rot away, or give it to the crows.
I say the same thing with some of the problems in our society. If we have problems in Alice Springs – I am not saying this is the only answer. Sometimes the community itself has to be the mechanism for change. You can have police on the beat everywhere. You can have the punishment side to what is happening, and I am not saying people should not be punished for misbehaviour. However, it is their responsibility in the community. How many Aboriginal communities in Alice Springs? How many organisations such as Rotary or Lions? There are progress associations, councils, all types of things. How much of that responsibility for change belongs to the individual rather than government?
Governments are easy prey. You can ring them like you can ring the council to move a dog. Why do we not do some things ourselves? People would ring me and say: ‘My drain is full of gravel; the water is not going under the culvert’. I would say: ‘You know what a shovel looks like? It has a handle, and you can actually clean it out yourself. Otherwise we can send a backhoe and several blokes around to clean it out at some extraordinary cost, which you will pay for in the next rate declaration’.
We all have to, as citizens of the Northern Territory - not just the government - try to back some of these changes. Sometimes industry has said it does not want people in prisons making trusses or selling vegetables, doing this or doing that. Industry is part of the solution. People in industry have to say: ‘We need to help these 1000 people and give them a chance’. That means if they create work and that work is sold, or that work is somehow used to keep the prison system going, as it was in Muswellbrook, then we should be encouraging, not discouraging it.
This is part of a bigger picture; it is a very important picture. I do not think you can just say it is a silly idea; there is a garden there already. It is much bigger than that, and it is much more important to give it reasoned debate of more than 30 seconds to fill in the time. I believe both sides of parliament have to work together. It is easy to use this debate politically. Locking prisoners up is a great way of pretending to get more votes. However, in the end, we have to be more mature, above party politics, and work together on these problems, which are not party political. They are Territory problems, and we should all work together to fix them.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion and hope other members will as well.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In so doing, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Our police force does an extraordinary job. The police force works in some of the harshest places in the country. Our police force puts up with challenges which are unique to the Territory. Our police force is placed under ever growing pressure to do more with less, and a changing, and at times challenging, society. We know some of the problems dealt with by our force. We know the problems relating to alcohol, problems relating to isolation, problems relating to disadvantage within the community, and the list goes on. Our officers are outstanding servants of the community, and so much so, we continue to see our officers turn up at very senior positions elsewhere in the country, whether in the force or post-force service.
We have a force which has a great relationship with the public, and on that, I believe more should be and could be done to continue to build this respect, especially through an expansion of programs like the school-based constables; more on that another time.
It is appropriate our officers are recognised for their service and, indeed, those officers who served through 10 years service in the Territory, or as a member of our force on secondment elsewhere, something that in itself should be recognised. There are, or soon will be, provisions to recognise national service in police forces for certain time markers, and that is appropriate to do so. I do not support the awarding of our service medal to officers who have spent a portion of that 10 years’ service as a member of another jurisdiction’s police force. I am sorry to say this to those officers, but on that, I believe a national recognition is appropriate, and our service medal is for our coppers who serve the people of the Territory for 10 years.
After being informed a medal was awarded to another officer for joint service, I chose to bring forward this bill. In doing so, I took into consideration views of police officers current and past, views of the community and views of the police peak body, the Police Association. It is interesting to note, in correspondence with the Police Association, that they have approached the Chief Minister and the Police minister on this matter, and nothing has happened. This is the same Chief Minister who wants to talk relentlessly about how great he is at supporting the police force. They are fine words, but where is the action? To add insult to injury, it was over a year ago, ahead of the last election, this Labor government promised they would do something about this matter, and here we are, over 12 months later, and what have we seen, nothing - talk about hot air.
In regard to the bill itself, it amends the Police Administration Act, and it amends the provisions associated with a period of service that could be considered towards the Police Service Medal. The purpose of these proposed provisions is time served as a member of another jurisdiction’s police force cannot count towards the 10 years’ service for the Police Service Medal. The specific amendments are as follows:
The Police Service Medal is to be awarded to members who have completed 10 continuous years’ service with the Northern Territory Police. The entire 10 years of service is to be with the NT Police Force, or on secondment to prescribed organisations such as the NT Police Association, and the Australian Crime Commission, etcetera. The total period of 10 years can be broken by periods of unpaid leave, but that unpaid leave is not considered part of the 10 years’ total service. If a member resigns before completing 10 years service, and is subsequently reappointed as a member within two years of the date of his resignation, the commissioner can consider the period of service prior to a resignation as part of the 10 years’ period for awarding the service medal.
The Country Liberals are strong supporters of the police force, and we will continue to strengthen our force and recognise the service of our force members. There can be no doubt on that front because, on my team, I am proud to have good people who know the experience of being members of our force, and are proud to serve. This bill is a straightforward bill, but it is an important bill and one members of this House should support.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In so doing, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
This bill is a straightforward bill designed to have a clear message and an unambiguous consequence, therefore it is not necessary to provide a long-winded speech. The policy intention is to make it clear to would-be violent criminals we, on this side of the Chamber, value the contribution made by our public servants and recognise all too often they face unreasonable people who think it is appropriate to lash out at them while those hardworking servants of the public are merely doing their duty.
This is not acceptable and, as a leader within the community, I will not accept this message having any credibility. That is why I have brought forward a bill which sets out clear minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on our hardworking frontline public servants. I have said previously on this matter, and in this House, these people serve us and it is our duty to serve them, and give them the protection they need.
The bill I have presented amends sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Code. Change to section 188 is directed first at section 188(2). My bill inserts a new section (2A). This section sets out that, if a public servant is assaulted while undertaking their duties, then the court must, if it convicts the person who undertakes this offence, imprison them for a minimum of one month if it is an assault. Following a conviction where the public servant suffers harm, but not serious harm, then the minimum mandatory imprisonment period will be three months. If the person suffers serious harm, the imprisonment period will be a mandated minimum of six months.
The amendment to section 188(3) contained within this bill inserts a new section which defines a public servant for the purpose of those who are, and in, the execution of their duties. This section is designed to capture public sector employees, ambulance drivers, bus drivers, health professionals such as nurses, doctors and the like. It is also designed to capture police, however the amendments to section 189 sets this out more clearly. This bill is designed to capture those public servants for the period where they are undertaking their duties in this capacity. Reference is also made to subsection (2)(fa) as being deemed public servants for the purposes of this bill.
Amendments are also being made to section 189A of the Criminal Code in reference to police officers. A new subsection (3) is inserted which sets out mandatory minimum period of imprisonment for assaulting police officers; assaulting police officers causing harm; and, assaulting police officers causing serious harm; setting out one month, three month and six months respectively.
Public servants need to know they are valued, and there is no doubt we on this side of the Chamber value their contribution. In doing so, we want to send a clear message to would be criminals who would assault and/or injure those outstanding people while they perform their public duty. We are on this side have a clear message for those people - do not even try, because if you do, you can be guaranteed you will face mandatory gaol time. It is no ‘ifs’, it is no ‘buts’ and it is no excuses; that is how it should be.
All Territorians should be assured that when they go to work they will be protected by the law; public servants who deal, on a daily basis, with the public are in no way mistreated, manhandled or physically assaulted by someone who is incapable of keeping their emotions under control. As I said before, there is no excuse for venting frustration on a customer service provider who has gone to work that morning only to find he or she is confronted by somebody who has seriously lost control of their emotions, and who wants to make their problem someone else’s problem. The media is full of stories of people being attacked during the course of their job. Bus drivers, taxi drivers, front counter staff, they are all at the mercy of the public. The vast majority of them are decent, honourable, trustworthy citizens with similar values and ethics to the people we are trying to protect with this bill. These are not the people we are targeting. We are targeting that small minority of people who cannot control their tempers when they are out in public, who have so little control of their emotions ordinary people doing their jobs are at risk.
It is disappointing it had to be left to the opposition to introduce legislation such as this. This is the type of bill I would hope the Henderson government would have seen fit to bring into this parliament. Labor’s failure to do so, after eight years in office, brings a fair indication of its priorities over the years.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, it is 9 pm. Do you wish to continue for up to 10 minutes on this particular matter?
Mr MILLS: Yes, and I will conclude, thank you. It will be less than that, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Its focus has always been on protecting the interests of the perpetrators of crime rather than looking after the interests of ordinary law-abiding Territorians who go to work intent on providing for their families, and who find themselves on the receiving end of an unwarranted, unprovoked and senseless assault. This government’s approach to the victims of crime was recently summed up by Magistrate Alistair McGregor who, in relation to a particularly disturbing sexual assault recently, said victims are less important than defendants in court. That is this government’s approach to victims in the Northern Territory. Here on the opposition benches, we think the focus should be on the victims. That is why, through the legislation we have brought before the House, we want to protect public servants and to ensure their safety is paramount.
We believe putting minimum sentences on assaults on public servants will not only act as a deterrent to people who might otherwise behave in an atrocious fashion, but also serve as sufficient punishment for those people whose violence gets out of hand to the extent they commit an assault on a public servant or a customer service officer.
In closing, while this legislation removes the discretion of judges to provide minimum sentences to perpetrators of these assaults, it in no way impinges upon their capacity to provide higher sentences. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I propose-that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr CONLAN: May I make a request, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: We are into the adjournment now under standing orders.
Mr CONLAN: The House has not been adjourned yet.
Ms Lawrie: No, it automatically goes into adjournment.
Madam SPEAKER: I gave the Leader of the Opposition the extension at 9 pm, as advised.
Mr CONLAN: Am I able to make a request?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. The House has adjourned under Standing Order 41A. The item has been completed and the House has now adjourned.
Is there anyone to adjourn? Member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I wish to talk tonight briefly about the Australia Day dressage …
Mr Conlan: It would take 10 minutes; it is crazy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: … about the Equestrian Club’s dressage competition which was held at Freds Pass Reserve on the Australia Day weekend. The lead up to Australia Day was a very wet time, so there was some concern how the day would turn out in regard to the competition. It turned out to be a lovely sunny day, albeit a little humid and hot. The main judge for the day was from interstate, Maria Schwenneson, an A level judge from Queensland. She is not only an Australian judge; she is also an international judge. She was ably joined by Judy Sheldrake, who is one of our A level judges in the Territory, as well as Vanessa Lines from the NT, who qualified as the judge in 2008, and Susan Barton, also from the NT, who is working towards her qualifications as an equestrian judge. Horse judges are always required in the Northern Territory, and I encourage anyone who is interested in this sport to get involved.
It was a good day with many horses quite spectacular in their presentation, as were the riders. The day ended about 2.30 pm. The results of the day were as follows, and I offer my congratulations to not only the first place getters, but also second and third.
The preliminary test was Shalee Bird on her horse, Hollbrook Milton; the novice test was Jenny Jones on Willowcroft Black Jack; elementary test was Jenny Jones on Aslan’s Gold; medium test was Lisa Mutimer on El Gems Toby Lerone; and advanced test was Jan Cole on Madison Deck. Congratulations to all the riders and, of course, a big thank you to all the judges, particularly the interstate judges, the helpers, the scribes, the riders and, of course, the sponsors and the people who pull the day together.
It is a very popular activity with the rural area equestrian and pony clubs, and they have a full calendar planned for this year. In mid-March, there is an event where they have equestrian activities to music in the early evening.
On a sad note, I offer my sympathies to one of the riders who picked up awards on the day, Nicole Mutimer. She had a horse called Red Adair, which, sadly, she lost recently in a tragic accident on a property. I saw her ride this horse and it truly was a magnificent animal; very handsome and very majestic. I have already offered my sympathies to her, however, I place on the record that I hope she finds another horse equally as majestic as Red Adair.
One other point, Pam Crellin, who is a well known identity in the horse and equestrian scene in the rural area, and has been for decades I believe, well respected - she is a coach, a trainer, has been a rider herself and, I presume, has been a judge - is facing and battling an illness. She has been in and out of hospital. I have visited her in hospital and she is a good stick. I know she is fighting it to the best of her ability. She is back training and coaching her young students. I know her activity and love of equestrian events will probably pull her through this illness. I wish her all the best.
Congratulations to all the equestrian people and their families in the rural area.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to be here with some good news. I love the Darwin Sailing Club, I love the Trailer Boat Club, and believe everyone loves both clubs - two of the best of places in Australia to kick back and have a beer, a meal, and watch the sunset. They are perched right on the beach, part of the great Territory lifestyle. There is a reason they are two of the best places in Australia. There is a great big rock wall which stops them being washed away. Unfortunately, at the moment, that rock wall is being washed away. That is no good - no rock wall, no clubs. The Darwin Sailing Club and the Trailer Boat Club will both be washed away, which would a disaster.
That is why government has kicked in $1.6m to rebuild the rock wall. The tender has been decided and work started last Friday. I can guarantee members two of the best places in Australia are going to be saved; they are not going to go anywhere. I was on-site recently with the new Lands and Planning Minister, Gerry McCarthy, to show him the old rock wall which is being washed away. It was built 20 years ago; it has done its job. If any member is interested, you can head down there during the Wet Season and see the damage caused by the tides in Darwin. You can imagine the kind of damage that would be caused during cyclonic conditions.
As I mentioned, the government has kicked in $1.6m to protect these iconic clubs. Everyone would take visiting friends and relatives to the Darwin Sailing Club and the Trailer Boat Club - beautiful place; the sunsets are fantastic. The decision to make that investment was easy because of the quality of work done by both clubs to demonstrate the need, the solution, and the overall quality of the submission from the clubs addressing their needs. That takes a lot of coordinated work, and it is good to see both clubs working together.
I thank both clubs. From the Trailer Boat Club: Kevin Jenkins, Greg Altmann, Brant Butterworth and the committee members of the Darwin Trailer Boat Club; and Peter Lockett, Commodore Barry Stach, and the management committee of Darwin Sailing Club; and John Mulkearns from SKM.
The Ostojic Group won the contract for construction, and it is great to see a local company winning the contract. Ian Hinchcliffe from Ostojic Group is in charge of the project, with Emma Bell as project manager. The work on the rock wall will take a few months - probably by the end of March it will be fixed. During that time there is a section of beach which cannot be used, but it is all for a good cause – to save both those clubs, which we do love.
If you love Darwin, a sunset, a cold drink and a great meal - and I am sure everyone here who is listening does - then get on down to the Sailing Club and the Trailer Boat Club. On Sunday morning, the Trailer Boat Club does breakfast - it is fantastic.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening I mark the recent death of my aunty, Nangi Nungurrayi, and pay a tribute to her memory. Nangi was a member of one of the first family groups of Pintubi people to be brought in from the Western Desert to Papunya settlement. She was a woman of grace and refinement, elegant, beautiful, an artist of great originality, a leader among women, and traditional to the core. She carried her Tjukurrpa – her country, within her. There was no one who was more a symbol of the deserts and all they are for the people of the Centre. I pay my respects to all her surviving family: her brother in Marble Bar, her sister, Naata, and her children.
Nangi was delicate and slight of stature, but she had a strong will and a clear sense of her path in life. When she began painting for white people in the 1990s, she transferred her country into her paintings. She found great pleasure working in paint, remembering that her law and culture was still strong. This is what she succeeded in putting into her canvases. Culture comes in two forms; it is not just about your identity, it about your law and songs. She carried all that in her, and it is the singing of her songs that made her paintings what they were - majestic, shimmering, dazzling in colour, and in line and force.
I could speak at great length about her life and her place in her home community of Kintore, but tonight I mention, above all, the way she faced the ultimate test of character - her looming death, She knew very well that last weekend she was brought in from Kintore that she was dying. Her family gathered around. She was calm, despite her pains. She said a quiet, dignified farewell to all her relatives. She said goodbye to the white people who had most cared for her, Cheryl Nungurrayi and Chris Symons. She said goodbye to her children. She knew she was going to a deeper level of creation.
Fellow parliamentarians, I sometimes find it hard to see the meaning in our struggles to make a better life for all of us in the Territory. However, when I think of my mothers and grandmothers and aunts, and all the strong men and women around me in the desert, I see how rich our world is and take heart. The wonder and beauty of traditional life are almost inexpressible. I often find myself standing in this House to mark the departure of a great man or a woman of desert law. These are moments of the deepest sadness for me, because I know men and women of this kind, wholly immersed in the old culture of the desert, will not come again. However, they are not fully gone. They live on, in memory, and they live on in the landscape, and in their art, and in the rhythms of nature all around us.
I spent much of my younger life roaming around the bush with Nangi, hunting, searching, and learning the ways of the desert life. We would hunt lungkata together, maku, tjupi, or honey ants, zebra finches too. She was a master of the bush. Her Tjukurrpa is all around us here in her country, but it is also on the walls of western museums and art galleries. It is a gift given to all Australia. She was an expression of everything I hold dear in desert life. I feel happy to have known her, and to have walked down the same paths as her. It is a delight for me to summon up the thought of her here tonight.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I conclude with another ending. In a far country, in the capital of Western Australia, yesterday, 16 February, at 4 pm in the Intensive Care Unit of Royal Perth Hospital, another desert leader left this world. Jackie Giles Tjapaltjarri, who was born near Jupiter Well in the Gibson Desert, passed away after a long illness. He was one of the most overwhelming and impressive of the desert’s Maparnjarra men, or magic healers. Like Nangi, he was an artist of the highest distinction. He was also a man of gentleness and generosity, a king in his world. All who met him admired his grandeur, and his grace. All who were treated by him gave thanks for his healing gifts. Even though he has left us, the deep desert is still his home. I know he, like Nangi, can hear and see me as I speak the words of tribute to him in our parliament tonight.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words about a constituent of mine, Teddy Cairns, who passed away on 21 January 2010. I thought I would take some of the obituary from the Centralian Advocate, which was very well put together by Miriam Raphael on 2 February. I will read from some of that. It was:
Teddy was a great lady; she will be sorely missed. She was truly one of the iconic personalities of Alice Springs. I had met her on quite a few occasions. I know her son, Kim, very well. My thoughts and best wishes go out to Kim. I know Teddy will be remembered long into the future. Teddy Cairns, 16 August 1921 to 20 January 2010.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, as Patron of the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club, I want to mention the great times the membership of this club has had during the year. The Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club welcomes people passionate about vehicles of any make, age or condition. The MVEC was formed in March 1986, incorporated in July 1987, and a sub-branch in Katherine commenced in 1989.
It is fantastic to report club membership has increased by 46 during the last year, bringing the total to 360. This is a great effort, and goes to show the enthusiasm Territorians have in their cars.
During the year, the club had to come to terms with changes to the Club Registration Scheme, but though persistence, overcame any problems, especially the registration of their Foden - a magnificent refueller truck, as most members here will know.
Highlights during 2009 were many and varied. In January, six members participated in the Australia Day Ute Run and, in February, the club took the decision to donate $2000 to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal, and $1000 to the Queensland flood victims. The club is to be congratulated on its generosity of spirit. Also in February, the club again took a major part in the Bombing of Darwin celebrations, with open days at the Hangar from 19 to 22 February.
The club is a great supporter of kids, and last year members completed more projects for Anula Preschool; took part in the ATANT trucking convoy for kids, donated $750 to Camp Quality - funds raised form a sausage sizzle - and also provided $150 to Nightcliff Lions Children’s film festival. This club just goes on raising funds and donating to terrific organisations. In March, it gave $515 to Legacy, proceeds from the Aviation Heritage Centre open day sausage sizzle.
However, the club did purchase materials and constructed a dust cover for the Sandfly, and also bought a moving picture frame to display restoration work on the engine - a massive feat completed in 2008.
Fun events along the way included a Gangsters and Molls Ball at Berry Springs; provision of vehicles for the opening of the new suburb of Lyons; the MVEC v CHCC cricket match at Batchelor, which the MVEC guys won; pre-start breakfast and entry in the Rejex Rally over three days in August; support for the Katherine Festival; Shannons open day at Hidden Valley, with up to 90 vehicles driving from the Hangar to Hidden Valley - what a show - Father’s Day run to Emerald Springs with club car show at the Hangar on the Sunday; and, in September, the Club’s Hangar was the destination for a run from Longreach to Darwin to commemorate the Hudson Fysh and Pat McGuiness survey of the route for the Australian government in 1919, prior to the great air race from Great Britain to Australia.
The club provided the pre-1930 cars as escorts into Darwin to ‘Molly’, a model T Ford after it re-created Fysh and McGuiness’ journey across the outback. It is of interest that during this journey in 1919, across the scorched outback, Hudson Fysh and Pat McGuiness became convinced that flight was the only way to link the remote outback. Hence, the idea was born for Qantas. Ninety years on, Qantas is still operating in the Territory, linking Darwin with the rest of Australia. We would like to see it linking us with the world. We know it does not do Darwin-Singapore anymore, but I am certainly on John Cason’s hammer to reinstate the Darwin-Singapore route for Qantas. There you go; we will all have to keep advocating for that.
I thank Peet Menzies, President of the MVEC and his committee for the great work they have done over the past year.
Turning to other areas of interest in my electorate, I congratulate all the students who were awarded Australia Day 2010 citizenship awards last month. In my electorate I particularly congratulate Leonie Harold from Casuarina Secondary College; Marissa Higgins from Jingili Primary School; Sevasti Karavas from Millner Primary School; Kelly Gahan from Moil Primary School, and Samantha Martin from Wagaman Primary School, who have been recognised for their outstanding citizenship qualities within their school, and the community.
I welcome teachers and students back to school, and in particular, welcome two new principals to my electorate in Lyn Elphinstone at Casuarina Senior College, and Carin Symonds at Jingili Primary School. Both these schools are fantastic institutions, and I hope they both will enjoy working within them. Jingili school community is extremely close-knit, and I am sure Carin’s skills will only enhance it.
Lyn has spent many years at Dripstone, and will bring her diverse talents across to CSC at a time when the Year 10s have now completely settled in, and the college is steaming full power ahead. As I have said in this House many times, I am proud to be the member for Johnston. The schools in the electorate do a fantastic job, the people are fantastic, and I certainly enjoy my work as local member.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on several issues which highlight, again, some of the problems government has at the coalface. In this case, we have a government which sprouts they are concerned about the housing problems in the Northern Territory, and yet everywhere you turn you hear of issues affecting people.
One such area is in the Howard Springs/Humpty Doo area, where people have bought land and bore licences have not been approved. I have been following this for the last few weeks and, in fact, I received a letter today from a gentlemen letting me know that, finally, one of the bore permits have been issued.
It was a very frustrating process. No one seemed to know anything about it. It highlights people are kept in the dark and often receive differing snippets of information, or misinformation from departments. One gets the feeling something that is of supreme importance to an individual, or a group of individuals, has little importance to the government department which administers it. To be told all bore permits are on indefinite hold while the government conducts a review of the water management legislation, with no indication of how long it would take, was a monumental blow to people desperately trying to build their own homes in the rural area. What I found difficult to fathom was this information was not even provided to the bore drilling companies, who rely on providing this service for their livelihoods.
I purchased an $80 hand-held GPS online from America a while ago. I could track its progress online from where it originated, through seven or eight handling points, all the way to my post office box in Palmerston. There was no need to make a telephone call to find out what was happening with it. If it was delayed, I could see exactly where I was. Trying to track down who currently has a file on the issue of land titles, or water bore applications, is virtually impossible and quite frustrating when you are passed from one department to another by telephone. I am sure government departments have huge workloads, and become equally frustrated with hundreds of calls from bewildered customers. Maybe what is needed is a file tracking system, and maybe a dedicated one-stop file tracking officer who can advise customers exactly how their file is progressing or, as perceived by many people, who is currently sitting on it. To solve it all, we have to install Fedex into our government departments, we can track files, and we will have answers for people in a very short period of time. We solve the problem!
Another one, a letter from Training Skill Services - we understand this company has been a VET provider in our schools. This is the one I alluded to in an earlier debate. I received an e-mail yesterday advising a decision still has not been made whether to approve this training provider. I find it frustrating to have a government which talks about supporting our youth, VET training, and education in the Northern Territory. As I described in an earlier debate, to have an application knocked back on a technicality - and this is the advice I have been given - because it was received in hard file instead of being received electronically. In 2010, we cannot scan documents? I do not understand. Training Skills Services has advised those students who are sitting in limbo land they are not getting any support from the government at this stage.
I will read from the letter:
I am hoping the minister looks at this because, quite honestly, if you have a skilled training service which can provide the services to get more of our students trained and into the workforce, that is good. I would hate to think we have a department so caught up with itself that it has made a decision based on the hard file being received rather than an electronic file.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to let you know, in accordance with standing orders, the following report is provided regarding my recent research trip to Perth, Western Australia, from Tuesday, 12 January to Sunday, 17 January 2010. During the trip, I had the opportunity to meet with INPEX and ConocoPhillips, and learn about renewable energy technology, as well as some exciting emerging technologies which may have the potential to provide natural gas for the long term.
The information has provided valuable insight into the oil and gas industry, as well as renewable energy. This information has provided me with a valuable resource that will, no doubt, assist in future policy negotiations and directions impacting the Northern Territory. I was particularly interested to learn more about carbon capture and storage technology, and the emerging technology associated with producing methane using microbes.
I would like it noted both INPEX and ConocoPhillips provided detailed background on their respective businesses, and were able to demonstrate their work around the world leading to positive impacts on our delicate ecosystems. Learning how these companies work at protecting ecosystems, particularly around project sites, was insightful. INPEX has an environmental policy, and I read the following quote:
My trip, and the organisations I had the privilege to visit, has assisted in improving my knowledge within the respective industries. It has also provided valuable understanding of how these companies view the relationship they have with the Northern Territory, and how that relationship will continue into the future. Politicians are often publicly accused of the heinous crime of travelling, and no one should accept any form of travel unless need is demonstrated. However, no one can deny the importance of learning and, of course, the relationships which can be forged leading to long-term benefits for the Northern Territory. I expect this is one aspect of politics I will need to become used to. What I can say is that I sincerely agree with the concept that all travel should be transparent for all parliamentary members, including ministers.
In summing up, I thank staff members from INPEX, including our local Darwin General Manager, Sean Kildare, and ConocoPhillips’ staff, who took valuable time to provide their presentations. No question was too hard, and the information provided was open and honest. Thank you for your time; it was an invaluable experience and I sincerely appreciate it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make some clarifying remarks in regard to the motion put earlier this evening regarding a prison farm for Alice Springs or, as the member for Nelson said, to investigate a prison farm near Alice Springs gaol. There was not much time for comment because we were trying to get through General Business Day to reach other matters, so I spoke very briefly. However, I did point out there are already facilities in Alice Springs gaol, even though they are fairly run down. There are farm facilities, orchards, chickens and accommodation. My point is, if you bring a motion forward, you have to fully explain it. You also have to understand some things already exist.
I made the comment about some utopian environment the member for Nelson likes to portray. You can always have a good idea, but you have to be able to sell your idea. Sure, we support prison farms, and I said that. Our policy is prison farms, and we have already spoken about Katherine. However, you have to put forward a solid idea. We often talk about Indigenous employment and economic development, and there are perfectly good reasons why, when we talk about Indigenous employment, one might want to position a prison farm near an Indigenous community.
Thinking of Alice Springs, you have access to Santa Teresa - although the road is bad - you have Hermannsburg, which is accessible by sealed road at 100 km/h. There is easy access for people to get in and out, prison transport staff who might live in Alice Springs. There is also an opportunity to provide small scale industry in Hermannsburg. These are the things which need to come into debates like this; unfortunately the time was not available. However, you cannot put out a wishy washy motion saying: let us investigate a prison farm. You cannot have a simplistic idea; this is the problem with Independents. It is about policy, and policy development and rigour.
We can all think it would be good to launch a space shuttle from Alice Springs. That is a good idea, let us investigate it, however we have to be serious - we have to have some serious debate. This is what is missing in a motion such as this.
It was like the motion from the member for Nelson on the Alice Springs airport, which I spoke to earlier, where pre-emptive works to get land developed needs to be done. Yes, that is all well and good, however let us get the real stuff happening - the real stuff is land developed now. Government should be sending a letter to minister Albanese. We do not need a motion in parliament to tell the Planning minister to do something; that is ridiculous. It is currently proposed for that land to go up, we know it is airport land, we know Ian Kew is interested, we support this model, but this is general government business; it is ordinary stuff. Why do we have some blas motion about sending a letter to the federal minister? It is even worse, if the government has not done it - even worse!
The member for Nelson might go home upset tonight because I castigated him for his motions, but they were dumb. It is normal business.
Prison farms - we know we have prison farms. It is in his dirty little deal he has made with the government. I assume the government will be investigating it. I do not even know why we need a motion. This deal was done long before that motion was put up for the Alice Springs sittings. The member for Nelson might go home concerned about the comments I made, however, he has to be realistic.
Let us put forward a motion to debate reformation rather than what we would like to see when the rainbow comes down with the pot of gold at the end of it. Otherwise, we are kidding ourselves, there is no point talking about it, and it only deserves 30 seconds. We cannot vote against it because it was a bad motion, and we will be accused of playing wedge politics. We say: ‘Yes, it is a good idea’. We will navel gaze.
We will investigate one at Kintore too, and Alpurrurulam, and Wadeye - we would like the road sealed to Wadeye. You have to get down to the reality of how these things happen. It was a ridiculous debate, and is this whole shift from - I like Gerry, and I felt sorry when he cried; I did - I felt for him. This is the thing about moving from being the king maker, and the person supposed to work on policy, to coming back to being an ordinary Independent who steps aside from that policy, and navel gazes about a utopian society. If you are in the game you are in the game. When you put yourself at the top of the game, you play it. You take the hits from politics.
Half the people on that side of the room are lovely people. I know they are Labor people and are good old haters, but they are not bad people. I will talk to them outside this House any time. The member for Johnston knows what I mean; people are decent people. If you picture yourself holding the balance of power, get a backbone, and handle the fight. Handle the fight. If you put yourself in the position of making decisions on government policy, you have to be prepared to get in there, roll up your sleeves, and make those decisions. To decide you want to step away and have some blas motion defeats the purpose. No one can understand why you are holding the balance of a hung parliament - it is completely ridiculous.
To go back to the point, prison farms, yes, we support them. In my opinion, we should be locating them in areas where we can create local economies, wherever that is. Investigate - if the government has not investigated it they are even more useless than thought, and, and if they have not investigated it they will look worse than the minister for Planning looked on the news tonight, which was quite horrendous.
I am not sure of the size of the blocks, when they will be released, and when families can move in. The minister for Planning does not know
A member: He had no idea at all.
Mr GILES: He has no idea. Maybe he has not done any investigation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, however that is all I want to say. The member for Nelson is in a policy position. He is the king maker of the Northern Territory. He takes a role in it, or he steps aside.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to get the call. Tonight I talk about the plight of a gentlemen who is currently sitting on the front steps of this building - Parliament House, Darwin. The man’s name is Danny Kitchell; Danny is homeless. Danny is suffering from a mental disability; he is on a disability pension. He has problems associated with ADHD, and he has some special needs. Danny cannot find a place to stay, so Danny is doing a one man protest. He has been, for several nights, at the front of Parliament House. Security moves him on - they will not let him unroll his swag. He is trying to draw the attention of government to the housing crisis in Darwin. I had a chat to Danny and took a photo of him with my telephone, and I have printed that off for the benefit of all members. That is a picture of Danny on the front steps of Parliament House.
A member: What is he reading?
Mr TOLLNER: He is reading a rather large book by the look of it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to table that, and have it incorporated on the Parliamentary Record. I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: Very good. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all members for taking this matter so seriously.
Danny is in a serious situation. He is living on the streets. Because of Danny’s mental condition, he finds it very difficult to live in large groups. He has, as I said, some special needs. He needs to be in a house or a unit on his own. He has difficulty living with other people because of his mental illness. Left alone, and to his own devices, Danny has proved, in the past, he is more than capable of looking after himself and leading a full life. He has worked in the past, but he cannot be around large groups of people for very long, which makes it difficult for him, of course, to be in shared accommodation.
Danny is on the streets of Darwin like so many other people, so many hundreds of other people. We read stories constantly about people living in tents in caravan parks, mothers raising children in tents in caravan parks, public servants sleeping in cars on beaches, people who are in jobs who cannot afford rents or to purchase houses in the Top End. I read in the paper recently an organisation conducted a global survey and found Darwin is the fourth most unaffordable city in the world to live in. I find it absolutely shameful we are in that situation.
Property prices have always been high in the Territory, however, property prices were matched by wages; people earned, on average, more in the Northern Territory than they did in other parts of the country. Sadly, under this government, that seems to have changed, and even people with jobs now cannot afford rents, or to live or buy their own place. You have to ask what the government is doing about this crisis - this dreadful crisis which is driving people out of the Territory.
I have a Facebook site, with quite a few friends, and it is amazing the number of people who tell me they were forced to leave Darwin because they could not afford to live here any longer; three quarters of their wage is going in rent, and they could not get into the housing market. These are common sentiments you hear all over the place, whether you are walking down the street, whether you are opening up your Facebook site; people are really feeling the pressure, and what is the government doing about it? Well, you hear a lot of wind and fluff and bluster coming from the government - we hear how they are going to do this, and they are going to do that. The Chief Minister put out his Territory 2030 strategic plan with a heap of things they are going to do, but what are they actually doing?
What they are doing, it seems to me, is a big guess; you do not know what they are doing. We know there is a huge amount of money that seems to be disappearing, goodness knows where, but it does not seem to be hitting the ground. Every day in Question Time the standard response of any minister is to jump up and tell us how much money they have spent in their particular portfolio. We hear of record health spending. This government is spending more on health than any other government in the history of the Territory, but our health concerns seem to be getting worse; our queues seem to be getting longer.
We hear how much effort government is putting into housing, building houses, but we know they have had $700m for the best part of two and half years from the Commonwealth government; goodness knows where most of that money is going. Hopefully, the Council for Territory Cooperation will deliver a report soon, and we will be able to tell Territorians where all that money has been going. We know we are not getting houses for it. We heard the Minister for Central Australia, I believe, talk today about $140m the government is spending to build 85 houses on town camps. Eighty-five houses for $140m - something does not add up. I would like to be living in a $1m plus house, but we seem to be able to build them on town camps in Alice Springs. In every town camp I have seen in Alice Springs, the houses certainly do not look like $1m plus houses.
It does not seem to matter where you go. We hear the member for Daly, the Minister for Essential Services or whatever he calls himself, talking about the extraordinary amounts of money they are spending on the Power and Water Corporation, and yet the lights continue to go out. The minister says, like it is some great achievement, they keep throwing buckets and bucket loads of money at the Power and Water Corporation, but you go and ask the people in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs whether the power has got better, whether we have fewer blackouts and the answer, of course, is no! Things seem to be getting worse.
The state of our roads is another example. We hear this government talk endlessly about how much money they are putting into their road network, and our roads are getting worse - they seem to be getting narrower. There are anthills on the sides of the road right up to the verges, but the government is spending record amounts on roads. Well, where are the better roads? There are none and, unfortunately, the person I took the photo of tonight, Danny Kitchell who is staying at the front of this parliament, in a single man protest to the government, is a symptom of this malaise which permeates the whole of this Territory government in this desire to throw money around willy-nilly.
No one seems to care about results. No one seems to care whether they are delivering better services. It seems to me the end game is actually spending the money like it is some great achievement; they spent more money than anybody else. However, we are not getting any bang for that buck at all. It is disheartening, and it is sad to talk to people like Danny Kitchell sitting out the front, a person who does have things to offer society, who can contribute in a meaningful way, but is not being given the hand up so many people in his situation deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope people take note of Danny Kitchell. He is only one man, but he is one man whose protest is symbolic of the situation so many Territorians find themselves in.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, in relation to housing because, like him, I also have people coming into my office begging and pleading for me to do something. They are at their wit’s end. They have sought appointments at other members’ offices in the northern suburbs. In one case, they were told to leave the office by a government member, which I found appalling. These people are in dire straits – all brought about by the lack of land release.
I listened to the Territory 2030 report yesterday, and how wonderful it is all going to be in 2030. I am sure it is going to be wonderful because we may not have too many people left here. We are not going to have the houses.
I heard today, and saw figures, where the government is boasting they are going to have 1100 new premises built in the Northern Territory. Late last year I heard the Chief Minister say, in Darwin alone, we need 1700 blocks of land simply to keep pace, yet we are only going to have approximately 1123 in the entire Northern Territory for the year. It does not add up. We have things in the report which I find absurd. On page 13 of the Territory 2030 report it says:
In the Hansard of 16 February, page 14, in relation to this strategic plan for 2030:
That is right if you can find a house to rent. That is if you have money to pay rent. I read an e-mail a few minutes ago from a guy who has gone to Gove to start a business in this fantastic Territory the Chief Minister tells us about, and he said he cannot even get a house and, if he can, it is going to be $900. I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy would be able to comment on that at some stage; a basic three-bedroom home for $900 a week. Why? We do not have enough land being released. The entire cost of housing is increasing.
From the ministerial statement given to us yesterday, page 14 of the Hansard, I will quote the leading bit again:
The second dot point says:
access to affordable housing and the staples of life will have a positive impact on health and well being.
When you see grown men - big blokes - come into my office, who do not normally show their emotions, crying their eyes out, saying they are just about stuffed because they cannot afford to keep going, their kids are leaving town because they cannot get reasonable rent, they cannot even find a place to rent. They have other kids at home, they have partners, they have babies, and the kids say: ‘Well, see you later dad, we are moving out’. The man’s wife is absolutely devastated because the kids are leaving. He cannot leave; he has a small business to run. What does he do - he simply breaks down.
We wonder why Beyond Blue is so short of funds these days, because they are trying to help so many people get over some of the depressing stuff occurring as a result of the systemic policy failure of the government of the Northern Territory. Access to affordable housing and the staples of life will have a positive impact on health and wellbeing. A large proportion of people out there are having trouble just surviving. I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to get rid of that problem. Maybe we get rid of those people who cannot afford to stay, get them to go south, and then we will not have these people knocking on Territory Housing’s door to get a hand up.
We are not about giving people houses forever. As the member for Fong Lim said, he would like someone to give him a $1.1m house. No one minds giving people a hand up, but when you increase the cost of housing, and the cost of land, to such a point where young people will not be able to get a start in life, that is a major problem, and that is something the government should be ashamed of. Shame on the government for putting us into this situation where there are so many hard-working Territory families, mums and dads, who have a number of kids, and when the kids grow up, mum and dad still need to keep working to help the kids buy a house. The kids are moving. They have to move to places like Adelaide, or Tasmania, so they can actually afford to buy a house and have an investment. Some of them have to go there simply so they can rent, because they do not have the funds.
I say the government needs to have a very good look at how they are doing this. I go to page 15 of this document that purports to be a road map of how we are going to get there. Well, I believe they are going to get lost along the way. They know where they want to go, but how are they going to get there? I do not know whether they know this.
Go to page 15, and I quote from the page, second paragraph: ‘An example of how we are recasting this is through our key government policy frameworks. These include A Working Future, a Healthier Territory, Smart Territory, Greener Territory, Housing the Territory’ - that is a joke – ‘Growing the Territory’. I think it is growing in spite of what government is doing. We have infrastructure falling to bits, taking money out of Power, and at a time when they have had rivers of gold coming from the federal government courtesy of the GST. That was brought in by the previous federal government. We have been fortunate enough to have all this money flow in, and what have we done with it? Well, not very much. Infrastructure is failing all the time.
Growing the Territory, and I go back to the quote: ‘Growing the Territory, a safe Territory’ - well, that is a joke too. What we see is increasing crime rates; no deterrents. I heard the Minister for Correctional Services waffling on about the need for more prisons. What about some deterrents? What about tackling the people causing the problem? He talks about this grand idea - a new era. I am sure he has been reading our policy and has taken a little of it - which is a good thing, I do not mind. We are happy to give him any of our policies, and help him resolve the issues, because these are issues that face every single Territorian every single day, when you walk down the street, when you go to parks, when you go to the beach. It does not matter what you do we, as a community, are all confronted with these problems.
The last two quotes are: ‘Good government’ and ‘an Affordable Territory’. I find that appalling, and an absolute joke. ‘An affordable Territory’. Why is it so many kids are moving interstate? Why is it we are losing doctors, nurses, people from middle income Australia and young professionals who are attempting to get a start? We are losing them, we are bleeding the Territory, and we are causing a brain drain. The only people who will be able to stay here soon are those who work in the oil industry. I suspect this government is going to be responsible for creating the first capital city in this country, and perhaps in the world, that may be a fly in-fly out city.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Australia Day celebrations in Nhulunbuy were extremely well attended at Nhulunbuy Town Pool on 26 January. Arrangements for the day were coordinated by Nhulunbuy Corporation, and I make special acknowledgement of the effort of Kendell Kenway, the Corporation’s Community Recreation Officer, who always put in a 110% to the community events she coordinates. Further to that, there is always a raft of community organisations behind these types of events.
On this occasion I acknowledge Woolworths, Nhulunbuy, East Arnhem IGA, Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, Gove FM, NORFORCE, and the cadets from TS Melville Bay who organised the flag raising ceremony, Sodexho, Nhulunbuy Community Neighbourhood Centre, Rio Tinto Alcan, BC Autos, who coordinated the Beaut Ute competition, Yirrkala Banana Farm, Nhulunbuy BMX, Runners North, Nhulunbuy Tennis Club, Gove Variety Club, Gove Netball Association and the talented teenager Tamika Kaspar, who sang a beautiful rendition of the National Anthem.
Following the flag raising, was a citizenship ceremony with Mrs Virginia Francia from the Philippines, who, in front of hundreds, took her oath. It was certainly a special occasion for her.
For the first time, Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd, on the recommendation of its town board members, presented four awards known as the Town Board Awards, to people within the Gove community recognising their service during the year that generally, would perhaps go unnoticed. Recipients of those awards were Kim Wilkinson, a very busy mum with three small children, who put an outstanding effort into organising the Inaugural Teddy Bear’s Picnic during Children’s Week on 27 October 2009. It was a highly successful event which involved the Ski Beach, Yirrkala and Nhulunbuy communities. Kim also assisted with the Gove Peninsula festival, and was also a very active member of the group of women who last year lobbied hard to see maternity services retained at Gove District Hospital.
Second recipient was Nicky Mayer, Gove Tennis Club, who was a tireless campaigner for youth sport and especially tennis in Nhulunbuy, which was evidenced by her numerous trips away to accompany athletes to compete around the Territory and interstate, including in January, the grass court tennis challenge in Victoria and southern New South Wales. Nicky is head coach, and has overseen a remarkable increase in students seeking coaching as well as seeing club membership numbers reach record levels. She coordinates all the competitions held in Nhulunbuy, and was successful last year with her submission to the Northern Territory government’s Facilities Grants in receiving $50 000 to upgrade and resurface the tennis courts in Nhulunbuy
Ian Clarke was also recognised though, unfortunately, Ian and his wife, Jan, have recently departed Nhulunbuy after several years as Rio Tinto Alcan’s manager for Mine Materials, Handling and Port. He was also recognised for his efforts as an immediate past President of the Rotary Club of Nhulunbuy. Through his role with Rotary, he was actively involved in coordinating key community events, including beach volleyball, the annual Rotary quiz night, the Christmas Santa lolly run and, outside of Nhulunbuy with fellow Rotary members, was involved with community projects, including the construction of a composting toilet at Daliwuy Bay, and school projects at Garrthalala and Yilpara.
