2014-02-20
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Minister for Mines and Energy, the member for Katherine, will not be available for Question Time today. He has, sadly, been called to a funeral and I will take questions on behalf.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Drysdale
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I ask that a leave of absence be granted for 18 to 27 March 2014 for the member for Drysdale on an account of personal matters. For the information of all members, those personal matters are the member for Drysdale’s nuptials. I am sure all members of this House will shower the member for Drysdale and her hapless victim with feelings of felicitations and good wishes.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence be granted to the member for Fannie Bay for today on an account of his attendance at a funeral in Alice Springs.
Leave granted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. For honourable members’ attention, it is a fairly long second reading speech, so if anybody needs a cup of tea, now is the time to do it.
All amendments in this bill have arisen as a result of issues with the interpretation or application of the Sentencing Act, as identified by members of the judiciary or legal profession. In response to those concerns, the operation of sections 64, 104A, and 107 of the Sentencing Act was thoroughly reviewed and investigated. The result of that process is the bill before the House today.
The purpose of this bill is to:
1. amend section 64 of the Sentencing Act to ensure that every parolee is required to serve any unexpired term of imprisonment upon sentencing for a new offence, whether their parole has been revoked by a court or the Parole Board;
2. amend section 131 of the Youth Justice Act to mirror the amendments to section 64, but with application to youth offenders;
3. amend section 104A of the Sentencing Act to alleviate inconsistency with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth);
4. amend section 107 of the Sentencing Act to allow the Supreme Court to take into account summary offences when sentencing an offender for indictable offences; and
5. introduce new sections 388, 389, 390 and 391 into the Criminal Code to allow the Supreme Court to finalise and dispose of summary charges when sentencing an offender for indictable offences.
Let me first address the amendment to section 64 of the Sentencing Act by explaining the history of the matter.
When an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a court may set a parole date, which will be the earliest date the offender may be released on parole. Once released, if the offender’s parole is breached, their parole may be revoked and they will be required to serve the time remaining on their sentence in prison, rather than in the community on parole.
Section 64 of the Sentencing Act operates when an offender commits further offences on parole and requires the court (upon sentencing the offender to imprisonment for the new offences) to order the unserved (or ‘unexpired’) period of imprisonment commence at the term of imprisonment for the new offences.
The Court of Criminal Appeal in Hankin v The Queen 25 NTLR 110 held that the wording of section 64 led to the conclusion that the provision only applied when an offender’s parole was revoked by a court upon sentence to imprisonment for new offences and did not apply if the Parole Board formally revoked parole prior to the sentence. As a result of this technical anomaly, any offender whose parole had been revoked by the Parole Board would not be required to serve the unexpired period of imprisonment and will therefore receive an unfair benefit.
It is clear that the provisions of section 64 of the Sentencing Act were never intended to give an unfair advantage to offenders whose parole was cancelled by the Parole Board as opposed to a court sentencing the offender for new offences. This bill addresses this by providing that section 64 applies equally to every parolee.
The bill repeals and replaces section 64 with an amended provision providing that every parolee who commits a new offence while on parole, is required to serve any unexpired term of imprisonment upon sentencing to imprisonment for the new offence, whether their parole has been cancelled or revoked by a court or the Parole Board.
In accordance with the current section 64, the unexpired term of imprisonment is to be served at the expiration of the term of imprisonment for the new offence.
It should be noted that the amended section 64 does not alter the current legislative position under section 14(1)(a) of the Parole of Prisoners Act that offenders are not to be credited for ‘street-time’, with section 64(2) of the Sentencing Act supporting this position by providing the term of imprisonment remaining on the offender’s sentence is to be calculated from their date of release on parole.
During drafting of the bill it was identified that section 131 of the Youth Justice Act suffered from the same defects as section 64 of the Sentencing Act, except it related to youth offenders.
In order to ensure consistency regarding the terms of an offender’s parole and consequences for reoffending while on parole, the bill also amends section 131 of the Youth Justice Act to mirror the amendments to section 64.