Wally Komets was also recognised with a Town Board Award, in recognition of his support for the senior citizens of Nhulunbuy over many years by coordinating a monthly dinner, as well as many other events for senior citizens. He is also a current member of the East Arnhem Historical Society, and a past member of the Lyons Club.
The recipients of the 2010 Australia Day Citizen Awards for Nhulunbuy, which are provided by the Australia Day Council, were awarded as follows. Nathan Frick received the Achievement Medallion recognising his passion in advocating on behalf of youth, and promoting the need for mental health services, especially for those living in remote locations; a recent recipient of the Young Territorian’s Excellence in Youth leadership, and former Chairman of Head Space National Reference Group. He is also a past member of the Chief Minister’s Youth Round Table, and NT Area Consultative Committee, as well as being involved in local radio station Gove FM. Nathan is certainly a very worthy recipient of the achievement medallion
Senior citizen, June Bennett, received an Appreciation Certificate in recognition of her long-term work with senior citizens, which includes running ‘Hoy’ for many years on a Friday night. She is well-known around town for her recycling efforts, picking up aluminium cans, and also coordinates the collection and sorting of items deposited in the Red Cross bins in town. She is also held in high esteem for her ironing abilities, and her baking abilities, with lemonade scones a speciality. She has cared for many children of single parents who have been shift workers, by working as an overnight nanny. Sadly, June will be leaving Nhulunbuy in the near future, but we wish her all the very best. She will be most certainly missed.
8 EAR Gove FM received the Participation Certificate for its initiative in developing and driving the Think Local, Buy Local, Be Local Campaign. The campaign has reinvigorated the local business community, and made local consumers think twice about where they spend their money, and about supporting local businesses and local jobs. The campaign also received the assistance of the local paper, The Arafura Times, and the local Chamber of Commerce and, I am pleased to say as local member, I was very proud to support it, as was the minister for Business, with both of us making cash contributions.
An Achievement Certificate was presented to Esther Rika, recognising her efforts as one of the main organisers in rallying widespread community support to raise the issue of the need to retain maternity services at Gove Hospital. This included coordinating many meetings, circulating the petition which saw more than 1000 signatures which was tabled in this parliament on 28 April 2009, and she was part of the team of women who coordinated the public march on 9 March, followed by a public meeting at Nhulunbuy Town Hall attracting some 300 to 400 residents.
Gove Yacht Club’s Ivan Danks Day was recognised as Community Event of the Year. It was held on Sunday 16 August, after an absence of a few years from the community calendar. This iconic event attracted 16 boat builders who took to the tools and sawed, drilled, screwed and glued their way for up to six hours to assemble the vessel that would float, then sail and race, with a prize for the first past the finish line. All funds raised from this year’s event were donated to St John Ambulance. Special acknowledgement must be made of the contribution of Tom and Lindsay Brown from the yacht club for their hard work in resurrecting this event.
Sarah Hanks was awarded Young Citizen of the Year. Aged 26, Sarah took on the role of President for the successful revival of the Gove Peninsula Festival during August 2009, and did this with tireless enthusiasm. She led an equally enthusiastic team of people, chaired meetings and did the hard yards during the fundraising and coordinating.
The number one spot, Nhulunbuy’s Citizen of the Year, went to Jon Regan. Jon Regan has been a solid contributor to junior sport in Nhulunbuy since his arrival in 1998. He has held many positions within the Gove Soccer Club and Gove Junior Rugby League. He has encouraged participation, and provided support for many young men and women as they attempt to gain the necessary skills to improve their performance in these sports. He has coached school boys and girls soccer teams, taking numerous teams representing the East Arnhem cluster to both Territory and interstate level. Jon has been a willing coach for Gove Junior Rugby League for many years, and is always willing to put up his hand to help with coaching.
Jon has been an integral part of many rugby trips to Katherine, which gives players from Nhulunbuy the opportunity to play against boys other than those from their own club. A number of his prodigies have gone on to state and national level in rugby league and rugby union. Jon is a quiet achiever who is not always at the forefront of clubs, but is always there to assist in the grassroots, day-to-day running of sporting organisations - he is certainly a truly worthy recipient of this award.
Further to the Australia Day acknowledgements at the Nhulunbuy celebrations, I also acknowledge and congratulate our student citizen award winners as listed in the one page advertisement in the Northern Territory News on 26 January, and recognised them for their achievements. They included Kyle Rogers, Nessie Frumenzi and Meagan Morris from Nhulunbuy; Esther Gjelilangbuy and Evellena Yalaykupa from Shepherdson College on Elcho Island.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to deal with a small electorate issue and this is the opportunity, of course, during the debates, to do so. Whilst members in this House speak of things of great moment, we occasionally forget there are issues of great concern, at a very local level, to people who live in of our electorates. I have one such issue I seek to raise this evening.
The area between Tipperary Waters and Tiger Brennan Drive in my electorate is essentially a stormwater drain, but nevertheless represents a substantial piece of land which is sadly neglected by this government - I believe it to be Northern Territory government land. Whilst the topography of the area makes it a stormwater drain, the fact is rarely does it fulfil that function except in times of heavy rain. In the meantime, it ends up being a vacant lot, essentially, which has no more care put into it than a vacant lot.
I have spoken about this particular patch of land in the past for use as an overflow area for car parking from the Tipperary Waters area. However, I was recently approached by a person who had another idea. This demonstrates people do think laterally, and when you think that you know everything, someone comes out with something from left field.
On those occasions I sit next to my van, I was approached by a lady by the name of Brooke Miller who lives in the Tipperary Waters area, and has a small dog. Of course, anyone who knows the Tipperary Waters area knows there are quite a few people living in the area with small dogs. Yet, they have to go across Tiger Brennan Drive to the playing field in Stuart Park near Gothenburg Crescent to take their dogs for a walk, if the dogs want to run around on any grass. The first thing is that it is a playing field, and playing fields and dogs do not always mix, for obvious reasons. She suggested the area between Tipperary Waters and Tiger Brennan Drive could receive some landscaping which could be done to accommodate, amongst other things, a dog walking space. I was quite taken with that idea, and I suggested to Brooke Miller that she should pursue the idea a little, and I promised I would pursue it from my end.
When you ask a person to pursue something like that, often they suddenly become quite enthusiastic. I was taken by her enthusiasm because she has now entered into correspondence with me about the idea, and even done some research. I will quote into Hansard a letter she sent me.
Dear Mr Elferink,
Indeed, happy pet owners, happy voters.
I draw this to the attention of the minister for Planning and ask him to consider what has been proposed here, because it is not a bad idea. Even if the area is not used exclusively by dog owners, at least part of that land could be set aside.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table both the letter sent to me from Brooke Miller, concerned citizen, and some of the research she did.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I table the research so the minister can get an idea of what is being proposed. Should there be a change of government, I will certainly be taking those beautification issues up with my colleagues in Cabinet, because this is the capital city of the Northern Territory - one-sixth of Australia’s land mass. To have pieces of land still unattended to in our capital city is, for me, a concern. A community which is built around beautiful open spaces is important, and this is a good way to use what is, essentially, a stormwater drain and turn it into a useful, open space so many people could use.
I urge the minister to turn his mind to this particular issue, not to fail Brooke, and advise this House what proposals he thinks are good for that particular area, and whether he thinks those proposals should include a dog park.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I can tell you, I certainly think that. Should we form a government in the Northern Territory, from a local member’s perspective, it is exactly the sort of thing I will be exploring, and keeping an eye on.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, have leave of absence today on account of ill health.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Members Etiquette in Addressing Others
Members Etiquette in Addressing Others
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to clarify a matter raised in the House last night by the member for Fong Lim relating to the manner in which members should refer to other members.
During debate, it is expected members will refer to each other by their correct titles, for example, the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, minister for a particular portfolio, and not by their electorate title. You will note the Chair always acknowledges members in that way.
During the adjournment debate all members, except for the first member called, who is usually a minister and may have been called to adjourn the House - only a minister can adjourn the House -are referred to by their electorate title as adjournments generally relate to the member’s electorate. If, however, a member chooses to speak on a matter relating to a member’s portfolio, in that context the member should only be referred to by the ministerial title.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
PETROLEUM AMENDMENT AND RELATED MATTERS BILL
(Serial 91)
(Serial 91)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Petroleum Act to:
1. assist the Northern Territory’s onshore gas and petroleum industries by allowing flexibility within the act, to more easily accommodate the use of unconventional exploration and production methods;
As members are aware, our mining and energy industries continue to be the biggest contributor to the Territory’s economy, and accounts for around a quarter of gross state product. Further, over the past five years, the expenditure in exploration and mining and petroleum in the Territory has been increasing. Historically, the knowledge of the Territory’s onshore petroleum and gas resources has been limited when compared to the reserves available offshore. In recent times, the level of exploration for onshore reserves has been increasing.
Traditionally, conventional onshore gas and petroleum exploration activities have centred on targeting sandstone and carbonate rock formations. Increasingly, explorers and producers are now identifying and exploring natural gas and petroleum reserves found in low permeability and tight sandstones, gas shales and coal bed methane formations. This new approach, termed unconventional gas plays, is being successfully used overseas, particularly in the United States.
Unconventional gas and petroleum reservoirs can exist over much larger areas than conventional deposits, as explorers are targeting different types of source rocks. The use of unconventional gas and petroleum plays allows for the linking of smaller disparate deposits to each other. This, in turn, can allow for the development of a viable gas and petroleum extraction operation over a large land area, which previously was not possible. As a result, it is necessary for companies adopting unconventional gas plays to seek exploration rights over larger areas of land and for longer tenure periods in order to fully explore, identify and prove up viable reservoirs which can then be economically extracted.
In light of the of the development of new unconventional exploration and extraction techniques, there is a need for the Petroleum Act to be amended to more readily accommodate the changing requirements of the Territory’s onshore gas and petroleum sector going forward.
One of the primary amendments in this bill seeks to provide discretion with respect to the existing requirement under section 24(1) of the Petroleum Act for a mandatory reduction in permit area upon seeking a renewal of an exploration permit. For example, when a holder of a petroleum exploration permit seeks to renew the permit for a further five years, then the holder can only apply for half the land area granted under the original permit.
The purpose of the existing provision is, rightly, to ensure those explorers granted a renewed exploration permit focus their activities into a smaller geographical area in order to prove up the presence of petroleum bodies for possible future commercial development. This provision results in the mandatory turning over of land to allow for new exploration activities to be undertaken, possibly by other companies. However, where there are exploration permit holders actively exploring, and who meet their expected obligations under the act, there are instances in which it is desirable to defer or waiver the reduction in area, subject to ministerial discretion. Such a deferral or waiver can assist permit holders to fully explore the potential of a resource prior to electing to relinquish areas of their permit.
Given the emergence of companies seeking to identify and exploit unconventional gas and petroleum reservoirs, providing greater flexibility within the act is of increasing importance.
The bill seeks to insert a new section into the act allowing an exploration permit holder who is seeking a renewal of its exploration permit, to apply to the minister for an exemption from the mandatory requirement to reduce the number of land blocks held. It is important to note any exemption granted can only be for a period not exceeding 12 months, and an application must provide reasons why an exemption has been sought. Such exemptions may be provided for a deferral of the reduction in area, or a reduction of the permit area by a lesser number of blocks than otherwise would be required under the current act. Prior to the end of a period of exemption, the permit holder may reapply to the minister for an extension of the exemption for a period not exceeding 12 months per application, again providing reasons for such a request.
In making a decision to grant an exemption, the minister must be satisfied the applicant:
has satisfactorily complied with its obligations as an exploration permit holder under the Petroleum Act;
has followed any lawful directions given by the minister when discharging powers under the act.
The minister must also be satisfied the exemption, if granted, will assist the permit holder to more effectively carry out its work program for the discovery of commercially exploitable petroleum and gas resources. Lastly, and most importantly, it must be in the interests of the Territory to grant the exemption.
The provision of a discretionary power, with respect to the granting of an exemption from the mandatory reduction rule, is in line with similar provisions dealing with applications for renewed exploration licences granted under the Mining Act.
The purpose of the second group of amendments contained in the bill is to more efficiently process applications received for the granting of exploration permits issued under the Petroleum Act. Currently, the act allows for more than one application for an exploration permit to be lodged for the same geographical area. This situation differs to that found in the Mining Act where section 18(aa) specifically excludes …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. There seems to be a UFO-type noise coming from the sound system.
Mr Tollner: It does not really matter, Madam Speaker, we cannot understand a thing he is saying, anyhow.
Madam SPEAKER: We are trying to find out what is going on, as I understand Hansard cannot hear anything. An odd noise. I will adjourn the House until the ringing of the bells, which will probably be in only a few minutes.
________________
Sittings suspended until the ringing of the bells.
________________
Madam SPEAKER: We will turn the bells off now. Honourable members, it appears it is the minister for Indigenous policy’s microphone which has caused the problem, so we have isolated it. I will be giving my leave, should the minister require to speak, for her to sit in my seat as the member for Nightcliff during any debates. I would like to say the sound system is being upgraded over the year; hopefully it will not be a problem.
Minister, I would like you to start from the beginning because we do not know how much Hansard has of your speech. Could you start at the beginning of the second reading speech?
Mr HENDERSON: In the interests of time, the minister is reading from a set second reading speech; the parts Hansard do not have surely can be incorporated rather than being re-read for another 10 minutes.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you like to seek leave to have the parts incorporated which may have been affected by the sound problem.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the second group of amendments contained in the bill is to more efficiently process applications received for the granting of exploration permits issued under the Petroleum Act. Currently, the act allows for more than one application for an exploration permit to be lodged for the same geographical area. This situation differs to that found in the Mining Act, where section 18(aa) specifically excludes the acceptance of an application for an exploration licence for the same land, or part of the same land, unless both of the competing applications were received by the department on the same day.
Under the Petroleum Act provisions exist for dealing with applications for the same land area received on the same day. Under this scenario each application is assessed to determine which application will be deemed most appropriate to the interests of the Northern Territory, and only it will proceed. At present all competing applications, whether or not they are received on the same day, are processed in parallel to the stage where they are ready for grant. However, for multiple applications to reach the ‘ready to grant’ stage, all companies would need to have expended significant levels of time and resources. However, for all companies, bar one, there is a high likelihood their application would be ultimately refused as the first application received preceding their own, which meets the necessary requirements, will be successful and granted the permit.
Amending the legislation to allow only one application to be received at a time - and if deemed worthy allowed to proceed to the ‘ready to grant’ stage - will prevent unnecessary resources and time costs being borne by companies, and by the regulator.
New provisions to be inserted will ensure that:
a person cannot apply for an exploration permit on an area already the subject of an exploration permit or licence, or an application for the same area lodged on an earlier business day;
if two or more applications are lodged on the same day, then both will be considered; and
that additional information relevant to the application(s) can be sought by the minister or delegate.
The third scope of amendments in this bill seek to complete the transfer of responsibility for occupational health and safety matters on petroleum production sites to NT WorkSafe, the lead agency for administering the Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act.
The final proposed amendments to the Petroleum Act are to accommodate transitional matters. These include ensuring that:
any uncompleted determinations of competing applications for an exploration permit, prior to commencement date of the newly amended act, are treated as if the amendment act had not commenced; and
if, on the commencement day the minister, or an inspector or workplace safety officer, is exercising a power or performing a function under the Workplace Health and Safety Act, then they can continue to do so to ensure the matter is appropriately finalised.
The proposals put forward in the Petroleum Amendment and Related Matters Bill are in the interests of the Northern Territory, and will assist the onshore petroleum and gas industry with conventional and unconventional activities necessary to identify and exploit the Territory’s valuable energy resources.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr Tollner: May I say thank you to the member for Casuarina for slowing down. I could understand him quite well.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can only rise for a point of order
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement - Member for Arafura and Member for Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document on pairing for the whole of this sitting day for the member for Arafura and the member for Araluen. It is signed by the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
TEACHER REGISTRATION
(NORTHERN TERRITORY)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 78)
(NORTHERN TERRITORY)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 78)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I thank the minister for making available a briefing. There was a little miscommunication to which we contributed. We did get off to a difficult start, and some were inconvenienced, and I apologise for that - part of that was from my office. In the end we did get together and it was a very good briefing. I also appreciate the information provided which we were able to take away to assist us understanding the proposed amendments, and being able to apply the current proposed amendments to some practical issues which have come to my notice.
It was in the testing of those particular issues which have come to my notice that I was able to see what is proposed in this amendment bill will advance the object of the exercise; that being, not only the registration of teachers in strengthening the profession but, principally, through the quality and the requirement for ongoing professional development, and the managing of complaints and disputes. They are very important developments. As was discussed, there needs to be a refining of that capacity to ensure complaints which arise from time to time over the suitability or otherwise of someone seeking registration are managed in a way which allows appropriate and careful responses to take place. At the core of this we do not want conflict, or the integrity of the profession to be damaged in any way. The refinements contained within this amendment will go some way in ensuring that integrity is maintained.
Matters of national consistency, of course, are important as the national discussion on education is about greater consistency with curriculum frameworks and so on, with national initiatives. In my time in parliament, I have been pleased to see education issues have now moved up the table of topics people want debated and discussed. For too long, education was something people did not talk much about. Now it has become an issue of greater prominence in public discourse. Also, it being a national agenda, it is important we acknowledge the development of the national agenda, particularly when it comes to the accreditation and recognition of the importance of the profession and its capacity to transact and translate experience across borders, including New Zealand.
I have already mentioned complaints and inquiries. I made reference to one particular case where a gentleman came into my office really hurt by a process which had been embarked upon which put a question mark over him. It appeared to me the way in which the process we had agreed to in the parliament, in I think 2004, had been constructed, did not provide adequate refinement for that matter to be attended to in a more effective way. The result in this case, I have to say, was a clumsy bit of machinery which resulted in unnecessary distress for a long-serving teacher. I was very pleased in the briefing to learn there is that refinement which allows these matters to be attended to in a better way. I am also pleased it has been reported to me that that particular case has progressed.
I also believe the development of two categories is a good step forward, underlining the importance of professional development and ongoing improvements. The two categories are fully registered and provisional registration. That also goes to an issue which had come to my attention: someone from another system which may not exactly match the parameters established in the Northern Territory and may not fit, but with the creation of the provisional registration category, that provides greater flexibility. For someone familiar with the profession, as many in the Chamber are, the last thing you would want is to have a system clumsy and unrefined in its application which causes offence to the instincts of the profession. The refinement we have described in this amendment, in this regard the capacity to grant provisional registration, preserves the core purpose, the core object. That being to strengthen the profession, to ensure there are accredited courses a teacher needs to make themselves available for to refine and strengthen their practices. That ongoing development, I think, will augur well. Ultimately, with all of the debate in education, and many words spoken yesterday which will be echoing around, raising the status and the respect for the profession itself is important here.
Rather than digress into the way industrial matters have been handled in recent times, which still has an effect on the way the My School data has been discussed in the community, how that debate is being conducted, all those matters bear stress upon the profession. When the community is engaged, it is so important we get these things right, that we get the tone right, and we are clear about why we are embarking on such discussions and debates and contests in the public domain.
In regard to the registration of the profession, those matters related to the handling of disputes, the accreditation of courses and programs and professional development, it is very good the board now has that refined capacity. The required maintenance of competence is a central factor here, and that increased power has now been provided.
One point in relation to the broader discussion – being aware professional development is required, we should be very careful we do not have one section of the enterprise being, in this case, the registration of teachers, which sits in the broader enterprise of delivering education - and the purpose of that education is to make a difference and improvement in the strengthening of a child in a classroom - that we do not have a disconnect between one part and the other. When it comes to professional development, I hope there is an eye, and a sense to ensure we do not just tick the box so professional development has occurred.
The development of the profession is the development of the profession for a purpose, and the purpose of that development is to improve and strengthen the academic performance of students. Therefore, there needs to be that higher level of coordination. So, if you are accrediting and conducting professional development, and improving and refining competencies in specific regard, for example, in the primary school, the matters discussed in and around this issue of the national average, where our students in urban schools like-for-like across the country have not performed as strongly as we would like - the professional development which is going to be accredited by the board must match a broader strategy to improve that, and to close those gaps. We must avoid, at all costs, the left hand not in sync with the right hand.
The purpose of professional development is to achieve a result in a classroom with a child, and that should be measured regardless of whether we find this debate hijacked perhaps by politics, as some would say. At the end of the day, these instruments such as the NAPLAN results should bear noticeable change which could be measured and we see the improvement, so we do not put in effort to simply provide professional development.
On another front, I would urge professional development - I have had a meeting with the CEO of Education, and the matter raised in and around the intervention was to strengthen the delivery of cross-cultural training specific to those teachers who are serving remote. There needs to be a connect between that which is accredited by the board and that which is required by the profession, with the purpose of strengthening delivery to kids in classes and ensuring professional development is relevant, and is going to achieve the objective of the whole enterprise.
That is absolutely critical, and I see that as the role of government - to govern like the governor; to govern so the objective of the whole exercise is being achieved. We are talking about a specific instrument which is the registration board, the instrument to register teachers. It is the job of government, as I see it, to ensure that instrument, that part of the enterprise, strengthens the possibility of achieving the broader objective, which is improving the performance of our students.
That is where I would be watching this and ensuring it is not process which is being put in place; it has been tested and tried and found, through consults in different stakeholders, to be the necessary fix, or the tweak to the instrument; it is part of a bigger job. We would ultimately see whatever energy is put in here, whatever improvements are put in place here, provides a result which we will see, over time, with the results through NAPLAN, for example.
We would see it also in teacher status and respect being improved in the profession, because we would start to see results. I can see that compounding; teachers would be recognised and applauded for the efforts which are bearing results, government would be ensuring the left and right hand are working together to produce results. The profession is strengthened, the community feels prouder of the enterprise of education, and they support their kids more because it is all going in one direction. The board is playing its part, as those who are working on the nature of the professional development are playing their part; the board recognises the part they are playing in the broader agenda.
It will bring the parents in. It will ensure they can see their part is important, as the board’s part is important, as the minister’s part is important, as the principal, as the early childhood teacher, as those who provide support for cross-cultural training will see they are part of something, and it is all connected. It is a terrible thing when so much money is spent, so much activity entered into, boxes ticked, and that is the end of it. It is tragic. The object of the exercise is to make a noticeable improvement to a kid sitting in a classroom.
We often talk about whole-of-government. It sounds good, however we have to ensure that that essential aspect is attended to, and it takes the minister to bring that all together. At the end of the day that is the pulse which must be felt; all this has a purpose, a purpose which can be measured and results which can be seen, and if the results are not there, then measures are put in place to improve those results. That is what it is really all about.
Once again, thank you for the briefing, for the opportunity to test two issues on foot with me, and to be satisfied those matters now have a solution, there is a place for them to go, there is a refinement in the practice, and that is good. There was much discussion in 2004 about this. I was there at that time, and it was supported by the Independents and the Country Liberals. We have come some distance since then and, just as people reassess, there has been that reassessment, that refinement and improvement. This amendment has the support of the Country Liberals.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I support the Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. This bill forms a part of our strategy for A Smart Territory. I welcome the proposed changes to the registration requirements to better support, enhance and improve quality teaching.
The Teacher Registration Board has existed in the Territory for five years and facilitates the continuing competence and development of our teachers. We want to strengthen the act to deliver long-term benefit for students and teachers in our schools. The board ensures only persons who are fit and proper, and appropriately qualified, are employed as teachers in the Northern Territory.
As a former teacher, I am well aware we need new teacher registration categories. New requirements and categories are fundamental to long-term reforms aimed at developing national consistency in teacher registration, and a national accreditation system for pre-service teacher education courses. We need to better support young graduates and trainee teachers in finding their way in this great profession. This bill empowers the Teacher Registration Board to accredit initial teacher education courses for delivery in the Territory.
I listened carefully to the second reading speech. I support the move to achieve the amendments necessary to support the national agenda and to accredit home-grown, initial teacher education programs. We want to support our tertiary institutions to better train and equip local students to take up teaching. I believe the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out the nature of rural and remote teaching placements in the Northern Territory as not only being exciting, but also being very much a specialist field in the education and teaching of our students.
We are taking action to ensure programs can be delivered in the Territory which are appropriately recognised. Two categories of registration are proposed: provisional registration and full registration. New graduates will be granted provisional registration. Only experienced teachers will be granted full registration. Teachers new to the profession need a period of supported induction. I have spent many years developing and supporting our young teachers so they can go on to have real, meaningful and fulfilling careers, and recognising the important work they do in facilitating opportunities for the youth of the Northern Territory. Teachers need supported induction into this profession.
The amendments also include teachers returning from extended periods of leave, teachers from overseas, and applicants from other jurisdictions whose registration has lapsed - once again in a supportive environment.
These amendments also recognise professional standards need to align with the national framework, and set clear and rigorous expectations against which provisional and full registration may be granted. We also want to ensure Territory teachers invest in their ongoing professional development. These amendments provide teachers registered in the Territory to demonstrate ongoing professional competence every five years. Our teachers are very serious about demonstrating ongoing professional competence. Professional development in the teaching profession is hand-in-glove with the profession. Teachers will be required to demonstrate they have maintained their competence and professional experience as part of the registration renewal process.
In the past, the board was responsible for ensuring the continuing competence of teachers, but had no power to refuse to renew a teacher’s registration. These amendments ensure Northern Territory teachers are competent practitioners, and also brings registration practices in the Territory into line with other Australian jurisdictions. We must ensure teachers we have in the Territory are fit and proper to perform their role, and the board is appropriately empowered to investigate concerns. This bill provides substantial changes and additional tools for the registration board to conduct inquiries and to investigate complaints. The community must be confident the Teacher Registration Board has powers to rigorously investigate matters of concern properly. Students in our Territory schools deserve the best performing teachers, and the proposed amendments provide the necessary mechanisms to deal with performance concerns.
Madam Speaker, I trust this bill will receive the opposition’s support, as we are committed to improving education across the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this important amendment bill. As the member for Barkly said, we need to do as much as we can to improve the standard of our teachers, especially in line with some of the debate occurring in parliament in the last day or so. I am specifically referring to the issues around NAPLAN. I say again, I would love the government to bring this issue back to parliament away from the heat which occurs with censure motions. I believe the issue needs to be debated fully as it is an issue in the minds of many people. I would also like the opportunity to debate it myself, because I do not agree with both sides on some of the issues. Having spoken to quite a number of principals, many do not agree with what is being said on both sides of this parliament.
I say that believing we are dealing with part of an important debate - that is, education in the Northern Territory - which is vital if the Northern Territory is ever to reach its 2030 goals. If you do not have an education, you do not have a job, and if you do not have a job, the Northern Territory will not advance.
The core behind whether we have good education is whether we have good teachers. There are a number of issues I would like clarified. I will do them here instead of committee stage, although if I feel I do not have the answers I might ask to go to committee. In relation to courses the Explanatory Statement says:
- The bill provides clear power for the Teacher Registration Board to accredit initial teacher education programs delivered by tertiary education institutions in the Territory …
If we are dealing with national standards, and if we are telling CDU its courses are accredited, who is ensuring those courses are accredited or on an equal footing with courses nationally, so we are not picking ours up, which could be of a lower standard than the ones in Queensland? Who is identifying whether we are on the same level? The other issue with the courses is that I am interested to know the role of the department of Education. Is it the role of the teacher registration body to decide the makeup of a CDU course, or is it their role to see what the course is and say whether or not it meets the standard? Who actually sets the parameters for the course? Is it the department of Education? Is it the Charles Darwin University? Are we now saying the Teacher Registration Board will design the course to the standard they think is acceptable for a teacher to be qualified? I would like to get a global answer on that, if that is possible.
When I was discussing NAPLAN figures with several principals I was told that probably the biggest impediment to a school achieving the standard required, or the standard aimed at under NAPLAN, is a bad teacher. This is one of the areas I would like to discuss - you could have 20 classes in a school, and one class could be run by a teacher who does not perform. That can bring the average down. That is one of these deceptive things with statistics about performance. One class could be below average, which could bring the whole school down. How do you approach that? How do you get that teacher to perform, or remove the teacher if they are not willing to perform?
In relation to complaints to the board, would those issues of a non-performing teacher come under Part 6, disciplinary proceedings? That sounds a fairly harsh term. It is like thinking a teacher was not on their best behaviour at school, or had done something wrong. Am I to believe that section under disciplinary proceedings and complaints would cover a complaint about a teacher not performing? If it cannot be done internally, could that teacher then come before the board and be told they are not up to standard, and are given an option to either achieve, start to improve, or do they lose their registration if the board thinks they are not up to standard?
You have a disciplinary system but is it to be used as an impetus to drive a teacher to perform better? I believe 99% of our teachers work hard; they want to do the best for their school. However, you only need one or two teachers in a school to bring the results down. Will this system improve that? Principals have advised me that one of the hardest things to do is remove an under-performing teacher from a school. It is very difficult. They have a permanent job in the department, probably fulfil the hours exactly, however nothing much is happening to improve their performance.
Principals have a certain amount of power. They would encourage a teacher to look at results. Statistics are gathered in classrooms today; you can get a pretty good idea of where the under-performance is. You could bring a teacher in and say: ‘These are the results from your classroom. We need to improve’. If nothing happens after that, is the reason for this part to take it out of the hands of the school and get the board to see if the teacher is up to the standard required, and whether a teacher should still be registered?
It is really important there is a process which does not hamstring a school simply because it is a bureaucracy but allows the system to continually stimulate teachers to improve themselves. You are talking about upgrading; there will be 10 areas of professional learning, so you have to demonstrate professional competence and good character. I believe that is good. Obviously, that is what we are really trying to achieve.
Where we have teachers who are not achieving, that is an area we have to put effort into. As one principal said, one teacher who does not perform can bring down all those results, all the terrific work other teachers have done simply because we only look at a statistic today, and that statistic, unless it is analysed, can be very misleading. I believe is a good area, if that is what it is meant to cover.
All in all, I think it is important. I know we are only talking about the importance of teachers today and it is a narrow band of what we really should be talking about. We should be talking about how our schools are operating as a whole; good teachers, good results. Again statistics, to me, after talking to people who know, do not always carry the whole picture. One principal, who does not like these statistics being thrown around, said if you want to know what a school is really like, walk the playground at lunchtime and you will get a feel for the school. I believe you will get a reflection of the teachers at that school also. If it is a good school, the kids will love the teachers, and from that comes good results. Being a good teacher is not only about competency. It is about fellow human beings with a vocation. I believe teaching is a vocation more than a job and that is reflected in the school. The happiness of the school, the reaction you get from kids, that is all important.
Madam Speaker, we are dealing with this as legislation which is very cold and straightforward. We must remember teachers are more than that. They are part of our community, and they are what make a school tick. The more we can work with teachers to improve the quality of their teaching and give them a workplace they know is supported by us as politicians, supported by the department and loved by the kids, the better schools we will have, and the more we will achieve in overall good education - not just one particular subject - overall we will produce better kids for the future.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. It certainly will assist education, as has been put forward by the minister, in improving the quality of our teachers, and hopefully put in place a strategy which is going to help teachers become better educators. The minister is quite aware of what it is like being a teacher in the classroom. I believe government needs to do all it can to help our teachers deliver a curriculum to our students which is going to not only help them meet any benchmarks set, but exceed the benchmarks.
The member for Nelson picked up on something very relevant, and it is what makes a good teacher of people. We have all seen it in different organisations, even in Defence where, who you think are good people and very hard-working people get promoted into supervisory positions and they make absolutely horrible supervisors. They do not have the same ability to deal with people, encourage people, and lead people. I know minister McCarthy referred yesterday to leadership and driving people. I have seen teachers today who have the wonderful ability of getting the best out of someone. I can remember back in my football days, I had coaches, and I had better coaches, and I believe it is the same with our teaching profession today.
We can provide our teachers with all the courses in the world, and we can put into place strategies to ensure you reach this minimum standard to be registered. But if those …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, would you mind if I acknowledge someone in the gallery?
__________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Steve Hatton
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Steve Hatton
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Steve Hatton. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan.
_________________________
Mr CHANDLER: With that analogy of sport, some coaches have the wonderful ability to get that bit extra. We see it when we get home late at night and watch the Olympics at Whistler and Vancouver, where you see the coaches are sometimes more excited than the athlete who has achieved. The member for Nelson’s question about how we judge is very important. How do we know what a good teacher is? We can all have standards, we can have courses to meet, I can tick the boxes, I can do those courses, but does it make me a good teacher in the classroom?
I mentioned my son yesterday who, unfortunately, found himself in about Year 9 with the ability of a Year 5. As a parent I did question how in the world a student gets to Year 9 with the ability of a Year 5 without teachers letting the parent know. Things have been rectified today with the help of a tutor, and to his credit he is doing remarkably well. This child has gone through the education system in the Northern Territory and, by all accounts, had great teachers and fantastic teachers. Has the curriculum let him down? And let us not take away from this, I believe kids as young as seven and eight have a responsibility but I believe, at that age, what they need is true leadership and a coaching style, as well as a teacher.
When I went through school I was a shocking student. We had certain teachers who we may have had a personality clash with, or we had teachers who just sat up the front, wrote on the board and before you had a chance to finish writing had rubbed it off and was onto the next thing. There was no teaching; perhaps you were given too much responsibility too young to appreciate what was being delivered. I can recall when I was in about Year 9 at the bottom of the Social Science class, I did not get on with my teacher at all; we just clashed. The school took me out of that class and put me under another teacher, and I went to the top of the class. We were learning the same things, but there were two different teachers. I was the bottom of the class with one, and the top of the class under another teacher. In that class I had a teacher who was more like a coach, and the difference in being able to draw out my abilities was measurable. How can you go from the bottom of one class to the top in the next class? So it is very true.
I am very supportive of this legislation on a number of counts. Today, I have a few questions for the minister which, hopefully, he can clarify. I am supportive because I have some insight into the way schools are run in the Northern Territory. I had the privilege of being a chairperson of the Bakewell Primary School for a number of years and saw the inner workings of the school, the challenges they faced, the wonderful achievements of the school, and to see from students through to teachers – at Bakewell we had Teacher of the Year, Helen Armstrong; what a marvellous lady she is and a testament to our teachers in the Northern Territory. I pause for a second to remind people how important it is to enter awards. I really challenge people to look at their own schools and look at the teachers there. I know the feeling a teacher has when they have been nominated, even if they do not take it to the next level; just to be nominated is a marvellous thing.
The provisional registration is a wonderful thing. I only have one question in regard to it. It says a provisional registration may be renewed only once. Is there an ability for a teacher who, perhaps because of other circumstances, has not been able to reach those courses required, or time in the job, that may be extended - perhaps looked at under certain circumstances? It seems to me there is only one bite of the cherry there and, if you apply and are not accepted because you have missed a course, or you may not have done the required amount of time, you do not get another chance. I am hoping that is something which could be clarified.
As in the current act, the amendments allow an employer to apply to the board for authorisation of an unregistered person to teach at Territory schools. I would like clarification of whether there is any follow-up to that. Is the board keeping an eye on those things and, at some stage down the track, is there an effective follow-up?
In the current act, the board can only hold preliminary investigations if a complaint has been made against a teacher or authorised person. In this bill, section 50 extends the circumstances of when a preliminary investigation or inquiry must be held, or when preliminary investigation may be held. The board may hold an inquiry without first holding a preliminary investigation. It would appear from that that the board could go directly to an investigation, an inquiry, without a complaint being received. I would like clarification. I understand the board, at the moment, can have these investigations if a complaint has been received. However, now it is saying the board can go straight to an inquiry without a complaint. I do not understand that. If that could be clarified it would be fantastic.
From what I have read in the act, there is next to no information contained in the bill as to the requirement for professional development as promised by the minister in the second reading speech. These courses may sit better under regulations; however there does not seem to be much clarification when it comes to the professional development we are talking about. As the Leader of the Opposition also pointed out, it is paramount that whatever professional development is put in place is targeted on the objective; that is, to improve literacy and numeracy.
The bill talks about currency of practice as being one of the prerequisites for registration or re-registration, but there is no defined or quantifiable amount of professional development or experience stated. I am trying to understand how this is going to be measured. This could be corrected by courses, contributions being weighted and given a value - a teacher would be required to reach X within a certain number of years to regain registration. That is not really clarified in the act at all.
I wondered also whether there is some ability to allow for special accreditation for rural and remote teachers. Perhaps part of our problem is we do not prepare our teachers well enough to deal with rural and remote locations.
Some of us came to the Northern Territory many years ago. Some of us were born here. Those people who first arrived, no matter how long ago, were probably confronted with things being different to what they were down south. I know, when I drove across the border in July 1985 from Queensland into the Northern Territory, the first thing that struck me was that the road had gone from a goat track to this lovely broad, open highway. We did the customary thing, pulled the car up and took a photo of Welcome to the Northern Territory. It was different.
Since that time, I have had the opportunity to visit many rural and remote areas - Wadeye, Bathurst Island, and Borroloola. For someone coming from outside the Northern Territory, and even those people from within the Northern Territory, you get a real shock when you go to some of these communities. What can we do to help prepare our teachers a little better for teaching in remote and rural areas? Can we perhaps provide some level of training? Can we provide some level of support? It may be a course; it may be pre-visits, for instance; it may be some kind of strategy which is going to better prepare our teachers for rural and remote areas. Maybe it is something the department is working on right now.
There are three things I would like clarified. Does this new act provide integrity and ensure fairness across the board? I note issues have been raised where someone could be tainted by a complaint. We all know the Territory is a small place. We all know what it is like working in a smaller environment compared to a large department. That a teacher’s name is not damaged beyond repair - mud sticks, we know that. I am sure it is worse in the Northern Territory because of the size of the jurisdiction. Can we ensure any process dealing with teacher complaints is done in a fair - and I would suggest in the first instance, closed-door environment, that no one else knows about when someone is having a complaint investigated. I know in my time as a chairperson, many times I had parents come to me with what turned out to be quite erroneous complaints about teachers. It is always paramount that both sides of the story are listened to and a full investigation made. I believe one thing we need to look at here is clarity, and of course that integrity and fairness are maintained.
If there has been an injustice done, what is the process? Does a teacher who, perhaps through information which is tainted - or found to be tainted at a later stage - have the right to lodge a complaint about the board’s recommendation, or is it off to the Ombudsman? What is the process there? Second, could I have clarity on the ability of the board being able to conduct investigations without a complaint being received? The third issue: that any professional development is targeted at our objectives, which is obviously to improve numeracy and literacy.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill before the House this morning. It is a pleasant change to be the fifth speaker in a row who rises to speak in support of these amendments, and to see members on both sides of the House agree with these amendments.
There is a collective recognition that we need to work towards having a system in place which recognises quality teachers and the need for a quality education program, and also recognising that ongoing commitment to professional development, and for the government’s commitment to be part of that ongoing investment in our teachers.
Member for Brennan, I believe the amendments in this act strengthen the integrity of the profession and the system as a whole. These amendments are also quite timely in light of national partnership agreements with the federal government, and also with the release of the Ladwig and Sarra review into Northern Territory education last year and subsequent to that, the Department of Education and Training’s A Smart Territory strategy which looks at how we are going forward in 2009 to 2012, and how we can strengthen the quality of the profession. I see all these things as lining up.
It was my first teaching job which brought me to Darwin in 1987. It did strike me as odd at the time there was no system in the Northern Territory which required me to register as a teacher. At the time I also happened to be a state enrolled nurse in South Australia, and registration within that profession, on an annual basis, was part and parcel of the process and the profession. While I thought it odd there was no teacher registration process in the Territory, as a graduate it was probably a bonus, given it was one less expense as part of my relocation and start up in the Northern Territory.
In fact, if I go back a step and look at the whole recruitment process I went through in Adelaide towards the end of 1986, it was somewhat relaxed. A senior person from the department was in Adelaide on a recruiting drive, and I had not actually considered moving to the Northern Territory; I thought I would like to stay in South Australia and teach. However, a friend of mine graduating at the same time, following his interview for the Northern Territory teaching service, had a conversation with me. He told me the person interviewing was still looking for teachers for the Northern Territory and passed on a phone number for me to arrange an interview. The following day I was interviewed. I certainly had all the relevant documents which demonstrated I was qualified, including my registration for South Australia.
The conversation with my interviewer will always remain in my mind. It was certainly very pleasant and professional, but in hindsight was probably more like a visit to the travel agent than an interview for a teaching position, especially when we talked about where it was I would like to be located. I was asked if I wanted Top End or Central. I said I was only interested in Darwin, and my interviewer agreed that was probably a good choice, and suggested if I enjoyed travelling I was in a good position to not only explore the Top End, but to travel overseas to Asia.
I am certainly pleased I took the job because 23 years later I am still here. Although I am no longer a teacher, I greatly enjoyed my teaching and the opportunities it presented as a profession, in Palmerston, Katherine and Nhulunbuy.
Our education system in the Northern Territory has come a long way in those years, and I always found the schools I taught in to be well-resourced. For the most part, I was surrounded by committed and professional colleagues with pretty good access to professional development. However, there were times during my teaching career when I came across colleagues who – well, I guess you had to wonder about their credentials and their capabilities and, for some of them, their suitability to work with and teach children. There was sometimes talk in staffrooms about colleagues who possibly the reason they were in the Territory was because it was the only place they could get a job. While there were obviously checks and balances within the school and the department, it did not lend itself to the same level and system of arm’s length transparency and accountability we have today with the Teacher Registration Board, which operates in accordance with the act.
During the time I was a senior teacher, there was a good peer support program which saw neophyte teachers on probation have regular meetings with a panel of peers to assess how the new teacher was going, and to be able to offer support and guidance, as well as classroom support, to help that person get established. I can only recall one teacher, during my teaching years, where we had some serious doubts about his ability to teach. Eventually, after an extension of the probation period several times, that teacher did go on to do reasonably well. It is important to remember these support systems do exist within schools, and certainly play a very important role in parallel with the Teacher Registration Board.
If anything, it is surprising the Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act did not come into being until 2004, after the Labor government came to power. Earlier this week I read over that debate in the Hansard. At that time the objective of the act was to ensure only persons who were fit and proper, and who had the appropriate qualifications, were to be employed as teachers. Back in 2004, like today, there was support for the bill from all sides of the House, with members who were former teachers participating in the debate, as today. Interestingly, from beyond the government benches back in 2004, the views around the act ranged from it was too prescriptive, to was not prescriptive enough.
In 2004 I was no longer teaching, however I do recall when the act was passed, and amongst teachers I knew it was received with mixed reactions. Some saw it as a revenue raising exercise, and the systems in place in the Northern Territory, in their opinion, were okay. I recall those views came largely from teachers who had been in the Territory for many years. Then we went to opposite reactions from those who, rightly, recognised it as an important act which legislated rather than relied on a system of internal regulations within the Education department and, most importantly, brought the Territory into line with the practices in other jurisdictions.
I have to say although I am no longer teaching, I am a parent with children in our schools and take some comfort from the knowledge there is some quality assurance about the people who are teaching my children, and that they are a fit and proper persons. Hopefully, with the passing of these amendments today, that will be made even stronger.
The amendments before the House today have been brought forward to do two things: to allow the Teacher Registration Board to meet the objectives of the act and, also, to bring the registration practices into line with other jurisdictions, because currently the Teacher Registration Board is not in a position to do that. I note at the outset that these amendments have been brought about in wide consultation with all the key stakeholders who support these changes. That includes COGSO, government as well as non-government schools, the Principals Association, the Australian Education Union, as well as the various professional teaching associations.
I understand there are a few main areas of the act these amendments will impact on, and it was remiss of me at the start not to acknowledge the briefing I had earlier in the week. I thank those from the Teacher Registration Board who provided me with that briefing.
One of the important parts is within Part 4 of the act, which introduces two categories of registration as opposed to one. This is the case in every other jurisdiction in Australia, as well as New Zealand. The introduction of a provisional registration category rightly recognises we have graduate teachers entering the system who, while they may by qualified, do not have the experience to demonstrate competency by virtue of being new to the profession. To recognise graduates at the same level as teachers with many years of experience is a glaring anomaly.
The other group of teachers in this provisional category captures people like me. I am currently registered with the Teacher Registration Board until 2012. I am one of those people who always believe in having a plan B up your sleeve. It was confirmed for me when I went online to the TRB website earlier in the week, there I was, teacher registration number 5994. That mechanism, in itself, is a useful tool for anyone wanting to go online, enter the name of a teacher, and conduct a search to see whether, indeed, that person is registered.
I believe I was quite a good high school English teacher, however I have not taught since December 1996. The way the act is currently, I could walk out of here tomorrow and, because I am currently registered, take a job in a school in the Northern Territory. While I believe I have had the opportunity to maintain some of my classroom management skills in the Chamber on those occasions I sit in the Chair, I would have to confess to being out of touch with some of the current methodologies in teaching English. Who would want their child taught by someone who is quite rusty and cannot demonstrate current competencies? Who would want to be looked after by a nurse or a doctor who has been out of the system for a number of years?
Provisional registration provides a separate category for graduate teachers, and for former teachers such as me. Provisional registration, when granted, gives teachers up to three years to demonstrate they have the necessary professional experience and currency of practice such that they can apply for full registration. I note the questions asked by the members for Brennan and Nelson. They are quite reasonable questions to be asking about how within the act, or within the regulations that support the act, will these competencies and demonstrations of ongoing professional development be demonstrated.
As outlined by the minister in his second reading speech, these amendments bring the Territory into line with practices in other jurisdictions and, importantly, raise the bar and ensure quality outcomes for students in the system, and teachers in the classrooms.
There are some important amendments to Part 6 of the act which deal with the inquiry and complaints function of the Teacher Registration Board. It is, clearly, a very important function for teachers and stakeholders, within the education community, to be able to deal with matters where teacher competence or good character is called into question. The proposed amendments which, as the minister for Corrections noted are quite substantial, aim to correct the anomalies in the current act and to refine the board’s capacity to better meet the objectives of the act and, in particular, allows the Teacher Registration Board to better operate within the realms of a preliminary inquiry. As mentioned earlier, we have, of course, within the department of Education system, mechanisms in place to deal with issues of teacher performance. That is an important part of how our schools operate at that level.
I do not have much more to add other than to note the amendments in this act are parallel with this government’s commitment to strive towards a quality education system, towards A Smart Territory, delivering best outcomes for students with competent teachers within our system in the Northern Territory, and an effective Teacher Registration Board, which would be in a better position to assist this through strengthening the act.
Madam Speaker, on that note, I commend the bill to the House.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution in this debate. I believe it has been a very constructive debate, and some very legitimate and important questions have been asked by members opposite, and general issues have been raised.
The consensus throughout this debate has centred on the importance of teaching as a profession, and of teachers as professionals delivering quality education within our schools, whether they are in the government sector or the non-government sector. This act applies across the board to all teachers in the Northern Territory, whether they are teaching within the Northern Territory Education department or within various sectors within the non-government schools.
There has been significant consultation over amendments to the act brought in, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in 2004. It is timely to look at the operation of the act and the operation of the board, and make amendments and adjustments, retaining the intent of the act, but using the experience of what is happening in Australia. National reforms to teacher registration have been mentioned, and we should keep our eye on those and ensure we have a system which works within the Northern Territory.
To recap on these amendments, as people have pointed out there is capacity for new teacher registration categories and requirements. I will come to the questions asked by the member for Brennan regarding provisional registration and categories of new graduates entering into the teaching working force, and the requirements on them in their initial time as teachers. There is also an element of the amendments which accredits initial teacher education courses for delivery in the Northern Territory. There were questions around that, and I will move to that.
As I mentioned with the categories of provisional registration and full registration, the new legislation makes changes to the current provisions for the renewal of registration. Basically, we are coming into line with what happens elsewhere within Australia.
All aspects of the amendments to the act comply with privacy and information legislation within the Northern Territory. Importantly, some aspects regarding the way the board conducts its business with inquiries and complaints have also been addressed within the legislation, particularly around preliminary investigations and full inquiries. They are the elements of change to the act.
I will now turn to comments made by various speakers. I appreciated the feedback from the Leader of the Opposition that he received a good briefing on this legislation, and the fact the opposition is supporting these amendments. As he said, they apply to practical issues in relation to the operation of the board. The aim of the Leader of the Opposition was to build the teaching profession, particularly in relation to professional development. A number of speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, asked how we are going to strengthen the delivery of teaching in the cross-cultural environment. This year, for the first time, there was a three-week induction for all new teachers coming into the Territory. I believe this answers one of the questions from the member for Brennan. People could take an English as a Second Language teaching module within that three-week orientation, and that course is accredited.
Also, in terms of teaching in this cross-cultural situation, I know the funding from the Commonwealth - the $120m National Partnership Agreement to 131 of our schools in the Northern Territory - one of the things around building literacy and numeracy is supporting teachers to further their knowledge, experience and techniques when teaching in that cross-cultural situation, that English as a Second Language situation. There are programs in place. It is a focus of the department, and it is a very important element of building our education system and improving our results in the crucial areas of literacy and numeracy.
The Leader of the Opposition rightly says the results have to be seen. It is no good having programs and policies; results have to be seen. Whilst speaking to the censure debate yesterday, I pointed out we are a government which has targets in literacy and numeracy, and in improvement in student performance in those national tests. We also have targets in students completing their NTCE, which also includes those students undertaking VET courses. We also have targets in terms of traineeships and apprenticeships.
During the first term of government in 2001, Syd Stirling, as minister for Education, set out a very ambitious target of 10 000 traineeships and apprenticeships. The task was picked up by my predecessor, and also the member for Arafura, in our commitment during this term of government. My advice is we are on target with those apprenticeships and traineeships. I appreciate the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition and his support for this bill.
The member for Barkly, as he demonstrated yesterday, has a long experience in teaching in the Northern Territory. I will digress for a minute here. It was interesting, in conversation with the member for Barkly, we discovered he did his teacher training at Armidale Teachers’ College, and I was at Armidale. This was later to become the University of New England. I did not teach in the teacher training area; I taught in the nursing and Aboriginal health worker area. Many of the people who taught the member for Barkly were my colleagues, and still remain very close personal friends today. These are people whom I know are very dedicated to the profession of teaching. I know they imbued people like the member for Barkly with a passion for teaching, with the foundations of knowledge and really set in his mind the journey of teaching, and the wonderful journey it is, because you are interacting with people.
Many of us remember those teachers we had in our primary school, secondary school, and even tertiary - I am sure there are a few who remember me; I know there are – however, you appreciate the work, the input, and the support you get from teachers. That was something the member for Brennan touched on in his own personal experience. We certainly appreciate those teachers who support us and give of themselves and their knowledge to us. That is what makes teaching such a very important profession.
The member for Barkly mentioned the amendments to this act and the benefits which will flow both to students and teachers. He also talked about national consistency regarding teacher registration categories, particularly for graduates and trainees. The act spells out they need to undertake certain tasks as part of their registration path, and they will receive support to do that. Also, the categories of registration; both full registration and provisional registration.
The member for Nelson asked a very important and crucial question – how do we deal with incompetent teachers within the system? This is an important issue; it is a mixture of a management issue at the school level, also the department, and also under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
There are many dimensions to this. Essentially, the answer to the member for Nelson is the Teacher Registration Board must investigate an allegation that the teacher is incompetent, and they can take action. As I understand it, member for Nelson, those complaints can come from a variety of sources. They can come from a parent, or another teacher, and they can also come from the Education department, or if it is a non-government school, the organisation which oversees the school involved. There are a variety of pathways the complaint can take to the Teacher Registration Board. It is important to realise the board must investigate any complaint which comes its way. They can impose a condition that the teacher must undertake a professional learning activity. That was in answer to the question asked by the member for Brennan.
There can often be a step where a teacher is told they need to undertake an activity; their registration is at stake. The charge of incompetence might be so serious, I am advised, registration is removed the teacher. That would be the last resort; we are talking about someone’s livelihood here. Balanced against that is the importance of the rights of the student to be taught by a competent teacher. It is a balance, and we need to safeguard both sides. I believe of paramount importance is ensuring students are receiving quality teaching.
The member for Nelson asked as the board is accrediting teacher education courses in the Northern Territory, would it have to accredit each course offered within an accredited teacher education course. The Teacher Registration Board is not in the business of accrediting particular courses. However, all courses have to fulfil program standards. In other words, if it is an institution such as CDU they have the flexibility to order the entire program they want, but the individual courses, when they all fit together have to fulfil the proper standards. Hopefully that answers the member for Nelson’s questions.
I was involved in the accreditation of nursing courses when I was at the University of New England, and they have to be accredited by the Nurses and Midwives Board, New South Wales. During the accreditation process the board asked many questions about our course and what it comprised, apart from what we submitted to them. Whilst they allowed flexibility in what could be offered to students, at the end of the day the board wanted to be satisfied nurses knew enough about pharmacology, physiology and anatomy, they knew enough about microbiology and, at the same time, they had adequate knowledge for the psycho-social support essential in modern nursing.
Whilst there is flexibility in individual courses, registration boards and registering authorities want to see it is all fulfilled, and when a student passes through the institution and receives their degree all bases have been covered; and so it is with the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory.
The member for Nelson asked about non-performance, about interim investigations. I understand, with the amendments to the act, there is capacity for interim investigations, bearing in mind there may be a number of parallel investigations going on, however not necessarily in every case. There could be a departmental or organisational investigation going on due to a complaint within the system. There could even be a police investigation if it is serious enough and, also, an interim investigation by the board. The board may well reserve its process until other processes are complete. There needs to be flexibility, and I believe the amendment allowing for interim investigations by the board provides capacity for flexibility.
The member for Brennan asked a very good question about provisional registration. Provisional registration does last for three years, member for Brennan, and it can be extended for a further two years. After five years the person needs to apply in full, if you like, to the registration board for a further extension of their provisional registration. I have been advised the board, in most cases when someone has provisional registration, wants to see someone taking steps to getting back to full registration. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, she is currently a registered teacher, and I know she has a long career in this House, but it is always handy to have a plan B. We know in this House there is something called redistribution, there are elections; a whole range of things can happen, so a plan B is always helpful. Provisional registration can suit someone who is going away to study, who is undertaking other employment, but for them to come back to full teaching they would need to fulfil certain criteria.
For your information, Madam Speaker, I have a plan B, too. I remain provisionally registered as a pharmacist within the Northern Territory, and I believe that is parallel to the path the Teacher Registration Board is undertaking. There is a precedent for this, and I would always advise members to have a plan B.
The member for Brennan asked a very important question in relation to preliminary investigations. It appeared to him, in some cases, a preliminary investigation could be bypassed, for the want of a better word, and go straight to a full investigation. My advice is that occurs in one set of circumstances only; when there is a serious police investigation. I believe that is appropriate. The board needs to act quickly in cases of police investigations - it could be for a range of offences – however, we could imagine the type of serious offences the board would need to be aware of, and take very quick action regarding registration.
In all of this, people are not denied natural justice; it is a very important element of the process of the Teacher Registration Board, and also conforming to privacy legislation. I believe you asked the question about that also. You have asked about the requirements for professional development, whether the courses would be specified within the regulations. My advice is the board wants to keep some flexibility; it does not want to be too prescriptive. With the new legislation, both the Education department and organisations such as the Catholic Education Office, will be tailoring their professional development activities in line with the new requirements of the act, and there will be some discussions when a particular course comes up as to whether it is acceptable. The board will be giving guidance to people, whether it is to individuals or an organisation such as the Education department, or the Catholic Education Office. The idea is not to be too prescriptive; people will be given an idea about what is acceptable and what is not.
You asked a question, which will be defined in some degree in the regulations, about currency and practice. The requirement for currency and practice is not spelled out. My advice is, at this stage, it is not settled, however the board is considering 180 days as the amount required for currency of practice.
You raised orientation and talked about your own experience of coming to the Territory and, in this modern day, we should be offering more in the way of orientation, particularly for those teaching in the cross-cultural scenario. I thank the member for Brennan for his offering. He talked about privacy; the Northern Territory being a relatively small place and what we would do to safeguard privacy. I am advised the act does conform to Northern Territory privacy and information legislation. The board would not be making any comments to media or any other organisation likely to publish its results.
I thank the member for Brennan for his offering. I want to clear something up from yesterday, member for Brennan, and it is being done in the right spirit. In the censure debate - and I am looking at the Hansard rush, you said:
- I have some information where minister Burns says: ‘We already know 86% of Top End students are achieving national benchmarks. We know those benchmarks are below average, but we are determined to help our students achieve even higher results and, importantly, give more support to those who have fallen behind’.
I cannot recall making that statement, particularly: ‘We know those benchmarks are below average’. I do not recall making that statement anywhere. If you can show me where I made it, I would accept it. I would appreciate it, when you go through Hansard, if the quotation read, ‘86% of Top End students are achieving national benchmarks’. The rest is your comment which, of course, you are free to make. However, I am more than happy to have a conversation to discover the source of the alleged quote that I know they are below average; I do not recall saying that.
Apart from that clarification, I genuinely thank you, member for Brennan, for a very constructive debate today, asking some very good questions. I thank all members for their contributions and their support.
There has been extensive consultation in this bill: the Australian Education Union, the Independent Education Union, of course the Department of Education and Training, Catholic Education Office, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous and Tertiary Education, Council of Government Schools Organisation, Association of Northern Territory Senior Educational Leaders, the Association of Independent Schools in the Northern Territory, Northern Territory Joint Council of Professional Associations, and Northern Territory Christian Schools Association. All stakeholders, excluding the last, are represented through nomination of members to the Teacher Registration Board. The Christian schools, I am advised, come under the umbrella organisation Association of Independent Schools NT.
I commend the work of the Teacher Registration Board. It is made up of a representative section of the Northern Territory professional organisations, which are, importantly, involved. I also want to really thank the Chair of the Teacher Registration Board, Karen Blanchfield, who is also Principal of Ross Park Primary School, and the Deputy Chair, Steve Carter, who is the COGSO representative on the board. I also thank Julie Wells, Sharon Scurr and John Sarev, the officers of the Teacher Registration Board Secretariat who have done much legwork on these amendments. They also briefed the Opposition Leader, and the member for Nelson. I know the Opposition Leader was very complimentary and grateful for the briefing he received
Without further ado, I commend this bill to the House and I thank members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s November 2009 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s November 2009 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 25 November 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, once again, I place on the record my thanks to Frank McGuiness and his team for yet another comprehensive Auditor-General’s report to the members of this Legislative Assembly.
The public, and many of the Assembly members, may not be aware that the Auditor-General is, essentially, an officer of this House, rather than a servant of the executive. Whilst it is the executive which comes into this House and places this report on the record, there is no bondage at all on the Auditor-General in his role in the executive, and he is beyond reach of the executive other than in his initial appointment. So it should be, because this is an environment where we would expect close scrutiny by independent authorities of the conduct of the executive - and by that I mean the government.
Once again, we find the Auditor-General is quite capable of casting a wide net which sinks deeply, before it closes. I note with some interest the area he touched on, not least of which is the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for the year ending 30 June 2009 - a financial statement which has been brought into this House and, yet, rests on the Notice Paper undebated and buried down at some point, as the current Notice Paper stands, at agenda item No 15.
It is notable the annual financial statement can be delivered to this House, taken away from this House by the Auditor-General, and put through substantial scrutiny by the Auditor-General. I would expect he has looked beyond merely the realm of his own office, but used part of his $3.1m budget or thereabouts, to look at the annual financial statement, then draft the report - which is 131 pages long - bring it back to this House, and have the matter tabled in November 2009. It sits over the Christmas period and then is capable of being debated out, believe it or not, before this House and this government gets to item No 15 on the Notice Paper, which is the matter he has gone through ...
Ms Lawrie: You have a strange conspiracy mind, have you not?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not a conspiracy theory; it is a straight statement of how sluggish the government is in going about its business. This document, the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2008-09, is in perilous danger of becoming an historical document. By the time we get to this historical document, this government may well have come and gone. Surely, this government is capable of organising its business in such a fashion that it can come into this House and pass the motion required so the House takes notes of the report. We are not being asked to do anything other than take note of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for the year 2008-09.
However, this government is too tired to achieve that. What evidence can we rely on for that particular observation? Yesterday, in this House, government spent a whole half hour passing legislation, despite the fact we have a Notice Paper which is constipated with neglected issues by this government. There are legislative items which we are told consistently are matters of great import to the people of the Northern Territory and, yet, they rest on the Notice Paper, collecting dust like an old trinket collects dust on a shelf.
This particular observation holds true - and consistently holds true, because this is not the first time we have made this complaint. Surely Territorians deserve better than a tired, old government which is not capable of dealing with documents such as the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for 2008-09? Perhaps there is another and far more sinister motive for not wanting to turn your attention to those particular documents. Not any sinisterness on the part of the Auditor-General, I might say; he has been effective, responsive and considered in his observations and statements in relation to this.
I draw members’ attention to page 112 of the Auditor-General’s report relating to the Central Holding Authority. It is worth noting he says:
- … the CHA, in a general sense, will reflect policy decisions made by the government to ensure that the objectives set for the general government sector are achieved, and the government’s capital program is adequate. Given this, it is to be expected that the financial performance of the CHA, as measured by the operating surplus or deficit will fluctuate from one year to another.
The Central Holding Authority also funds another little hoary chestnut I keep returning to in this House, and that is the Central Holding Authority is also the touchstone for the Treasurer’s Advance. I know the Treasurer hates hearing this argument - it is probably why I return to it with such relish - not only because it is a serious matter, but it embarrasses the Treasurer deeply, that each year they touch the Central Holding Authority for more than initially passed in the Appropriation Bill when the Treasurer comes into this House with the budget. What does that mean in English?
What it means in English is the government spends more than it budgets for, full stop. In fact, in a perfect world, we would automatically have loaded into each budget for the last few years a $40m surplus. The reason is each year, in a perfect world – and I know we do not budget in a perfect world – however, we would not have to spend the $40m in the piggy bank we give the Treasurer. I know she hates that term too, but that is what it is; it is a piggy bank.
That piggy bank is called the Treasurer’s Advance. The Treasurer’s Advance is basically a little emergency fund in case the wheels fall off in one particular area or another. For example, last year the Barkly Highway was washed out by floods. One could well imagine it is difficult to budget for such occurrences and, for that reason, we allow a bit of leeway, a fat, if you like, in the budget called the Treasurer’s Advance.
However, the Financial Management Act allows the government to touch the Treasurer’s Advance, and if they have drained the piggy bank they can keep going back to the Central Holding Authority, which fills the piggy bank, and they do this. They can do this up to 5% of the appropriation, which turns out to be well over $100m, probably closer to the order of about $150m. It changes from year to year, of course, because the size of the appropriation changes and it is calculated as a percentage.
However, every single year they come into this House and ask for $40m-worth of extra fat, and this House passes legislation to enable them to use that extra fat. They then keep going back to the piggy bank, that place of extra fat, they drain it, fill it up again, drain it, fill it up again, drain it, fill it up again. That is what is produced by poor government decisions along the way, because is it being spent on disasters, is it being spent on things like the Barkly Highway being washed out? Yes, in part, however in the current financial year, it is caused by maladministration. I will give you one example.
Ms Lawrie: Wrong. Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I will give you an excellent example. The infrastructure part of …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If it was maladministration, the Auditor-General would point that out. The Auditor-General gave us a clean bill of health. It is not maladministration.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you asking that it should be done by way of substantive motion?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely.
Mr Elferink: No, Madam Speaker. Okay, I will wait …
Madam SPEAKER: Maladministration, Standing Order 62, you are actually implying something fairly serious there.
Ms LAWRIE: Very. It is a highly offensive …
Mr Elferink: I am not saying that you cannot administer the …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: The standing order is Standing Order 62(3); you would need to do that by way of substantive motion. Perhaps you can reword …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move dissent again your ruling. I am sorry; I cannot accept the word ‘maladministration’ is unparliamentary. It just does not work. I move dissent against your ruling, Madam Speaker. It is not a point of order; it does not make sense.
Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to understand what was being said, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: You have given an instruction, Madam Speaker, and that instruction is the word is unparliamentary under Standing Order 62. It is neither an offensive nor unbecoming word, and I move dissent against your ruling that it is. I will not withdraw it, unless this House votes to make me. I move dissent, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I am happy for you to seek advice from the Clerk on this one. I am more than happy for that because it is highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, call the Clerk back. I thought you were calling a point of order, I am sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, a point of order, Standing Order 62. I find that accusation highly offensive. He often times goes too far.
Madam SPEAKER: I misunderstood. I thought the minister was calling a point of order under Standing Order 62. If she was not, then I am no longer making a ruling.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker, in which case I will return to the use of the word in its correct context – maladministration. This is administration which is poor, and I will give you an example if it gives the Treasurer comfort. If you look at the word ‘SIHIP’ it has a couple of ‘I’s in it, and one of those ‘I’s refers to infrastructure. The infrastructure component of SIHIP was supposed to be picked up by SIHIP itself; that does not occur anymore. The Territory government has gone to the piggy bank Northern Territorians give them every year, and they have started to drain the piggy bank to at least the tune of $20m because of the maladministration by the former Minister for Housing, whoever the Minister for Housing was way back then, the member for Daly. The reason they have been forced to go down that path is because of errors made by him. $20m has been taken out of the Treasurer’s Advance so the infrastructure component of SIHIP can be paid for.
That is my concern. This organ of good governance, the Treasurer’s Advance, is constantly being tapped by this government far beyond what this House authorises. The only authorisation they can get comfort from which comes from this House is the existence of the Financial Management Act which, under extraordinary circumstances, will allow the appropriation to be extended by 5%.
Each and every year they go close to, or to the brink of, that 5%. Each and every single financial year. This from a government which is awash in money. It has had more money thrown at it than it ever predicted, and all you have to do to know that truth is visit the old Treasury books and look at the forward projections to the current years. You will see our projected incomes in those days were nowhere near the incomes we have been receiving up until this financial year.
That reflects on the quality of this government; its capacity to spend, spend, spend under all sorts of circumstances, and not only in the lean years as they claim. That has been the consistent philosophy of this government constantly bailed out by a taxation system and an intergovernmental agreement which, at least as far as the taxation system is concerned, was something they as a party resisted and rejected. It was the very tax the Australian Labor Party said we should not have, it is so unfair, it is horrible, yet they have been abundant in expending that money. When that extra money comes in, the money they did not budget for, the unexpected extra money, do they save it? Do they reduce debt with it? No, no, no. It is spent; it is go out there and throw more money into the system to achieve what? Better results in education, better results in health, perhaps a better power and water delivery system.
The fact is even in the current financial year we know the maladministration of this government has brought about a circumstance where they then had to scramble around and find at least $20m; at least $20m they had not budgeted for. That comes down to the errors and faults and shortcomings of the former Minister for Housing, the member for Daly. That should have caused ructions in the Cabinet rooms; it should have caused the Treasurer to have conniptions when these types of things were happening. Do we see any evidence of that? No, all we hear is a screeching defence of the indefensible and an attempt, sadly, to undermine the freedom of this House with scurrilous and pointless points of order.
Those are some matters of concern which are resting at item 15 of the Notice Paper where this government has, as yet, failed to go. However, I now turn to other aspects of the Auditor-General’s report.
The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education will be referred to by the honourable Leader of the Opposition and, as a consequence, I will not go there. Suffice to say the Auditor-General has been fulsome in his investigation into that particular organisation.
I also note in the Department of Health and Families that the Auditor-General has turned his mind to the arrangements surrounding private practitioners using public facilities, and the trust account which has operated in that area. I note there is no suggestion in that particular entry of any form of malfeasance, but certainly there is a requirement to tidy up the arrangements and, as far as trust accounting is concerned, one can only but applaud improving the quality of financial management of those arrangements.
That is about it for submission to this House. I would have gone to the matter of Batchelor Institute, however, I will leave that to the Leader of the Opposition. I also note, very briefly, the Department of Justice has done much of what is required by the Auditor-General in relation to correcting the matters relating to prisoner finances, and I congratulate the department on that.
These reports demonstrate the very important role of the Auditor-General. He takes his job profoundly seriously, he sees us in this House as his primary client. We do well to pay attention to the good advice he gives, and he is one of the genuinely independent voices existing around this government. I have found him to be fearless, thorough, and restrained in the way he does his job.
I thank Frank McGuiness for his efforts and the folk working in the Auditor-General’s office; it is a small staff, it has a large budget because it farms much of its work out. In my final observations, if the Auditor-General with a staff of five is able to get through the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2008-09, then surely the government, with a staff of 18 000, can get to debating it in this House before we have to wait for the Auditor-General’s report to come back.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, yet again the bizarre member for Port Darwin wanders off into his own flights of fancy, and his own strange and inaccurate, completely inaccurate, interpretation.
It is extraordinary. He is already the laughing stock across the public service with his flights of fancy, and he does a repeat performance today. One wonders when he is ever going to understand the information provided in briefing after briefing. I will go to the mischief and misinformation he deliberately peddles in this House, because it is unprofessional to say the least.
He was attempting to portray maladministration in the operation of an appropriation of $20m in SIHIP. He is wrong - he is absolutely and completely wrong. He has received a briefing by Treasury officials on the $20m provided for through the Treasurer's Advance. He has clearly ignored that. He has come into this House today and peddled a dishonest, wrong, weird and fanciful suggestion. If he wants to be, and aspires to be, a Treasurer, I suggest he stops deliberately misleading and peddling wrongful things in this House. He has been told in briefings - because I go out of my way as Treasurer to ensure he gets the briefings he requests because of his weird flights of fancy, he has been told the $20m in the Treasurer’s Advance was for additional works under the Northern Territory government’s Indigenous essential services program. It provided for expanded sewerage at Borroloola, the Safe Water Strategy, and additional funding for expanded capital infrastructure.
This was also discussed through the Council of Territory Cooperation. He has been advised it was not for SIHIP, as he came into this House today and tried to peddle. He has been advised additional SIHIP houses will result in a greater demand for Indigenous essential services. We are providing an appropriation from government for Indigenous essential services, which are obviously critical to the aboveground housing construction program, which is SIHIP. Treasury officials have told him that, he received that explanation at the Council of Territory Cooperation, yet he comes into this House and peddles mistruths. I find it absolutely abhorrent ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You clearly do not understand. When he comes in here and says …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … we are funnelling $20m of the Treasurer's Advance into SIHIP because our Housing minister could not do it - wrong. It was for Indigenous essential services - sewerage at Borroloola - clearly explained to him - the Safe Water Strategy, and the expanded capital infrastructure. He has been told that time and time again - pretty simple, pretty clear. However, he comes into this House and peddles something completely different - foolish in the extreme.
He steadfastly refuses to understand the role of the Treasurer's Advance. He would like to think from May one year to May the following year, the world stops turning. Things stop happening, and government does not need to respond to anything - any initiative, anything at all. It is all from May to May - the budget as it is, is as it is. What nonsense! The Treasurer's Advance existed, and was used appropriately so for its intentions, under the CLP governance, as it is under the Labor governance. It exists for the purpose of providing appropriation between budget periods.
If he wants to go down this weird, fanciful flight he is on, what are the things Treasurer's Advance is used for? Again, this has been provided in briefings to the member for Port Darwin. We spent the Treasurer's Advance to provide for Buildstart. Why? Buildstart was a swift and immediate response to the global financial crisis which happened in October - not May of that year, October. The global financial crisis hit, in its full extent, in October. By November, we had Buildstart in place to encourage construction of homes in the Territory to bring forward an incentive to build, to prop up the construction industry during the tough times. It had the double advantage - which is why we found it so attractive to do - of providing more housing stock into the marketplace. Buildstart was critical. The federal government had its own initiative, which was boosting the First Home Owners Grant Scheme. We came in, in tandem, with the quick, swift, decisive action of Buildstart.
In the weird world of the member for Port Darwin, we would not have done that. We would have said no, no. No, it was not in the May budget - because only the odd person in the world was saying after the event they had predicted the global financial crisis - we had not predicted it in May, so it was not in the May budget. In his weird world, we would not have established Buildstart. I will tell the construction industry the opposition is absolutely opposed to Buildstart, and has been saying we should not have put money into Buildstart – if you follow his arguments.
Additional money provided for fibre optic; the project to Nhulunbuy. Again, we saw an opportunity with the big telecommunications to provide fibre optics to Nhulunbuy. It is a nationally recognised significant project that occurred, but to make sure it occurred, the Territory government had to put the dollars on the table, had to come into the partnership funding arrangements to ensure it occurred. Again, in the weird world of the member for Port Darwin, we would have said no, no - no, it was not in the May budget so we cannot do it. How ridiculous is that, when we have an appropriation there for exactly that purpose.
We provided additional funding to support the racing industry. The racing industry came to us and put a very cogent argument to us around increasing stakes money for the racing carnivals. They had to increase jockey payments because they were losing the number of jockeys available in the Territory; they were not getting the fields, they were seeing reductions in field numbers.
Again, in the weird world of the member for Port Darwin, this government should have said no, no racing industry, you cannot have the funding you critically need to support yourselves as an industry to build your fields, to build through the stake money, get the horses here for a good carnival and, by the way, forget about increasing payments to jockeys, even though they have slipped below payments to jockeys elsewhere and we were losing jockeys. That would have been the result if you followed the member for Port Darwin’s suggestion of maladministration by spending money, where it needs to be, in between published budget periods.
We account for what we spend in the Treasurer’s Advance; it is on the public record. More teachers were funded. We had opportunities coming our way to increase teaching numbers, and we appropriated more money into teachers. We appropriated more money to improve transport services. We funded the Barkly Highway flood repairs - that is the only thing he recognised as being something you have to respond to. We put money into Police Beats as well. Again, back to the scheme of no, no, do not do Police beats; do not want to do Police Beats. We proudly stand here and say, yes, we will fund Police beats, and we used the TA to deliver those all important Police Beats.
So he is wrong; he is very wrong. What really disturbs me is he has been provided this information by officials from Treasury and he continues to ignore it. He continues to go off into weird flights of fancy that do not represent, in any way whatsoever, the facts. It is disturbing, to say the least, particularly when he comes into this House and does it in the debate of the Auditor-General’s Report, trying to, if you like, add some sort of strange stench around it, when, indeed, the Auditor-General provided an unqualified audit opinion on the TAFR - the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. The Auditor-General, the man the member for Port Darwin, at the end of his speech, acknowledged as fair, expert, independent, and strong – gave the financial appropriations of this government an unqualified audit opinion. The member for Port Darwin would have everyone else think otherwise. I find that reprehensible.
I do not mind the debates around whether we should or should not be spending the dollars. Bring that on and have it! Are we doing it in accordance with the Financial Management Act? Yes, we are, absolutely. Is it getting unqualified audit opinions from the Auditor-General? Yes, it is, absolutely. We make no apology for the funding decisions government must make, as a government, between May budget periods for initiatives such as Buildstart; for initiatives such as Indigenous essential services to support the housing program under way in the bush; for fibre optics in Nhulunbuy; for Police Beats; for more teachers; and to support the racing industry. I am looking forward to having a conversation with TRNT around the member for Port Darwin’s attitude towards that racing funding; looking forward to that conversation.
These are important initiatives government must respond to between May budget periods. The world does not stop turning between May budget periods. Governments must be in a position to respond; that is why the Treasurer’s Advance exists, as an appropriation to respond to these issues which arise between May budget periods. We will continue to respond as any good, sound, reasonable government would.
Here we are debating the Auditor-General’s report. He reviewed the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and provided an unqualified audit opinion. Contrary to the strange imaginings the member for Port Darwin would have people believe, I find it highly reprehensible to come into this House and misrepresent the facts he has been provided briefings on. The $20m in housing was not maladministration, it was not squirrelled into SIHIP; it was to provide for Indigenous essential services.
Agency compliance audits were performed across a number of agencies. The review raised issues including weaknesses in compliance with financial processing and policies. In response, an internal control steering committee across government was formed last year. Treasury staff are also developing internal control procedures, including a financial management toolkit, for use by accountable officers and statutory bodies to discharge their responsibilities under the Financial Management Act and the Treasurer’s Directions.
Yes, the Auditor-General, quite appropriately, identified areas of weaknesses in the agency compliance audits, and appropriately so, agencies are responding. Treasury staff are at the heart of ensuring those toolkits provide the assistance accountable officers and statutory bodies need to discharge their responsibilities.
I thank Frank McGuiness for his work. I know the Office of the Auditor-General is a small staff, but they outsource significant work. They do a terrific job for the taxpayer in honestly scrutinising across government, as it should be. We are a government which welcomes and embraces this scrutiny. From the moment I became a minister it has been drummed into me to pay absolute heed to the Auditor-General’s reports and findings, and to ensure agencies were not dismissive, but rather took on board what the Auditor-General had to say, and took the action required to address the issues the Auditor-General raises.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be a part of the Cabinet which has consistently done that. We recognise the worth of the work of the Auditor-General, and we thank him for the effort he goes to on behalf of Territory taxpayers.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I commence with the words spoken by the Treasurer: been drummed into the Treasurer and am proud to belong to a Cabinet which will pay absolute heed to the advice, analysis, and recommendations provided by the Auditor-General. If that is so we will have, in the case of Batchelor Institute, a substantive response, because clearly the Treasurer would have read the report on Batchelor Institute in the Auditor-General’s report. The Treasurer, and members of Cabinet, would be aware of the ongoing challenges that organisation faces.
I reiterate, as the member for Port Darwin and the Treasurer have stated in this debate, the importance of the role of the Auditor-General. The obligation, as described by the Treasurer, is if something is identified by the Auditor-General then you are to pay absolute heed to that. The absolute heed should therefore result in action, and action is required when it comes to Batchelor Institute.
The story is one of real concern and it requires a substantive response. I was in this Chamber when we debated the change in the structure and the arrangement of Charles Darwin University, previously Northern Territory University. A great deal of work went into changing the structure, the nature, and the alliances of that organisation. That was brought about by engaging someone to help transit from one model or structure to a new one, and now we have Charles Darwin University.
I make that reference and I will go back to it, not for the purpose of linking Charles Darwin University to Batchelor Institute, but to look at two similar organisations and how organisational change occurred in one and, I would argue in light of what we see in black and white in this report, the response is required. The problem is profound and it requires response. If the Treasurer is to be taken seriously, if the absolute heed slogan is to mean anything, action is required.
The situation, for members who may not have read this report, is simply this: the institution is in receipt of two lines of funding, one from the Commonwealth and one from the Northern Territory government. The greatest share comes from the Commonwealth. The higher education section is funded by the Commonwealth; the VET section is funded by the Territory government. The audit came in to assess and test the financial stability of the organisation and it concluded, in order to achieve financial stability, you had to do either of two things - either increase your enrolments or decrease your operational expenses; pretty straightforward.
This is a plain way of saying if you keep going the way you are going we could be, and should be - and I believe it is plain to say - shipwrecked. You either increase your enrolments or decrease your operational expenses. That requires significant organisational structural change, and it is not for the fainthearted. To be frank, it was not an easy matter to change the structures, alliances and the organisation of the Northern Territory University and bring it into alliance with Menzies, and other arrangements, to bring it to the new model. That was not an easy task, however it was achieved. How much harder will it be to bring about the change necessary to ensure stability to Batchelor Institute, to put it on strong footings so it can progress and grow? It has some very significant problems and they are written there for all see, and a response is required.
Financial stability; do one of two things. In order to continue it was reported it received a top-up of $3.2m. An audit was conducted. The audit did not examine the sustainability of the organisation. There was an audit, but it did not test the sustainability. That is the hard question. What do we do with this? How do we get it to flourish? How do we get it going? They audited the reliability of financial statements. It is one test to assess the health of the financial aspect of this organisation. It is a terrible list. Obligations come with funding; those obligations have not been met. There is a significant list. This will be unpleasant news. We may prefer to walk away from it and, perhaps, amplify the responsibility of someone else. I guess this Labor government would be wishing the conservatives were in power in Canberra so they could really go to town there.
However, the fact remains on the higher education component, the funding which comes from the Commonwealth to run it has resulted, in 2008 I believe, a $1.2m surplus. There was a surplus as a result of that operation - the one funded by the Commonwealth. The VET sector, which is funded by the Territory government, ran at a $1.4m loss. If you do your bookkeeping you can see one with a $1.2m surplus, the other one with a $1.4m loss; you would subsidise the surplus and superimpose it on the loss. Of course sums have been done, and it is misery because there is a gap of $200 000.
However, the $200 000 shortfall is not the greatest problem. The greatest problem is the funding stream from the Commonwealth to Batchelor for the delivery of higher education comes with obligations, objectives, and targets. Therefore, if you have a surplus in an operational sense, and that surplus is used to subsidise the sector which is not operating and trying to cover those losses, you end up with the inability to meet your targets and objectives set with the funding stream from the Commonwealth. That brings in not only the financial instability, because some of those funding streams will be threatened, but you bring in the operational sustainability of being able to run programs. You then put a threat on the sustainability of the enterprise. There are terrible fractures which have been outlined and identified by the Auditor-General.
If you do not meet the purpose of your funding, your funding level is at risk. If you cannot be certain you are going to maintain or be supported by that level of funding, you cannot be certain you are going to run the programs. If you are not certain you can run programs, you are not certain you can maintain your staffing cohort. That will affect morale, and students are going to wonder whether it is worthwhile coming. It then gets back to the core problem that, in order to bring some basic stability, you have to increase enrolments and drop operational costs. It reminds me of the story: if income exceeds expenditure that is dandy but, if it is the other way around and expenditure exceeds income that is misery. There is a very serious problem here and I believe most people would know it.
I commend the Auditor-General for doing this diagnosis, this analysis; to paint, quite plainly a serious problem. What has to happen? I started by talking about Charles Darwin University, and I believe the example set by the structural change of NTU to CDU - that whole story - the bringing in of someone to manage that change is the action and type of response required here. I know there have been several changes in the level of administration. However, the core questions are its sustainability as an enterprise, and its financial stability, which can only be achieved by structural change. You cannot continue with this description of a very serious problem.
I would urge the Territory government, with their in friends in Canberra, to bring some courageous action to bear on the issue at Batchelor Institute and to provide the structure, framework, and leadership to address the problems. The last thing we want is for this to fail.
What goes with that is compounding shame for an enterprise which has been put in place to build something - for it to fail would be the worst thing that could happen. To have it as it is at the moment, it is rotting, it smells of decay. Morale must be impossible to maintain in such a situation. What is required is strong leadership, and that leadership must be similar to what we saw when there were structural and organisational changes at CDU.
Further discussion about what could happen in alliances between CDU and Batchelor Institute are stories for another day. I will say now, my view is there should not be that old bogey of one should subsume the other. I do not believe that is the way to go. I believe the bottom line is Batchelor Institute must survive, however it can only survive with a very strong response which will take courage, not process, not gobbledegook, not confusion; strong leadership. It needs a response.
If the Treasurer says at the conclusion –with that earnest expression she is known for - we must take absolute heed of the Auditor-General - it has been drummed into her since she was inducted into this high office - that heed should result in action. Make no mistake, leaving this, delaying, hesitating, caution, election year, and other problems will result in something we cannot allow to happen, which is this organisation, as presented here, is not stable financially, and its sustainability as an enterprise is in question. It demands a response.
I urge Cabinet, the Chief Minister, the minister for Education, and those links which have been spoken of often between here and Canberra, to be activated urgently; a strong response is required.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I too welcome the Auditor-General’s Report. The work of the Auditor-General is essential if we are to ensure open and transparent government, and for agencies to work towards best governance practices.
The report identifies six key findings which required work by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. All matters raised in the report were also identified in the department’s compliance audit, and are currently being addressed in a practical and timely manner.
As part of the department’s restructure, a governance branch has been established which is dedicated to managing and reviewing the internal controls of the department. It is envisaged this initiative will draw up any consequential changes to internal processes and procedures to ensure the department has a robust and sound internal control framework. The recommendations made by the Auditor-General are supported by the department, and all should be implemented by July 2010. The department will continue to provide all necessary information to the Auditor-General to ensure practices and procedures are adhered to.
Similarly, with the Department of Education and Training, the department accepts the guidance of the Auditor-General and systematically adopts his recommendations which are, of course, aimed at establishing governance best practice. In terms of the key findings of his report, the department has: appointed a senior officer to oversee procurement processes and procedures; delegated a dedicated staff member to reviewing and documenting policies and procedures for travel and hospitality; escalated hospitality delegation to the Chief Executive for the interim period; and recently filled the internal audit position focusing the role of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.
With respect to the Auditor-General’s report as it refers to the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, whilst this government provides funding for the delivery of VET, the institute operates independently at arm’s length from government. The internal management and allocation of funding is a matter for BIITE within the context of contractual arrangements with the Territory and Australian governments, and relevant financial legislation and standards.
Last, with respect to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, the Auditor-General found, subject to non-exceptions identified, the accounting and control procedures examined for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment provide reasonable assurance that the responsibility of the accountable officer, as set out in the Treasurer’s Directions and procurement regulations and guidelines, will be met if those systems identified during the audit continue to operate.
The nine exceptions identified in the audit are as follows: the Accounting and Property Manual requires enhancement through the inclusion of additional references to the Treasurer’s Directions. Second, procedure manuals have not been developed for a number of detailed procedures within OCPE. Third, processes and responsibilities for Asset Management are not clearly defined. Fourth, OCPE does not have an effective internal audit function. Fifth, processes and procedures have not been established to ensure all undisputed invoices are paid within 30 days of receipt. Sixth, there are weaknesses in the controls surrounding the procurement process. Seventh, there is no audit trail to support the review of the procurement and payables. Eighth, record destruction processes do not comply with the Northern Territory disposal schedule and finally, requirements of the Treasurer’s Directions and policy manual for travel processes are not being followed.
The Commissioner for Public Employment agreed with the audit recommendations in their entirety, and actions are under way to remedy relevant accounting and control deficiencies. Progress will be monitored by the OCPE Audit and Risk Management Committee, which reports to the Commissioner for Public Employment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, I value the work of the Auditor-General which is instructive to agencies, and aims to establish best practice governance.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General conducted an audit of the arrangements for private practice at the Royal Darwin Hospital as part of his 2008-09 audit program for the Department of Health and Families.