I will now turn to the amendment of Section 104A of the Sentencing Act, which prescribes the manner in which a court can receive information regarding customary law or cultural practice.
In accordance with section 5 of the Sentencing Act, a court must consider various principles when sentencing an offender including punishment, deterrence, the protection of the community, denunciation and rehabilitation, in addition to balancing matters specific to the offender and the seriousness of the offending conduct. Without receiving information about an offender’s cultural background, including any customary law, a court cannot make an adequate assessment of the offender’s particular circumstances and any individual sentence delivered may not address the individual circumstances of the offending.
Section 104 of the Sentencing Act outlines the general procedure for a court to receive information during the sentencing process for any offender, without reference to a particular race. It does not provide any procedural requirements, nor any restriction on information being provided; it simply allows the court to consider material ‘as it thinks fit’. Under this section, the court may be provided with information in the form of character references, victim impact statements or informal input from other members of the community. There is no requirement this information be given on oath, in affidavit form or by statutory declaration.
In contrast, section 104A of the Sentencing Act applies only to Aboriginal people and prevents a sentencing court from taking into account any aspect of Aboriginal customary law or the views of members of an Aboriginal community when sentencing an offender, unless certain procedural requirements are met.
The procedural requirements are outlined in section 104A(2) and (3) of the Sentencing Act and include a requirement that any information regarding Aboriginal customary law or the views of members of an Aboriginal community are provided on oath, in affidavit or by statutory declaration.
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency raised concern that section 104A is racially discriminatory and, therefore, inconsistent with section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) as it singles out and disproportionately impacts upon Aboriginal people as they are precluded from fully participating in the sentencing process unless the strict requirements of the section are met.
Section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) provides a state or territory law will be invalid if the law does not allow people of a particular race to enjoy a right to the same extent as people of a different race.
The Solicitor-General provided the advice because section 104A of the Sentencing Act restricts the rights of Aboriginal people compared to any other race when providing information to a court during the sentencing process, it is ‘more likely than not’ inconsistent with the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
In light of this advice and following consultation with the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the bill proposes amendment to section 104A of the Sentencing Act to:
(a) broaden the scope of the section so that the procedural requirements apply to any form of customary law or cultural practice, rather than solely applying to Aboriginal customary law; and
(b) provide the court with discretion regarding compliance with the procedural requirements, thereby giving the court the option of ordering parties to provide information in an evidentiary manner.
This amendment is designed to alleviate any inconsistency with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by ensuring the court may receive information regarding customary law or cultural practice during the sentencing process without restriction.
It is envisaged that the court would exercise discretion to receive information on oath, in affidavit form or by statutory declaration in appropriate cases having regard to the difficulties in some remote communities with literacy, the time and resource constraints on agencies providing legal assistance and the suitability of informal processes in the majority of cases.
Previously, section 104A restricted the court from receiving information from Aboriginal community members unless the information was presented by a party to the proceeding and complied with the relevant procedural requirements. As a result, community members (for example elders participating in a community court) could not present information to the court to be considered when sentencing an offender.
The only way this information could be taken into account was if one of the parties to the proceeding (either prosecution or defence) sought to present the information to the court.
Amended section 104A still applies if a party seeks to present information from a community member, however, the provision no longer excludes community members, who are not parties to the proceedings, from presenting information to the court. The court may therefore receive information from persons who are not parties to the proceeding ‘as it thinks fit’ under section 104, in the same way it would consider a character reference in any other sentence proceeding.
The amendment to section 104A has been drafted to balance the importance of customary law and culture when a court is sentencing an offender with allowing the court to order information be provided in an evidentiary fashion, if deemed necessary. However, the amendments to section 104A should not be read so as to allow the court to take into account any form of customary law or cultural practice as a reason for exercising, justifying, authorising, requiring, lessening or aggravating the seriousness of the defendant’s actions contrary to section 16AA of the Crimes Act which was introduced by the Commonwealth’s Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2012.