The private practice arrangements of Royal Darwin Hospital were established in 1989 with a trust deed. It provides an avenue for RDH employed specialists to conduct private practice through the use of a trust fund. The trust arrangements were reviewed extensively in 2003 and 2007. The current medical officer workplace agreement provides for full-time specialists employed with the Department of Health and Families to be approved for private practice rights, and may elect to receive private practice payments through the trust fund as a member, or through private practice allowance from the department.
The funds are used as follows: payment of facilities fee to cover the cost of consumables and RDH facilities; payment to the RDH Management Board for essential purchases, repairs and maintenance of office equipment, furniture and fittings used by the trustees. The balance of the revenue is provided for specialists.
In 2007-08, RDH private practice revenue was $1.75m, and was distributed as: payment for use of RDH facilities; trust administration expenses, and distribution to trust fund members. The objective of the audit was to review the rights of private practice at the RDH with regard to the following matters: background of the current agreement; the rationale for the rights to private practice; the benefits to Royal Darwin Hospital; amounts paid to specialists; the nature of the private practice trust fund, and limits on its use.
The Auditor-General found a number of shortcomings with the administration of the private practice arrangements: lack of compliance by the trustees of the fund; member specialists at the RDH Hospital Management Board with a trust deed; and an absence of proper oversight of the private practice arrangements by the Department of Health and Families and the Hospital Management Board.
All recommendations in the report have been accepted by the department. The department is working with the Chair of the Private Practice Trust Fund, Dr Gavin Chin, and Chair of the RDH Management Board, Mr Colin McDonald, to develop robust accountability mechanisms to manage the private practice arrangements. The new Hospital Boards Act commenced on 1 February 2010, and will assist the RDH Board in understanding their responsibilities in managing such funds. Guidelines for the board’s operations have been drafted and provided to the chairman of the RDH Board for finalisation. The original 1989 Trust deed has been updated by the Department of Heath and Families to provide more clarity to stakeholders, including the member specialists. Draft documents based on the Victorian private practice model have been prepared for the Chair of the Private Practice Trust Fund to review this month. These documents will be finalised following legal advice, and in consultation with the Public Employment Commissioner.
With regard to the Menzies School of Health Research, the school’s end of year accounting and control procedure were found to be generally satisfactory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report and the ongoing work he does. The Auditor-General conducted an audit of selected aspects of the Territory Business Centre in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek in April 2009; the audit scope was to examine the adequacy of operating systems to achieve compliance with accountability and control requirements for the Receiver of Territory Monies functions within the TBC.
The auditor’s opinion of the TBC’s internal controls for receipting of Territory monies was generally satisfactory, subject to four minor exceptions, and I will describe those: First, the TBC service level needs to reflect the current organisational structure. The response from TBC has been that an across government governance committee will update the TBC’s strategic directions and objectives to replace the existing service level agreement. All major client agencies are represented on this particular committee.
The second finding was the Accounting and Property Manual used does not currently reflect the accepted business practices within the agency and relates to the former department, of which it was a controlling entity. The response has been that this issue has been resolved. The TBC now refers to the Department of Business and Employment Accounting and Property Manual.
The third aspect was a delegation listing of officers authorised to process ledger transfers has not been established. The response from the department has been that this issue has been resolved. The manager of Darwin TBC and Director of Business Services authorised the ledger transfers in accordance with current delegations.
The last aspect was the lack of record keeping for cancelled receipts. The response has been that a new receipt and tracking system is in its final testing, and this should resolve the issue once implemented.
Generally, as the Auditor-General described, a satisfactory result with a few minor exceptions, which have been rectified. I congratulate the Auditor-General for all his efforts, and I look forward to another report next year.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pass on my thanks to the Auditor-General and his office for the report.
The Auditor-General commissioned an audit of processes and internal controls in relation to major capital works and other projects implemented by my Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. The Auditor-General found that, subject to some exceptions, my department generally has in place satisfactory processes and internal controls for ensuring compliance with the Procurement Act 1995, Procurement Regulations and Directions and the Northern Territory Procurement Code.
I should note the particular projects audited were undertaken in 2007 and 2008. Nine audit issues were raised; four of these were one-off issues which arose prior to my department recruiting a dedicated Procurement Manager in mid-2008. Appropriate controls are now in place and no systemic problems exist. The remaining audit issues highlight opportunities for my department to improve contract management and procurement planning. The Procurement Manager has been working to strengthen processes in these areas, including the development of procedures, templates and staff training.
An internal review of more recent contracts has found significant progress has been made in addressing the issues raised by the Auditor-General. I am advised these reviews will continue to be undertaken on a quarterly basis and, as the minister, I will continue to keep a close eye on this process.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report and appreciate the role he and his office play in checking records and driving government agencies to continue to deliver improved reporting and accounting practices.
With regard to the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the Auditor-General undertook an extensive review of the tender process for the construction of the Rosebery School. He looked closely at allegations made in relation to the tender and found the allegations levelled against DPI and the successful tenderer could not be supported. He also undertook a review of selected agencies’ major capital works and other projects. He made a number of key findings in relation to this review. Whilst this audit was conducted in April-May 2009, the scope of the audit was limited to projects awarded between July 2007 and April 2008.
During 2008 and 2009 and prior to the audit being undertaken, the Construction Division, the government business division responsible for the project management and delivery of the majority of general government capital works, made structural and business process improvements to enable the delivery of an increased capital works program. I am pleased to announce that DPI, and the then Construction Division, have progressively implemented further improvements to procedures and processes to address the findings of this report. This has enabled the delivery of record levels of capital works and repairs and maintenance throughout the Territory in 2008-09 and 2009-10 to date.
I also want to make some remarks about the Auditor-General’s review of Correctional Services. The Auditor-General reviewed the Prisoner Money Management System, which is a database that records all transactions of each prisoner’s trust account. The system records the receipt of any external funds deposited on behalf of prisoners, and prisoner’s earnings within the correctional facility. The system also records the purchase of day-to-day necessities from the prison canteen, and from selected external suppliers. The system also records the transfer of any funds to a prisoner’s telephone system account. There are in excess of 5000 transactions per month at each prison, and the majority of these transactions are processed by manual data entry. In 2005, we upgraded the system to allow the data to be extracted and put into an Excel spreadsheet. This allowed for easier and more efficient evaluation and processing of the data.
We welcome the recommendations made by the Auditor-General to assist us in streamlining this somewhat outdated and complicated system. The Auditor-General’s recent recommendations included improvement of record retention, supporting documentation, transaction discrepancies, prisoner payment summaries, and segregation of duties. We have addressed all these recommendations except for the prisoner payments summaries, as this recommendation impacts on other jurisdictions.
However, this issue will be discussed at the upcoming Correctional Services Administrator’s Conference in December. Some of the improvements we have made on recommendation from the Auditor-General are: retaining buy sheets at the prison canteens; the implementation of weekly reconciliations; a manual register of prison mail; and we are also training new staff in reconciliation and processes relating to the system. I am pleased to say we are in the process of further improving the system, and staged implementation of other improvements will be made over the next three months.
I welcome the recommendations from the Auditor-General, and am pleased to say significant process has been made in improving the Prisoner Money Management System.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I will make some comments on the Police, Fire and Emergency Services portfolio for which I am responsible, and then conclude debate.
The Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services is mentioned in two areas of the report. They are: review of selected agencies’ major capital works and other projects, and agency compliance audits. This audit selected four projects for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The first two projects related to the early stages of the Northern Territory Emergency Response, and are funded by the Australian government. The third project is related to the establishment of a confiscation of assets unit; and the fourth project is part of a cache of equipment funded by Emergency Management Australia.
Police advise while some procurement procedures have had tough time lines to meet, like the fit-out for the Themis stations, the recent centralisation of procurement staff by the Department of Business and Employment has resulted in a much more effective way of processing all projects.
There were five main items the Auditor-General raised in his findings on the four selected cases:
1. There was a lack of evidence on procurement files to support the existence of contract management.
This finding applied to all four projects. Whilst the agency broadly agrees with this finding and concedes Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services does not have any formal contract management in place, contract management does exist in the agency. For example, invoices relating to a contract submitted for payment must be approved by a delegated officer before the contract can be paid. Evidence of this activity does not necessarily appear on procurement files, but it does exist. Conversely, if there is a deficiency in the performance of a contractor, this will be identified, followed up and managed. Consideration will be given to implementing a system whereby a quarterly or six-monthly report will be sought from the relevant contract manager and affixed to the file.
2. A contract was signed prior to exemption approval being provided by the Procurement Review Board.
This finding applied to project 3 only. This matter was brought to the attention of the officer concerned, and should not happen again.
This finding applied to project 3 only. The agency agrees with this finding. The information required could not be located.
5. Lack of post-acquisition review for contracts selected for review.
The need for compliance with procurement directions is acknowledged. With the additional resources provided to the procurement and supply section a much more proactive role in procurement management and planning can be undertaken.
Agency compliance audits: the agency underwent a compliance audit during the period of the Auditor-General’s Report, and whilst controls were found to be good, it was found a number of guidelines and policies had not been strictly adhered to, in particular, maintenance of official bank accounts and procurement guidelines relating to contract extension. Procedures in relation to these matters have been examined and staff made aware of relevant requirements.
Some minor matters were also raised which did not warrant inclusion in the management letter to the Chief Executive. These included some areas of the Accounting and Property Manual which were not up to date; missing paperwork at DBE which resulted in the auditors being unable to verify two transactions; two instances of travel being approved by the delegate without the approval of the supervisor - the delegate and the supervisor being the same person in both instances; and, the lack of a register of ex gratia payments. The agency had only just received notification of the first approval of such payment, and it was only a timing issue that the register had not been set up prior to the audit.
Overall, Police, Fire and Emergency Services acknowledged the items, and have rectified their processes to work better in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report, and take the opportunity to express my full support to the Auditor-General and his staff for his continued independent analysis of government’s accountability on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General, and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls and compliance across agencies and entities, is one of our most vital components in maintaining a policy of open government. I commend the Auditor-General’s statement to the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office
Note Paper – Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak in relation to the Strategic Review of the Auditor-General’s Office. As I said previously, the Auditor-General provides a fine service to the people of the Northern Territory. He has, of course, decided he himself is not beyond review, and this is the result of the strategic review of his office.
I note numerous recommendations are made in the report, and I endorse those recommendations. I believe the Auditor-General should be allowed to go about his business in future in accordance with the exercise of those recommendations. I am uncertain as to whether the government is committed to them, but I think they are worthwhile.
We presume the Auditor-General wants to have himself reviewed, and knowing the important role the Auditor-General has in relation to serving this parliament, acknowledge the office continue to be supported wholesomely by the government of the day, no matter who that government is.
I do not choose to add much to the review. I am sure other members will have one or two things to say, if not, the Chief Minister will be wrapping up very shortly.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for his support of this strategic review report. Mr John Viljoen, Australian Assistant Auditor-General in the Audit Office of New South Wales, concluded overall that the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office is performing satisfactorily in a difficult operating environment. The strategic review identified 15 recommendations for improving operations, which had been discussed with the Auditor-General, and a course of action agreed in response to each recommendation.
Arguably, the most significant finding related to perceptions of funding and resourcing constraints. The Territory government has provided strong support to the Auditor-General’s Office through the provision of additional financial resources and capacity. Since the last strategic review in 2006, between 2005-06 and 2008-09, appropriation and cost recovery revenues of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office have increased by 21%. On the tabling of the report I noted supporting evidence of the additional financial resources and capacity, and the Territory government’s capital injection of $230 000 in October 2009. Importantly, the Auditor-General has expressed to me, in writing, he is comfortable with the resourcing he receives. As I noted at the time of tabling, the government’s practice has been to respond positively to any requests for additional resources from the Auditor-General, as evidenced by the additional resources and increased activity of his office. Requests do not compete with other expenditure priorities.
In concluding the debate on this report, I take this opportunity again to express my full support to the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the parliament, the government and the Territory community. The role of the Auditor-General, and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls and compliance across agencies and entities, is absolutely vital in maintaining a policy of open government.
MOTION
Note Paper - Northern Territory Legislative Assembly General Election Report 2008
Note Paper - Northern Territory Legislative Assembly General Election Report 2008
I thank the Electoral Commissioner for his efforts over that period. General elections are difficult animals to cobble together very quickly. They are expensive exercises and we know often they are sprung on the Electoral Commission, no matter how much the commissioner might dream he is immune from an election in a particular cycle. For example, despite the fact we now have fixed four year terms, the truth of the matter is even within that fixed four year term, there is a mechanism, as we are all crushingly aware, in which these things can suddenly crop up. It is still not outside the realm of contemplation that a general election may be sprung quickly.
It has always surprised me the speed with which Electoral Commissioners have been able to deal with snap elections; the last election being no surprise. The election, with all the bump and grind of elections, was still a celebration of democracy in our community. I very much accept the will of the people, and accept nothing less than the will of people. Being the local member for Port Darwin, I am also grateful for the support the people have chosen to give me on this occasion.
Nothing truly remarkable arises from this report. I looked at it when it hit the table during the November sittings, and nothing jumped out in front of me then. I have not looked at it since that time. Suffice to say it is a comprehensive and complete report into the results and issues arising out of the last election. Those areas which need to be tightened up will, in due course I have no doubt, be tightened up by the Electoral Commissioner.
Once again, I congratulate the Electoral Commissioner, his staff and his office for the very responsive services they gave democracy in the Northern Territory in spite of having a snap election called that year. And that is it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Electoral Act provides the Electoral Commission may provide a report on any matter relating to its functions. Where such a report has been provided to the Speaker, statutory obligation is it is tabled within the three sitting days.
Since the establishment of the independent Electoral Commission, and the commencement of the current Electoral Act in 2004, there have been two general elections, June 2005 and August 2008. It has become the practice of the commission to report on issues which arise in conducting each election. The main issues discussed in the current report are: the continuing need for legislative amendments, and the participation process of the election. In his report into the 2005 election, the Commissioner recommended a number of amendments to the act. A number of these recommendations were implemented by way of the Electoral Amendment Act 2009. They included fixed term elections, minor extensions to the electoral period allowing for earlier dispatch of postal votes, and easing restrictions on pre-poll voting. There are, however, a number of the commission’s recommendations still outstanding, and in the current report it reiterates its view that the remaining issues should be addressed.
Consideration of the proposed reforms is somewhat complicated by the fact the Commonwealth released an electoral reform green paper in September 2009. The paper discusses possible harmonisation of Commonwealth, state and territory electoral laws, and identifies areas where there could be coordinated reforms. A number of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission involve areas under discussion at the national level, for example, financial disclosure provisions. In these circumstances, it makes sense for the Territory to wait to see what developments there are in the national sphere before proceeding on its own.
The Territory government will continue to monitor the need for electoral reforms, and will review the Commission’s recommendations in light of any uniform national provisions which are proposed. The Electoral Commission’s report also discusses the apparent decline in the participation rate of voters in the 2008 election; that is the ratio between the numbers of people who voted, compared with the number of enrolled electors. The report noted this decline was the subject of much speculation and comment immediately following the election. The participation rate was 75.7% of enrolled voters, a decline compared to previous general elections. The biggest fall occurred in the Alice Spring divisions, and three Darwin inner suburbs.
The report suggests the decline was the result of a complex mix of factors including quality of the roll, timing of the election, and remote area factors such as the federal intervention, and an apparent decrease in political lobbying in remote centres. The commissioner notes the establishment of fixed elections will enable strategies to be applied in future which will result in a better roll at the next election. The establishment of a joint office in Alice Springs, and funding of the Indigenous Election Participation Program by the Australian Electoral Commission, should also lead to better outcomes in remote and regional areas.
The other recommendations of the commission include: expanding the election period by at least one week, funds to support preliminary planning for the 2012 election, the capacity for the commission to impose fines for non-voting and these be dealt with by the Fines Recovery Unit, and the act be reviewed to achieve harmonisation, where appropriate, with the electoral legislation of other jurisdictions.
The Electoral Commissioner and staff of the commission are to be congratulated on their professionalism and the way in which they conducted themselves in difficult circumstances. In 2008 they had to deal with municipal general elections, the redistribution of electoral boundaries, and the Legislative Assembly general election. In a world where elections often give rise to division and conflicts, and where the results are frequently disputed, the high degree of public confidence in the Australian electoral systems, including that in the Northern Territory, is an important component of a healthy society and a strong democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Electoral Commission Report into the 2008 General Election in the Territory to the House.
Motion agreed to.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 80)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 80)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I find myself with the second piece of legislation government has introduced today which I am supporting. There has to be a limit to what we can do! However, it is interesting that there has been a little process here, and that process has taught me some lessons; some negative and some positive.
I welcome the minister’s legislation today. Much work has been put into this on both sides with practical and positive achievements. However, it is important for people to know last year the Country Liberals did propose what, in effect, was good legislation, insomuch as it was supported by the government, and the Independent member for Nelson, but it did not get a guernsey - all on political grounds.
In fact, part of that process included issues raised in the legislation the government was uncomfortable with - as was the EPA, in fairness. We rushed through amendments to appease government, the Independent member for Nelson, and the EPA. That was hard work for those people involved in ensuring the right changes were made. Then, unfortunately, the legislation was voted down. I suppose that is where I learned a valuable lesson. We all say we are here for the right reasons, and we are here to do what is right for the Territory, but this was legislation that, unfortunately, on political grounds, was simply voted down. That was a sad thing.
Rather than go through the committee stage this afternoon, I have several questions I would like to put to the minister and, hopefully he can provide an answer in his reply.
The current Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 limits the authority’s function by enabling it to only look into matters on reference from a third party, or on its own initiative in accordance with criteria and arrangements agreed with the minister. That is section 5(1)(b)(i) and (c). This limitation is what previous opposition bills wanted to amend, and the new act delivers that. Again, it is the point I made previously; we raised some good legislation and the question is why it was not supported before. The government’s bill removes this restriction and expands the EPA’s functions to oversee the implementation of administrative procedures as defined by section 7 of the Environmental Assessment Act, and agency responses to respond to environmental incidents.
The bill also requires the EPA, when giving advice on the operations of an agency, to give a copy of the proposed advice to the CEO of that agency. The CEO is invited to make a submission to the EPA regarding the proposed advice within a reasonable stated period - and for reference that is section 5A(2)(a) and (b). My preference, if the minister could consider it is, instead of having a ‘reasonable stated period’, we change it to something like 28 days. Having it open-ended could mean a CEO may take forever to respond to the EPA, which brings me to the penalties that apply.
The question may be: now that penalties are applied to people who withhold information or provide wrong information to the EPA, what would happen if it was a government department? Could there become a time when a CEO perhaps has not provided the information requested, and although given a reasonable stated period, it is not clear. I believe if we had a 28 day period, or a defined time, then it may be clearer. I believe it would take away the risk; there is legislation which says there are penalties applying to people who either do not provide information, or perhaps provide wrong information. I would hate to see a CEO falling foul of the EPA by not providing that information.
The authority, and the minister, are still able to make administrative arrangements in relation to the exercise of the EPA’s powers and functions, but these arrangements must be publicised under the proposed section 7A(5). That is fine, except the government proposes and says the EPA is completely independent. Because this is still there, it perhaps tarnishes the intent. If you are true to your word and are trying to create an independent EPA, this does tarnish it somewhat by providing a minister with powers to discuss its functions.
The wording of section 6 has been simplified and those provisions strengthened with the introduction of the proposed Part 2A, which makes it an offence, with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, to withhold information which has been requested by the EPA. It will also be an offence, with a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units, to provide misleading information or documents to the EPA. Again, my question is what happens if it was a government department? Would the penalties apply? Is there a process involved and, do we need to make it clearer in the reasonable period, CEOs need to provide that feedback?
The bill also amends the provisions of section 24 of the act to ensure the minister tables any recommendations or concluding advice given to him by the EPA within six sitting days. The minister must also advise the EPA of any decisions made by the minister in relation to the recommendations, or concluding advice, as soon as practicable under the new section 25. However, there is absolutely no requirement in the bill to table or publicise these decisions. That is one area which needs to be looked at, because if the EPA is providing information to this House so that it is open, that it is accountable - and I understand it is a good idea the minister at least has some forewarning of what those recommendations are – however, in a situation where there has been a decision made, there is no requirement in the bill to table or publicise these decisions. If we are truly looking for an independent EPA and an independent, transparent process that is the direction we perhaps should be going.
Clause 13 introduces an alternative section 5A to commence at a later date. The additional provisions introduced by clause 1 are: monitor and assess the cumulative impacts of development in the Territory - that is section 5A(1)(c); and to publicly release reports on environmental quality – section 5A(1)(d). The minister’s second reading speech did not explain why this staggered approach has been taken. The Explanatory Statement says a staggered approach is needed as these two provisions are to commence later than the rest in that section. Minister, you have the chance to confirm the reason for this delay today if you know what the answer is.
The cumulative impacts of section5A(3)(a) include the monitoring of discharges of pollution from a particular place, or the monitoring of compliance with legislation relating to pollution from a particular place, section 5A(3)(b), such as the Marine Pollution Act, Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the Water Act, etcetera. While individual compliance with pollution guidelines should remain with the agencies - and we agree with that - surely the cumulative effect of pollution in a densely industrialised area such as Darwin Harbour should be part of the EPA’s functions.
I only have a few questions today, and I truly welcome this legislation. It is built on a process where it was voted down on political lines. However, to the word of the Independent member for Nelson and the Environment minister, there was a course and structure set afterwards, and I was part of that journey. We had meetings with the minister’s advisers. I had meetings with the Independent member for Nelson, and we also had meetings with the EPA. From that it was very clear to me that we are all playing off the same song sheet. In fact, when the legislation was presented in Alice Springs and the briefing provided, I was warmed by the legislation. I know it is very hard to admit; perhaps we are a little further than what was expected. That was very encouraging.
I have some doubts over the government’s whole approach to environmental protection. I have certainly worked hard on the conservative side of politics to improve our past credentials regarding the environment. I go on track records to see if someone has proven they are what they say; proven they are good at what they do, and proven through what really happens in the community. I know the Country Liberals recently released a policy on growth sustainability and the climate change challenge. There are clear objectives in that approach, there are milestones, and there are practical steps which are absolutely measurable. I worry we have a government which on one hand says it is supportive of our environment and wants to protect it - and indeed with this legislation has done a good job - however I look at a media release from the Minister for Climate Change and the Chief Minister which reads:
- Climate change is one of the most important issues facing our community. It cannot be ignored. It cannot be tackled piecemeal …
The Territory government will take the lead and bring the community with us to effect change.
We saw only last week where we tackled one area of housing, the star rating and efficiencies of buildings, where if you really want people to follow what you are doing, if you are really trying to set an example, you will be taking a lead. I was critical of government that it only tackled housing when it could have done so much more. Perhaps it should have started with government departments; it should have started with practical things the government could do to reduce its own energy use.
We saw through Estimates last year that we spent some $68m on diesel for our power stations because of the lack of gas; that is not good environmental credentials. We can argue all we want; however the fact is we spent $68m on diesel. We also know through Estimates many of our remote parks are running on diesel generators. I know there is a plan in Territory 2030 to work for change.
This government has been here nine years, and I do not believe they have a good track record for doing what is right for our environment. You do not have to cause people additional pain, or additional costs to help our environment. The conservative side of government has often been called climate change sceptics; it is absolutely nonsense. I do not really care who is right or wrong in this argument. I do not care if you believe in climate change or not; it does not matter. If we can do one thing good for our environment, that is good for me; it is good for the environment.
I made this point recently, if by changing to an LED light bulb in your home saves you money in your hip pocket and you do not have to change it for the next 20 years, and the energy you are using every day is saving you money in your hip pocket, and the end result is government does not have to provide so much energy, that is a good thing in anyone’s argument, so it does not matter. It is sensible too. It is about practical steps, and I believe this today is a practical step and I welcome the minister’s legislation. I know a great deal of work has gone into it, but you do not have the runs on the board yet to be able to stand back and say you are the climate change …
Mr Tollner: Labor does not have any runs on the board at all. Zero! They would have been bowled out for a duck long ago.
Mr CHANDLER: Whilst we are talking about this, the government also strongly supports a national emissions trading scheme. Mr Henderson said: ‘This means we can drive real change and reduce emissions’. I believe most Australians now know the carbon reduction scheme is nothing more than a big fat tax and will do little to change people’s habits; it will do little to help the environment. It is going to raise a large amount of money for the government, but it is not going to help the environment. It is going to cost jobs.
The reality is you need to change people’s habits. I draw your attention to your policies when discussing plastic bags. There is more and more evidence every day that we may have been sold a lemon when it comes to recyclable bags. They cost more and they are not such a lovely thing for our environment; the same as the little fluorescent bulbs everyone is putting into their homes because they are energy efficient. Yes, they are. However, they cost more to make; they cost more to transport. There are seven or eight different toxins within these bulbs. Everyone should be very clear that if we are throwing these bulbs with the toxins they contain into our landfills every day we are not good environmentalists. The toxins within these bulbs have a real chance of getting into our water tables at some stage down the track.
My understanding is LED lighting is where we should be aiming in the future. I know the government has made a start with traffic lights. That needs to continue to roll out, and we need to replace every damn bulb we can possibly think of, not with fluorescent bulbs, but LED bulbs.
I discuss this because of this government’s track record. In a media release it says: ‘By 2018 we will ensure the Northern Territory government is carbon neutral’. They are great aspirations, however there needs to be practical steps. By comparison, the Country Liberals had key initiatives including allocation of $10m a year to be used for construction of renewable power generation capacity, with a target output of 100 MW.
The Country Liberals wanted the establishment of a five-year $5m renewable sponge, or promote development of renewable energy sources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the Territory; a 25% renewable energy target by 2025; attainment of an 8-star energy rating for all Territory government buildings by 2017; energy efficiency; solar capacity; and procurement weighting given to green-focused business tendering for government work. This policy, these key initiatives, are backed up with practical steps - not to cost additional dollars to individuals, to householders, because we know we can cut red tape today in the procurement of a home in such a way, and to such a level - improvements in the energy efficiency of the home can be done at no cost to people. By saying: ‘You will do this’, is not the way to do it. There has to be a carrot-and-stick approach.
As I said, by comparison the Labor government today has said the annual rate of land clearing will not be allowed to increase. The Territory will be a low land-clearing jurisdiction. We have had the great water report saying the Territory is not going to be the food bowl of the future, although Territorians have been known for handling tough situations. Given the task there are some hard workers out there. I have seen some solutions across the Northern Territory which have proven, time and time again, they are ‘doing people’.
The reason I brought it up now is that report said the current land clearing, cropping, and growth could go from 20 000 ha to 60 000 ha. We could triple what we are doing across the Northern Territory today. If this policy says the annual rate of land clearing will not be allowed to increase, you are not even going to meet the targets the water people are saying we can do. Do not let me get started on water - look at Mataranka, it is a mess. Even this week we find there are people desperately trying to build homes in the rural area who have been stopped because no water bores are being allowed. On one hand you have a government saying it is caring and is trying to get people into houses and, on the other hand, you have another department which will not even let them put a bore down.
You can design new management programs without stalling things. Look at a highway, for instance. You cannot stop the traffic because you want to put in a new section of road or you want to fix a piece of road. You might put a roundabout in or a detour for a short time while you do the new work, but you do not stop cars coming through. You guys have departments stopping people whilst you are developing programs. You can work on new programs and have things continue.
I raise this because the evidence is not on the ground. When I see this working in a few years time I can come back and say: ‘Yes, look at the challenges that were met. Look at what has been delivered’. I am going to say I was absolutely supportive of what happened here today - and I am supportive. Minister, I am supportive of this legislation because it does put us in the right direction. I have been a little frustrated with the process, however, it is learning for me as well.
As I said previously, the process led us to where we are. We have this legislation; it is a big improvement. I will finish by saying thank you, minister, for bringing it forward. If I can get a couple of answers on why the staggered introduction of provisions in section 5A, and a clearer explanation of the cumulative impact as used in clause 13.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to environmental protection. That is why after …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, if I could call you to order please? Minister, you have the call.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is committed to environmental protection; that is why, after six years in government, we formed the Environment Protection Agency, and the CLP, for 26 years in office, failed to do so over the whole time. It is a fabulous achievement, and I am glad to hear the opposition spokesperson is complimentary of our environmental protection credentials.
These amendments further strengthen the role of the EPA. The Territory’s Environment Protection Authority Act came into effect in 2007, the first time the Territory actually had an independent environmental watchdog. The Labor government recognised it was high time for the Territory to join the rest of Australia in having an environment protection authority, as previous CLP governments had consistently refused to do so. As a government, we are committed to preserving the Territory’s unique environment and cultural heritage. The EPA provides independent advice to government on the management of the environment and how best to protect it, now and into the future.
These amendments will not only give the Environment Protection Authority more muscle to protect our environment and cultural heritage, but they will more clearly define the role of the authority. We know various Territory government agencies administer environmental regulations. While approvals, licensing, and frontline responses to incidents are dealt with by these agencies, the EPA has been given beefed-up capacity to investigate agencies decision-making, as well as their responses to environmental incidents. These amendments give the EPA explicit powers to investigate the decisions and responses of government agencies on environmental issues, as well as a capacity to look at those cases where there are concerns about the management of particular issues. The EPA will also be able to require information from industry, while the public will be able to refer matters of environmental concern to the authority.
Any referrals from the public will be assessed in line with priorities identified by its board in its strategic plan. What the Territory needs is a single agency to audit and ensure the system is working effectively. That is what we have with the EPA.
Importantly, the EPA is a statutory body which makes its recommendations and advice publicly, and is not subject to governmental direction. This independence gives the EPA real power. The authority now has the ability to examine any issue it considers a priority. The EPA’s new powers will include: new capacity to audit and evaluate how effectively recommendations made by the minister on an EIS are taken up in relevant approvals and licences; additional powers to require information of agencies and industry, with new offences created to deal with the failure to provide information or provide misleading information; creation of a new function allowing the EPA to receive and investigate community complaints over adequacy of agency responses to identify whether any regulatory failure has occurred, or whether legislation itself is lacking; and to bring options for improvement back to government.
It also has the capacity to assess frontline responses of other agencies from a system perspective. Last, a new function requiring the EPA to monitor, evaluate and publicly report on the cumulative impacts of development in the wider environment. That is an important capacity given to the EPA because in some areas, development happens incrementally and the incremental impact on the environment can actually have a cumulative effect on the whole ecosystem. It is an important capacity given to the EPA.
The new auditing and monitoring role, backed up by the creation of new offences, is certainly a step in the right direction. In effect, the EPA will have a new auditing role on EIS recommendations and environmental incidents, and it will be like an environmental Auditor-General.
The EPA will be expected to keep a watching brief on environmental outcomes. It will also have the capacity to take on one-off projects as it has done in the past. An EPA does not have to be regulatory to be effective, however it must be independent. We have confidence that independence and these new powers will make the Territory’s EPA effectively a watchdog over the environment for our future generations.
Environmental recommendations and regulations are administered by agencies, but we now have a single entity which has a capacity to monitor those agencies. We do not need duplication; we need one agency auditing and ensuring the system is working effectively. That will be the EPA’s new role. Now the EPA has power to acquire information from agencies in industry, it has the necessary teeth to protect the Territory’s environment. The EPA will also be free to provide advice on any new EIS directed as it sees fit. The EPA can audit the recommendations coming from the environmental assessment.
We are a government very much committed to developing the Territory; however we are equally committed to ensuring any development occurs in a sustainable way, a way which protects those things that make the Territory a unique and beautiful place.
I congratulate the minister on bringing these amendments forward. I am confident these amendments will give the EPA added strength, and will provide the balance required in the Northern Territory between development and environmental protection. Congratulations, minister, and I look forward to the EPA getting on with its vital work here in the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the government for bringing forward this amendment in relation to the Environment Protection Agency. I thank the member for Brennan for his comments. I know he has been champing at the bit on some of these issues in ensuring the Environment Protection Agency reported back to parliament. I believe it shows when we have that level of cooperation to do things which are good for the Territory that you can get together and achieve good outcomes. I thank the member for Brennan for doing that hard work.
What we have today is certainly an improvement. It strengthens the role of the EPA. The area I believe to be one of the most important is in relation to its functions, section 5A(1)(a):
- (1) For achieving its function, the Authority is to:
(a) review and assess:
- (i) the extent to which, and how, a recommendation made under the Administrative Procedures for a particular proposed action has been given effect;…
That does not make much sense until you get to the explanatory statement where it puts it into English which I can understand. It says:
- This section establishes that in achieving its function, the EPA is to:
review and assess the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations following the completion of an environmental assessment of a proposed action (pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act);
It can comment on an EIS report to see whether the report is being carried out fairly, and I believe that is an important role.
One of the issues raised when big projects are put forward in the Territory is the company employs people to do the EIS. The argument in a small town like Darwin is you would not want to make adverse comments because you may not get a job next time. Having an independent EPA look at it adds balance and removes some of that criticism. We have had some pretty big projects in the Northern Territory which have had their share of controversy. People who felt there has not been enough testing of the waters will now have this extra layer; an independent body looking into things. That is one of the key changes the government has put forward.
There are a number of other issues in looking at how an agency responds to environmental incidents. I remember the government at one point made a song and dance about a Pollution Hotline. I was driving down Stuart Highway just getting out to Holtze - some people call it the Eleven Mile, some people call it Pinelands, it is actually Holtze - there is a big drain before you get to the BP. Driving past I noticed this white, milky liquid filling the drain. I stopped to see what it was, had a sniff, and then decided to ring the Pollution Hotline. They wanted to know what it smelt like; they were going to pass it on to the fire brigade. Nothing happened, and I did not hear what occurred there. Was it something harmful? Was it pollution? The response was very poor. If you have an EPA and you believe there is a poor response to your complaint, you can report that. I believe it is their job to find out if people who were supposed to be doing a job in an area which is advertised as an important way of keeping check on pollution, are doing their job. That was a few years ago, and today things may be better. However, I use that as an example where I did not get a reaction I thought was reasonable, and I believe you could have an EPA doing that as well.
It is also important to look at the bigger picture; the cumulative environmental effect. What effects are the small changes happening in the environment having over a period of time? On their own, maybe very little; overall they might be causing a number of problems. I will give you a classic example in the member for Brennan’s electorate, Mitchell Creek. I remember when Mitchell Creek was a beautiful creek; pristine. It started off with some gravel mining on my side of the Stuart Highway - the member for Goyder probably passed it through the Minerals Council. They mined at the headwaters of Mitchell Creek, and I complained saying: ‘How come you are doing it there?’ They said: ‘It is okay, it is just an extractive mining lease’.
They then commenced at Gunn; looks good on paper, glossy brochures, wonderful place, but what happened to the creek? It turned into, in some places, a lawn with a concrete drain down the centre - very nice in the brochures. On one part they were going to build a road over the top, put a pipe under it, and build houses on the side. A number of people went to a Planning Authority meeting and protested very strongly and the government saw this was a stupid thing, and gave them another piece of land. Under a previous government, the land had been sold as one big block without the environmental areas removed. It should never have happened. The environmental areas should have been removed and the balance sold to Delphin, then we would not have this problem.
Slowly roads are put in. I have seen pipes running straight into the creek. We should not be running pipes into creeks at a subdivision. We should be slowing the water down, putting it through sediment areas. The new design for Bakewell is worth looking at. I have been through there, and I have commented on Bakewell. It has some new designs where water is running off the Bakewell subdivision into recreational ponds, which are fed from water coming off the subdivision, before it gets into Mitchell Creek. We have gone from an extreme at one end of the creek, to a much more improved process at the bottom end of the creek. By the way, it is not Mitchell Creek to Bakewell; it is Brooking Creek. However, we have realised we have done things which, if we keep doing them, would have ruined Mitchell Creek.
A previous Mayor of Palmerston and I visited Mitchell Creek. I was involved part-time with Waterwatch, and I remember testing the water in Mitchell Creek. You would be amazed how many prawns were there. With suburbs only 0.5 km away, the creek was full of prawns ready to be flushed into the harbour. We were emphasising the point that we all say we want to protect Darwin Harbour, however we have a company putting lawns, concrete drains, and running stormwater drains straight into it, with no thought to the effect on Darwin Harbour.
I see the EPA asking what the cumulative effect is of subdivisions if they are not done properly, or what is the cumulative effect of some of our industrial development. One industry might be fine; when you put in 100 industries that could cause problems. I believe there are some good roles for the EPA.
It is also good the minister is required to report to the House. That is important, and something the member for Brennan was pushing for. That, in itself, is really important - that we ensure these authorities report, and the minister reports to parliament to keep this open and transparent system working; otherwise people think it is being brushed under the carpet.
We had a debate on climate change and the member for Brennan discussed several issues. I had my ears pricked up, and I will probably say a few words in relation to that later. However, there are some areas the EPA could request information on from the government, even if they are not allowed to investigate.
I support the diversion of the McArthur River, however reports I have say it was not revegetated. Part of that is due to its closure. When it closed it also closed the nursery, and I am not sure what happened to the plants. My understanding is there are issues, and I will be asking some questions later in parliament. There may have been a role for the EPA to ask what was happening, if the department had not done so. If they feel the department is not making enough noise, perhaps they need the power to step in and ask: ‘What are you doing?’ We see the EPA as looking at who is doing their job. If no one is doing their job with the mining company, then the EPA asks what is happening. I believe they could be given a little leeway when it comes to important things like that. That was a big project, and it was a big change to the river. I visited it when it commenced, I visited it when they broke through, and I was expecting to see trees everywhere. However, I will make another visit to make sure myself.
There are many things we could discuss. I need to comment on 8-star houses the member for Brennan mentioned. I am concerned we will have houses up to 9-star or 10-star. It is terrific, however how much will they cost, and are they really going to be energy efficient for the Northern Territory? There is much talk about 5-star houses, but they were 5-star for down south. We want 5-star tropical houses, not 5-star Melbourne houses.
One thing which really disappoints me is every time I drive past Palmerston I cannot believe we have black, blue, green, and red roofs on houses. If anyone looks at the figures for how much extra a red or blue roof - or whatever colour it is - increases the inefficiency of our house in cooling, you wonder why we are doing it. Is it because we have companies in the Territory tied to a covenant? Do we have new subdivisions such as Johnston and Bakewell tied so someone cannot build a house with louvers, flywire and a big verandah because it will not match the covenants of that company, or it will not fit in with the government’s view the buildings should all look roughly the same?
I laugh a little. I went to a school - I will not say which school - and the kids were all saying: ‘Turn it off, turn it off, you are saving energy, saving energy’. They were standing in the dark with all the air-conditioners going. The rooms were beautifully cool, but the lights were out. The facts are schools have to rely on …
Mr Styles: Was the member for Daly anywhere near it?
Mr WOOD: I am not sure. My grandsons attend St John’s, and one of them sits in a classroom with no air-conditioning, the old louvers, and he says it is hot. I do not say we should not have air-conditioning; I believe sometimes we are kidding ourselves if we are saying, save power, save power, and on the other hand, we promote air-conditioning. By all means have it, but we are mucking about when we want to turn a few lights off. The main source of energy bills in a school would be air-conditioning by a long way. We will probably get on to that at another stage. I will not get into the climate change debate until tomorrow, if we get to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the work he has done, especially working with the member for Brennan. It is important these changes occur and it is something I have been pushing through the agreement. I believe the important thing is you and the member for Brennan got together and achieved something Territorians will be pleased with. The way it was done is nearly as important as the outcome. I thank the minister, and I thank the member for Brennan.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. The member for Nelson mentioned was the Pollution Hotline. I have used that a few times in the last 18 months, and I have found them to be very responsive, particularly with dust control around building sites. They have been very helpful. I have letterboxed their contact details around the electorate, and my contact details. I know people sometimes prefer to contact the local member rather than the Pollution Hotline. However, I have found, in those instances, the Pollution Hotline has been very handy. I had a similar experience as the member for Nelson where there seemed to be an oil leak, the Pollution Hotline checked it out and fixed it. Member for Nelson, my recent experience of the Pollution Hotline has been very good.
However, we are here today to debate the passage of amendments to the Environment Protection Authority Act, not the Pollution Hotline. The amendments do give a new auditing and monitoring role to the EPA, and they strengthen its powers and backup the EPA with new offences.
The creation of an EPA, with the original passage of the Environment Protection Authority Act in 2007, saw the Territory finally have a mature mechanism for protection of the environment. We finally had a strong independent environment watchdog. We are now debating amendments which see the EPA take the next stage in its evolution of a sensible progression of the powers and responsibilities of the EPA. It is one of the advantages of establishing a new system, bedding it in, making sure it works, and then when you take the next step of strengthening what it does, you can do it in a way you know will work. What we have in the Territory is a decentralised environmental protection system. Several agencies have environmental responsibilities in the Territory, and the effect of that is to mainstream the environment in the Territory. I believe that is a very important policy decision.
There are some who believe we should lump it all into one body; there are always pros and cons for different models. History is littered with examples where lumping things together does not work, just as there are examples where the opposite works, where decentralisation does not work.
What we have achieved here with the EPA, and what is central to this decision, is we are ensuring the environment is never seen as someone else’s problem. That is an important policy effect of the decision to ensure environmental responsibilities are not decentralised. What we have recognised as essential to ensuring the decentralised system works is the heart of the body, in this instance the EPA, has a big picture view that can see how the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit together.
The EPA addresses the positive weaknesses of a decentralised system. It can say these bodies need to talk together, or there is a system missing here. It has been described as an environmental auditor-general, or an environmental ombudsman, or even a coordinator-general.
The minister highlighted this big picture view in his own contribution, his ability to coordinate, and he quoted some of the clauses within the act that give the EPA this authority. Quoting from the minister:
- The Environment Protection Authority Act established a new body specifically concerned with getting ahead of the curve. The new EPA was created to look at the big picture environment protection issues confronting the Territory. As set out in section 5 of the act, the EPA is tasked to:
… give advice and make recommendations to the Territory, businesses and the community about ecologically sustainable development ….
- The section goes on to provide some examples upon which the EPA can provide advice and make recommendations, notably including:
- (a) achieving best practice environmental policy and management;
(b) setting objectives, targets and standards for the public and private sectors;
…
(e) issues affecting the Territory’s capacity of achieve ecologically sustainable development;
Mr Tollner: Did you write the speech yourself?
Mr GUNNER: … and:
(f) emerging environmental issues.
I was quoting a little from the minister, and from the act. Thank you, member for Fong Lim; you will get an opportunity soon.
The EPA is provided with legislative guidance on how it goes about its work. It is important the EPA is plugged into the local community; that it works with stakeholders, businesses, agencies, and the public. That is what the EPA needs to do, and it is important it never forgets the principles as set out in section 7 of the Environment Protection Authority Act: ecologically sustainable development, sound science, best practice, consideration of regional variation, the desirability for strong growing and diversified economy, and a well informed and engaged private sector, the need to adopt cost-effective and flexible policy instruments, the need to be transparent in information availability and decision-making, and importantly government economic policy priorities for the Territory.
The EPA is effective in the work it does and how it works with businesses, agencies, and the public, and how it adheres to principles because it is independent; that is outlined in the act. Section 8(1) says:
- The authority is not subject to the minister’s direction.
Section 8(2) of the act goes on to provide:
- In particular, the Authority is not subject to the minister’s direction in relation to the preparation and contents of any advice or recommendation of the Authority.
These clauses guarantee there will be a strong, independent environmental watchdog with an EPA that makes the difference. It addresses systemic issues, it addresses strategic issues, and is accountable to guiding principles not political masters. This bill will ensure that what the EPA already does well, it will now do even better. The amendments will better align the EPA’s work with the emerging needs of the Territory and Territorians.
We are, as members are aware, on the cusp of major industrial expansion. Those amendments ensure, as we move into exciting times, the environment is not forgotten and we have, as the minister says, the necessary oversight for the overall environment protection framework. There are essentially three new capacities that make this possible:
- (1) the EPA will have, as I have already mentioned, a new auditing role. It will audit recommendations from Environmental Impact Statements. It will audit environmental incidents, and in that case spills are probably the best example;
(2) they will track us. They will track government and business against environmental outcomes to ensure we are on track. It is important there is a body with the ability to do independent assessment;
(3) while they are auditing and tracking, they will still have the ability and resources to take on one-off projects. They can still self-refer. In fact, this bill will further entrench the independence of the EPA because it removes the requirement in the existing act for the EPA to have one-off investigations conform to criteria and arrangements agreed between the minister and the EPA.
We have a decentralised model which ensures the environment is everyone’s business. We have a body, the EPA, which audits the system, which makes sure the system works, and there is no duplication with agencies which administer the environmental regulations. Where the EPA does have teeth, it has new powers and offences to ensure the EPA gets the information it needs from agencies and industry. That guarantees transparency. It guarantees the information we need is on the table so the EPA can make informed recommendations and provide clear advice, and the agency can act on EPA determinations.
The EPA now has the ability to ensure not only are recommendations enforced, they are effective. This will ensure the community can trust the environmental assessment process, there is not a disconnect between original advice and final outcome, and there is someone between those two times to ensure the environment is being protected. To quote from the minister:
- … the bill provides for the EPA to carry out its functions under improved arrangements of public transparency and accountability. Under the current arrangements, the EPA findings are to be reported publicly. The bill enhances this by requiring agencies to respond to EPA findings and for both the response and the findings to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. The requirements are similar to those of the Auditor-General.
The EPA supports the proposed bill. I have their media release from 26 November. I am sure members know the Chair of the Environmental Protection Authority is Dr Andrew Tupper. He welcomed the announcement. I quote:
- The power of the EPA comes from its freedom to promote its findings even if they are critical of government decision-making and the performance of government agencies.
The EPA has moved beyond being able to ask whether we have the rules right for environment protection. It now has an explicit function to ask ‘how are these rules being used and are they working to protect our environment?’
The EPA is like an environmental ombudsman with the power to investigate any issues that it considers to be a priority for the protection of the Northern Territory.
I support this bill. We created the Territory’s first EPA. We took the Territory into the 21st century by having an independent environment watchdog. We are now moving to make the EPA stronger with an auditing and monitoring role, and we are backing it up with new offences. That is why I am happy to support this bill, and commend it to the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, before you commence I remind members that at 5.30 pm we will be moving to General Business. You will be interrupted if you are not finished at that time.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): I will keep it concise, Madam Deputy Speaker
It is great to see the government has finally done something in relation to the EPA and, from the outset, can I say well done to the member for Brennan. He has been an outstanding advocate for the environment. I listened to him intently. He did not let me down, and I am sure he did not let anyone in this Chamber down. He has driven this issue right from the word go, and it seems to me government has fallen into line with many things he has been calling for. I put on the record publicly, right here and now, the debt of gratitude I, and most Territorians, owe to the member for Brennan for the great work he has done.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: It has been interesting to listen to the member for Fannie Bay, the member for Daly, and those on the other side talk about the wonderful job this government does in relation to the environment. It is like many things with this government, it is all talk and very little action. For several years now we have been hearing about climate change; the greatest moral dilemma facing Australians. I believe the Prime Minister says, backed up strongly by this government: ‘We have to get on board; climate change is the major issue’.
Now we find ourselves in the parliament today, and we see them in the federal parliament; Kevin Rudd wants to talk about anything but the ETS. It is a funny thing, the Liberals under a new and revived leadership team, are keen to get out there and talk about ETS. They are keen to bring on the debate, but where is the Labor government federally? Nowhere to be seen; they are ducking for cover. Why is this? Because, fundamentally, the Prime Minister went to the 2007 election saying he would sign up to Kyoto, he would put in place an emissions trading scheme, introduce legislation - the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That fell in a complete heap. The legislation the Prime Minister put in place was amended a number of times in the Senate.
What he originally put forward would have absolutely crippled the Territory; put us back a hundred years, would have killed off all agricultural industries in the Territory, and would virtually have ensured we would have no gas developments happening in the Northern Territory. It was absolutely dreadful. However, due to some hard work by a number of people in Canberra, that bill was amended, in a range of areas. We saw agriculture exempted, we saw concessions across the board but, fundamentally, people recognised the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was a flawed scheme. As Tony Abbott says, it is a great, big, new tax. A great, big, new tax on everything is what Mr Rudd wants to do. He wants to tax Australians, he wants to tax business for their carbon emissions, and with that tax money he wants to send it overseas to other countries where he would purchase carbon credits.
We saw what happened to the Prime Minister’s grand plan in Copenhagen. The world did not adopt the strategies the Prime Minister had spent millions and millions of dollars promoting around the world and, by the way, increasing carbon pollution by flying hundreds and hundreds of people around the world trying to convince countries they had to do something about this great moral challenge of our time. No, he absolutely failed! That policy was rejected in ‘Carbon-hagen’; it was a complete and utter shemozzle - a shambles. The Prime Minister has come back to Australia with egg all over his face, to the point where he wants to talk about anything but the emissions trading scheme he was trying to introduce.
Nowhere along the line would the Prime Minister debate it. Nowhere along the line would the Prime Minister outline his plans. We saw on the ABC - the name of the show escapes me - a bunch of high school students made him look like a complete jerk ...
A member: Q&A.
Mr TOLLNER: Q&A - made him look like a complete and absolute dill. If the Prime Minister cannot explain his scheme to a group of high school students, what hope does he have of convincing some of the great minds in this country it is a good thing to do? A complete failure!
We have seen that shemozzle take place, and now we see their little brothers and sisters in the Northern Territory facing the same problem. They have egg all over their faces too. We have ministers who have berated the Country Liberals for not supporting Kevin Rudd; for not kicking Nigel Scullion, our Senator, in the bum and getting him to support Kevin Rudd’s great, big tax on everything; and who expect a Country Liberal Senator would go to Canberra and argue with his colleagues and cross the floor in order to put a new tax on Australians on everything, and see the money raised go overseas. That tax is supported by this government, and that is what they have hung their whole environmental policy on for the last two years: Kevin Rudd’s great, big, new tax. That is what this government has hung its hat on for the last two years.
Meanwhile, we have seen other practical things completely ignored. In the time since the last Territory election, we have seen sewage continue to be pumped into our harbour - no plans from the government as to when they are going to stop that. For the record, it is worth noting Darwin is the worst polluter in the nation per capita for pumping sewage into its harbour. That is a national shame I do not like. It is something which affects me personally; to think I live in a city, that I am part of a legislature, which allows sewage to be pumped willy-nilly into our harbour with no effort at all by government to at least put in place plans to change it.
I looked through the Territory 2030 document and I could not find where government said it would stop pumping sewage into our harbour - nowhere. There is nothing in there - nothing even about pollution. This is a visionary government which is laying down plans, which has wonderful ideas about the environment, but their plans, their vision, hang on one thing - and that is a great, big, new tax on all Australians. What a shame.
There is nothing in the Territory 2030 document saying they are going to clean up Indigenous communities and remove the rubbish and litter which plague practically every community the length and breadth of the Territory. The Pollution Hotline - I wonder what the point …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, it being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93 debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence of Government Business until 9 pm.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. l will continue my remarks later.
Debate suspended until a later hour.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 68)
(Serial 68)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
This bill seeks to introduce minimum sentences of 12 months imprisonment for those who kill or maim while being intoxicated on our streets. This is a bill I hope is never needed. I never want it to be used. This bill sends a message which clearly spells out that you will go to gaol; you will not get off if you kill or maim somebody while drink-driving. This bill responds to public interest, seeking to punish those responsible for killing or permanently incapacitating someone through negligently drink-driving and causing such injuries.
The Country Liberals are seeking to send clear signals that, as an opposition, we are about changing the culture of drink-driving in the Northern Territory. We are strong, determined and committed to reform in the Northern Territory for the betterment of all those who reside here.
We have all heard the stories of those drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle, those who drive at high speed and kill or maim someone. I do not wish to go into specific cases for fear of traumatising families, however one can recall the many in our community who, to this day, suffer the trauma of losing a loved one, or the daily reminder of confinement to a wheelchair, only to see the culprit let off lightly. The pain one must feel upon receipt of that phone call, or the knock on the door one must never want to receive. Let me reiterate, I do not want to see people locked up forever and a day, but for this type of negligence, there must be a minimum sentence.
We know drink-driving in the Territory is at very high levels, and we know many of those recorded incidents of drink-driving are at high range. Unfortunately, many of those who drink and drive on our roads have driven before, not learning the lessons of the past. I have said before, get caught once and you can declare it is an honest mistake; get caught a second time and you are a bloody idiot; a third time, you have no regard for law or human life. Unfortunately, one cannot bring a life back once it has been taken by a drink-driver.
If you have not learned your lesson and kill or maim someone, this bill prescribes you must serve a minimum sentence of one year, with the judicial process to identify the extent of penalties beyond that. What concerns me is the number of drink-drivers in the Territory. I could go through a number of statistics which show specifically the amount of people caught drink-driving in the Northern Territory.
I have referred in a previous speech to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Report into Expenditure in the Northern Territory, a report which, in anyone’s eyes, lays bare the failures of the Henderson Labor government - the dysfunctional Henderson Labor government. One of the areas of particular concern in this bill, which is affected by the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, is in the area of Corrections. Within this report, despite all the pontificating of this dysfunctional Labor government, we see in 2007-08 the Commonwealth Grants Commission assessed the Northern Territory government needed to spend $137m on Corrections. The Commonwealth Grants Commission assessed the Northern Territory government had $24m available from within its own funds, and the Commonwealth would contribute $112m.
Madam Speaker, $137m to spend on Corrections in one financial year can go a long way. Instead of spending $137m as the NT government should, according to the assessment by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, they spent only $78m. Let me make it clear - that is an underspend of $58m - $58m which should have been used to break the cycle of recidivism in the Northern Territory with repeat drink-drivers who pass through our gaols. The Minister for Transport, who is also the minister for Corrections, would know the majority of inmates in Territory gaols are there for short periods of times for drinking or drink-driving related charges. This underspend occurred at a time when this government was locking up black males at a rate five times greater than under apartheid in South Africa.
Let me go into more detail. In 2006-07 the government underspent by $62m; in 2005-06 it underspent by $49m; in 2004-05 by $46m, and in 2003-04 it underspent by $39m. It continues to get worse as we go on. This is the government the member for Nelson has given his support to. Five years ago the underspend was $39m, and in the last financial year reported to date was $58m. Who are the real criminals here, spending only 58% of the assessed amount required to deliver on corrective services in the 2007-08 financial year?
Let me break down the prisoner statistics for the purpose of explaining my argument. The Northern Territory has the highest recidivist rate in the nation with 45% in 2007-08. Compare this to South Australia, which has the lowest rate in the nation at 33%. During the same period 2007-08, South Australia invested an additional $22m over the assessed figure required by the Commonwealth Grants Commission; the NT government underspent by $58m. I suggest people do the maths. South Australia invested in its future, and is rewarded with the nation’s lowest recidivist rate. The Northern Territory massively underspent on corrections and our citizens are punished with the highest recidivist rates in the nation - and the highest road toll per capita. It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to work out what is going on here.
The solution is rehabilitation. However, you cannot rehabilitate when there is a lack of resources in the sector. How can we expect to see a rehabilitative state where short-term prisoners on drink-driving charges are not dealt with as people who have a chronic alcohol problem, or given the training and guidance to teach them not to drink and drive? The current situation with rehabilitation at Alice Springs highlights the use of the majority of 28 beds at the Central Australian Aboriginal Program Unit for prisoners from the local gaol. Unfortunately, more than 28 prisoners in the gaol have drinking problems, or substance abuse problems. It is estimated there are 500 people in Alice Springs gaol now. Rehabilitation of repeat offenders requires a firm hand, however what choice is available to a prisoner who is part of a grossly under-resourced rehabilitation or corrective services system?
I have spoken about the need to rehabilitate prisoners. Let us not forget the real victims of crime who suffer from the life-threatening drink-drivers on our roads. They are the innocent mums and dads, the sons and daughters who drive, are driven, or walk on our roads. While the government fails to address the issues surrounding drink-driving and repeat offending drink-drivers, more people will be killed or maimed. This underspend on Corrections highlights the point I made earlier: this government is not correctly managing the Northern Territory budget. This government is presiding over a failed state: the emperor has no clothes. Notch up another for the Henderson’s dysfunctional Labor government.
Regardless of the specifics of this bill, it seeks to amend the Criminal Code Act. In doing so, I note in the Territory we have a disproportionately high number of people caught drink-driving, or dying on our roads as a result of drink-drivers. We need to send a clear message that this is part of a comprehensive package of action. Members will be aware I have introduced other motions in relation to drink-driving, and I will be introducing more in the future.
On this side of the Chamber we have comprehensive plans, and with these comprehensive plans, timetables for action; action to change the drink-driving culture in the Northern Territory. The specifics of this bill are as follows: clause 1 sets out the short title of the bill; clause 2 describes when the act will commence; clause 3 indicates the act to be amended by this bill is the Criminal Code Act; and clause 4 inserts a new section 174FB into the Code to impose a minimum penalty of 12 months imprisonment for a driver convicted of causing death or serious harm as a result of driving while affected by a blood alcohol content of greater than 0.15%, and that driver is at fault in the crash that causes the death or serious harm.
This bill is targeted at people who have undertaken a specific action, and caused a specific outcome. However, it is also meant to send a clear message about a consequence for action - prevention rather than punishment. If you undertake this activity, that is, if you are stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car when you are intoxicated, then there will be a consequence for action. Make no mistake, I will continue to pursue measures to address this behaviour for as long as I am in this House - which I hope is some time - and until such time as attitudes change, because one death on our roads is one too many.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 69)
(Serial 69)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I table the explanatory memorandum.
I have mentioned before the Territory has a disproportionately high number of people being caught drink-driving, or dying on our roads as a result of drink-drivers.
This bill specifically will require a first time low offender to be placed on a three month temporary zero blood alcohol level, with a penalty of loss of licence for a three month period, and if that driver breaches the zero blood alcohol content during that restricted period, they will also be re-offended. Specifically, the clauses of the bill are as follows: clause 1 sets out the short title of the bill; clause 2 describes when the act will commence; clause 3 indicates the act to be amended by this bill is the Traffic Act; clause 4 amends section 23 of the act to present drivers such as P-platers being charged under this section of the act; clause 5(1) introduces a new clause to section 24 (1A), which will apply to drivers who have committed a first offence against section 23 of the act for a temporary period of three months after being found guilty of that offence, and (1B) stipulates when the three month temporary period will begin, depending upon the offenders response to that charge.
Clause 5(2) is a minor amendment to section 24(2) omitting the words ‘the person’ and substituting the words ‘a person to whom this section applies’. Clause 5(3) introduces new subsections (7) and (8). Subsection (7) states these provisions only apply to an offender who has breached their three month temporary zero restriction, and if that person breaches those conditions then they will loose their licence for three months. Subsection (8) defines the term Fines Recovery Unit as used in proposed section 24 (1B). Clause 6 provides for transitional provisions to ensure these provisions will only apply to offences committed after the commencement of this section.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 70)
(Serial 70)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time and, in doing so, table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Respected Northern Territory writer, Nicolas Rothwell, late last year wrote in The Weekend Australian that the Northern Territory was a failed state, and successive governments have simply plundered money and resources earmarked to alleviate the terrible disadvantage we see around us to more palatable or mis-administered areas.
Nowhere is the legacy of this practice more obvious than our regional roads. We have all seen the wrecks which pass for motor vehicles; the problems are easily identifiable. However, it behoves us in this House to find solutions and explanations. There are many reasons why people might drive one of these cars. It may be because of lack of income and therefore lack of capacity to service a car; it may also be lack of capacity to register and insure the vehicle, and it might be lack of want.
There are those who are simply too lazy, or are negligent, and put their fellow Territorians lives at risk. Many people in the Territory find themselves paying for ongoing repairs and maintenance to their cars simply because of the condition of our roads. I do have compassion for those who wish to do the right thing but, for one reason or another, simply cannot. Think for one minute about the people whose cars become derelict because of the condition of our roads. Law abiding Territorians going to buy a second hand car for $5000 take it onto regional roads and within three months it looks like a candidate for the next episode of the Bush Mechanics.
In a normal jurisdiction - a place that is not a failed state, I should say - cars destroy roads, but in the Northern Territory roads destroy cars, and we do not have to look hard to find these roads; they are all around us. Whether you are on the Tiwi Islands or driving the Tanami Highway out to Yuendumu, the Sandover or the Plenty Highways, the Arnhem Highway, the Mereenie Loop, the Daly River Road - which the member for Daly has promised to fix many times, including the bridge, or the Fog Bay Road – which is also in the member for Daly’s electorate and which he has promised to fix - road works commenced before the Wet Season started, which was quite smart. It is as if they do not have the money to fix roads in the Northern Territory.
I previously referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and its report into Northern Territory spending. The Commonwealth Grants Commission topped up the Territory by $190m, to a total of $270m, in the crucial area of roads funding in 2007-08. The Henderson government had $270m to spend on roads. Guess how much they spent? $98m - a shortfall of $172m in the financial year 2007-08. They spent 37% of their funding - which was $25m less than they spent the previous year. No wonder regional roads are of a third world condition. In the last five financial years, the Henderson Labor government has underspent on roads by $484m. That equates to nearly $0.5bn underspent in a five-year period, which could have improved conditions and reduced wear and tear on cars.
This is a tough bill. This is a bill which says: ‘Get your crappy cars off the road. Get your derelict cars off the road’, the cars with no brakes that are not safe but still driven. This is what this bill is about. However, I understand both sides of the equation. I understand people who spend their hard-earned cash to buy a car and expect to drive it properly. However, it is neglect by this dysfunctional Labor government to spend money on roads to ensure people can use them safely. This is the reason these cars are on the road. I do not want to penalise people who want to use their vehicle, however I have no choice. There are people who put lives at risk by driving unroadworthy vehicles. It is tough legislation; I would like to implement both parts. Unfortunately, I only have the capacity to introduce the legislative instrument. I cannot make the Labor government, which is dysfunctional, cannot manage the budget, or fix our roads, do anything. The member for Nelson could but I do not think he will.
In addition to the lack of regional focus on roads spending by this dysfunctional Labor government, we have seen the regions go backwards in economic trade and provision of goods and services. It is harder to go shopping, attend school, or find essentials at uninflated prices. What we see is an increase in travel to obtain such services. In turn, more people are driving on bad roads.
It is important to understand the reason behind some of the social issues which force more and more people onto our roads. What situation encourages greater road network patronage - if you can call it a network? We should be finding ways to take more people off our roads. One such model is rural transport for school kids so parents do not have to drive their kids to school. We can have a public transport model. I like to call it remote bussing. I have been an advocate of remote bussing for some time now, and continue it in this House.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission report makes for some riveting reading. I will run through some of those figures. One of the most interesting areas is the financial amount spent by the dysfunctional Labor government on transporting rural children to schools throughout the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth Grants Commission tells us the Northern Territory government had $8.1m available from its own revenue source, as assessed, to spend on transport of children to rural schools. The Commonwealth Grants Commission determined the Northern Territory government needed an additional $6.6m to enable the Territory to provide the same level of service as other states and territories. So, we received extra funding which took our available funding for the 2007-08 financial year for the transport of rural schoolchildren to $14.7m.
Do you know how much the dysfunctional Henderson Labor government actually spent? Of $14.7m, how much did they spend on transporting rural children to school? I know the minister for Corrections knows this, because last week he gave someone advice that - with three hours notice, how quickly can you quote on getting a bus to transport rural kids to school ...
A member: Is this a ministerial opinion?
Mr GILES: Yes. Three hours Mr Palmer said, three hours. Of $14.7m to transport rural children to school, they spent $1m in 2007-08. It is not about the inputs - and I know my colleagues behind me, the members for Brennan and Sanderson like to castigate the government …
Mr Conlan: Dysfunctional.
Mr GILES: … the dysfunctional Labor government for the inputs they talk about - they spend $1m. The Territory is a fairly big place. I am not bus expert, but I believe it will cost more than $1m to transport all Territory kids to school.
Let me go over it again. The Northern Territory government, according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, should have spent $14.7m; they spent $1m. If you are a numbers person, they spent 7% of the assessed budget on transporting kids to school. Here we have the member for Casuarina, the minister for Family and Community Services, talking about what they are doing for kids, and how they stand up for child protection. Five ministers in nine years; four of them women, two of them Indigenous, and we are in the worst state ever with child protection – the worst state.
A member: National disgrace.
Mr GILES: A national disgrace - the Little Children are Sacred report. Here we have no money being spent on transporting rural kids to school. This is relevant to this legislation; this is why we see derelict cars being driven on dodgy roads, because the government does not fix the roads and does not provide bus services. It then wonders why the Little Children are Sacred report is out, why the Bath Report is out, and issues regarding kids. You are not looking after them. All five of the children’s services ministers are failures. Four of them are women – mothers; two of them Aboriginal, gee, can it get any worse?
In the same period the Commonwealth Grants Commission topped up the Northern Territory government requirement of $23.18m with an extra $2.2m for urban transport. However, instead of the Northern Territory dysfunctional Labor government spending $23m on urban transport in the Northern Territory, they actually spent $57m - nearly $34m over budget. It is not a problem to over-service, but that is 246% more than required to be spent to provide urban transport to Territorians, as assessed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, at the national average.
In 2007-08, the Territory government overspent in urban transport by 246%, when the transport of remote schoolchildren - a year after the Little Children are Sacred report, a year after the worst crisis in the Northern Territory in child protection - they spent 7% of the budget. Where is the priority? Who was the family and children services minister then? Who was the Transport minister; the Infrastructure minister, because you are all failures! You are bloody pathetic with kids.
We now see more free urban bus travel announced to ensure Labor stays in power. Great policy. I told you I supported it in my response. However, it is only good if you can afford it. Free travel everywhere, but the kids who have to get to school - education the great focus of Territory 2030 - you will not even transport them to school. You are even offering to build bike paths in the rural area in order to stay in government. They will build a bike path in Nelson, but they will not send a kid to school in the bush. How does the member for Nelson sit with that? How can you do that; it is a disgrace. You have to get kids to school; it says so in this lovely Territory 2030 document. You are not even sending kids to school. You are an absolute disgrace.
What about the kids in regional areas? What about cars driving over those bad roads to take kids to school? You will go to bed tonight; you will be right. Death traps on many occasions. Death traps which venture into our towns and cause hazards on our roads. I hate introducing this legislation because I know I will be taking precious vehicles from people in Alice Springs, in Braitling, and across the Territory. However, they are not safe and they are not safe because you will not fix the roads, and you will not look after the kids.
Dysfunctional Labor is not providing funding to transport rural schoolchildren, money set aside so bush kids can get to school. The Brady bunch over there, the ones playing Family Feud when the member for Johnston hates the member for whatever, and they all hate each other. Pork-barrelling the seat of Nelson with bike paths, yet it will not send kids to school. Is it only me, or does someone else have a problem with this? Where is the choice for Territorians? There is no choice in this House. Yesterday was a joke in this House.
The thievery is not limited to 2007-08. No, the big urban spenders have been doing this for the full five years of the CGC report last year. In 2003-04, the underspend on transport for rural kids to get to school was $12.1m. In 2004-05, they underspent by $10m; 2005-06 by $11m; 2006-07 by $13m - they are getting worse. The underspend is $60m for transporting rural school kids in five years. What sort of government does that? $60m should get transport for school kids in the bush. $60m directed somewhere else by this dysfunctional Labor government. Where did it go?
This bill is important because it seeks to amend the Traffic Act and introduce a concept of a Class C prescribed offence. A Class C prescribed driving offence will enable the impounding and forfeiture provisions to apply to unregistered vehicles as required. The bill has been written to accommodate the government’s hooning offences, Class A prescribed driving offences, and on the assumption the bill titled Traffic Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 38) has been passed by the Legislative Assembly.
For the purposes of explaining this for Hansard and for the minister and for government, this is talking about - in another piece of legislation before this House for debate - we have created a Class B prescribed driving offence for confiscation of vehicles where someone is caught at a high range for the third time in five years. This creates a Class C prescribed driving offence for the confiscation of vehicles, in line with the hooning legislation, which has now being reclassified as Class A. You have Class A for hooning, Class B for high rate drinking driving repeat three times, and Class C for unroadworthy vehicles.
The bill has been written to accommodate the hooning offences. I will repeat that - Class A for prescribed driving offences - and on the assumption the bill titled the Traffic Bill Amendment 2009 has been passed by the Legislative Assembly. The specifics of this bill are as follows:
clause 1 sets out the short title of the bill;
clause 7 amends the heading and provisions within section 29AH to accommodate a Class C prescribed driving offence and enable the courts to impose an impounding order for a second Class C prescribed driving offence;
Today we take a step forward to ensure all Territorians accept their responsibility to have a vehicle which is safe and roadworthy. The great challenge which remains is getting the dysfunctional, arrogant, tired and lazy Henderson government, to meet its responsibility to spend funding earmarked to tackle disadvantage responsibly.
It is a gargantuan task, possibly one beyond all of us, that is unless you are the member for Nelson. We might die trying, particularly if it involves venturing out onto regional roads. Whatever the future, it will be a work in progress for my friends on this side of the Chamber. While we live under this dysfunctional Labor government we will continue to have no choice, and will continue to be the laughing stock of the country; a pimple on the backside of the federal government and, as Nicolas Rothwell said, a failed bill.
To rest my case, I will quickly go over drink-drive statistics in the Northern Territory. According to the Police annual report - and I will quote here for the benefit of the member for Barkly:
- People aged 15 years or over who indicated that they had driven in the past 12 months when possibly over the 0.05 alcohol limit, rarely or more often.
The numbers of drink-drivers that come in are only relative to the people tested. In the Northern Territory, in the period 1 July 2008 to 31 August 2009, 13 months as indicated here, it says 155 000 breath tests were conducted, which I believe is good. I believe the Minister for Transport has increased the drink-driving - I am not sure if comes under you or the minister for Police, but is a good thing - 49 000 in Alice Springs and the southern region, 63 000 in the Greater Darwin Region, and 37 000 in the Katherine Northern region.
The highest number of people caught are in the Greater Darwin region - 1487 in that period - which is quite interesting because they had 63 000 tests, and picked up nearly 1500 people. Alice Springs and the southern region had 15 000 tests and picked up 1300. Proportionately there appears to be slightly more in the Greater Darwin area. In the Katherine region, there were 37 000 tests for 862 people; of the people picked up for drink-driving 3000 were male, and 760 female.
An interesting component is who is picked up at low range, medium range, and high range. This is all relative to the legislation. Of 3700 people drink-driving, there are about 1400 at high range, which is significantly higher than 0.05%. There were nearly 2000 at medium range, and 360 at low range. When more than 90% of drink-drivers in the Northern Territory are at medium or high range, that is a clear problem. It is interesting when you look at the people who were picked up. There were 87 people picked up for drink-driving in the Northern Territory in that 13 month period under 18 years of age. Two 13-year-olds were picked up at medium range, and eight people picked up who were 15-year-olds. It is a problem.
I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to the debate.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Acacia Hill School - Special Schools Audit
Acacia Hill School - Special Schools Audit
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that –
- 1. the Northern Territory government immediately address the issues identified in the 2005 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment special schools audit of Acacia Hill School and resolve with urgency the non-compliant items listed in the audit; and
2. the Northern Territory government develop a master plan for construction of a purpose built special education facility in Alice Springs.
I know we have a new Education minister. For the previous Education minister, I have to say, the pressure mounted towards the end of last year. In Alice Springs, the community pressure mounted on the Northern Territory government with relation to these issues, and the state of Acacia Hill School has dragged the government kicking and screaming to address some of these issues. The government has coughed up to the tune of about $5m for Acacia Hill School to address some of the deplorable issues surrounding the school, as highlighted in this audit.
In the interest of time, we can save some rhetoric and commend the government for listening to the community - well overdue I believe. Granted the school has been around for a long time; it was built in 1980. It was not really built to special school standards and, of course, previous governments need to take some responsibility for that. This side of the House certainly does accept some responsibility, despite none of us being in this Chamber at the time. Nevertheless, this government has failed that school in the last eight years by, essentially, turning its back on some of the issues.
I do not know whether the new Education minister has toured the school. He has only been in the job a short time. I hope he will have a look at the state of the school. There are also Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue schools; there are special schools across the Northern Territory, however Acacia Hill School is the stand-out case of government neglect. It is really quite appalling. By virtue of being a special school, the children, parents and teachers do not really have a strong voice in the community. The special needs and special attention required by the children, and given by the staff and parents, does not leave much time for advocacy in the community. Hence, they turn to local members, and their elected representative in various ministerial portfolios, for some representation and voice to have those issues resolved.
I can go through some of the issues the audit highlighted. The front entry door is automatic and is no longer working. The issue is use of a manual sliding door. I believe that was rectified before the money was allocated. The furniture in the learning area is not adjustable; therefore, not adequate for special purpose use. Circulation is non-compliant in the special learning room. In the male toilets, the door handles are non-compliant, and circulation is non-compliant. Clearance to hardware is non-compliant. Door handles in the female toilets, circulation, and clearance are non-compliant. In the learning areas, the door handles are non-compliant, and the sink and bench are not adequate for disabled access. Disabled showers: again circulation, clearance, and door handles are all non-compliant. The corridor to the shower room is only 990 mm wide, which is non-compliant for special purpose learning.
We must remember, while you may be able to get a wheelchair through some of these areas, again, by virtue of the disabilities some of these children have, they do not sit up in a wheelchair like we might expect. Sometimes, the leg might be sticking, or their arm is out because of their disability. So, a standard doorway that takes a wheelchair is not always adequate for special purpose needs, particularly in this case, as identified in the audit. Nearly every single entry and doorway in Acacia Hill is non-compliant for special purpose learning and special purpose needs. Cubicle doors do not have door handles. The shower is domestic type and non-compliant. Again, when this was built in 1980, it was pretty much built to a mainstream school standard, not for special purpose needs. It was basically built to a 1950s standard model in 1980, under the previous government. We did not do everything right but, in the last nine years, none of this has been addressed; it has been left. The same goes for Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue.
In the craft room, for example, only 770 mm for the door, which is non-compliant, and circulation is non-compliant. In the learning area the sink and bench are not adequate for disabled access; clearance, again non-compliant. Circulation is non-compliant; basin, bath and washroom were all too close and do not have required circulation space.
I am sure the government has seen this; I hope they have. There are about 70 to 75 non-compliant items in the Acacia Hill Special School audit. The audit was done five years ago, and the school is still operating like this. We do welcome the money spent. As I say, the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming as a result of some of the political pressure put on through the community in the media, and also the intestinal fortitude of the current administration of Acacia Hill School. They have said: ‘I know I work for the Northern Territory government, but it is the kids who are important, so I am prepared to put my neck on the block and cop whatever comes if it means standing up and getting the best deal for these kids’. The children, staff, and the parents do not really have a strong voice in the community because they are so swamped, and so busy with what they are doing.
The $5m, we really need to see that addressed. We hope the government will address it. We want to see a time frame; exactly when we are going to see this brought up to speed. It is a matter of urgency. I hope the minister will tour the school. I hope the Minister for Central Australia has been to the school; I am sure he has - I hope he has - and I hope he is advocating the cause to the new Education minister. He can go there and see how appalling the conditions are - and they really are. It is not running the school down, they do a fabulous job in the face of adversity; they face this adversity every single day.
One of the restraining methods they use is like something out of a torture chamber. It is so heartbreaking to see these kids in old leather straps tied to a bench. As I say, something you might see out of the House of Horrors; it is terrible. We need to bring it into the 21st century. We really need to show some compassion for special needs children. They often get left off the radar; they do not have a strong voice and hence, they do get overlooked.
We have spent time talking about mainstream education in this House over the last few days, Indigenous education; however, there is also a group of special needs children out there. Acacia Hill School is in the electorate of Greatorex. I am very proud to represent it; I have a great relationship with the school. There are also schools at Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue.
We want to see these issues addressed immediately with that $5m. I would like to seek a briefing from the minister and the department, as the local member representing the school, where we go from here and where the money is going to be spent and, if indeed, it will go to addressing these serious issues and bring the school up to a 21st century standard.
The other part of the motion is the Northern Territory government develop a master plan for construction of a purpose-built special education facility in Alice Springs. I believe you could extrapolate that and suggest we need one in the Top End also. However, Acacia Hill School was built in 1980 to a 1950 standard. Not very good, and certainly not best practice when it comes to special education and special care needs. There has been advancement in special care; there is better training. Our staff, teachers and parents are better equipped to deal with special care and special needs children. I believe that should be reflected in a special purpose education facility.
I believe it is incumbent on this government to develop a master plan to build a special purpose education facility for Central Australia. The place is burgeoning at the seams as a result of being the only special care needs facility in Central Australia. The catchment is all Central Australia and, in fact, moving up towards the Top End; there is nothing in between so it is a huge catchment area. There are many children in remote communities who need special care, who require this sort of education facility, but are unable to access it purely because of the lack of room and facilities in Central Australia. If we are serious about education, if this government is serious about education, we need to not overlook those children requiring special care needs.
There is nothing in the Territory 2030 document to say that. I guess it is a broad brushstroke of what we aim to achieve. Education is mentioned in Territory 2030. I hope while we look at Indigenous education and mainstream education in our urban centres, we do not neglect those children who need support more than others, who do not have a voice, and as a result do not have a champion and therefore, do tend to be overlooked.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory government develop a master plan for the construction of a purpose built special education facility in Alice Springs. I commend this motion to the House, and I hope others in this Chamber will take interest in this motion. It is very important, and I hope they will see their way clear to support it.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for bringing this motion into the House. I also commend him for his advocacy for Acacia Hill School. It is true to say the Chief Minister, as the former Education minister, certainly was a driving force in securing the funding for special schools right across the Territory, and I commend him for that. He is someone who has engaged with the special schools and, like the member for Greatorex, has realised the great need within those schools.
The member for Greatorex has acknowledged there is expenditure planned for Acacia Hill School. I have a chart which will show the year-on-year expenditure up to $5.6m in Acacia Hill School, as well as Nemarluk, Henbury, Kintore Street, Palmerston High, Woodroffe Primary, the new Palmerston school and also Palmerston rural to a total, at the end of the 2013-14 financial year, of $33.65m. To some degree, as the member for Greatorex acknowledged, the planned expenditure does address the issues raised within the audit. Also, government would argue very strongly the significant amount of funding is part of a plan for special education facilities, not only in Alice Springs, but also Darwin and Palmerston and Katherine.
I acknowledge what the member for Greatorex has said. In the interests of time, and the efficiency of General Business day, I certainly will not be speaking at length on this motion. However, it is important to place on the record why government will not be supporting the motion. I have already outlined the reason, and what government is doing.
I will table this chart, and I have passed on to my office the request by the member for Greatorex to have a briefing on Acacia Hill School, and what expenditure is planned at Acacia Hill School. That will occur.
The Department of Education and Training has undertaken considerable work to identify the current and future facilities required for special schools, and special school annexes. Based on this and demographic work, there is a predicted increase in the number of students with disabilities. The department has identified capital works programs for all our special schools in our capital city, and towns. These works will provide our special schools students and their families with the infrastructure and facilities needed to deliver high quality special education programs.
On the issue of advocacy for special schools mentioned by the member for Greatorex, I can say as a local member, at various times I have been approached by parents with children with special needs, and in the special education system, and more often than not I have found those parents to be very articulate and very strong in their advocacy. They are certainly a group who are well informed, and who know what should be done in relation to their children and special education.
Since 2001 government has focused on large scale improvements across the education and training sectors. We have had Building Better Schools, middle years and senior years, Closing the Gap and Northern Territory school infrastructure upgrades delivering up to $30 000 to allow primary schools, large group schools and special schools to improve facilities. The program is delivering improvements such as an early learning centre at Minyerri, and refurbishments to classrooms and administration buildings at various locations across the Territory.
This year we have also seen the Australian government target stimulus spending into the Building the Education Revolution, or the BER. By 2011, Northern Territory government schools, including special schools, will receive $204m in infrastructure investment through this stimulus package. Now is the turn of our special schools. I acknowledge what the member for Greatorex says, it is really the right time and it is coming after advocacy by a number of people in relation to our special schools, however, I am glad it is happening now.
The $30m investment over five years will build and upgrade special schools across the Territory. It will allow us to better accommodate the growth of the Territory’s special education needs. It will see improvement across special schools, and special education annexes in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs.
I will go through the various locations. At Nemarluk, this funding will enable infrastructure and improvements to complement the $1.15m BER investment. A working group, including the principal, school staff, parents and departmental representatives have already started planning how to use the funding to advantage students and the school community. Over the next three years the additional $4.6m will deliver facilities such as new classrooms, attend to the drop-off zone, resolve draining issues, and rebuild the hydro pool.
At Acacia Hill, which is the focus of this motion, the additional $4.3m will build on the $1.3m 2009-10 BER and Northern Territory government funding to construct new classrooms, refurbish and extend existing buildings, install a hydro pool, as well as replace outdated demountables with buildings.
At Henbury School, an additional $2m by 2012 will complement the current $850 000 BER investment to provide much needed upgrades to core facilities, as well as the replacement of demountable structures.
At Kintore Street School, in 2012-13 the government will deliver $2m to construct a new ablution block and replace existing demountables with buildings.
Further to this, works are also in the pipeline to upgrade facilities and expand capacity at the Palmerston High annexe for an additional 20 students; and at Woodroffe Primary for an additional 10 students.
In order to ease existing capacity pressures at special schools around Darwin, and to accommodate future population around Palmerston and Litchfield, it is proposed a new $10m special education purpose built facility be constructed in Palmerston. This new school will cater for primary students providing capacity for up to 100 students in the long term, and it is anticipated the construction of the new school will commence in 2011-12.
The rural area of Darwin and Palmerston will also see an additional new P6 special education annexe catering for up to 20 students. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure will work with DET, and other stakeholders, to identify appropriate sites to locate the new school and special education annexe.
This investment in facilities and infrastructure has come from extensive work by government to analyse factors such as demographic and enrolment trends, transportation needs, as well as parent desires for their children to access education through satellite classes in either mainstream schools or special schools. It also complements the development of a comprehensive policy framework around the models for delivery of special school services which ensures future infrastructure provisioning aligns with the needs of the Northern Territory community. This includes looking at service provision to schools.
The Department of Education and Training has already commenced implementation of the Smart Territory strategies to take us on quality early intervention and identification programs, working on a funding model for special needs students to ensure funding practices best meet the needs of students and schools, and is developing online professional learning packages with teachers to upskill and build capacity of teachers working with students with special needs in our mainstream and special school context.
This government is committed to providing the infrastructure and services needed to manage the growth of the Territory. Our Smart Territory strategy is committed to providing quality infrastructure to support the diverse needs of Territory students. For the reasons I have outlined previously, we propose the Northern Territory government has addressed the issues identified through the departmental reviews and audits of special schools, including Acacia Hill School, and the Northern Territory government announcement, on Thursday, 19 November 2009, will direct and deliver significant funding improvements in special education facilities in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs to the tune of some $30m.
I commend the member for Greatorex for bringing this motion before the House. I believe the government is acting and investing significantly in this issue. I commend the work of all those in special schools across the Territory and, for the reasons outlined, we will not be supporting the motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why you would not support the motion, whatever the reasons outlined. It is ridiculous that any government would not support such a motion. There is nothing abhorrent in it; it is simply saying you are going to immediately address issues which have been identified in a 2005 report - an audit of schools - and you would develop a master plan for construction purposes to build special education facilities in Alice Springs. What is the problem with that? Where can you find issue with that? I know the member for Nelson abhors politics, but not to support such a motion is base politics at its worse. It is burying your head in the sand.
I am speaking today particularly to implore the new minister for Education to take a stand and get out and have a look at Nemarluk Special School, a school in my electorate. The principal there is decorated in glory. Last year, he won the Principal of the Year Award - a significant award. He does a great job.
I was interested to hear the minister say parents of kids with special needs are great advocates, and great at getting their messages to government. That is absolute nonsense. These people generally suffer in silence. They are one of the least vocal groups in our community. You only have to check out some of these schools to know how badly they are doing. It is an absolute disgrace! I understand the Four Corners program last night drew attention to these problems in another part of the country. Goodness me, if they are any worse than in the Northern Territory, things must be absolutely dreadful.
The minister said that Nemarluk School has been promised somewhere in the vicinity of $5m or $6m. This is not even going to touch the sides of work required there. They are massively oversubscribed as far as students go; the principal is lending his office to teachers and students to do work. It is ridiculous that you have a situation where a principal has to vacate his office so kids can learn and teachers have a place to meet. They are massively cramped; they have a massive lack of space. $5m-odd is not even going to touch the sides; it is simply a stop-gap measure.
Minister, I am putting you on notice right now: this school is not kicking up a stink in the media; they are not running to Channel 9, the ABC or the NT News. My goodness, they should be, because they should be embarrassing the hell out of this government because these things cannot continue the way they are. I do not intend to talk for long. I just want you to know, minister, you are on notice.
We are watching very closely what happens, particularly at Nemarluk School but also all those other special schools around the Territory. The situation we have cannot go on. Before you all jump up and blame past governments, everyone is at fault here. The fact is, everyone is at fault. We need to get in and fix this problem as a matter of urgency. Quite frankly, the situation at special schools around the Territory, and the situation of special needs kids, is appalling and abhorrent. None of us should settle for what is happening at the moment.
I know government has been dragged to the table and is looking at some of these things, but to say: ‘We have this wonderful program’, and that sort of stuff, is a plain nonsense. I know exactly what has been going on. I have been involved in school council meetings. I know government is dragging its feet, however, your attention has been drawn to it and I hope you start to act on it.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Greatorex for the work he has done in Alice Springs, visiting with and speaking to parents and educators, witnessing the very challenging circumstances the very dedicated staff have to work in, without raising complaint to an unreasonable level. In fact, their quietness is a reinforcement of how serious this need is, and if we cannot respond to the needs of those who are suffering as they are, then we really are not worth recognising as a civil society.
I have visited Nemarluk and Henbury Avenue twice in the last couple of years, and of course Palmerston, and I acknowledge the fine work of the local member, the member for Fong Lim, in engaging the parent community. I go one step further - and the challenge has already been raised - that the minister attend, if he has not already attended, a parent meeting at Nemarluk and Henbury, and to take a tour through the school, and do the same at Acacia and listen to the stories of those parents, and explain to them how it was that, in 2005, a review was conducted which identified the infrastructure requirements of the whole system, including Alice Springs; and how was it that survey, that work done in 2005, prior to an election, resulted in the impression things were occurring - and nothing flowed from that?