It is intended that information is to be received under section 104A in order to provide a context and explanation for an offender’s actions and to provide information about their role in the community, predisposition to offend, rehabilitation prospects and the impact of their offending on the community so that the court can make an assessment of the offender’s particular circumstances.
I will now address the amendment to section 107 of the Sentencing Act, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take into account summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment.
The need for amendment to section 107 was brought to the attention of the Department of the Attorney-General by the Chief Justice and Justice Jenny Blokland (in her former capacity as Chief Magistrate).
As former Chief Magistrate, she raised her concerns in the case of Police v Sullivan [2009] NTMC 035. In that case, the defendant had been sentenced in the Supreme Court for a serious sex offence which occurred in the context of a breach of domestic violence order. Although it was desirable for both charges to be disposed of by the Supreme Court in one comprehensive sentence, the court noted that the operation of section 107(6) of the Sentencing Act precluded the Supreme Court from taking into account the related summary charge of a breach of domestic violence order.
The construction of section 107(1) and (3) clearly provides for the Supreme Court to take into account related summary offences when sentencing an offender on indictment. However, section 107(6) specifically states that the court ‘must not take into account a charge of an offence which it would not have jurisdiction to try even with the consent of the person charged with it’.
As the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine summary charges, this clause prevents the Supreme Court taking into account summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment.
In the case of the Police v Sullivan, this meant that the breach of domestic violence order charge remained before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for finalisation. In order to address this issue, the former Chief Magistrate suggested that section 107(6) required ‘legislative adjustment’ to ensure that the Supreme Court could take related summary charges into account.
In the Northern Territory Criminal Code, offences are divided into three categories: crimes; simple offences; and regulatory offences. A ‘crime’ is an offence which is punishable by a period of more than two years imprisonment and ordinarily proceeds on an indictment in the Supreme Court. Simple and regulatory offences are dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
The Justices Act also provides a list of circumstances where less serious crimes, which would ordinarily be dealt with on indictment, may be finalised in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. These offences are classified as ‘minor indictable offences’.
When an offender is being sentenced on indictment, it is common practice for a sentencing schedule to be prepared, which, in addition to the indictable offence, refers to related summary offences, colloquially known as ‘back-up’ charges. The purpose of this schedule is to allow the sentencing judge to take into account summary charges at the time of sentencing for the indictable offence. This is a practice that takes place in other jurisdictions, however, it was ceased in the Northern Territory due to the problems with the interpretation of section 107.
The bill before the House was prepared in consultation with the judiciary and amends section 107 of the Sentencing Act to address the issues with interpretation and application of the provision.
Other minor amendments are also made by the bill to modernise the wording and construction of the provision. However, the intention of the original provision is retained.
Amended section 107 applies to offences that it is alleged the offender has committed, whether or not they have been charged. Although current section 107 only applies to charged acts, the expansion of the provision to include uncharged acts was raised during consultation with the Chief Magistrate and is similar to interstate practices.
Allowing the court to take into account uncharged acts will further the efficient administration of justice. There are many reasons why it may be beneficial for the court to take into account uncharged acts. For example, the defendant may have committed a large number of unlawful entry offences which it would be extremely costly to investigate, particularise, charge, and present indictments for. The operation of section 107, in this situation, would allow the prosecution to present an indictment for the most serious offences and tender a schedule of listed offences which the court would take into account when sentencing the offender.
Current section 107 is not confined, in application, to the Supreme Court, and can apply to any court, including the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In amending section 107, this position has not been altered and the provision may also be applied to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Consequently, if an offender wishes other offences, whether charged or uncharged, to be taken into account when being sentenced for an offence in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, they may rely on section 107. New section 107(3A) will, however, clarify that the intention of the provision is for the Supreme Court to take into account summary charges and not for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to take into account indictable offences that it would not otherwise be able to hear.
It should however be noted that this provision will not impact on the operation of sections 120 and 121A of the Justices Act, which allow the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to hear and determine ‘minor indictable offences’.
During consultation with the judiciary, it became clear there was a need to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to not only take summary charges into account, but also allow for summary charges to be finally disposed of when sentencing an offender on an indictment.
The practical effect of the current situation is that an offender must be dealt with by the Supreme Court on the indictable charge and then return to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for sentencing on a later date, in relation to the summary charges. Further, the Supreme Court is unable to consider all relevant conduct on sentencing, and would ultimately be handing out a sentence which does not reflect the full gravity of the offender’s actions.
The double handling of the offender sentencing in both the Supreme Court and Court of Summary Jurisdiction increases the cost to the community and delays in the administration of justice in the Northern Territory.
Accordingly, in addition to amending section 107 to allow the Supreme Court to take summary charges ‘into account’ when sentencing an offender on indictment, the bill creates brand new provisions in the Criminal Code to allow the Supreme Court to completely finalise and dispose of summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment. Without these additional provisions, section 107 of the Sentencing Act will only allow the Supreme Court to take summary matters into account when sentencing an offender on indictment, no formal plea is entered and the offender is not convicted of the summary offences. However, under the new Criminal Code provisions the offender is convicted and sentenced in the same way as if they had been dealt with by a magistrate. As a result, the defendant will only have to appear once, for one sentencing procedure, instead of twice.
The term ‘summary offence’ as it is used in relation to the new provisions, is intended to include offences generally known as summary offences, being simple and regulatory offences, which are punishable by less than two years imprisonment, in addition to any indictable offence that may be dealt with summarily (for example minor indictable offences and certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act).
When sentencing an offender for summary charges under the new provisions, the Supreme Court may make any orders in relation to the summary offence that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction could have made. This means that the Supreme Court may sentence an offender for the summary charges but may not impose any penalty higher than that which a magistrate could impose, if the matter were being dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
It is intended that the new provisions will not apply to all summary offences laid against the defendant, with the Supreme Court retaining discretion not to hear and determine a summary charge if it is not appropriate to do so. To give you an idea, the following are examples of the scope of matters that may be subject to the new provisions:
(a) an indictable assault which also constitutes a breach of domestic violence order;
(b) dangerous driving causing death or serious harm committed while driving unlicensed; or
The application of the new provisions will allow the Supreme Court to consider and dispose of relevant summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment in order to gain a clear understanding of the gravity of the offender’s actions and deliver a comprehensive sentence addressing all offending.
Notwithstanding the proposed amendment to section 107 of the Sentencing Act and the introduction of new provisions in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court will retain its discretion to refuse to deal with summary charges, if it does not deem it appropriate, thereby ensuring that the ‘floodgates’ are not opened to allow any or all summary charges to be dealt with in the Supreme Court.
The bill also includes transitional provisions for each of the new and amended sections.
It is the intention of the bill that all amendments apply to any proceedings in which sentencing submissions have not yet been heard once the act commences. The application of the amended provisions is therefore retrospective, with regard to the offence date, as the provisions apply even if the offences were committed prior to the commencement of the act.
In essence, this means the amended provisions are to apply, even if the defendant formally entered a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of the Justice and Other Legislation and Amendment Act 2014, as long as sentencing submissions have not commenced.
The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 will alleviate a variety of issues with the interpretation and applications of section 64, 104A and 107 of the Sentencing Act, section 131 of the Youth Justice Act and will provide for the full disposal of summary charges by the Supreme Court when sentencing an offender on indictment, all of which will contribute to swift justice and ultimately reduce the cost to the community.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 4 December 2013.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we are always prepared to support good public policy and good legislation, particularly when there are tangible benefits for the Territory. The bill before the House seems to pass the public interest test. The public benefit approach to policy is so obvious that you might wonder why I see the need to articulate it at all. I will cite a couple of issues I have about process, before I turn to the specific provisions in the bill.