I was aware of its existence. At that stage I had visited Henbury and parents there told me in their view they felt they had been given a snow job. They were responded to by the minister for Education at that time, Mr Henderson, by saying, yes, we will now commission an investigation of the infrastructure needs. Those infrastructure needs were assessed. They went away. They thought now something is at least going to happen. Of course then the heat went out of it and then we had an election - 2005. In 2006, they woke up again and thought they had been duped; the parents of kids who have so much demand on them to look after these kids had been duped.
Then in 2007 the pressure started to mount again: do not worry, we will have another one of a slightly different type, but this time we will provide a strategic response, short-term and mid-to long-term, with a number of options. They were placated to some degree again, but they have been once bitten, and these parents should not be treated in such a way, nor should the educators be treated in such a way. Those dedicated assistants should not be treated in such a way. There was another one in 2007, and believe it or not, after repeated requests - informal for starters - no problem we will give it to you - it did not arrive; it never arrived. Then I had to go through the formal process; then I had to call in the media. Finally, we get this, which was produced in 2007. I do not know why this is such a secretive document. You can only judge now it was for the purposes of managing a political situation rather than providing clear and honest communication to parents who should be spoken to and respected for the struggles they go through. We now have Planning for Future Service Provision for Students with Disabilities in Darwin and Palmerston. I finally received it after calls to the media in 2009. It was done in May 2007, and we now have it.
I heard the phrase: ‘And so I have outlined the reasons why government will not be supporting this’. I would like an explanation as to why this had to be demanded. Why there have been two investigations. Why those parents have been misled by the response of government which was effectively to say: ‘Do not worry, we are onto it. We are going to conduct a review - bury it’, or when the heat comes on: ‘Do not worry, we are going to have another look and this will be slightly different. It will be beefed up’, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and it is buried. All the time these parents - you should meet them - have to wonder how this could occur.
This motion should be supported because contained in the review of 2007 is an outline of the strategic response required. I believe all we need to know is where we are going, not just to mention there is a problem and money is going to be spent here, there and everywhere - hope it goes away now; politically solving a problem - but we actually now have a clearly described and committed to strategic plan. I believe the short-term stuff has happened, however the mid- to long-term has three options which have been outlined. Which one of those options is being committed to, and what serious discussion has now been entered into with those parents so they have some sense of a future. They need some assistance; they are the ones who really need our help.
I urge honourable members, irrespective of the statement made by the minister, for goodness sake, for the sake of those parents - f you spent some time with them, and then look at that motion, how could you not support it? I cannot understand it. I would like someone from the other side, apart from the minister, to explain. Give me your argument of why you will not support it. Stand up and explain why the government will not support it. Read it; just read it. Just read it and then explain. Someone stand up on their hind legs and explain why they will not support it. It must be supported.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the motion the member for Greatorex has brought to this House. I am the grandparent of a child who was at Acacia. He was 15. He was born on 25 December 1994, and died on 26 December, a day after his birthday last year, at the age of 15. I believe it is really important, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we do understand the parents and grandparents, and mums and dads of these children. One of the things people from Acacia Hill said at young Jordan’s funeral was he loved green balloons. The member for Fong Lim raised something very important. Jordan was one of those little children with a disability who needed a huge wheelchair because he could not sit up straight. He had to have a wheelchair he could lie down in.
They do a fantastic job with the resources government has put in. The opposition has taken some blame for the things they did not do while they were in government. The minister has acknowledged the slowness of acting on Acacia Hill School, and any school which caters for children with disabilities. It is really important. As the member for Fong Lim said, these are the silent children in our community, and their parents are also silent because they are a minority. I believe it is really important, and I want to reflect on young Jordan’s life - my little grandson. He was born with meningitis, and we did not have the facilities at Papunya to look after him as he got older because he needed therapy in the swimming pool. The houses out there did not have bathtubs, so as family, we took the initiative to put him into St Mary’s, in the grey house where all children with disabilities live - it is now Life without Barriers - and he went to Acacia Hill School.
The people at St Mary’s, the teachers and carers, were tremendously beautiful people. These people became part of Jordan’s life. They were his grandparents and his mums and dads, his carers in moving him from Papunya into St Mary’s. We had the occasional visits on his birthday and Christmas and spent those times with him, and when my nephew and his wife had a car to visit him in Alice Springs, they would come in on a monthly or quarterly basis.
It is really important we see the human side, the real side of these children with disabilities. When you go into the grey house, you will see it is Indigenous children with disabilities. I know there is a young girl from my own electorate of Docker River, her mother put her there - she is a baby with a disability. The only contact she has is when she goes home to Docker River on holidays, but her real parents are the people who give her the day-to-day care at the school, and also where they live.
It is really important, not just as politicians, most of us in this House are mums and dads, grandparents now, and we really need to reflect that we are dealing with the most vulnerable; the silent of our community. I want to place on the public record that I support the motion the member for Greatorex has put to this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting motion because it goes back a while. I suppose I could be a little cynical in saying perhaps the solutions to some of the problems announced since this was first put to parliament might have been due to some publicity. I believe the Leader of the Opposition did a trip down to Alice Springs and had problems working out how a wheelchair could access a certain building; so I could be cynical in saying the government was going to do something. I could also say perhaps the government needed a bit of a shove up the backside, and the Leader of the Opposition did point out, along with the member for Greatorex, there were some serious issues in relation to some of these buildings.
Whoever is right or wrong in that argument, it appears something has happened, which is good. I must admit, I had problems with why the government would not support this if it has supported it financially. It recognised there was a problem, we fix it financially, and then we say we do not support it. It sends an unusual message.
I also have been concerned about special education, and I regard myself as a learner in this area. It is one of those subjects I need to learn more about. In Bees Creek Primary School, we have one of the best special education facilities. The reason we have that terrific facility is simply because one of the fathers, who is a builder, who has three or four children, was able to put his expertise into being able to nearly double the size of the facility the government had funded. Bees Creek Primary School is extremely lucky to have someone who was able to double a certain amount of money simply because he was donating his own work and expertise.
That is the building; sometimes the buildings are not the only thing. I know too, and I will not mention any names, a friend of mine who was recently teaching special education children - up to 120 who would come to that place and go back to the classroom. I should say, while I am talking about it, this is one of the problems with pulling out statistics in regard to NAPLAN. If you have a school with a large number of special education kids, that will reflect in some of the figures. You cannot use plain data to make a statement; sometimes that data has to be analysed according to each school to see why those matters occur.
Getting back to special education, the amount of work required by that person was enormous. The amount of paperwork was enormous. The amount of time spent on weekends working for these children was enormous. In fact, that person decided to leave simply because the workload was too great. That is an area where we have to be careful. People who deal in the special education area are special people. They are dealing with special kids with special needs, and it can be very wearing. We need to ensure we do not burn out those people. We need to ensure they have adequate resources. It does not matter where you are in the Territory, we need to emphasise special education.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned Nemarluk. This particular builder and I had a meeting with the department of Education. Being a builder, he recognised Nemarluk has some major failings; it is trying to squash in extra buildings on a slope. Because he has experience with children, he understands some of the problems. That is where I, as an ordinary bloke in the street who has not had to work through issues of autistic children or other issues, am learning. I am learning things I never knew; about the way children react, the way children need to have buildings in a certain manner. Even colours can affect kids.
I am speaking from very limited knowledge. One thing I do know is this is an area which is not decreasing in need; it is increasing in need. For what reason? We are not here to discuss that; we do not know. However, it certainly is something that is increasing, and we have to do something about it. It is pleasing to see the government has put in some money. The $10m for the new PS special school in Palmerston, which will take up to a 100 students, is a great move. That will not only serve Palmerston, but also the rural area. That money is welcome.
Getting back to the original motion, until the government sometimes get a little boost, or a bit of bad publicity, it can get into that nonchalant mood. It has to be far more proactive. Even if it does not have the money available now, it should be promoting what it is intending to do. We can check that you are going to do it, but it has to be more proactive. Tell families out there you support them - make the statement that you support them. It is hard on these parents; there is no doubt about it. You can see why they want a weekend off sometimes, because they need a break. The more I get to know the issues in special education, the more I respect the teachers who look after these children, and I have great respect for the parents.
To some extent, they are nearly heroes because their life is taken over by this. They have to live their lives as well, with jobs and the normal things any other parent has to do, but they also have to take on the special needs. Of course, these kids are loved just like anyone else, but there are probably times when the loves gets stretched because of the stress. Underneath it all, they are very much loved. We, as parliamentarians, should encourage the government to ensure the best is - from the government’s point of view - there to help these young children to live as normal a life as possible in the future, and also show support for parents doing it hard trying to bring up these children.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion. The government has said it has dealt with all these issues, so it is difficult to understand. I hope it is not a matter of pride, because I do not believe it does any harm to support this motion. The member for Greatorex - love him or hate him - is a passionate fellow at times. Sometimes he wears it on top of his head, and that is why he has no hair. However, he could be used by the government to help, in a bipartisan way, in the master plan and all that work. It is good if we can use our local people who know the issues. I do not think it does any harm at all.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who spoke. I thank the member for Macdonnell for her passionate speech; obviously a real attachment to Acacia Hill School and the needs of the children, and the pressures on staff and parents at our special schools across the Territory. I thank the member for Nelson for his support. I think it is a no-brainer. There is nothing controversial in this motion: the Northern Territory government immediately addressed the issues identified in the 2005 Department of Infrastructure and Planning Environment Special Schools Audit of Acacia Hill School and resolved with urgency.
By the government not supporting, you do not support that we get compliant circulation, or compliant hand rails, or compliant bathrooms, compliant showers, or compliant learning areas for our special school needs. The member for Stuart does not support a compliant special school - is that right? Is that what you are saying by not supporting this, member for Stuart? I assume you are going to vote with the government, so I can go to the school and say the Minister for Central Australia and member for Stuart does not support addressing the issues identified in this 2005 Acacia Hill School Special Audit? I can confidently say that to them, and I will be correct? Is that correct, minister?
Dr Burns: I will see the funds expended, so I will know what is going on.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. I can also say the minister for Education does not support bringing up 75 non-compliant issues, and immediately addressing these issues to bring the school up to some sort of 21st century standard. I can say that, can I minister? Because …
Dr Burns: You can say what you want to say.
Mr CONLAN: … you have said you will not immediately support and address the issues identified in this 2005 report. What can we draw from that? What can we conclude?
Dr Burns: You can draw whatever you draw, which is usually a …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You can play games with intellectually and physically disabled children’s lives, and their parents, and the staff if you like, but shame on you. This is absolutely pathetic. The Northern Territory government does not support the special needs school to bring it up to standard.
Dr Burns: We funded it.
Mr CONLAN: You do not support it.
Dr Burns: We have already funded it.
Mr CONLAN: You said you will not support it.
Dr Burns: We have already funded it.
Mr CONLAN: Every one of you is a parent, every single one. Member for Nhulunbuy - I can say the member for Nhulunbuy does not support addressing the 75 non-compliant items to bring that school up to the 21st century. I can say that. I can say that about the member for Karama, the Attorney-General and Treasurer – she does not care; she does not want to support addressing immediately the non-compliant issues in this report. Can I tell them that?
Ms Lawrie: You can tell them we have already funded it.
Mr CONLAN: You have? Well, support the motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Why will you not support the motion? You may have the funding, however, we have not seen these issues addressed. You said you have addressed it.
Dr Burns: We have done it.
Mr CONLAN: You have not done it. You have not done it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You have not addressed these issues. Go to the school and have a look. Go to the school yourself, minister.
Dr Burns: I have been there.
Mr CONLAN: Go there again. Go there next week. Go there on Friday and see exactly how many of these things have been addressed.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Hampton: I have been there.
Mr CONLAN: You have no idea. You are heartless …
Mr Hampton: I have been there.
Mr CONLAN: It is an absolute disgrace, and a blight on the human nature of this parliament. I can say to my constituents, and the people I talk to, not only every single member of the Northern Territory Labor Party, the minister for Education, the member for Nhulunbuy, the Attorney-General, who smirks and thinks it is all a big joke …
Ms Lawrie: I am not smirking.
Mr CONLAN: You are. You are sitting there laughing and scoffing at the whole thing.
Ms Lawrie: I am not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You are taking the mickey out of people who work under these enormous pressures, with special needs children, the parents and the staff, and the children themselves, by not supporting this motion.
The member for Nhulunbuy, the Minister for Central Australia - the Minister for Central Australia, for goodness sake, does not support the motion.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Why do you not have the courage of your own convictions and cross the floor?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Someone on the 5th floor has prepared a speech for you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: You have no idea. Member for Daly, why don’t you show the courage of your convictions, a bit of gumption, cross the floor and support it? We know the Treasurer - you do not even need the air-conditioning in this House because as soon as she walks in the temperature lowers by five degrees. The member for Arnhem is the minister for Indigenous affairs. There are an enormous number of Indigenous children in communities requiring special education facilities. Here we have a government, and every single one of you, all of you sitting there, do not support the immediate addressing of 75 non-compliant items to bring this school up to standard.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry? Did you say you do or you do not support it?
Dr Burns: Get on with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Do you support it? Can I ask the Minister for Central Australia …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Greatorex should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I encourage you to remind the dysfunctional government of Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. All members, member for Braitling, including you, should not be interrupting.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The silence is actually deafening from members who should be saying something, namely the Minister for Central Australia, who has abrogated his duty as the Minister for Central Australia, a local member, someone who lives in the electorate where the school is situated; he has abrogated his duty. I can confidently walk down the street and tell anyone interested - and many people are very interested in what is happening at Acacia Hill School in Central Australia, and indeed, right across Central Australia. I can tell them this government does not support special education facilities in the 21st century. They do not want to create a master plan for construction of a purpose built special education facility in Alice Springs.
You say you have put some money on the table - $33m over five years is not even going to touch the sides of special care education; it will not even touch the sides. You think that is enough; you can walk away and wash your hands. It is an absolute disgrace across the Northern Territory, and it feeds right into the national disgrace not only this government is, but the Australian Labor Party.
I thank the member for Nelson for supporting this, and I thank the member for Macdonnell for supporting this. They obviously have a conscience; they understand; they can see it. It is not rocket science. The government will not support it; the two Independents support it, and with the support of the Country Liberals, I hope this motion will get up.
So, shame on you, shame on you, minister. I am looking forward to telling people the government does not care. They will say it is more of the same. It is disgraceful, and I do not understand it. I do not understand how you can allow children to continue in that environment right across the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Giles: Maybe we should have a division.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot call a division when it has been decided in the ayes.
Mr Giles: It was a joke, Madam Speaker. I wanted to see the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, cease interjecting.
MOTION
Alice Springs Airport – Development of
Rural Residential Land
Alice Springs Airport – Development of
Rural Residential Land
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government –
(a) support the development of rural residential land near the Alice Springs Airport as mentioned in the Draft Alice Springs Master Plan 2009;
I know some of this was debated at the Alice Springs sittings last year, however, I still believe the issue needs discussion. I also understand the government has written to the federal minister, Mr Anthony Albanese, to urge him to deal with this matter as a priority. I understand they have received an acknowledgement but, so far, nothing has occurred to say he is going to make a decision one way or the other. I have also written to the honourable minister asking him to expedite this matter.
I understand the government is getting close to doing the headworks for the Arid Zone Research Institute site which has the potential to produce around 1400 sites; something we all know is desperately needed in Alice Springs. I refer to the Centralian Advocate of Friday, 12 February, which describes where the land will be, and shows a picture of the AZRI land site, and it says there is an opportunity to develop between 1168 or 1453 dwellings at AZRI; which is extremely important.
I believe the concern is, as stated in this paper, the government might not release land quickly enough in an attempt to bring the price of land down to where it could be regarded as affordable. There has always been a concern by the government if you release too much land it might affect the market. I believe the market is healthy enough to take a bit of a battering. There is no doubt people have seen extraordinary increases in land prices far beyond what you would normally expect for investment. I believe sanity in the market would not do any harm at all.
Forgetting that side of it, it is time we were able to help people stay in the Territory, especially our young people, especially people starting work in the Territory, because if we give them some land at a reasonable price they can build a house.
I am interested in what is happening with AZRI, but AZRI bounds the Alice Springs airport land. That is why I believe we should be pushing hard for that land to be developed now. How long has it taken to develop the AZRI land? Quite a while - I have known about it for some time. AZRI was cited in a future plan for Alice Springs, and I have been told it takes about three years to develop land. Not only have you all the normal things such as native title, the environmental side of things, you have also to work out where you are going to get the water, the sewerage, the electricity. You have to work out the headworks, which are separate from the subdivision. That has to be planned and designed. You have to ensure you have enough water to supply the number of people in the community. That takes time, and AZRI is not ready to go yet. One of the reasons is the headworks have to be designed and built, and someone has to pay for those. Hopefully that will not be too far away, because I believe that will relieve the housing shortage.
With the possibility of another 2000 properties on the federal airport site, the government needs to convince the federal government to approve this use of land. By the time we start to develop the AZRI land, we want to have most of the hard work done on the federal airport site.
It really is important. In fact, the master plan says, when commenting on this:
- It provides a platform …
This is the development of this land:
- … for a joint Northern Territory government - ASA …
I am not sure what ASA stands for.
Mr Giles: Alice Springs Airport.
Mr WOOD: Alice Springs Airport, thank you. Acronyms are not my thing.
- … ASA integrated residential and commercial development where both parties would pursue:
You have the opportunity to develop a small rural subdivision - it talks about 2000 lots; there are quite a number of lots to be developed there - and do it in a smart and intelligent way, being able to reuse water and, where possible, using solar energy.
There are times when the government has to go past writing a letter. If the government believes the development of land in Alice Springs is a goal which needs achieving, it has to meet with Mr Albanese, or get Mr Albanese to visit Alice Springs Airport and see for himself.
We are not talking about land in the A and F contours; we are looking at land outside, so there are no noise problems. We are dealing with land to the north of the airport. The areas where you do not want to build, of course, are the approaches; that is the area to stay away from. Mr Anthony Albanese comes from Sydney; I believe his electorate is near the airport. He obviously has a fair amount of interest from his constituents about airport noise. I would not want to see a repeat of Sydney, but the master plan shows there is land available around the Alice Springs Airport which will not be affected by noise, and is sitting there waiting to be developed. The master plan says, yes. Comments on the master plan have closed.
The NT government has to say to Mr Albanese: ‘Come on, have a look at the issues, talk to the locals, talk to the council, the airport managers, and ascertain if this land can be developed in relation to its proximity to the airport. If so, give it the okay and let the locals, the NT government, and Alice Springs City Council be involved in this development, along with the airport management’.
If we do not drive this, we will release AZRI land and then find ourselves behind the eight-ball again. It is better to have this land waiting for development so we keep providing affordable housing. I have had people ring me saying: ‘I have come up from south as a teacher; I cannot afford the rent. It is better we pack up and go home’. We do not want that situation. We have to make it attractive for people to stay in the Northern Territory. We talk about having the right people in special education, the right people to lead our schools - we are looking for 17 principals. If we want those people to come, we have to ensure they are not worse off than in the southern states. We need to attract people, and ensure we have affordable housing.
The other aspect of this motion is to ask the federal minister - if this land is developed – to give permission for the Alice Springs Town Council to rate it. If that is not allowed to happen, you will develop 2000 lots outside the control of the Alice Springs Town Council which, by their very nature, will place a burden on the council. Even if someone attends to the roads in that area, those people will live in Alice Springs; they will visit Alice Springs, they will put their rubbish in the bins, they will use the parks and the facilities.
As part of this request to Mr Albanese, there needs to be a request that the land developed is handed over; it is made rateable by the local council. Otherwise, the burden will be taken up by Alice Springs residents, because the council will not be able to afford it unless they increase rates to existing residents. It might sound a small thing, and not be of interest to many people but, having been in local government, the last thing you want is a development in your back yard which requires services from you, and you do not receive funds to cover those costs.
I believe that is an important issue. Mayor Damien Ryan raised it with me. He believes if land is to be developed we have to ensure, hand in hand, comes ownership; at least ownership from the point of view of being able to rate the land, otherwise it is very difficult to not increase rates in other parts of the city.
I do not know whether the minister for Lands has any comments, but when I was at the Coolabah Estate subdivision, which has been going for a long time - I think even when I was in local government. It is one of those subdivisions which has been given approval but has stalled, partly because of the economic climate, and other reasons. It is located to the south - my geography is a bit wonky on Alice Springs. It has been around a long time, and I do not know if the minister has seen the subdivision. It is partially developed, but has come to a dead end. I believe it has well over 100 blocks of land that could be put on the market fairly quickly.
I am not sure whether the minister has had contact with the owners of Coolabah subdivision. They had me out and about when I was in Alice Springs for the sittings, and they certainly had some problems. They were developing part of the subdivision for sale to fund further development. There were some financial issues, and there might have been some engineering issues, but it is something the government should look at and decide if it has a role to play. As I mentioned before, throughout the Territory, especially Alice Springs and Darwin - and I hear from the member for Katherine there is a shortage of land in Katherine - we have to work harder to get more land opened up at an affordable price.
It is not only a Territory issue, I must admit. I was in Melbourne during the holidays. Unfortunately, it is a similar problem throughout Australia. I was listening to Tony Delroy last night on the way home; the key still seems to be lack of good planning and lack of land availability. We are not the only place with those problems, but that is not an excuse. We have plenty of land. We have a fifth of Australia’s land mass; surely we can find enough land for our young people, and people coming to visit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask members to support this motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to the member for Nelson, having entered this portfolio as a lay person, it is a very steep learning curve. One thing I can share in my early learning is releasing land is not a matter of going out and whacking a couple of pegs in the ground, let me tell you. What you touched on there was a development of headworks. Headworks and trunk services cost millions of dollars, and it is imperative to get them right in any good planning process. When you hear the banter about land release, land release, land release - it is a very complex business, as you know. I know you have spent time in that planning area, especially from a local government perspective.
In relation to the private sector – absolutely! We are about supporting land release, and we are about supporting the fast-tracking of land release. I am very interested to talk to the private sector, and we are interested in pushing forward any good ideas which will deliver land and affordable housing for Territorians.
The government supports this motion. The Alice Springs Airport Master Plan Preliminary Draft 2009 was released for public comment on 2 November 2009, and the former Department of Planning and Infrastructure prepared a response to the draft master plan.
Alice Springs Airport is situated on a large tract of Commonwealth land, most of which is not constrained by aviation activities. This allows the concepts in the draft master plan to propose large portions of airport land for non-aviation development. Of importance to the government land release strategy, the draft master plan proposes rural residential development adjacent to the government’s proposed residential suburb on Crown land at the Arid Zone Research Institute. The proposed new suburb is a central element in the south of the MacDonnell Range area plan currently on public exhibition, and as a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme. Closing date for submissions is 19 February 2010.
The rural residential element of the airport draft master plan has the potential to dovetail very well with the government’s land release strategy. The former Minister for Planning and Lands wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Honourable Anthony Albanese MP, advising development of the AZRI site would be complemented by rural residential development on Alice Springs airport land. I am pleased to be able to table a letter to Honourable Anthony Albanese from the former minister.
The Territory government, and the NT Airport Corporation, will continue to collaborate to achieve an integrated development south of the MacDonnell Range. I support the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought the Planning minister might have more to say. Very interesting; very interesting indeed! Perhaps he cannot say much because he has not been in the portfolio long enough.
Whilst the member for Nelson has taken an interest in Alice Springs, can I say the motion is very short-sighted; short-sighted in the sense we have a demand for land now. The government has admitted they dropped the ball on land planning across the Territory. They have admitted they dropped the ball on land planning and land release particularly in Alice Springs. The situation of housing in the town of Alice Springs and surrounds, and particularly my electorate of Braitling, is dire. I have people visiting my office telling me their housing concerns and it relates to the private sector, the community sector - not that there really is a community sector - and the public sector.
Public houses are full; or they are empty because the NT government and the Housing minister do not have any money to fix them. Private real estate is full; you cannot get a house. I have constituents, like everyone else, coming into my office saying: ‘We have a housing problem’. The issue in my electorate - I know the real estate agents, I ring them and ask: ‘Can you do me a favour?’ I know the Housing staff: ‘Can you do me a favour? Do a reference to get people onto priority housing’. In my electorate, where the caravan parks are full, I have to tell people to leave town. That is how dire it is.
People are crying; grown men are crying and leaving town because there is nowhere to live. That is how serious it is. The skill shortage in the Territory is bad. The skill shortage in Alice Springs, because we cannot bring people to town and provide housing, is terrible. Every time the intervention comes up and says: ‘We are going to announce another program. We are going to send more experts to Alice Springs to fix things’, and they end up not fixing things, that puts more pressure on the housing industry. There is nowhere to live.
I am not knocking the idea of development outside the Gap. Do not get me wrong. It is short-sighted because it does not talk about the immediate problem. I have been banging the drum for ages, and I am pleased the member for Nelson has brought this on. However, let us look at what this is all about. This is about writing a letter to the federal government, trying to transfer responsibility, trying to wedge the Country Liberals. That is what is happening here. If we were really trying to do something here, instead of lobbying on behalf of the Mayor and the committee trying to move AZRI forward - and we know the situation with the committee that is trying to move AZRI forward. They are telling us the government is to blame for things being delayed. The government is saying it is native title issues and blaming Darryl Pearce at Lhere Artepe. Well, it is not his fault. It is the government which is dragging its heels.
The Opus Report from the future planning session held in June 2008 - here we are two years later and we still do not have land released. The Opus Report goes into specific details about the cost structure of releasing land. The situation of land must be seen in short, medium and longer term. The motion on the table today is part of a longer term - very long term - land release in Alice Springs. The member for Nelson spoke about 2000 properties; the Territory government says Alice Springs needs 100 properties per year. We are talking about 20 years worth of land, at the longest projection, for Alice Springs. There are short, medium and longer term areas we can look at. The infill which could be taken up in Alice Springs is significant. There are many infill components in Alice Springs where we could develop land immediately.
I have spoken previously, at length, about opportunities. Some of the opportunities put forward in this document, the potential to immediately look to expand Albrecht Drive subdivision in Larapinta; the opportunity to develop Lot 7411 at the end of Ellery Drive, Larapinta that can produce 200 blocks of land. I note the Opus Report identifies a number of cost factors, and how difficult it would be to get Larapinta Valley up and running. I am no engineer but I note this report suggests there are an estimated 200 blocks which could be released. I do know those blocks could commence immediately; I know there is power and water, and I know sewers are there. I know the road will need to be extended, but these are things which can happen in the short term to help solve some of our problems; and this is where the government has dropped the ball.
I know in south Sadadeen, as detailed in the report of the Northern Territory government by Opus delivered at the Alice Springs land forum by the previous Lands and Planning minister, there is potential for 158 blocks. I know the cost structure is beneficial so the Northern Territory government can make money from those blocks. It is easy to proceed, however the government will say: ‘There are salinity problems there’. These are the things which can be solved. Kilgariff and Mallam Crescent are already built in the same topographical and geological circumstances; these things can happen.
I am not saying south Sadadeen is the answer; I am saying there are some short to medium term solutions which could happen before the land at Alice Springs airport. Let us put this into context. AZRI land will cost a certain amount of money. The benefit of bringing the Alice Springs airport land on is it will bring about greater economies of scale so the Northern Territory government, which is broke because it is dysfunctional and cannot manage money, can make more money. This is exactly what this is all about - where they can make the most money.
I am not negative towards AZRI; I believe we should go forward, however we need to have a comprehensive plan. The government is making decisions on where we are going to release land, and we do not even have a structural plan for Alice Springs. We do not have a structural plan for Darwin.
Within the first 100 days of the Country Liberals being in government, we will commence development of a structural plan for Darwin, for Alice Springs, for Katherine, and for Tennant Creek. We know where we are heading. Based on the 1990 information, in the 1999 Land Use Structural Plan for Alice Springs - this is where the Territory was heading. What we are talking about with this motion today is not even part of a plan. I would think one of the first things the Northern Territory government would do would be develop a new plan.
Within the first 100 days of the Country Liberals coming into government we will start on this. We will get it done so we know where we are going. When we are talking about land at this site, I can tell you the traffic management flow report supposedly done by the Northern Territory government has not been released to the committee attempting to recommend pursuing the interests of AZRI, or Alice Springs airport land. We have not heard about the social infrastructure costs of building new schools, shopping centres, police stations or fire stations in the area so we know the overall cost. These are important things to consider. It is not negativing the motion; we need to have a comprehensive understanding of how everything fits together.
There are short-term plans with the ability to use the social infrastructure within Alice Springs to grow the town immediately. There are short-term things we could do; there are medium-term things and there are long-term things.
Mt Johns Stage 2 will cost $5 or $6m - I know it is a large amount money - to extend the road from Stephens Road to Sadadeen Road so we can open up the extra land at Stage 2A for Mt Johns Valley. This will open more land and provide great benefits to the Lhere Artepe people, the native title holders, and provide jobs and economic opportunities for those people. We could have some long-term sustainability for many families in Alice Springs. We could have a plan. If Alice Springs knew where it was going, the feeling and tone of Alice Springs would lift. We have nothing to look forward to. The people of Alice Springs are bleeding; Central Australia and the bush are bleeding. We need something to look forward to.
We are talking about writing a letter. The minister said that minister Albanese responded, so things are continuing. However, we need a comprehensive plan of how to move forward. We need a land use structure plan which includes things we are discussing at AZRI, Ilparpa, White Gums or Emily Hills. If not, we are flying in the breeze trying to play catch-up on bad planning decisions which were made when they disbanded the Planning Unit in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This is why this happened in the first place; you removed the Planning Unit. Now we have a backlog, and you are coming up with ideas which are not systematically organised, and that is a real problem.
Where is the whole-of-town land release compensation package, including the infrastructure requirements, that has been negotiated with Lhere Artepe? That is something the Country Liberals would look to do immediately. Change government next week and, within three months, we will sitting down with Lhere Artepe and the Central Land Council, and calling Planning department officials in Alice Springs to get things moving. We would be developing a land use structure agreement. This is not only Alice Springs, it is across the Territory. These are the things that set our direction. The government does not have any of this.
What we have is the Territory 2030 plan, which has no plan on land release. It does not have anything. There is no land use structure plan in this document. We have these fancy, fuzzy things calling Greening the Territory …
Ms Purick: Living the Territory.
Mr GILES: We have Living the Territory, we have Working the Territory? We have these fairy things, but there is nothing to say: ‘This is where we are going’.
This is a motion to say we are going to support the development of Alice Springs Airport land. Of course we want things to go ahead in Alice Springs. However, where are the short-term and medium-term solutions for the people who are in my office, who are crying on a daily basis because they have nowhere to live? Where are the short-term solutions for the 800 to 1000 homeless people who live in the Todd River on any night? Where is their solution? Where is the solution to get Mt Gillen Hostel up and running? How long has that been empty - more than 12 months? It can house up to 50 people and is sitting empty again tonight. You have hundreds of people living in the river and the hills - hundreds. I know this is a little blas for many people, but it is not like long-grassers in Darwin where people choose to be homeless - not everyone, but some people. Alice Springs people are homeless because there is nowhere to live.
The antisocial behaviour, the violent crime, the chronic alcoholism, the kids not going to school - all these things are linked together. This is what makes me so wild. I know you cannot click your fingers and there will be apartment, a house, a villa built immediately, but put something out there. There is nothing out there - absolutely nothing.
It is nearly two year since the planning forum and we still do not have an answer to what is going on. The Mayor of Alice Springs and all the people who sit on that committee tell me the Northern Territory government is dragging its heels. If they hurried up, we could get land released. That is what they say. I was talking to the Mayor last week. It is exactly what it is all about; it is about the government not doing anything.
Digressing for a minute, Madam Speaker, there have been many law and order problems in Alice Springs recently, as there always is, however it got really bad. I decided to have a look around the streets myself to ensure I did not have things the wrong way, and was not repeating other people’s commentary. I looked, and then I invited the member for Macdonnell to look with me, and knowing how bad it was and some of the terrible situations I saw, I invited the media to come along, because it is time we educated Alice Springs, and the rest of the Territory, about what is going on. That is what it was all about. The member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, got on the radio and said – I do not know the exact words - Adam Giles was sensationalising it, and trying to get publicity out of it.
That is not at all what was going on, and you do not get it. I tried to educate people; it is an issue. I tried to educate the member for Nelson that it is an issue; we need to solve these problems, this is what is going on. People are homeless. We have 13-year-old kids punching each other up; 14-year-old kids on Bradley Terrace, nearly smashing the windows of TIO, so drunk - a boy and girl so drunk, hit the member for Macdonnell, punched her when we tried to break up the fight. This is what going on. It is a law and order issue, yes, but it is because people have nowhere to live
This is what the motion should be about. I am not complaining that you did not put it in the motion; I am saying this is the housing situation. Somebody has to - I say someone, and I know I am in parliament, but I am not in government. If I was in government, I would be out there tomorrow saying: ‘Minister for Planning, what is happening with the Melanka site?’ What is happening with the Melanka site? These people are waiting for approval to go ahead and you are sitting on it. The people at LJ Hooker are saying: ‘Oh, Adam, can you find out what is going on with the Melanka site when you go to parliament?’ You are sitting on an approval process to get 100 units built in Alice Springs; there is housing we could deliver straight away, but we do not get any answers.
While the Alice Springs Airport site is one which could have housing, we have no certainty. I go back to this document on land size in Alice Springs. If you ask DPI, Alice Springs for a copy of the draft master plan, they will not give you one - your department will not give you one. They will let you look at it but they will not let you photocopy it, or take it. I was there with the member for Greatorex, and some Alice Springs residents, builders and developers, trying to solve some of these issues. They will not let you look at it. Can we go below 800 m2? Can we get down to 450 m2? These are some of the things which need to be included so we can debate them and move forward. We cannot sit here for 12 months, or 24 months arguing about it. We have to debate it and move forward.
If your arrogance will not allow you to debate it, come up with a plan. Tell us where we are heading. Alice Springs will change overnight if we have some certainty in what we are doing. We are in limbo with a noose around our neck, beholden to this arrogant and dysfunctional Labor government. While the government continues to pursue making as much money as it can out of its land - it would hate to develop AZRI and not the Alice Springs Airport land because the yield on the property would not be as positive as it could be.
Mr Wood: I am presuming infrastructure, headworks - that makes sense.
Mr GILES: Sorry?
Mr WOOD: Sharing headworks makes commercial sense.
Mr GILES: I wholeheartedly agree with your interjection, member for Nelson, but we could have a plan about where we are going. When is AZRI going to commence? I ask the minister, when is AZRI going to commence? We are told it is not going to have a block turned off until 2013 - which is five years after the planning for Alice Springs in June 2008. This is the information coming from the committee designed to implement it.
That is all I will say on this. The Country Liberals in government within 100 days will develop a brand new land use structural plan. We will start on it immediately, so we know exactly where we are heading. We would go straight to reviewing whether we should be going with the Larapinta-Albrecht Drive extension; the Ellery Drive extension is Lot 7411; the Sadadeen redevelopment; and we would make Melanka happen. We would progress things and provide a sense of opportunity, direction, of growth and development. Developing jobs for people, ensuring people are not homeless. This is what any good government should be doing. We are not having any of this done.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I am a little confused after the member for Braitling accused me somehow of being part of wedge politics; that I need to be educated. I did not know where we were going there for a while. I have no doubts there are planning issues in Alice Springs. I am a great supporter of a Darwin land use master plan coming out. Well, there is one coming out, but it is taking a long time. I am pleased to say we still have one in Litchfield. It is amazing how it has lasted that long. We have an NT Planning Scheme, and you will find in that scheme the major centres of the Territory have some strategic plans.
I must admit I prefer the plan you have in the front there, where each town has a more strategic plan which you can work to. Plans are flexible, and anyone who has been involved in planning and thinks that, because the land is at this point now it will always stay that way, needs to consider there will be changes. Those changes do not always have to be drastic; they can be mild changes, however planning needs to be flexible and also needs to stick to a plan. If you have ad hoc planning you can end up with a shemozzle.
Whilst I understand and agree with many of the issues, I believe you have to put this motion into context. I am not sure if the member for Braitling understood it. The master plan I have belongs to the Darwin Airport Management Group. It is not a government document; it is a private document. This is private land. It belongs to the Darwin Airport, or Alice Springs Airport Management Group. I have said this land is private - in other words it belongs to a body - and the only person who can approve that land being developed is the federal minister. It has nothing to do with the Northern Territory. This plan came out for comment. It did not ask for comment about homelessness or social behaviour on the streets of Alice Springs - they are certainly important issues - this is about developing land on the Alice Springs Airport.
I do not take exception to those social issues; they are very important. My comments are about ensuring we responded, in adequate time, to this master plan. It had a beginning and an end date, and I had discussions with Ian Kew about this master plan. He is very supportive of the land being developed, but he said the land cannot be developed until we get approval from the minister.
Regardless of whether you have other pockets of land, when you read this master plan you will see there is an opportunity to have affordable housing. I have not seen affordable land turned off in the inner parts of Alice Springs for donkey’s ages. Tell me the price of a block of land in Alice Springs when you have to deal with native title, salt issues, geographical issues, all those issues? What is the price of a block of land in Alice Springs? It is not cheap. One reason it is not cheap is all those other things which cause the price to lift.
When I was in Alice Springs, Damien Ryan was saying he supports AZRI. The reason is we can develop a total kit package, and we can get a large number of blocks hopefully at a reasonable price. Do not forget you are dealing with Alice Springs airport. It was probably always regarded as Alice Springs airport and probably not regarded as part of a strategic plan for future housing. I do not know whether it was mentioned in that document at all. The point is, an opportunity has arisen where we might be able to join the Alice Springs airport land and the AZRI land together. There is an article about this issue which discusses airport land use:
- Land use planning is fundamental to an airport master plan and is specifically highlighted in the act. Land use planning in the 2009 master plan:
- … reflects the large land holding and the significant long-term development potential of the airport.
A new land zoning is Aviation Reservation which preserves land for ultimate aeronautical use ….
It goes on to say:
- As with the 2004 master plan, rural residential continues as a land use zone. ASA and the Northern Territory government are planning for the northern part of the airport’s land holding to be developed in conjunction with the nearby Arid Zone Research Institute (AZRI) land for integrated residential and commercial development.
There is the potential to halve infrastructure costs per residential lot if the airport land is combined with the AZRI land.
Straight away you would have to say we would be fools - even though we might want these plans, and even thought there might be room for infill – when there is a master plan out saying: please comment. There is an opportunity here if Planning, the federal government, Alice Springs airport and the Northern Territory government can get together, we could halve infrastructure cost. Is that not what it is about; trying to produce affordable land at affordable prices?
The other issues mentioned, I am not saying they are unimportant; however you have to deal with things as they occur. Of course there will be planning. I notice the Centralian Advocate has a picture of the AZRI site, and without it being coloured, I know someone has done some planning. I can see some commercial, there will be some residential, probably some community purpose for a school. I imagine AZRI will develop it as a suburb with the facilities you would expect in the suburb, and the plan next door could be developed.
We certainly need planning, and we do have documents which have been put forward as part of the Alice Springs land use study - Planning for the Future. I am not going to comment on what is good and bad because I am not an Alice Spring resident, but I know a number of local people are involved in the development of this, and that is the way it should be. If there are issues concerning this being developed fast enough, or whether there is a need for a more accurate strategic plan, then I would expect to hear it from those people involved. If they think the government is dragging its feet - I cannot say it is, because I do not know - especially on the development of AZRI, I would imagine there would be some noise made about it.
If I read the beginning of this article, it says:
- Possible release of land at the Arid Zone Research Institute to cater for the future growth of Alice Springs has attracted considerable interest. The Alice Springs Town Council gave in principle support to plans for the development at a committee meeting this week.
You are only talking 12 February. Alice Springs has now given approval in principle because they are part of the planning process. I imagine it cannot be too far away when that study or time for comment is finished. The key is, and the minister has said he is a new boy on the block, that land use structure plans and changes to the land use structure plan are not easy. I encourage the minister to expedite things if most of the work has been done - get the headworks in because it will take work to get them in and they are costly.
I believe the government has been slow. It has been driven by many a statement in this parliament that we are worried about the market. I have heard that so many times and say, yes, the market is important, but it is not so important that we cannot start to turn off more blocks. The trouble was the government was caught with its pants down. The demand was great; they held it back because they were concerned about those people who would lose the value of their blocks. I do not believe they would lose the value of their blocks.
There were blocks of land in the rural area that went up $100 000 in one year - in one year - you can go back and look at the records. No one in their right mind would have expected their investment to go up at that rate. If the market comes back a bit, it will probably come back to a level where it should be. It is inflated because we simply have not had the land to compete, and to keep price rises at a reasonable level.
I hope, minister, you can get some good news. I am sure, once those headworks are in, you will get someone in there to get this off the ground. Alice Springs people tell me 0.1% of rentable properties are available to rent. What do people do if they cannot rent?
Ms Purick: Live in a tent.
Mr WOOD: Yes, or go to a caravan park. We need to be doing better. The Territory 2030 strategy talks about having accommodation for all Territorians by the year 2030. If we really think - and it is a pretty big goal - that is the goal we can achieve, we cannot be waiting. We have to do it now. I will come back in a few months time and I say: ‘Right, where is AZRI? Has anyone started to scratch the land with a few bitumen roads?’ That is what I will be pushing for.
I have made an agreement with the government about affordable housing. I am going to keep pushing it and pushing it. Weddell needs to be opened up. Humpty Doo needs to be opened up. There are parts of land in Goyder which are zoned 1 ha rural subdivision and have been sitting there for about five or six years and not been touched. There is land around which could be opened up without great expense to the government. It would send out the message that you have really put yourself into top gear and intend to make a difference to the housing situation. We do not have to be like the other states which have land issues. We have the land; we have to get the will. We also have to get the finances; I understand that. However, if we want to retain people to keep our economy going, then we have to be able to ensure they can stay here.
Madam Deputy Speaker, naturally I support the motion. It was a specific motion which gives people a chance to talk about a broad range of issues - fair enough, that is what motions sometimes do. It was done so we could act quickly on a specific case which, in theory, could produce 2000 rural lots. Of course, that will not happen in one hit, however the potential is there. If we want affordable housing, as it says in the master plan, we could halve the infrastructure costs if this block of land is built in conjunction with the AZRI land, because that is where you start to share your headwork costs. It is really something worth pushing.
I ask the minister, if you are not getting an answer, see Mr Albanese, or get him to come here. If he really believes, from his side of government, he should help the battlers, the families - I have always said that is what Labor should be doing. If he believes that, then he should make every effort to see if this land could be opened up so we can get affordable land for people who need it.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Farm Land for Alice Springs
Correctional Facility
Farm Land for Alice Springs
Correctional Facility
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government investigates –
- (a) what land in the vicinity to the Alice Springs gaol could be used for a farm to create employment and grow food for and by the inmates;
(b) the size of farm land required, suitability of soil types and the availability and the adequate supply of good quality water; and
(c) the possibility of a separate prison farm in the Central Australia area.