Just before Christmas, to avoid scrutiny, the government used the public holiday period to release its Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014. The plan is a rehash of the discredited 1990s bid to create three dams and strangle our beautiful Darwin Harbour. The plan provides scant detail and, in contrast to the approach of the previous Labor government, does not protect Glyde Point from heavy industry.
The use of the holiday period to limit opportunity for public submissions indicates an arrogant disregard for the legitimate right of Territorians to comment on a significant planning issue. The draft Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014 has implications not only for the physical environment, but for a broad range of social and economic issues, such as access to health, education and recreation facilities; public transport and infrastructure; planning; housing; and sustainable economic growth.
Significantly, in response to public pressure about the use of the Christmas holidays to effectively truncate the consultation period, the deadline for submissions has been extended by one month to 10 March.
Madam Speaker, I note you have expressed strong reservations about the draft regional land use plan, particularly its lack of detail. You have opposed damming the Elizabeth River because of potential flooding in Bees Creek and Virginia, and you have expressed other concerns about urban sprawl in Noonamah and along the Stuart Highway.
On 7.30 NT, in response to the Elizabeth River Dam proposal, you said:
I note you have also expressed concern about urban sprawl in the rural area. You have been scathing about the lack of detail in the land use plan’s recommendation on further development. Many people I have spoken to agree with your critique that the area land use plan is:
The Chief Minister said recently he did not take a holiday and worked through the Christmas vacation period. However, you must wonder what planet the Chief Minister was working from, because everybody knows, except for the Chief Minister, that in the run up to Christmas the minister for Lands and Planning approved a lease to permit geotechnical assessment of the proposed Nightcliff island site. The minister did the proponents a great disservice by not publicising the lease or involving the community early in the process.
When the proposed drilling of the site was advertised by proponents, many residents of Nightcliff and the wider community were shocked. Why? Because the minister did not disclose his earlier decision to the public to award a lease to permit exploratory drilling, and we now know from his newsletter that this decision was also withheld from the Chief Minister.
There are other examples of the minister’s shortcomings, and I am sure they will be the focus of extensive debate at some point during these sittings. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, because in this bill he has the balance right.
In assessing the policy merits of the bill, it is useful to consider the objectives of the act, enumerated in section 2A. I will cite them, in full, to inform debate on the bill, because they are a good lens through which to view specific policy and legislative proposals:
Views of residents and stakeholders are invaluable and essential to a viable development and consent process. It would be unacceptable to the opposition if the proposed amendments contained any diminution of public notification and appeals rights in the Planning Act in relation to development consent processes. The fact those rights have been retained removes what would have been a major impediment to our support for this bill.
Sustainable development consistent with the objectives of the Planning Act is vitally important to the Territory. It creates jobs, essential infrastructure, housing, health, education and recreation facilities. The multiplier effect of development has important flow-on effects for growth in the Territory economy.
There is widespread recognition in the community of the entrepreneurs, developers and businesses that are prepared to take the risk of investing in the Territory’s future. If we can retain accountability and community consultation provisions in the existing Planning Act while adopting provisions to reduce costs and processing time associated with development projects, that would be generally viewed as a commonsense and productive outcome by the public.
It is important to note the process of concurrent applications for development approval and a planning scheme amendment as proposed in the bill are not compulsory. It remains open to a proponent to utilise the current separate and consequential arrangements.
I wish to share some observations about proposed sections 30A and 30B, concerning the appointment of planning advisors as a mandatory requirement for an applicant to meet with a planning advisor before a concurrent application is lodged. In my view, it is good policy to require a meeting between a proponent and a planning advisor before a concurrent application is lodged.
The concurrent application involves additional risk for the developer, to the extent that the integrated exhibition process would generally require more up-front investment in a detailed development proposal. However, if consultation with a planning advisor is mandatory, the minister must ensure there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified planning advisors available to participate in pre-lodgement meetings with applicants. Any significant delays in this aspect of the process for concurrent applications would defeat the overall objective of reduced processing times and costs under the proposed new arrangements.