Although we can build nice prisons and state-of-the-art places, we need to deal with the people in our prisons who are Northern Territorians, and are different from prison populations in Victoria, New South Wales and other places. They are mainly Indigenous; and we need to find solutions for all people, especially those people in the Northern Territory. The minister knows that.
What I am hoping for is a package; we do not have one solution fits the problem, we look at several solutions. We say yes, we have to have a prison. I know Glen Dooley, from Aboriginal Legal Aid, spoke on Stateline recently about the reason we should be moving away from that system. However, the reality is, I do not think the public are ready for that. I know where he is coming from; he believes that is not the way to deal with Indigenous people. That is another issue for another day.
I believe there are options we can utilise to change the way we think about this. We had a prison farm at Gunn Point and we closed it. There have been many theories as to why that was - industrial, transport difficulties, I do not know the reason. It was a good farm. Some people said it did not achieve its goals. It did some training, it had a bakery, it had cattle, it had vegetables, and it had hay. When people finished work, they would go to the mangroves and collect a few long bums and crabs. It was a good place for the people it was trying to help.
We had Wildman River. I do not know how many times I have spoken on Wildman River in this House over the last nine years. We closed it down - and I still believe it is a mistake. We had Beatrice Hill. The previous government closed that, as they did Gunn Point. That was unfortunate. Beatrice Hill was a small prison facility where Windows on the Wetlands is, and work was done in that area. In fact, they built a chicken farm on the side of the Arnhem Highway more or less opposite the front gate of Windows on the Wetlands. It lasted about a year then they decided to close it down and that was the end of the chicken farm. I wonder about long-term decisions sometimes - how we get there.
There has not been much else in dealing with our prisoners. In fact, we seem to have pulled back from our ideas. We have pulled back from Wildman River, Gunn Point and Beatrice Hill and put people in two big prisons and said that will do. I do not believe we should do that.
The minister has announced a work camp to be constructed at Tennant Creek and that is great. We have great potential for work camps throughout the Territory. They do not necessarily have to be based in big towns. They can be in communities, or near communities, where prisoners can work in national parks and on environmental programs. People can learn a range of skills and pay back the community. That is what people want to see. They say ‘you have done something wrong and we would like you to recompense the community’. That is what we have to look at.
Prison farms also have an option. I have visited prison farms in Western Australia and New South Wales. In Victoria, I visited the big prison. In New South Wales, I saw some excellent prison farms. We have to use the word ‘farm’ cautiously here - those farms are not only about cows, sheep, lettuce and onions; they are also about industry. St Hilliers prison farm in New South Wales is just outside Muswellbrook. It is a large old farm which has been taken over, and was a juvenile detention centre at one point. They are given all the furniture in bad condition from schools – you can imagine furniture from some of our schools after a few years, it would have dirty marks, chewing gum, and the paint scratched. They get the furniture, pull it apart, re-weld it if necessary, bring it down to the bare metal, repaint the legs, they have a special process to clean the plastic, and they turn out chairs and tables that look absolutely brand new. What do they do with those? They sell them back to the schools at half price; they create an industry.
When we are talking about prison farms, let us not get locked into the idea if we have a prison farm at Katherine it is about walking Brahmans around all day. It has to be about other activities, and I cannot say what those activities will be. If they go into a community, I would be looking at the Katherine community, and look at possible occupations for those people there. They might grow vegetables; we know there is beautiful soil in Katherine and plenty of water. They might be able to do some work for the hospital in the laundry. They might be able to help with other things. The work camps could be based on a farm and work in national parks and on cattle stations - you name it. We have to look at all options as we develop these places.
Central Australia is no different. We have a prison in Central Australia which is pretty well full. The minister announced they have opened a new female section. That is good to hear because we have a relatively small proportion of females in our prison system. However, we have to ensure they are catered for in a different way than the male section of the prison. It is a prison with many people in it, and there are opportunities to develop a prison farm or farms in the area.
When I was in Alice Springs I visited Centrefarm, which is similar to a commercial arm of the Central Land Council. My understanding, after meeting them, is they are opening up land opportunities for traditional owners by getting clearances on the land. If a business comes along, instead of waiting two years to deal with native title and this and that, they are doing it now. Potentially, the land is ready when a person walks in. They googled many sites and showed us there are numerous options between Tennant Creek and Aputula. I have a map, and I am willing to table it. It shows a series of large basins with potential for horticulture. One is at Aputula. They are trialling 6 ha at the moment; they have 1000 ML of water a year available; not a huge amount, but enough to do some work.
Alice Springs has a series of possible sites; some are better than others. There are eight blocks around the southern Alice Springs area, some at Deep Well, Undoolya Pastoral Lease, and in the Alice Springs area as well, where the effluent is being reused - I believe that is at the AZRI site, where it is being pumped underground.
There are sites in the Ti Tree basin area, and one which was mentioned to me - you already have horticulture development in that area - might be the Woodgreen Pastoral Lease. It is on the other side of the railway line. It was an outstation, and there are possibilities it could be used as a farm.
You have Dulcie Basin, which is at Utopia. That might be getting too far off the main road because you have to take into account the area involved. The Singleton-Murray Downs basin; there is a fair amount of water in that area – 5000 ML a year. A community market garden has been proposed there. Willowra has areas which could be developed. There is also the Wiso Basin, which is to the southwest of Tennant Creek. In fact, on my return from the last sittings I sought directions on how to drive there. There is a mining road that runs west - it runs west all right, it keeps going - out from the Tennant Creek railway station. I was driving at about 6 pm and it was getting darker and darker, and I did not get out there. I thought: ‘I am not heading out; I could end up in the Tanami and never be seen again’. There is an outstation there which I wanted to see. It is abandoned but it has the potential for a farm. There is good water in the area. So, I am saying if you talk to organisations like Centrefarm, there are great opportunities.
In relation to this motion, whether the farm is near the existing prison, up the track, or out from Alice Springs, are issues we have to look at. I believe we could grow more food for our prisons. I have always said if you have prisons in the north, in Katherine, and prisons in the south, in Alice Springs, you have the best of both worlds. You have tropical fruits and the temperate climate; and there is transport up and down the track. We have a railway line; the potential for supplying food is good. If the abattoirs could open in Katherine - and many people are thinking about it - the farm could produce its own beef. It could be slaughtered at the abattoir. In fact, some of the prisoners could work at the abattoir, as happens in other places. They could package the meat and send it to other prisons, or to hospitals. There is no reason the government cannot produce its own food for this government organisation.
The important issues for a farm is to have soil and water; if you do not have those two, do not waste your time. There has to be some good work done on this, and I would say much has already been done, minister, because Centrefarm has done some of it. I am sure the department of Primary Industry has records indicating where the good soil and water is, because Alice Springs has been farmed, either pastorally or horticulturally, for a long time. Much of that information should be available.
The idea of a separate prison farm away from Alice Springs, or in Alice Springs, is an issue worth looking at. Having it near a town is, I believe, a better idea - relatively near a town - because you will need Corrections people to work in those communities. However, I do see potential - and I believe the minister agrees - when you have a work camp, for instance, in Tennant Creek, there is potential to employ people who live in the town.
There is some concern around staffing farms. Initially you may, but one of the benefits is they will help the economy of those towns. You may have to bring more trained officers in at the beginning, but if you can employ more local people, especially Indigenous, because the majority of people in these communities will be Indigenous, it is good for the community.
When I was in Katherine for our CTC meeting, I spoke to Anne Shepherd, Mayor of Katherine. She wants the prison, because she knows the prison farm will benefit the economy. Katherine is the centre of quite a large Aboriginal area so you have people in a facility which is relatively close to family. That is important when you read the Deaths in Custody recommendations. One of the recommendations was not to incarcerate people a long way from their home. At the moment we have two places in the whole of the Territory where people are in prison, which does not seem to fit comfortably with the recommendations.
This issue is about looking at the options of creating a prison farm. If it could be built right next to the Alice Springs gaol, so be it. However, my understanding is the water is not good there. If it cannot be, then we have to look at other possibilities whether it is in the Alice Springs area, or whether it is further up the track. They are what we need to look at.
I must not lose sight of the fact that this is only part of the picture; it is only part of the package. I will say time and time again we are looking at the facilities, and we have to look at the changes these facilities could bring. We have to look at education. Many have alcohol and drug problems and we have to look at helping people work through their problems - which is difficult over a short length of time. Half the people in prison are there for less than six months, and to create jobs and programs for those people is a challenge. They will be classified for several weeks before they come in - those weeks have gone - and then you have to work out their education standard, they have to get used to a fairly regimented life, and before you know it, they have left the prison. So, there are challenges.
The other big challenge when you are dealing with prisons is we are dealing with in and out; we have to deal with before and after. That is one of the reasons we looked at prison farms. We try to create skills and we try to create some worth in people. None of that is any good if they go home to the same old place with no job. I believe that unemployment is one of the main reasons for boredom, and when you have boredom, you have problems. You get on the grog; you get up the missus, fly around in the car. If we do not have employment we will be putting people through this system time and time again. We will give them the skills but that is a waste of time if there is nowhere to use the skills.
It is the same at the other end. If we do not put effort into youth, or even parenting - it probably goes back a lot further. I welcome this inquiry into family and community services because I see some outcomes I call early intervention. We should be looking at early intervention; getting in and helping these families and protecting these kids so they do not end up in gaol. I had teachers from Taminmin High School come to me last year who said: ‘We have kids who are a problem. They do not want to go to school, they do not want to be educated, and they just do not want to go. And when we get them to school, they get kicked out, or they are just a pest’. We need to be smart in helping these young people, because I can guarantee they will be in gaol.
We are talking about a system where a small part is how we develop a prison farm in the Alice Springs area. The prison farm is a small part of the cog in a system we have to develop to reduce the number of people in prison. If we want a target for Territory 2030 – I know there are many targets there – the one I would like to see is less people in prisons. If there is one industry in the Northern Territory which needs to be on the decline, that is the industry. That is a big effort, and is going to take some really dedicated people in government to drive it, and make it work.
Madam Speaker, this motion is worth it, simply because it is part of a cog; an overall plan which has to happen if we are to change things around, especially in our Correctional Services.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate over this motion - a rational, informed debate which, so far, is devoid of any theatrics or any politicising, or any of the wild allegations we hear with the experts who are engineers, psychologists, teachers, trainers, town planners, and brain surgeons. It is good to get into this debate. Let us walk through the first 12 months of my time as minister for Corrections.
The Territory was changing, and Territory Corrections was changing. The Henderson government knew we needed some serious changes to address the cycle of reoffending. The member for Nelson has mentioned the most disadvantaged Territorians in our Corrections system, on the wrong side of the law, and who are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty. That is what came about. We decided we needed to look very strategically at a process to turn that cycle around. It is going to need time, commitment, and resources. The first issue we touched on was infrastructure, and we saw it was not only ageing but inappropriate, and the need for better infrastructure. That was the announcement of the new Correctional Services facility.
In this first 12 months, I have enjoyed the debate, working with the member for Nelson, and specifically working with the expert review panel. They are real engineers, real architects, real people who know what they are talking about - real people who do not rabbit off at the mouth, on their feet having fun. They are members of an expert panel who are delivering the best information possible to work this forward for all Territorians. That is the space we are in. In the 12 months, it has been a real pleasure to work with the Correctional Services Department, with the education and rehabilitation services being delivered, and to start looking at fine-tuning and working with a real cultural shift representing the Henderson government’s new approach for Corrections to really change outcomes. In the first 12 months of my time as minister, much work has gone into targeted education and rehabilitation under the most difficult circumstances.
In those 12 months, as I said, I have had the honour to work with the member for Nelson and real experts, and to take that to a national scale and look at other jurisdictions; big jurisdictions that operate on large economies of scale.
In New South Wales, for instance, there are 10 000 prisoners in their system. It is a challenge no matter where we go in the Northern Territory because of our small population and large area. At the end of the day, we have the same problem when we talk about Corrections - how to reduce the cycle of reoffending?
Let us walk through some of the knowledge the member for Nelson and I have acquired. Let us go to Ballina, a program in Northern New South Wales concentrating on Indigenous offenders and focusing on a therapeutic model designed to provide not only the social and emotional support, but also the educational awareness and understanding of why they were being incarcerated, and how they can move on and do better and get back into their community and become productive members. They were in a rural environment. It was an environment to support their social and cultural needs. However, there was not any real link with the agriculture going on around them. That program was focused on psychosocial outcomes, and on therapeutic benefits. It used education and awareness to achieve results. They told us there are links planned however, at this stage, early in their developmental stage, they were purely focusing on the individual offender, and how to turn that cycle around.
We then went to another example, which was a very sophisticated prison farm, a long history in the corrections industry. Yet, the majority of programs at that farm were industrial based; they were dealing with heavy industry. There was an operational sawmill on the prison farm, and what I took from that prison farm was great ideas about the New South Wales correctional system, very sophisticated, very welcoming and very enlightening. They were linking the opportunities to provide prisoners with skills, and they were linking their industries together, from the sawmill industry right through using by-products, through connecting with the rural and regional areas, and producing a product for sale. There were people incarcerated there who had degrees in accounting who were employed to be part of the business model. They were prisoners running the accounting section of a major business. There were also many unskilled people learning how to have a job. From that we learnt there are very basic starting points; there are also very sophisticated points within the system.
This industry, for me, reflected a very important point - work ready. How do you have a job? As the member for Nelson has shared with us, 82% of our prison population in the Northern Territory are disadvantaged Territorians, many of those who have never had a job. We have a very basic starting point; we have to make people aware of what it is like to have a job, what it is like to go to work, and the off spin of that is what it is like to experience self-esteem, achieving something and, at the end of the day, being able to tell somebody a positive story about your life, what you did - very basic starting point from looking at a massive industry model. Where are we at in this model?
We then travelled to a pure heavy correctional facility; one of the high traffic areas in the New South Wales Corrections system. What we saw was a model which we do not get much from and we do not want to go there. We need to look at alternatives, and this is what is developing into our sweep of Correctional Services opportunities, programs, rehabilitation, and education.
We then went to probably what was the premier correctional facility in New South Wales looking at the model of prison farms, and that was St Hilliers. Once again, we looked at broad acre agriculture. We looked at a prison farm model producing food, but in the economies of a population of prisoners which represented 10 000 across the state. Food production at that level creates economies to make it sustainable. Food production anywhere under that level is not sustainable; it is cottage industry stuff. When you are dealing with and allocating taxpayers’ money, it is very important we do not set ourselves up to fail, that we do not set ourselves up for industry opportunities which will fail and cost the taxpayer money. In New South Wales, they were able to generate a model which was saving taxpayers’ money, but on a large scale - 10 000 prisoners across a complex nature of big correctional facilities.
Once again we saw industry base. The member for Nelson touched on it: the restoration of Education department furniture right across the state. What I took away was industry skills; people who had never had a job, or people who were highly skilled participating, but people who had never had a job being able to understand about occupational health and safety, about the reasons for being at work, about the reasons for being safe at work, about the reasons for producing, and being a productive member of a workforce. Very simple things which start to create awareness in the individual of a choice: I can choose to re-offend, or I can choose the opportunity I have, experienced, clean and sober, in a supported environment and make a choice to go forward not back.
The member for Nelson mentioned the work camp; the outreach program the Henderson government is developing, the first one in Tennant Creek. Ironically, the land deal is the most important part. We must get the infrastructure on the ground before we can move forward. The work camp in the Barkly commenced at a good level within the community, which is with a consultative committee. The committee in Tennant Creek and the Barkly is already making decisions about repatriation to their community, what they think these offenders owe the community, and how these offenders should pay back to the community. That needs fine tuning as well. That needs to be balanced between a punitive approach, and an education and rehabilitation approach. There will need to be more input to process. We want to encourage, not discourage. We want to raise up, not knock down. We want to support people, not run them down and tell them they are wrong and they do not know what they are doing. We want to build, not demolish.
We are talking about land, we are talking about infrastructure, and we are talking about consultation. What we are talking about is creating an environment to make a difference, and the environment will be focusing on education and rehabilitation and training to once again allow people, in a clean and sober supported environment, to start experiencing mainstream cultural opportunities which can be life changing. When we get down to a grassroots level, that can increase your life expectancy, and that of your family.
We make no apology on this side of the House for the numbers of prisoners we have to deal with. It is a most unfortunate circumstance, however, we will put every energy into reducing numbers by giving people a choice.
The work camp in the Barkly has another opportunity in the new era, which is to attach prisoners to real world employment. We have local contractors and local businesses interested in giving people a go: people who can pass a drug and alcohol test; people who are at work on time; people who are productive. The unfortunate part of this story is many of our offenders are not at the starting line in any of those areas. They need to be supported, and the unfortunate part is they are in a correctional facility which provides that. Let us make it a one-stop shop; let us not have them come back a second time, or a third time, let us get it right.
The other thing about the model with the outreach program, the work camp in the Barkly is that we can duplicate this. The debate has gone around, pure horticultural models, work ready models, links with the community, links with real business. My position on horticulture is we have some very well run, professional, industrious, horticultural projects across the regions. We have experts in this field who are making millions of dollars out of it. Why would I not want prisoners in the correctional system attached to those businesses? Why would I not want them with the best brains in the country? Why would I not want them in a positive environment where they will experience success? I believe the outreach programs have the opportunity to demonstrate this.
Our community work parties in Alice Springs and Darwin do this everyday. We are attaching accredited training to it, we are attaching our people to the real world industry, and we are going to make the links. The BIITE program, which has constructed a 24-bed demountable relocatable facility at the Berrimah Correctional Centre, has produced people who have gained jobs; some of them working on the SIHIP project in remote areas. I certainly hope we do not see them back at Berrimah - unless they are driving a motor car into town to come and swim at the wave pool.
This is life changing stuff. This is what the member for Nelson and I have been working on, debating, and working with an expert panel to deliver – a raft of initiatives, a combination. We get back to the fact we have to have the infrastructure, and the Berrimah Correctional Centre is ageing, inappropriate infrastructure which is holding everything back. We need to nail this one; we need to have this job completed so we can then look at the whole sweep of initiatives through a new era to deliver what we all want. That is what this motion is about. So, let us fine-tune this.
Member for Nelson, the government supports this motion and I support this motion. We are looking at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, we are testing soil, we are looking for water resources and utilising the land we have around the correctional facility, and we are about doing that very soon, and we are interested in horticultural opportunities. I did not have a chance at the Alice Springs sittings because there were time constraints - the agenda went on different twists and turns – however I received a basket of fruit and vegetables which were produced at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The message from the prisoners who produced that food was: show the parliamentarians, show the member for Nelson, yes, we are in this space, we are small, we are doing accredited training around this, but we are doing it. I was very proud of that. Those vegetables ended up with the Missionaries of Charity, who would have cooked them up and fed them to the disadvantaged kids they work with on a daily basis. They were much appreciative of the basket as well.
The Alice Springs Correctional Centre is a really good example of where we can test the field of horticultural opportunities. As I have said, I am much more interested in linking offenders who fall into our correctional services system with Centrefarm, with the Ali Curung melon farm, with farms in Katherine, with people producing Asian vegetables in the rural areas around Darwin. I am much more interested in linking offenders with people who know how to do this, who do it on a large scale, and will offer people opportunities to go forward in their lives, and offer life-changing experiences.
Member for Nelson, the Alice Spring facility, and this opportunity, is a great way to start expanding this concept while we are working through all the options and developing the bigger model. The motion is a good one because it, once again, gets this debate into parliament and the public arena.
We are changing, we need to change, and we need to make a difference with our offenders, and the re-offending rate. The facilities are one part of it; the programs and rehabilitation are another part of it, and government can provide that. However, it also comes down to a great measure of community responsibility. Governments can provide the resources, can set up the systems, but it comes down to community responsibility. At the moment, I hear too many stories about offenders who have turned their lot around and returned to their community, only to fall into the trap, the cycle, of crime that creates the re-offending, and the return to a correctional facility.
We know the challenges across the Territory, in our urban areas, in our regional areas, and in our remote areas. We know the physical, infrastructure, social, and the cultural. We know all these areas are challenging. However, at the end of the day, I say to each and every Territorian: ‘You can make a difference’. You can advise that young man not to get in that car and drive it. ‘You do not have a licence’, or ‘you have been drinking’. The community will support what we are doing. We cannot do everything. That is the reality of it. However, sometimes I am led to believe in his House it is my fault, my responsibility, for every possible disadvantage we experience. Well, thank heavens I do not believe that.
When we talk about our Correctional Services facilities and prisoners - we need them to start focusing on a positive, not a negative. We need their families to start focusing on a positive. A great example of this is the Elders Visiting Program. This is one program where, when people are challenged with their offending behaviour, they are then given some clarity in their space through an ordered, supported, environment, and are then immersed in education and awareness, when they approach their elders - maybe for some considerable length of time - they approach that space with a clear understanding and vision, with the acceptance of what is being said, with the hope of change.
There are many things happening in our Correctional Services facilities. I am very proud of the people I meet on the front line doing the work. The member for Nelson mentioned the women’s section which we will open on Friday. We have a small population of women prisoners in the Northern Territory, and we do not want to see any increases. Once again, the infrastructure component of this will support a more normalising of the Correctional Services system, and the support structures these people need. Also, it will release other space, where education, planning and programming is moving in.
This is a small step, but a good step within exiting infrastructure. We are talking about the new era, and moving outside into more creative space. We are talking about a new era ...
Ms Purick: A new era!
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, we are talking about a new era.
Mr Conlan: We need a new era.
Ms Purick: Especially in power.
Mr McCARTHY: We can make fun of it; we can gibe about it, and use it in politics. In the 12 months I have been working with the department, I am very impressed, and very proud of my term, and we will move forward, and we will move forward working together.
The member for Nelson is definitely in that space. I encourage anyone to join that space because, when we start to make real differences, and when we start to see the reduction in the cycle of re-offending, we will start to see a reduction in the social issues so often thrown in my face from that side of the House, from an opposition who often, I feel, live very miserable lives.
It is unfortunate to live a miserable life. Come to Tennant Creek and smile; that is what I can offer. If you want to cut to the chase, we are in a hard space and it is going to take work and energy to get through this, however it will be part of the solution we are looking for. It will be part of the solution for remote communities. It will be part of the solution for regional communities, and it will be part of the solution for urban communities - not everything, but it will be a big part. I get the feeling people are starting to suffer now. What, he has gone on this long! They are not happy.
Ms Purick: No, you are boring.
Mr McCARTHY: I am boring. Very good! Bring it on member for Goyder, bring it on! You can call names, you can run people down, but you cannot take it. Bring it on!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: If that is boring, member for Goyder, you should advise me on what is exciting. What is meaningful? What is life changing for Territorians, and I would take your learned advice. As far as boring, no, I am not going to accept that, because there is too much to do in this new era of Corrections. There is far too much to do. We have spent a very measured, a very hard slog in my first 12 months as minister, and we are now going to see the results of hard labour. We are going to see the results, and Territorians will celebrate this.
Member for Nelson, it is funny, in a portfolio which does not have a sexy feel, in a portfolio which does not get much glamour, one thing I have found in the community as I travel throughout the Territory is we have support for the new era in Corrections. We have support from Territorians who say: get out there and have a go, try something new, try something creative, try something different. We have heard enough of the negativity, of the run down, of the put downs; get out there and try something which will make a real difference. That is what the Henderson government is about. It is not about soft options, it is about taking on the difficult, about taking on the challenges, and we will make a difference.
A member: A talkfest.
Mr McCARTHY: I pick up on the interjection; a talkfest. In this House, in my debate, I am allowed 30 minutes, and I am using my time, as I notice the members of the opposition used their time. If it is too tough to endure 30 minutes, hit the lobby. There is too much work to be done, and I support the motion. I commend the member for Nelson for bringing the motion forward, and I am proud to say the Henderson government supports this motion.
Members interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: In terms of my background as a teacher, if a student did that, normally I would stop.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you ask the honourable member to direct his comments through the Chair?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Minister, could you direct your comments through the Chair?
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly. Madam Speaker, I apologise for falling into the trap of picking up on interjections from the other side in this most important debate.
Member for Nelson, thank you for bringing this motion forward. The government supports this motion. We have learned much on the journey so far. I encourage other members to take an interest in that journey, to take an interest in the options being developed in the new era, and to be part of the solution rather than the problem.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am sure everyone in this House knows the Country Liberals policy on prison reform which we took to the 2009 election; what we proposed for Katherine, and what we have previously spoken about for Alice Springs.
This motion is confusing. I understand there is land next to the Alice Springs gaol which has a farm for the prisoners. I am not sure …
Mr Wood: It is a commercial farm?
Mr GILES: There is a commercial farm next to the prison which has not been maintained, and has things growing on it. I am not sure what this fits in to. In relation to the investigation, sure it is an investigation. As I said, there is already a farm next door, there are houses next door for low security, and there is already water at Alice Springs farm. As a party, we support prison farms. There is not a great deal of information here to go on. It is some sort of utopian touchy feely thing - like Independents not wanting to get involved in policy, I suppose. Of course we support it, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his contribution - if you can call it a contribution. I also thank the member for Barkly. It is a pity the member for Braitling gave some very off-the-cuff remarks which show little regard for what was being put forward.
Mr Giles: You want to do an investigation about something which is already established.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You had half-an-hour to give your speech, you could have used half-an-hour.
The motion put forward is to develop ideas; that is why we have motions. You asked if the government does the investigation. If you say …
Mr Giles: They are the government. They should have already done it. The government should have already done it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr WOOD: Excuse me; you have had your 30 seconds of intelligence. Member for Braitling, this says …
Mr Giles: Investigate something that is already there.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me. That is right, and the information I have been given in relation to a water supply close to - within the prison or adjacent to - an adequate water supply is that is not so. It might be, with more investigation. They might have a small farm there, but I have never known them to have a commercial farm. They obviously do grow some things.
The member for Barkly did bring a basket of goods in - we should have shared them and eaten them down the back, member for Barkly. It was a very impressive basket of fruit and vegetables, and shows it can be done.
We are looking at developing industries more on a commercial basis rather than having little cottage industries. I have been through the Alice Springs prison, and I have noticed the Indonesian fishermen who were housed there. They were growing vegetables on a small amount of land which was available. You have approximately 650 prisoners in Alice Springs. You have a large township; 25 000 or 27 000 people. You have communities surrounding that area. There is a possibility of developing a farm to supply fruit and vegetables for a large number of prisoners.
To do that - if you happened to study this area - you need to do proper studies into the soil types. You want to ensure, for instance, there is no salt; you want to ensure the pH is suitable; you want to ensure the soil is suitable, and you want to ensure there is adequate water. You also want to ensure the slope is okay, because that can cause erosion. It is not only water being available. Horticulture is a science; commercial horticulture is a science and requires careful planning and development.
To set up a prison farm is not cheap, nor is equipment to run a prison farm. To have tractors, spray equipment, ploughs, rotary hoes, putting in irrigation systems, putting in dams or tanks, putting in pumps, fencing, buying fertiliser, buying sprays, and buying your seeds requires money. It is not just: there is a garden. It requires careful planning; and it requires feasibility studies to see if it will work. That is what this is about, and if it is some utopian idea, I am sorry; I come from a different school.
This is about practical changes. This is what I was brought up on; this is one area I can talk about, because it is why I came to the Northern Territory; to do this. I have some understanding of it, and it is not utopian. Was Gunn Point Prison Farm utopian? It failed for other reasons; not because it could not grow vegetables, could not produce meat, could not produce poultry and could not produce bread. It was for other reasons, but we can do it, and I believe it is important. In the Territory, as I said before, we have a different clientele; 80% Indigenous. We need to have industries in those areas where they live, where they feel they can get some skills and training.
I know the member for Sanderson asked what programs we have to deter people. I believe the member for Barkly and I know there have to be deterrents, and one of the issues we agree on is structured programs. We need structured programs where people go to work; they get up, they make their bed, they have their breakfast and they go to work, and at the end of the day they do programs. Programs might be at the beginning of the day, work might be at the end; however, there will be a structured day. We do not want people sitting around in prison having a nice day. They are in there for a reason, they are in there because they did something wrong. However, we use that captive audience, if you want to call it that, to achieve better things for them, so they do not come back.
If we are discussing policies on Corrections, if the CLP has a policy it wants to put out, I say to them the test of a good policy, when it comes to Corrections, is whether your recidivism rates drop. We have high recidivism rates, and we have to change it. We have seen recidivism rates drop in places like Ballina, in northern New South Wales near Lismore. I have seen recidivism rates at 20% when I visited a prison in Ohio, where it was a therapeutic community. I still believe we need to look at that particular type of facility. It is a self-help facility where prisoners, under strict regime, help themselves to change their world around.
We can say, yes, we should do this and we should do that. You also have to realise prisoners are sometimes in situations they would rather not be; they are drug dependent, they are alcohol dependent, they have other problems in their life, and we need a holistic approach. Yes, this is part of a holistic approach.
I do not know if the member for Braitling understands that this is not the be all and end all. This is an approach which is part of the big picture; it is part of believing those humans in our prison are worthy of trying to change their lives around; if it is totally about punishment, let us stick them in Berrimah. I say to people who think Berrimah is a good place, have a look. I have been there several times and if you talk about sheep and cattle yards, that is what parts of it are like. That is not the way we should be treating human beings, regardless of what they have done. We need to have punishment, we also need to help those people turn around so they pay the price to the community, they learn some skills, they can overcome some of their problems, so that they do not come back, and they become better citizens.
It is not simple; it will not be easy. Unless we have early intervention and follow up, we are not going to achieve anything except a pile of fences, sheds and tractors. We have to look at the total picture; this is a small part of it. It was a motion for the Alice Springs parliament saying to people in Central Australia it should be debated while we are in Central Australia. Unfortunately, it did not happen because we ran out of time. It is important to put this debate into the community, as the member for Barkly has said.
He has taken the debate about work camps into Tennant Creek; he has the community looking at the issues. Most communities, enlightened communities, people who think well, would believe these facilities if well run in their community are of benefit to the community. We have to take, as human beings, responsibility for the problems of society, not always the government.
I have heard about problems in Alice Springs. The member for Braitling - good on him - is out there and knows there are antisocial behaviour problems. There were antisocial problems when I went there too. I went specifically to talk to police, the mayor, and business people about antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. You cannot always blame government. I asked people recently: ‘What is the motto of Litchfield Shire? It is Community Effort is Essential’.
John Maley and a few people got together many years ago and created it. John Maley left me with something I have always believed is great: you can have all the regulations in the world, you can have all the rules in the world but sometimes we have to take responsibility as a community. I use the example of a dead dog on the road and someone rings up the council and says: ‘Can you pick this dead dog up?’ We are in a rural area; do not think we are in Nightcliff. At $95 an hour and travelling time, it costs the council $300 to move a dog they could have picked up, thrown in the bush and let it rot away, or give it to the crows.
I say the same thing with some of the problems in our society. If we have problems in Alice Springs – I am not saying this is the only answer. Sometimes the community itself has to be the mechanism for change. You can have police on the beat everywhere. You can have the punishment side to what is happening, and I am not saying people should not be punished for misbehaviour. However, it is their responsibility in the community. How many Aboriginal communities in Alice Springs? How many organisations such as Rotary or Lions? There are progress associations, councils, all types of things. How much of that responsibility for change belongs to the individual rather than government?
Governments are easy prey. You can ring them like you can ring the council to move a dog. Why do we not do some things ourselves? People would ring me and say: ‘My drain is full of gravel; the water is not going under the culvert’. I would say: ‘You know what a shovel looks like? It has a handle, and you can actually clean it out yourself. Otherwise we can send a backhoe and several blokes around to clean it out at some extraordinary cost, which you will pay for in the next rate declaration’.
We all have to, as citizens of the Northern Territory - not just the government - try to back some of these changes. Sometimes industry has said it does not want people in prisons making trusses or selling vegetables, doing this or doing that. Industry is part of the solution. People in industry have to say: ‘We need to help these 1000 people and give them a chance’. That means if they create work and that work is sold, or that work is somehow used to keep the prison system going, as it was in Muswellbrook, then we should be encouraging, not discouraging it.
This is part of a bigger picture; it is a very important picture. I do not think you can just say it is a silly idea; there is a garden there already. It is much bigger than that, and it is much more important to give it reasoned debate of more than 30 seconds to fill in the time. I believe both sides of parliament have to work together. It is easy to use this debate politically. Locking prisoners up is a great way of pretending to get more votes. However, in the end, we have to be more mature, above party politics, and work together on these problems, which are not party political. They are Territory problems, and we should all work together to fix them.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion and hope other members will as well.
Motion agreed to.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION (SERVICE MEDAL) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 74)
(Serial 74)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In so doing, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Our police force does an extraordinary job. The police force works in some of the harshest places in the country. Our police force puts up with challenges which are unique to the Territory. Our police force is placed under ever growing pressure to do more with less, and a changing, and at times challenging, society. We know some of the problems dealt with by our force. We know the problems relating to alcohol, problems relating to isolation, problems relating to disadvantage within the community, and the list goes on. Our officers are outstanding servants of the community, and so much so, we continue to see our officers turn up at very senior positions elsewhere in the country, whether in the force or post-force service.
We have a force which has a great relationship with the public, and on that, I believe more should be and could be done to continue to build this respect, especially through an expansion of programs like the school-based constables; more on that another time.
It is appropriate our officers are recognised for their service and, indeed, those officers who served through 10 years service in the Territory, or as a member of our force on secondment elsewhere, something that in itself should be recognised. There are, or soon will be, provisions to recognise national service in police forces for certain time markers, and that is appropriate to do so. I do not support the awarding of our service medal to officers who have spent a portion of that 10 years’ service as a member of another jurisdiction’s police force. I am sorry to say this to those officers, but on that, I believe a national recognition is appropriate, and our service medal is for our coppers who serve the people of the Territory for 10 years.
After being informed a medal was awarded to another officer for joint service, I chose to bring forward this bill. In doing so, I took into consideration views of police officers current and past, views of the community and views of the police peak body, the Police Association. It is interesting to note, in correspondence with the Police Association, that they have approached the Chief Minister and the Police minister on this matter, and nothing has happened. This is the same Chief Minister who wants to talk relentlessly about how great he is at supporting the police force. They are fine words, but where is the action? To add insult to injury, it was over a year ago, ahead of the last election, this Labor government promised they would do something about this matter, and here we are, over 12 months later, and what have we seen, nothing - talk about hot air.
In regard to the bill itself, it amends the Police Administration Act, and it amends the provisions associated with a period of service that could be considered towards the Police Service Medal. The purpose of these proposed provisions is time served as a member of another jurisdiction’s police force cannot count towards the 10 years’ service for the Police Service Medal. The specific amendments are as follows:
The Police Service Medal is to be awarded to members who have completed 10 continuous years’ service with the Northern Territory Police. The entire 10 years of service is to be with the NT Police Force, or on secondment to prescribed organisations such as the NT Police Association, and the Australian Crime Commission, etcetera. The total period of 10 years can be broken by periods of unpaid leave, but that unpaid leave is not considered part of the 10 years’ total service. If a member resigns before completing 10 years service, and is subsequently reappointed as a member within two years of the date of his resignation, the commissioner can consider the period of service prior to a resignation as part of the 10 years’ period for awarding the service medal.
The Country Liberals are strong supporters of the police force, and we will continue to strengthen our force and recognise the service of our force members. There can be no doubt on that front because, on my team, I am proud to have good people who know the experience of being members of our force, and are proud to serve. This bill is a straightforward bill, but it is an important bill and one members of this House should support.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN ASSAULTS) BILL
(Serial 87)
(Serial 87)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. In so doing, I table the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
This bill is a straightforward bill designed to have a clear message and an unambiguous consequence, therefore it is not necessary to provide a long-winded speech. The policy intention is to make it clear to would-be violent criminals we, on this side of the Chamber, value the contribution made by our public servants and recognise all too often they face unreasonable people who think it is appropriate to lash out at them while those hardworking servants of the public are merely doing their duty.
This is not acceptable and, as a leader within the community, I will not accept this message having any credibility. That is why I have brought forward a bill which sets out clear minimum mandatory sentences for assaults on our hardworking frontline public servants. I have said previously on this matter, and in this House, these people serve us and it is our duty to serve them, and give them the protection they need.
The bill I have presented amends sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Code. Change to section 188 is directed first at section 188(2). My bill inserts a new section (2A). This section sets out that, if a public servant is assaulted while undertaking their duties, then the court must, if it convicts the person who undertakes this offence, imprison them for a minimum of one month if it is an assault. Following a conviction where the public servant suffers harm, but not serious harm, then the minimum mandatory imprisonment period will be three months. If the person suffers serious harm, the imprisonment period will be a mandated minimum of six months.
The amendment to section 188(3) contained within this bill inserts a new section which defines a public servant for the purpose of those who are, and in, the execution of their duties. This section is designed to capture public sector employees, ambulance drivers, bus drivers, health professionals such as nurses, doctors and the like. It is also designed to capture police, however the amendments to section 189 sets this out more clearly. This bill is designed to capture those public servants for the period where they are undertaking their duties in this capacity. Reference is also made to subsection (2)(fa) as being deemed public servants for the purposes of this bill.
Amendments are also being made to section 189A of the Criminal Code in reference to police officers. A new subsection (3) is inserted which sets out mandatory minimum period of imprisonment for assaulting police officers; assaulting police officers causing harm; and, assaulting police officers causing serious harm; setting out one month, three month and six months respectively.
Public servants need to know they are valued, and there is no doubt we on this side of the Chamber value their contribution. In doing so, we want to send a clear message to would be criminals who would assault and/or injure those outstanding people while they perform their public duty. We are on this side have a clear message for those people - do not even try, because if you do, you can be guaranteed you will face mandatory gaol time. It is no ‘ifs’, it is no ‘buts’ and it is no excuses; that is how it should be.
All Territorians should be assured that when they go to work they will be protected by the law; public servants who deal, on a daily basis, with the public are in no way mistreated, manhandled or physically assaulted by someone who is incapable of keeping their emotions under control. As I said before, there is no excuse for venting frustration on a customer service provider who has gone to work that morning only to find he or she is confronted by somebody who has seriously lost control of their emotions, and who wants to make their problem someone else’s problem. The media is full of stories of people being attacked during the course of their job. Bus drivers, taxi drivers, front counter staff, they are all at the mercy of the public. The vast majority of them are decent, honourable, trustworthy citizens with similar values and ethics to the people we are trying to protect with this bill. These are not the people we are targeting. We are targeting that small minority of people who cannot control their tempers when they are out in public, who have so little control of their emotions ordinary people doing their jobs are at risk.
It is disappointing it had to be left to the opposition to introduce legislation such as this. This is the type of bill I would hope the Henderson government would have seen fit to bring into this parliament. Labor’s failure to do so, after eight years in office, brings a fair indication of its priorities over the years.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, it is 9 pm. Do you wish to continue for up to 10 minutes on this particular matter?
Mr MILLS: Yes, and I will conclude, thank you. It will be less than that, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Its focus has always been on protecting the interests of the perpetrators of crime rather than looking after the interests of ordinary law-abiding Territorians who go to work intent on providing for their families, and who find themselves on the receiving end of an unwarranted, unprovoked and senseless assault. This government’s approach to the victims of crime was recently summed up by Magistrate Alistair McGregor who, in relation to a particularly disturbing sexual assault recently, said victims are less important than defendants in court. That is this government’s approach to victims in the Northern Territory. Here on the opposition benches, we think the focus should be on the victims. That is why, through the legislation we have brought before the House, we want to protect public servants and to ensure their safety is paramount.
We believe putting minimum sentences on assaults on public servants will not only act as a deterrent to people who might otherwise behave in an atrocious fashion, but also serve as sufficient punishment for those people whose violence gets out of hand to the extent they commit an assault on a public servant or a customer service officer.
In closing, while this legislation removes the discretion of judges to provide minimum sentences to perpetrators of these assaults, it in no way impinges upon their capacity to provide higher sentences. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I propose-that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr CONLAN: May I make a request, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: We are into the adjournment now under standing orders.
Mr CONLAN: The House has not been adjourned yet.
Ms Lawrie: No, it automatically goes into adjournment.
Madam SPEAKER: I gave the Leader of the Opposition the extension at 9 pm, as advised.
Mr CONLAN: Am I able to make a request?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. The House has adjourned under Standing Order 41A. The item has been completed and the House has now adjourned.
Is there anyone to adjourn? Member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I wish to talk tonight briefly about the Australia Day dressage …
Mr Conlan: It would take 10 minutes; it is crazy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: … about the Equestrian Club’s dressage competition which was held at Freds Pass Reserve on the Australia Day weekend. The lead up to Australia Day was a very wet time, so there was some concern how the day would turn out in regard to the competition. It turned out to be a lovely sunny day, albeit a little humid and hot. The main judge for the day was from interstate, Maria Schwenneson, an A level judge from Queensland. She is not only an Australian judge; she is also an international judge. She was ably joined by Judy Sheldrake, who is one of our A level judges in the Territory, as well as Vanessa Lines from the NT, who qualified as the judge in 2008, and Susan Barton, also from the NT, who is working towards her qualifications as an equestrian judge. Horse judges are always required in the Northern Territory, and I encourage anyone who is interested in this sport to get involved.
It was a good day with many horses quite spectacular in their presentation, as were the riders. The day ended about 2.30 pm. The results of the day were as follows, and I offer my congratulations to not only the first place getters, but also second and third.
The preliminary test was Shalee Bird on her horse, Hollbrook Milton; the novice test was Jenny Jones on Willowcroft Black Jack; elementary test was Jenny Jones on Aslan’s Gold; medium test was Lisa Mutimer on El Gems Toby Lerone; and advanced test was Jan Cole on Madison Deck. Congratulations to all the riders and, of course, a big thank you to all the judges, particularly the interstate judges, the helpers, the scribes, the riders and, of course, the sponsors and the people who pull the day together.
It is a very popular activity with the rural area equestrian and pony clubs, and they have a full calendar planned for this year. In mid-March, there is an event where they have equestrian activities to music in the early evening.
On a sad note, I offer my sympathies to one of the riders who picked up awards on the day, Nicole Mutimer. She had a horse called Red Adair, which, sadly, she lost recently in a tragic accident on a property. I saw her ride this horse and it truly was a magnificent animal; very handsome and very majestic. I have already offered my sympathies to her, however, I place on the record that I hope she finds another horse equally as majestic as Red Adair.
One other point, Pam Crellin, who is a well known identity in the horse and equestrian scene in the rural area, and has been for decades I believe, well respected - she is a coach, a trainer, has been a rider herself and, I presume, has been a judge - is facing and battling an illness. She has been in and out of hospital. I have visited her in hospital and she is a good stick. I know she is fighting it to the best of her ability. She is back training and coaching her young students. I know her activity and love of equestrian events will probably pull her through this illness. I wish her all the best.
Congratulations to all the equestrian people and their families in the rural area.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to be here with some good news. I love the Darwin Sailing Club, I love the Trailer Boat Club, and believe everyone loves both clubs - two of the best of places in Australia to kick back and have a beer, a meal, and watch the sunset. They are perched right on the beach, part of the great Territory lifestyle. There is a reason they are two of the best places in Australia. There is a great big rock wall which stops them being washed away. Unfortunately, at the moment, that rock wall is being washed away. That is no good - no rock wall, no clubs. The Darwin Sailing Club and the Trailer Boat Club will both be washed away, which would a disaster.