This is not an idle observation; we have already seen savage cuts in the public sector and the culling of experienced frontline workers in departments like Lands and Planning. We know further savage cuts of at least 10% are also planned. I therefore contend it is reasonable for the minister to provide an assurance to the Assembly that there will be a sufficient number of planning advisors appointed to undertake this new statutory role.
It would also be useful if the minister could clarify the role of the planning advisor beyond the mere participation of the planning advisor in the meeting provided for in proposed section 30B. Will the planning advisor be required to provide a report on the meeting to the minister and, if so, what weight would the minister give to that report? What would happen, for example, if a planning advisor advised an applicant not to proceed with a concurrent application, but the applicant insisted on doing so? Is it really beneficial to the process to mandate the meeting in the act, or could this requirement simply be advertised on the agency website or included in application forms?
The majority of Territorians support development based on principles of sustainability, public consultation and government accountability. There is a mainstream consensus about these issues. However, the principles of sustainable development are not always embraced by the minister’s colleagues. We saw this with the unsustainable allocation of huge amounts of water from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer to the former CLP candidate for Lingiari. We saw it in the evolution of strategic Indigenous reserves, designed to support sustainable development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. On this occasion, the minister has the balance right.
I thank the minister’s office for arranging a briefing on the bill. I also thank Mr Fabio Finocchiaro and Mark Meldrum, professional and respected public servants, for their technical advice on the bill and service to the people of the Northern Territory.
It is our intention to support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing forward this legislation. The crossbenches will support this legislation, even though they find it a bit complicated. The member for Johnston raised some broad planning issues, and I will be raising those in response to the minister’s statement later this afternoon. I will not go down that path at the present time.
I also thank the department for the briefing it gave me, and I did work my way through the amendments late at night. There are some advantages in not releasing a statement from the government late at night. It gave me more of a chance to wade through these amendments. After you have got your head around them, most of them make pretty good sense.
I will give some general comments, and then we are going to committee stage. There are a quite a few amendments, so it is probably better we go down that path.
I put in here – and this is my step back from all this observation – why could you not fill out two parallel applications? Presently, we have an application for a planning amendment, which is a rezoning in layman’s terms. We also have an application for development. I have been around development consent authorities and I was on the old planning authority. More than occasionally, when a rezoning application went in, someone would put forward a development application – not formally – which would have a sometimes detailed description of what the intention was for the rezoned land. I wonder why we cannot simply have the two existing processes running parallel. This gets a little complicated and adds new things that I wonder if are absolutely necessary.
If you said to someone they can have a concurrent application but should apply in the current way for a rezoning application and the same for a development application, and when they put them together they send them both to the department, one going to the minister and one to the DCA, I imagine the DCA would look at it first because, under current legislation, if the DCA says a development plan is no good, the minister would not even bother worrying about a rezoning because it had been rejected. The DCA would know there was an application in at the same time for rezoning. It could hear it at the same time, which happens at present. You could have the development application heard, and the DCA would make its own mind up about that. At the same time, it would be dealing with the rezoning application and would report to the minister.
In a couple of weeks’ time, or however long the process takes – it might even be at the same time, because if the meeting is held and both matters are dealt with at the same time, the DCA normally makes its decision that afternoon, unless it wants to defer it or is asking for more information. For argument’s sake, if it supported it, it would then send that support in with its observations about the rezoning application, which is what happens now.
What we have here is an added – while I understand what you are doing and am not against that – layer which says, ‘Following receipt of notification of the minister’s …’ – I will get this right because I had trouble understanding it. It says you will have an initial decision-making role. In other words, you tell people they must go to a planning advisor. I heard what the member for Johnston said about whether you will have enough people in the public service. However, there is obviously a clause here, which we might discuss later, which says that planning advisor does not necessarily have to be a member of the public service. Obviously, you can go to private practice.