That is why government has kicked in $1.6m to rebuild the rock wall. The tender has been decided and work started last Friday. I can guarantee members two of the best places in Australia are going to be saved; they are not going to go anywhere. I was on-site recently with the new Lands and Planning Minister, Gerry McCarthy, to show him the old rock wall which is being washed away. It was built 20 years ago; it has done its job. If any member is interested, you can head down there during the Wet Season and see the damage caused by the tides in Darwin. You can imagine the kind of damage that would be caused during cyclonic conditions.
As I mentioned, the government has kicked in $1.6m to protect these iconic clubs. Everyone would take visiting friends and relatives to the Darwin Sailing Club and the Trailer Boat Club - beautiful place; the sunsets are fantastic. The decision to make that investment was easy because of the quality of work done by both clubs to demonstrate the need, the solution, and the overall quality of the submission from the clubs addressing their needs. That takes a lot of coordinated work, and it is good to see both clubs working together.
I thank both clubs. From the Trailer Boat Club: Kevin Jenkins, Greg Altmann, Brant Butterworth and the committee members of the Darwin Trailer Boat Club; and Peter Lockett, Commodore Barry Stach, and the management committee of Darwin Sailing Club; and John Mulkearns from SKM.
The Ostojic Group won the contract for construction, and it is great to see a local company winning the contract. Ian Hinchcliffe from Ostojic Group is in charge of the project, with Emma Bell as project manager. The work on the rock wall will take a few months - probably by the end of March it will be fixed. During that time there is a section of beach which cannot be used, but it is all for a good cause – to save both those clubs, which we do love.
If you love Darwin, a sunset, a cold drink and a great meal - and I am sure everyone here who is listening does - then get on down to the Sailing Club and the Trailer Boat Club. On Sunday morning, the Trailer Boat Club does breakfast - it is fantastic.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening I mark the recent death of my aunty, Nangi Nungurrayi, and pay a tribute to her memory. Nangi was a member of one of the first family groups of Pintubi people to be brought in from the Western Desert to Papunya settlement. She was a woman of grace and refinement, elegant, beautiful, an artist of great originality, a leader among women, and traditional to the core. She carried her Tjukurrpa – her country, within her. There was no one who was more a symbol of the deserts and all they are for the people of the Centre. I pay my respects to all her surviving family: her brother in Marble Bar, her sister, Naata, and her children.
Nangi was delicate and slight of stature, but she had a strong will and a clear sense of her path in life. When she began painting for white people in the 1990s, she transferred her country into her paintings. She found great pleasure working in paint, remembering that her law and culture was still strong. This is what she succeeded in putting into her canvases. Culture comes in two forms; it is not just about your identity, it about your law and songs. She carried all that in her, and it is the singing of her songs that made her paintings what they were - majestic, shimmering, dazzling in colour, and in line and force.
I could speak at great length about her life and her place in her home community of Kintore, but tonight I mention, above all, the way she faced the ultimate test of character - her looming death, She knew very well that last weekend she was brought in from Kintore that she was dying. Her family gathered around. She was calm, despite her pains. She said a quiet, dignified farewell to all her relatives. She said goodbye to the white people who had most cared for her, Cheryl Nungurrayi and Chris Symons. She said goodbye to her children. She knew she was going to a deeper level of creation.
Fellow parliamentarians, I sometimes find it hard to see the meaning in our struggles to make a better life for all of us in the Territory. However, when I think of my mothers and grandmothers and aunts, and all the strong men and women around me in the desert, I see how rich our world is and take heart. The wonder and beauty of traditional life are almost inexpressible. I often find myself standing in this House to mark the departure of a great man or a woman of desert law. These are moments of the deepest sadness for me, because I know men and women of this kind, wholly immersed in the old culture of the desert, will not come again. However, they are not fully gone. They live on, in memory, and they live on in the landscape, and in their art, and in the rhythms of nature all around us.
I spent much of my younger life roaming around the bush with Nangi, hunting, searching, and learning the ways of the desert life. We would hunt lungkata together, maku, tjupi, or honey ants, zebra finches too. She was a master of the bush. Her Tjukurrpa is all around us here in her country, but it is also on the walls of western museums and art galleries. It is a gift given to all Australia. She was an expression of everything I hold dear in desert life. I feel happy to have known her, and to have walked down the same paths as her. It is a delight for me to summon up the thought of her here tonight.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I conclude with another ending. In a far country, in the capital of Western Australia, yesterday, 16 February, at 4 pm in the Intensive Care Unit of Royal Perth Hospital, another desert leader left this world. Jackie Giles Tjapaltjarri, who was born near Jupiter Well in the Gibson Desert, passed away after a long illness. He was one of the most overwhelming and impressive of the desert’s Maparnjarra men, or magic healers. Like Nangi, he was an artist of the highest distinction. He was also a man of gentleness and generosity, a king in his world. All who met him admired his grandeur, and his grace. All who were treated by him gave thanks for his healing gifts. Even though he has left us, the deep desert is still his home. I know he, like Nangi, can hear and see me as I speak the words of tribute to him in our parliament tonight.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words about a constituent of mine, Teddy Cairns, who passed away on 21 January 2010. I thought I would take some of the obituary from the Centralian Advocate, which was very well put together by Miriam Raphael on 2 February. I will read from some of that. It was:
- … Teddy Cairns, a pioneer of community radio in Alice Springs, a dedicated lawn saler, Frank Sinatra devotee, and an insatiable dreamer.
Born Eunice May Merrill in Birmingham, England in 1921, Teddy served in World War II before emigrating to Melbourne with her parents and younger brother in 1947. With a secretarial degree behind her, she found work at the Truth newspaper, a Melbourne tabloid which was known for its divorce court scandals and pictures of scantily clad woman. It was here, as a radio gossip columnist, she earned the nickname Teddy, after Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States.
She later moved into writing news bulletins and program rosters for Radio 3AW. As television developed, Teddy worked behind the scenes on Channel 7 and Channel 0, writing and holding prompt sheets for the stars of the show.
Her photo albums show a trim and glamorous Teddy with a who’s who of actors and pop stars like Raymond Burr and Normie Rowe.
In 1964, she interviewed the Beatles at a press conference at the Southern Cross Hotel, an event she was more than happy to recall for anyone who was interested.
After seeing a job advertisement for the secretary to the manager of Conair Airlines, Teddy packed up her life in Melbourne and moved to Alice Springs. [Her son], Kim, remembers the two of them moving into a room in a block of flats called ‘The Mess’, where Araluen Cultural Precinct now sits. It was filled with interesting people, and Teddy made many friends there.
Teddy loved dressing up and getting involved in community events. One year during a fete at Gillian School, where she later worked as the office secretary, Teddy dressed up as the white witch of Alice Spring. The kids loved it so much she decided to take the witch to town, entertaining crowds every year at the Bangtail Muster and the Henley-on-Todd.
Once she retired in 1981, she was able to indulge that creativity by throwing herself into helping build community radio station 8CCC. For 21 years, Teddy host the popular Sunday program called The Entertainer, where she would start every show with ‘snatches of Sinatra’, whom she absolutely adored.
A music obsessive who would comb lawn sales for records, Teddy had an impressive collection with some rare finds. Aside from Frank Sinatra, who she saw perform live twice, Teddy was a great lover of jazz musician, Hoagy Carmichael. She even named her dog after him.
- It was not until she was going blind and was almost immobile that Teddy finally handed the microphone over to Russell Van Hooff, who had been producing a similar show for 8CCC from Tennant Creek.
When she was not broadcasting the sound of Ol’ Blue Eyes, Teddy could be seen cruising around town on her yellow motorbike. As her balance began to fail in later years, Kim customised a bright red three-wheel scooter with a red canopy featuring a spider’s web on the back, and a Hollywood sign.
Saturday mornings would be spent with Kim at the lawn sales hunting for records and items for Teddy’s impressive ‘Tiny Town’, a room in her home which displayed more than 45 dolls houses, some larger than three foot high.
The pair were such committed lawn-salers they were the stars of the hit comedy documentary, The Search for the Shell Encrusted Toilet Seat, about Alice Springs lawn sale culture, which screened on ABC TV in 1986.
Teddy was a great lady; she will be sorely missed. She was truly one of the iconic personalities of Alice Springs. I had met her on quite a few occasions. I know her son, Kim, very well. My thoughts and best wishes go out to Kim. I know Teddy will be remembered long into the future. Teddy Cairns, 16 August 1921 to 20 January 2010.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, as Patron of the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club, I want to mention the great times the membership of this club has had during the year. The Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club welcomes people passionate about vehicles of any make, age or condition. The MVEC was formed in March 1986, incorporated in July 1987, and a sub-branch in Katherine commenced in 1989.
It is fantastic to report club membership has increased by 46 during the last year, bringing the total to 360. This is a great effort, and goes to show the enthusiasm Territorians have in their cars.
During the year, the club had to come to terms with changes to the Club Registration Scheme, but though persistence, overcame any problems, especially the registration of their Foden - a magnificent refueller truck, as most members here will know.
Highlights during 2009 were many and varied. In January, six members participated in the Australia Day Ute Run and, in February, the club took the decision to donate $2000 to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal, and $1000 to the Queensland flood victims. The club is to be congratulated on its generosity of spirit. Also in February, the club again took a major part in the Bombing of Darwin celebrations, with open days at the Hangar from 19 to 22 February.
The club is a great supporter of kids, and last year members completed more projects for Anula Preschool; took part in the ATANT trucking convoy for kids, donated $750 to Camp Quality - funds raised form a sausage sizzle - and also provided $150 to Nightcliff Lions Children’s film festival. This club just goes on raising funds and donating to terrific organisations. In March, it gave $515 to Legacy, proceeds from the Aviation Heritage Centre open day sausage sizzle.
However, the club did purchase materials and constructed a dust cover for the Sandfly, and also bought a moving picture frame to display restoration work on the engine - a massive feat completed in 2008.
Fun events along the way included a Gangsters and Molls Ball at Berry Springs; provision of vehicles for the opening of the new suburb of Lyons; the MVEC v CHCC cricket match at Batchelor, which the MVEC guys won; pre-start breakfast and entry in the Rejex Rally over three days in August; support for the Katherine Festival; Shannons open day at Hidden Valley, with up to 90 vehicles driving from the Hangar to Hidden Valley - what a show - Father’s Day run to Emerald Springs with club car show at the Hangar on the Sunday; and, in September, the Club’s Hangar was the destination for a run from Longreach to Darwin to commemorate the Hudson Fysh and Pat McGuiness survey of the route for the Australian government in 1919, prior to the great air race from Great Britain to Australia.
The club provided the pre-1930 cars as escorts into Darwin to ‘Molly’, a model T Ford after it re-created Fysh and McGuiness’ journey across the outback. It is of interest that during this journey in 1919, across the scorched outback, Hudson Fysh and Pat McGuiness became convinced that flight was the only way to link the remote outback. Hence, the idea was born for Qantas. Ninety years on, Qantas is still operating in the Territory, linking Darwin with the rest of Australia. We would like to see it linking us with the world. We know it does not do Darwin-Singapore anymore, but I am certainly on John Cason’s hammer to reinstate the Darwin-Singapore route for Qantas. There you go; we will all have to keep advocating for that.
I thank Peet Menzies, President of the MVEC and his committee for the great work they have done over the past year.
Turning to other areas of interest in my electorate, I congratulate all the students who were awarded Australia Day 2010 citizenship awards last month. In my electorate I particularly congratulate Leonie Harold from Casuarina Secondary College; Marissa Higgins from Jingili Primary School; Sevasti Karavas from Millner Primary School; Kelly Gahan from Moil Primary School, and Samantha Martin from Wagaman Primary School, who have been recognised for their outstanding citizenship qualities within their school, and the community.
I welcome teachers and students back to school, and in particular, welcome two new principals to my electorate in Lyn Elphinstone at Casuarina Senior College, and Carin Symonds at Jingili Primary School. Both these schools are fantastic institutions, and I hope they both will enjoy working within them. Jingili school community is extremely close-knit, and I am sure Carin’s skills will only enhance it.
Lyn has spent many years at Dripstone, and will bring her diverse talents across to CSC at a time when the Year 10s have now completely settled in, and the college is steaming full power ahead. As I have said in this House many times, I am proud to be the member for Johnston. The schools in the electorate do a fantastic job, the people are fantastic, and I certainly enjoy my work as local member.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on several issues which highlight, again, some of the problems government has at the coalface. In this case, we have a government which sprouts they are concerned about the housing problems in the Northern Territory, and yet everywhere you turn you hear of issues affecting people.
One such area is in the Howard Springs/Humpty Doo area, where people have bought land and bore licences have not been approved. I have been following this for the last few weeks and, in fact, I received a letter today from a gentlemen letting me know that, finally, one of the bore permits have been issued.
It was a very frustrating process. No one seemed to know anything about it. It highlights people are kept in the dark and often receive differing snippets of information, or misinformation from departments. One gets the feeling something that is of supreme importance to an individual, or a group of individuals, has little importance to the government department which administers it. To be told all bore permits are on indefinite hold while the government conducts a review of the water management legislation, with no indication of how long it would take, was a monumental blow to people desperately trying to build their own homes in the rural area. What I found difficult to fathom was this information was not even provided to the bore drilling companies, who rely on providing this service for their livelihoods.
I purchased an $80 hand-held GPS online from America a while ago. I could track its progress online from where it originated, through seven or eight handling points, all the way to my post office box in Palmerston. There was no need to make a telephone call to find out what was happening with it. If it was delayed, I could see exactly where I was. Trying to track down who currently has a file on the issue of land titles, or water bore applications, is virtually impossible and quite frustrating when you are passed from one department to another by telephone. I am sure government departments have huge workloads, and become equally frustrated with hundreds of calls from bewildered customers. Maybe what is needed is a file tracking system, and maybe a dedicated one-stop file tracking officer who can advise customers exactly how their file is progressing or, as perceived by many people, who is currently sitting on it. To solve it all, we have to install Fedex into our government departments, we can track files, and we will have answers for people in a very short period of time. We solve the problem!
Another one, a letter from Training Skill Services - we understand this company has been a VET provider in our schools. This is the one I alluded to in an earlier debate. I received an e-mail yesterday advising a decision still has not been made whether to approve this training provider. I find it frustrating to have a government which talks about supporting our youth, VET training, and education in the Northern Territory. As I described in an earlier debate, to have an application knocked back on a technicality - and this is the advice I have been given - because it was received in hard file instead of being received electronically. In 2010, we cannot scan documents? I do not understand. Training Skills Services has advised those students who are sitting in limbo land they are not getting any support from the government at this stage.
I will read from the letter:
- Unfortunately, at this stage, the NT government Training Division has not awarded Training Skills Services the VET 2010 program. There is no guarantee that we will receive this funding, I have contacted the division and expressed an appeal for TES to deliver and assess VETIS 2010. Further, I have also lobbied and taken it to the minister of Education. I am awaiting their advice on my appeal.
I am hoping the minister looks at this because, quite honestly, if you have a skilled training service which can provide the services to get more of our students trained and into the workforce, that is good. I would hate to think we have a department so caught up with itself that it has made a decision based on the hard file being received rather than an electronic file.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to let you know, in accordance with standing orders, the following report is provided regarding my recent research trip to Perth, Western Australia, from Tuesday, 12 January to Sunday, 17 January 2010. During the trip, I had the opportunity to meet with INPEX and ConocoPhillips, and learn about renewable energy technology, as well as some exciting emerging technologies which may have the potential to provide natural gas for the long term.
The information has provided valuable insight into the oil and gas industry, as well as renewable energy. This information has provided me with a valuable resource that will, no doubt, assist in future policy negotiations and directions impacting the Northern Territory. I was particularly interested to learn more about carbon capture and storage technology, and the emerging technology associated with producing methane using microbes.
I would like it noted both INPEX and ConocoPhillips provided detailed background on their respective businesses, and were able to demonstrate their work around the world leading to positive impacts on our delicate ecosystems. Learning how these companies work at protecting ecosystems, particularly around project sites, was insightful. INPEX has an environmental policy, and I read the following quote:
- INPEX is a worldwide oil and gas exploration and development company committed to delivering energy resources in an environmentally responsible manner.
We recognise that we have a responsibility to support the principles of sustainable development and that we owe a duty of care to both the natural environment and the communities in which we operate.
My trip, and the organisations I had the privilege to visit, has assisted in improving my knowledge within the respective industries. It has also provided valuable understanding of how these companies view the relationship they have with the Northern Territory, and how that relationship will continue into the future. Politicians are often publicly accused of the heinous crime of travelling, and no one should accept any form of travel unless need is demonstrated. However, no one can deny the importance of learning and, of course, the relationships which can be forged leading to long-term benefits for the Northern Territory. I expect this is one aspect of politics I will need to become used to. What I can say is that I sincerely agree with the concept that all travel should be transparent for all parliamentary members, including ministers.
In summing up, I thank staff members from INPEX, including our local Darwin General Manager, Sean Kildare, and ConocoPhillips’ staff, who took valuable time to provide their presentations. No question was too hard, and the information provided was open and honest. Thank you for your time; it was an invaluable experience and I sincerely appreciate it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make some clarifying remarks in regard to the motion put earlier this evening regarding a prison farm for Alice Springs or, as the member for Nelson said, to investigate a prison farm near Alice Springs gaol. There was not much time for comment because we were trying to get through General Business Day to reach other matters, so I spoke very briefly. However, I did point out there are already facilities in Alice Springs gaol, even though they are fairly run down. There are farm facilities, orchards, chickens and accommodation. My point is, if you bring a motion forward, you have to fully explain it. You also have to understand some things already exist.
I made the comment about some utopian environment the member for Nelson likes to portray. You can always have a good idea, but you have to be able to sell your idea. Sure, we support prison farms, and I said that. Our policy is prison farms, and we have already spoken about Katherine. However, you have to put forward a solid idea. We often talk about Indigenous employment and economic development, and there are perfectly good reasons why, when we talk about Indigenous employment, one might want to position a prison farm near an Indigenous community.
Thinking of Alice Springs, you have access to Santa Teresa - although the road is bad - you have Hermannsburg, which is accessible by sealed road at 100 km/h. There is easy access for people to get in and out, prison transport staff who might live in Alice Springs. There is also an opportunity to provide small scale industry in Hermannsburg. These are the things which need to come into debates like this; unfortunately the time was not available. However, you cannot put out a wishy washy motion saying: let us investigate a prison farm. You cannot have a simplistic idea; this is the problem with Independents. It is about policy, and policy development and rigour.
We can all think it would be good to launch a space shuttle from Alice Springs. That is a good idea, let us investigate it, however we have to be serious - we have to have some serious debate. This is what is missing in a motion such as this.
It was like the motion from the member for Nelson on the Alice Springs airport, which I spoke to earlier, where pre-emptive works to get land developed needs to be done. Yes, that is all well and good, however let us get the real stuff happening - the real stuff is land developed now. Government should be sending a letter to minister Albanese. We do not need a motion in parliament to tell the Planning minister to do something; that is ridiculous. It is currently proposed for that land to go up, we know it is airport land, we know Ian Kew is interested, we support this model, but this is general government business; it is ordinary stuff. Why do we have some blas motion about sending a letter to the federal minister? It is even worse, if the government has not done it - even worse!
The member for Nelson might go home upset tonight because I castigated him for his motions, but they were dumb. It is normal business.
Prison farms - we know we have prison farms. It is in his dirty little deal he has made with the government. I assume the government will be investigating it. I do not even know why we need a motion. This deal was done long before that motion was put up for the Alice Springs sittings. The member for Nelson might go home concerned about the comments I made, however, he has to be realistic.
Let us put forward a motion to debate reformation rather than what we would like to see when the rainbow comes down with the pot of gold at the end of it. Otherwise, we are kidding ourselves, there is no point talking about it, and it only deserves 30 seconds. We cannot vote against it because it was a bad motion, and we will be accused of playing wedge politics. We say: ‘Yes, it is a good idea’. We will navel gaze.
We will investigate one at Kintore too, and Alpurrurulam, and Wadeye - we would like the road sealed to Wadeye. You have to get down to the reality of how these things happen. It was a ridiculous debate, and is this whole shift from - I like Gerry, and I felt sorry when he cried; I did - I felt for him. This is the thing about moving from being the king maker, and the person supposed to work on policy, to coming back to being an ordinary Independent who steps aside from that policy, and navel gazes about a utopian society. If you are in the game you are in the game. When you put yourself at the top of the game, you play it. You take the hits from politics.
Half the people on that side of the room are lovely people. I know they are Labor people and are good old haters, but they are not bad people. I will talk to them outside this House any time. The member for Johnston knows what I mean; people are decent people. If you picture yourself holding the balance of power, get a backbone, and handle the fight. Handle the fight. If you put yourself in the position of making decisions on government policy, you have to be prepared to get in there, roll up your sleeves, and make those decisions. To decide you want to step away and have some blas motion defeats the purpose. No one can understand why you are holding the balance of a hung parliament - it is completely ridiculous.
To go back to the point, prison farms, yes, we support them. In my opinion, we should be locating them in areas where we can create local economies, wherever that is. Investigate - if the government has not investigated it they are even more useless than thought, and, and if they have not investigated it they will look worse than the minister for Planning looked on the news tonight, which was quite horrendous.
I am not sure of the size of the blocks, when they will be released, and when families can move in. The minister for Planning does not know
A member: He had no idea at all.
Mr GILES: He has no idea. Maybe he has not done any investigation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, however that is all I want to say. The member for Nelson is in a policy position. He is the king maker of the Northern Territory. He takes a role in it, or he steps aside.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to get the call. Tonight I talk about the plight of a gentlemen who is currently sitting on the front steps of this building - Parliament House, Darwin. The man’s name is Danny Kitchell; Danny is homeless. Danny is suffering from a mental disability; he is on a disability pension. He has problems associated with ADHD, and he has some special needs. Danny cannot find a place to stay, so Danny is doing a one man protest. He has been, for several nights, at the front of Parliament House. Security moves him on - they will not let him unroll his swag. He is trying to draw the attention of government to the housing crisis in Darwin. I had a chat to Danny and took a photo of him with my telephone, and I have printed that off for the benefit of all members. That is a picture of Danny on the front steps of Parliament House.
A member: What is he reading?
Mr TOLLNER: He is reading a rather large book by the look of it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to table that, and have it incorporated on the Parliamentary Record. I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: Very good. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all members for taking this matter so seriously.
Danny is in a serious situation. He is living on the streets. Because of Danny’s mental condition, he finds it very difficult to live in large groups. He has, as I said, some special needs. He needs to be in a house or a unit on his own. He has difficulty living with other people because of his mental illness. Left alone, and to his own devices, Danny has proved, in the past, he is more than capable of looking after himself and leading a full life. He has worked in the past, but he cannot be around large groups of people for very long, which makes it difficult for him, of course, to be in shared accommodation.
Danny is on the streets of Darwin like so many other people, so many hundreds of other people. We read stories constantly about people living in tents in caravan parks, mothers raising children in tents in caravan parks, public servants sleeping in cars on beaches, people who are in jobs who cannot afford rents or to purchase houses in the Top End. I read in the paper recently an organisation conducted a global survey and found Darwin is the fourth most unaffordable city in the world to live in. I find it absolutely shameful we are in that situation.
Property prices have always been high in the Territory, however, property prices were matched by wages; people earned, on average, more in the Northern Territory than they did in other parts of the country. Sadly, under this government, that seems to have changed, and even people with jobs now cannot afford rents, or to live or buy their own place. You have to ask what the government is doing about this crisis - this dreadful crisis which is driving people out of the Territory.
I have a Facebook site, with quite a few friends, and it is amazing the number of people who tell me they were forced to leave Darwin because they could not afford to live here any longer; three quarters of their wage is going in rent, and they could not get into the housing market. These are common sentiments you hear all over the place, whether you are walking down the street, whether you are opening up your Facebook site; people are really feeling the pressure, and what is the government doing about it? Well, you hear a lot of wind and fluff and bluster coming from the government - we hear how they are going to do this, and they are going to do that. The Chief Minister put out his Territory 2030 strategic plan with a heap of things they are going to do, but what are they actually doing?
What they are doing, it seems to me, is a big guess; you do not know what they are doing. We know there is a huge amount of money that seems to be disappearing, goodness knows where, but it does not seem to be hitting the ground. Every day in Question Time the standard response of any minister is to jump up and tell us how much money they have spent in their particular portfolio. We hear of record health spending. This government is spending more on health than any other government in the history of the Territory, but our health concerns seem to be getting worse; our queues seem to be getting longer.
We hear how much effort government is putting into housing, building houses, but we know they have had $700m for the best part of two and half years from the Commonwealth government; goodness knows where most of that money is going. Hopefully, the Council for Territory Cooperation will deliver a report soon, and we will be able to tell Territorians where all that money has been going. We know we are not getting houses for it. We heard the Minister for Central Australia, I believe, talk today about $140m the government is spending to build 85 houses on town camps. Eighty-five houses for $140m - something does not add up. I would like to be living in a $1m plus house, but we seem to be able to build them on town camps in Alice Springs. In every town camp I have seen in Alice Springs, the houses certainly do not look like $1m plus houses.
It does not seem to matter where you go. We hear the member for Daly, the Minister for Essential Services or whatever he calls himself, talking about the extraordinary amounts of money they are spending on the Power and Water Corporation, and yet the lights continue to go out. The minister says, like it is some great achievement, they keep throwing buckets and bucket loads of money at the Power and Water Corporation, but you go and ask the people in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs whether the power has got better, whether we have fewer blackouts and the answer, of course, is no! Things seem to be getting worse.
The state of our roads is another example. We hear this government talk endlessly about how much money they are putting into their road network, and our roads are getting worse - they seem to be getting narrower. There are anthills on the sides of the road right up to the verges, but the government is spending record amounts on roads. Well, where are the better roads? There are none and, unfortunately, the person I took the photo of tonight, Danny Kitchell who is staying at the front of this parliament, in a single man protest to the government, is a symptom of this malaise which permeates the whole of this Territory government in this desire to throw money around willy-nilly.
No one seems to care about results. No one seems to care whether they are delivering better services. It seems to me the end game is actually spending the money like it is some great achievement; they spent more money than anybody else. However, we are not getting any bang for that buck at all. It is disheartening, and it is sad to talk to people like Danny Kitchell sitting out the front, a person who does have things to offer society, who can contribute in a meaningful way, but is not being given the hand up so many people in his situation deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope people take note of Danny Kitchell. He is only one man, but he is one man whose protest is symbolic of the situation so many Territorians find themselves in.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, in relation to housing because, like him, I also have people coming into my office begging and pleading for me to do something. They are at their wit’s end. They have sought appointments at other members’ offices in the northern suburbs. In one case, they were told to leave the office by a government member, which I found appalling. These people are in dire straits – all brought about by the lack of land release.
I listened to the Territory 2030 report yesterday, and how wonderful it is all going to be in 2030. I am sure it is going to be wonderful because we may not have too many people left here. We are not going to have the houses.
I heard today, and saw figures, where the government is boasting they are going to have 1100 new premises built in the Northern Territory. Late last year I heard the Chief Minister say, in Darwin alone, we need 1700 blocks of land simply to keep pace, yet we are only going to have approximately 1123 in the entire Northern Territory for the year. It does not add up. We have things in the report which I find absurd. On page 13 of the Territory 2030 report it says:
- I can assure all Territorians in this House that we are very determined to implement this plan. This plan is about making things happen. It is about saying we are going to have the most affordable housing.
In the Hansard of 16 February, page 14, in relation to this strategic plan for 2030:
- What it does do, however, is acknowledge that we need to make progress in many interrelated spheres if we are to achieve the vision. For example:
That is right if you can find a house to rent. That is if you have money to pay rent. I read an e-mail a few minutes ago from a guy who has gone to Gove to start a business in this fantastic Territory the Chief Minister tells us about, and he said he cannot even get a house and, if he can, it is going to be $900. I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy would be able to comment on that at some stage; a basic three-bedroom home for $900 a week. Why? We do not have enough land being released. The entire cost of housing is increasing.
From the ministerial statement given to us yesterday, page 14 of the Hansard, I will quote the leading bit again:
- What it does do, however, is acknowledge that we need to make progress in many interrelated spheres if we are able to achieve the vision.
The second dot point says:
access to affordable housing and the staples of life will have a positive impact on health and well being.
When you see grown men - big blokes - come into my office, who do not normally show their emotions, crying their eyes out, saying they are just about stuffed because they cannot afford to keep going, their kids are leaving town because they cannot get reasonable rent, they cannot even find a place to rent. They have other kids at home, they have partners, they have babies, and the kids say: ‘Well, see you later dad, we are moving out’. The man’s wife is absolutely devastated because the kids are leaving. He cannot leave; he has a small business to run. What does he do - he simply breaks down.
We wonder why Beyond Blue is so short of funds these days, because they are trying to help so many people get over some of the depressing stuff occurring as a result of the systemic policy failure of the government of the Northern Territory. Access to affordable housing and the staples of life will have a positive impact on health and wellbeing. A large proportion of people out there are having trouble just surviving. I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to get rid of that problem. Maybe we get rid of those people who cannot afford to stay, get them to go south, and then we will not have these people knocking on Territory Housing’s door to get a hand up.
We are not about giving people houses forever. As the member for Fong Lim said, he would like someone to give him a $1.1m house. No one minds giving people a hand up, but when you increase the cost of housing, and the cost of land, to such a point where young people will not be able to get a start in life, that is a major problem, and that is something the government should be ashamed of. Shame on the government for putting us into this situation where there are so many hard-working Territory families, mums and dads, who have a number of kids, and when the kids grow up, mum and dad still need to keep working to help the kids buy a house. The kids are moving. They have to move to places like Adelaide, or Tasmania, so they can actually afford to buy a house and have an investment. Some of them have to go there simply so they can rent, because they do not have the funds.
I say the government needs to have a very good look at how they are doing this. I go to page 15 of this document that purports to be a road map of how we are going to get there. Well, I believe they are going to get lost along the way. They know where they want to go, but how are they going to get there? I do not know whether they know this.
Go to page 15, and I quote from the page, second paragraph: ‘An example of how we are recasting this is through our key government policy frameworks. These include A Working Future, a Healthier Territory, Smart Territory, Greener Territory, Housing the Territory’ - that is a joke – ‘Growing the Territory’. I think it is growing in spite of what government is doing. We have infrastructure falling to bits, taking money out of Power, and at a time when they have had rivers of gold coming from the federal government courtesy of the GST. That was brought in by the previous federal government. We have been fortunate enough to have all this money flow in, and what have we done with it? Well, not very much. Infrastructure is failing all the time.
Growing the Territory, and I go back to the quote: ‘Growing the Territory, a safe Territory’ - well, that is a joke too. What we see is increasing crime rates; no deterrents. I heard the Minister for Correctional Services waffling on about the need for more prisons. What about some deterrents? What about tackling the people causing the problem? He talks about this grand idea - a new era. I am sure he has been reading our policy and has taken a little of it - which is a good thing, I do not mind. We are happy to give him any of our policies, and help him resolve the issues, because these are issues that face every single Territorian every single day, when you walk down the street, when you go to parks, when you go to the beach. It does not matter what you do we, as a community, are all confronted with these problems.
The last two quotes are: ‘Good government’ and ‘an Affordable Territory’. I find that appalling, and an absolute joke. ‘An affordable Territory’. Why is it so many kids are moving interstate? Why is it we are losing doctors, nurses, people from middle income Australia and young professionals who are attempting to get a start? We are losing them, we are bleeding the Territory, and we are causing a brain drain. The only people who will be able to stay here soon are those who work in the oil industry. I suspect this government is going to be responsible for creating the first capital city in this country, and perhaps in the world, that may be a fly in-fly out city.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Australia Day celebrations in Nhulunbuy were extremely well attended at Nhulunbuy Town Pool on 26 January. Arrangements for the day were coordinated by Nhulunbuy Corporation, and I make special acknowledgement of the effort of Kendell Kenway, the Corporation’s Community Recreation Officer, who always put in a 110% to the community events she coordinates. Further to that, there is always a raft of community organisations behind these types of events.
On this occasion I acknowledge Woolworths, Nhulunbuy, East Arnhem IGA, Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, Gove FM, NORFORCE, and the cadets from TS Melville Bay who organised the flag raising ceremony, Sodexho, Nhulunbuy Community Neighbourhood Centre, Rio Tinto Alcan, BC Autos, who coordinated the Beaut Ute competition, Yirrkala Banana Farm, Nhulunbuy BMX, Runners North, Nhulunbuy Tennis Club, Gove Variety Club, Gove Netball Association and the talented teenager Tamika Kaspar, who sang a beautiful rendition of the National Anthem.
Following the flag raising, was a citizenship ceremony with Mrs Virginia Francia from the Philippines, who, in front of hundreds, took her oath. It was certainly a special occasion for her.
For the first time, Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd, on the recommendation of its town board members, presented four awards known as the Town Board Awards, to people within the Gove community recognising their service during the year that generally, would perhaps go unnoticed. Recipients of those awards were Kim Wilkinson, a very busy mum with three small children, who put an outstanding effort into organising the Inaugural Teddy Bear’s Picnic during Children’s Week on 27 October 2009. It was a highly successful event which involved the Ski Beach, Yirrkala and Nhulunbuy communities. Kim also assisted with the Gove Peninsula festival, and was also a very active member of the group of women who last year lobbied hard to see maternity services retained at Gove District Hospital.
Second recipient was Nicky Mayer, Gove Tennis Club, who was a tireless campaigner for youth sport and especially tennis in Nhulunbuy, which was evidenced by her numerous trips away to accompany athletes to compete around the Territory and interstate, including in January, the grass court tennis challenge in Victoria and southern New South Wales. Nicky is head coach, and has overseen a remarkable increase in students seeking coaching as well as seeing club membership numbers reach record levels. She coordinates all the competitions held in Nhulunbuy, and was successful last year with her submission to the Northern Territory government’s Facilities Grants in receiving $50 000 to upgrade and resurface the tennis courts in Nhulunbuy
Ian Clarke was also recognised though, unfortunately, Ian and his wife, Jan, have recently departed Nhulunbuy after several years as Rio Tinto Alcan’s manager for Mine Materials, Handling and Port. He was also recognised for his efforts as an immediate past President of the Rotary Club of Nhulunbuy. Through his role with Rotary, he was actively involved in coordinating key community events, including beach volleyball, the annual Rotary quiz night, the Christmas Santa lolly run and, outside of Nhulunbuy with fellow Rotary members, was involved with community projects, including the construction of a composting toilet at Daliwuy Bay, and school projects at Garrthalala and Yilpara.
Wally Komets was also recognised with a Town Board Award, in recognition of his support for the senior citizens of Nhulunbuy over many years by coordinating a monthly dinner, as well as many other events for senior citizens. He is also a current member of the East Arnhem Historical Society, and a past member of the Lyons Club.
The recipients of the 2010 Australia Day Citizen Awards for Nhulunbuy, which are provided by the Australia Day Council, were awarded as follows. Nathan Frick received the Achievement Medallion recognising his passion in advocating on behalf of youth, and promoting the need for mental health services, especially for those living in remote locations; a recent recipient of the Young Territorian’s Excellence in Youth leadership, and former Chairman of Head Space National Reference Group. He is also a past member of the Chief Minister’s Youth Round Table, and NT Area Consultative Committee, as well as being involved in local radio station Gove FM. Nathan is certainly a very worthy recipient of the achievement medallion
Senior citizen, June Bennett, received an Appreciation Certificate in recognition of her long-term work with senior citizens, which includes running ‘Hoy’ for many years on a Friday night. She is well-known around town for her recycling efforts, picking up aluminium cans, and also coordinates the collection and sorting of items deposited in the Red Cross bins in town. She is also held in high esteem for her ironing abilities, and her baking abilities, with lemonade scones a speciality. She has cared for many children of single parents who have been shift workers, by working as an overnight nanny. Sadly, June will be leaving Nhulunbuy in the near future, but we wish her all the very best. She will be most certainly missed.
8 EAR Gove FM received the Participation Certificate for its initiative in developing and driving the Think Local, Buy Local, Be Local Campaign. The campaign has reinvigorated the local business community, and made local consumers think twice about where they spend their money, and about supporting local businesses and local jobs. The campaign also received the assistance of the local paper, The Arafura Times, and the local Chamber of Commerce and, I am pleased to say as local member, I was very proud to support it, as was the minister for Business, with both of us making cash contributions.
An Achievement Certificate was presented to Esther Rika, recognising her efforts as one of the main organisers in rallying widespread community support to raise the issue of the need to retain maternity services at Gove Hospital. This included coordinating many meetings, circulating the petition which saw more than 1000 signatures which was tabled in this parliament on 28 April 2009, and she was part of the team of women who coordinated the public march on 9 March, followed by a public meeting at Nhulunbuy Town Hall attracting some 300 to 400 residents.
Gove Yacht Club’s Ivan Danks Day was recognised as Community Event of the Year. It was held on Sunday 16 August, after an absence of a few years from the community calendar. This iconic event attracted 16 boat builders who took to the tools and sawed, drilled, screwed and glued their way for up to six hours to assemble the vessel that would float, then sail and race, with a prize for the first past the finish line. All funds raised from this year’s event were donated to St John Ambulance. Special acknowledgement must be made of the contribution of Tom and Lindsay Brown from the yacht club for their hard work in resurrecting this event.
Sarah Hanks was awarded Young Citizen of the Year. Aged 26, Sarah took on the role of President for the successful revival of the Gove Peninsula Festival during August 2009, and did this with tireless enthusiasm. She led an equally enthusiastic team of people, chaired meetings and did the hard yards during the fundraising and coordinating.
The number one spot, Nhulunbuy’s Citizen of the Year, went to Jon Regan. Jon Regan has been a solid contributor to junior sport in Nhulunbuy since his arrival in 1998. He has held many positions within the Gove Soccer Club and Gove Junior Rugby League. He has encouraged participation, and provided support for many young men and women as they attempt to gain the necessary skills to improve their performance in these sports. He has coached school boys and girls soccer teams, taking numerous teams representing the East Arnhem cluster to both Territory and interstate level. Jon has been a willing coach for Gove Junior Rugby League for many years, and is always willing to put up his hand to help with coaching.
Jon has been an integral part of many rugby trips to Katherine, which gives players from Nhulunbuy the opportunity to play against boys other than those from their own club. A number of his prodigies have gone on to state and national level in rugby league and rugby union. Jon is a quiet achiever who is not always at the forefront of clubs, but is always there to assist in the grassroots, day-to-day running of sporting organisations - he is certainly a truly worthy recipient of this award.
Further to the Australia Day acknowledgements at the Nhulunbuy celebrations, I also acknowledge and congratulate our student citizen award winners as listed in the one page advertisement in the Northern Territory News on 26 January, and recognised them for their achievements. They included Kyle Rogers, Nessie Frumenzi and Meagan Morris from Nhulunbuy; Esther Gjelilangbuy and Evellena Yalaykupa from Shepherdson College on Elcho Island.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to deal with a small electorate issue and this is the opportunity, of course, during the debates, to do so. Whilst members in this House speak of things of great moment, we occasionally forget there are issues of great concern, at a very local level, to people who live in of our electorates. I have one such issue I seek to raise this evening.
The area between Tipperary Waters and Tiger Brennan Drive in my electorate is essentially a stormwater drain, but nevertheless represents a substantial piece of land which is sadly neglected by this government - I believe it to be Northern Territory government land. Whilst the topography of the area makes it a stormwater drain, the fact is rarely does it fulfil that function except in times of heavy rain. In the meantime, it ends up being a vacant lot, essentially, which has no more care put into it than a vacant lot.
I have spoken about this particular patch of land in the past for use as an overflow area for car parking from the Tipperary Waters area. However, I was recently approached by a person who had another idea. This demonstrates people do think laterally, and when you think that you know everything, someone comes out with something from left field.
On those occasions I sit next to my van, I was approached by a lady by the name of Brooke Miller who lives in the Tipperary Waters area, and has a small dog. Of course, anyone who knows the Tipperary Waters area knows there are quite a few people living in the area with small dogs. Yet, they have to go across Tiger Brennan Drive to the playing field in Stuart Park near Gothenburg Crescent to take their dogs for a walk, if the dogs want to run around on any grass. The first thing is that it is a playing field, and playing fields and dogs do not always mix, for obvious reasons. She suggested the area between Tipperary Waters and Tiger Brennan Drive could receive some landscaping which could be done to accommodate, amongst other things, a dog walking space. I was quite taken with that idea, and I suggested to Brooke Miller that she should pursue the idea a little, and I promised I would pursue it from my end.
When you ask a person to pursue something like that, often they suddenly become quite enthusiastic. I was taken by her enthusiasm because she has now entered into correspondence with me about the idea, and even done some research. I will quote into Hansard a letter she sent me.
Dear Mr Elferink,
- I am writing regarding the need for a dog walking space within the Tipperary Waters area. As a new homeowner to the area, I have had little luck in finding a space to walk my dog off the leash. I see a large number of dog owners in this area, and am hoping an off leash area may be incorporated into future planning. Currently, we drive across the city to Mindil Beach, jog to the waterfront (where he has to stay on the leash), or we use a small partially fenced area at the Frances Bay Marina (which is not really suitable as the ‘no trespassing’ Crown land is there and well, dogs will be dogs!)
There is an oval, however, there are no fences and it is frequently used for sport.
I am a responsible pet owner who picks up after my pet, and who enjoys giving him exercise twice a day. The regular dog walkers in my area also seem to be responsible owners. Due to the high number of pet dogs and the lack of safe pet-friendly areas, could an area be designated as a fenced dog exercise area? Marlow Lagoon at Palmerston has a pet park. Perhaps the roadside area between Tiger Brennan Drive and Frances Bay could be fenced and converted into a beautiful off leash pet exercise area. The addition of obstacles and adventure activities could be added later.
Happy pet owners, happy voters,
Brooke Miller.
Indeed, happy pet owners, happy voters.
I draw this to the attention of the minister for Planning and ask him to consider what has been proposed here, because it is not a bad idea. Even if the area is not used exclusively by dog owners, at least part of that land could be set aside.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table both the letter sent to me from Brooke Miller, concerned citizen, and some of the research she did.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I table the research so the minister can get an idea of what is being proposed. Should there be a change of government, I will certainly be taking those beautification issues up with my colleagues in Cabinet, because this is the capital city of the Northern Territory - one-sixth of Australia’s land mass. To have pieces of land still unattended to in our capital city is, for me, a concern. A community which is built around beautiful open spaces is important, and this is a good way to use what is, essentially, a stormwater drain and turn it into a useful, open space so many people could use.
I urge the minister to turn his mind to this particular issue, not to fail Brooke, and advise this House what proposals he thinks are good for that particular area, and whether he thinks those proposals should include a dog park.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I can tell you, I certainly think that. Should we form a government in the Northern Territory, from a local member’s perspective, it is exactly the sort of thing I will be exploring, and keeping an eye on.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016