You have this process now, which says if you want to do something you must see a planning advisor. The planning advisor gives you planning advice. It then goes to the minister, who can say, ‘I do not like it’ or ‘I want more information’. Why is the minister involved at that stage? Normally, he would not be involved at that stage. With a normal application, he waits until it turns up on his desk. Why do we have the minister involved here? You are paying someone to be your planning advisor, and you hope your planning advisor is smart enough. Why do we need a planning advisor in the first place if the minister is going to check off on it as well?
There will be a planning advisor; he gives good advice and says, ‘You will need to do this, this, this and this so your application is up to the standard required’. It then goes down the normal path. However, for some reason the minister is involved in making the initial decision. That is the philosophical bit I am worried about. Why is the minister involved at that stage? I am not sure how the minister can be involved in the development application side of it as well.
The minister can be involved in the planning amendment area – that is their role – but my understanding is in this initial application you will have two things: the planning amendment application and the development application. The minister is not normally involved in the development application side of it. Are you saying, in your initial decision-making, you will be making comment about the rezoning application and the development application? It is not so much a concern you will do anything wrong, but the existing process does not do that.
The existing process leaves rezoning or planning amendment changes to the minister, and land development to the DCA. There is an initial requirement under proposed section 30D, which is:
Proposed section 30D(1) says the minister can ask for more information. I do not think the minister would normally ask for more information on a development application. He may ask for more information on the planning amendment side of it, but proposed section 30D(1) says:
The concurrent application obviously includes rezoning or planning amendments and includes development. I am interested in that as well.
I am interested to know about the ‘significant development proposals’. I am worried, and it is an area we might discuss in the statement. Proposed section 30D(3) says:
I am wondering what happens to it after that? Once it is locked into a significant development report, I gather it moves away from the normal processes for planning. It goes, more or less, back – the minister is the decision-maker after it has been through a significant development proposal. Tell me if I am wrong, but that bit worries me because of things like Halikos island and Lake Elizabeth. I see those as, regardless of whether you support them or not, things which need to go through public planning processes without being put into a new category of a significant development proposal, and perhaps disappearing from normal planning analysis.
My hesitation is because I have not found it easy going through this bill. It is not because I do not understand it; it is trying to look at it bearing in mind we already have an existing Planning Act. This is using existing processes, but making it a little more complicated by trying to put two things which normally happen separately together.
In that process, many other parts of the Planning Act must be adjusted. Many of the amendments we have relate to this concurrency causing ongoing changes to part of the act, so it reflects what this new legislation is about.
I will sum up. I am interested to hear the minister’s view as to what would be the difference if a person could make concurrent applications – a planning amendment application and a development application – and give them to the department? They would work as though they were separate, but the department would know to speed up. The intention of what you are trying to do – I do not have any problems with it, because I know how long planning amendments take. They can take a long time, and by the time the minister gets around to agreeing to the planning amendment, the developer must say, ‘I have approval, now I will spend some money on getting the plans ready’. This process says, ‘Look, government, I would like to put in a concurrent application. I will spend the money showing you what my development is.’ What you are doing is upgrading the standard whereby if you prepare a rezoning application, you might prepare a general development application, not drawings to the high standard you would require if you were going full steam ahead.
Even if you were to use a planning advisor, it would all go back to the developer who would then put forward, after advice from the planning advisor, all matters required under normal processes. They would understand it as a concurrent application with clauses saying if one is rejected, the other will be. As long as the developer knows and is clear about the process – there are risks involved. As you read through the legislation, you see if someone goes down this path, they take the risk they must start all over again if one part of this application is rejected.
This is my main issue. I had the feeling this was more complicated than required to achieve what you are trying to do. As I said, I support the philosophy behind what you are doing.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Nelson and Johnston. I gather the bill will be supported by both of you, which I appreciate. We will go through the amendments and I will answer as many questions as I can. For the record, the bill amends the Planning Act to allow planning scheme amendment proposals and dependent development proposals, including applications for subdivisions, to be lodged via a single application and determined in an integrated and concurrent process. I need to stress that this will provide an additional pathway. It does not replace what already exists.
The member for Johnston said this bill appears to have passed the public interest test. He is right. We are trying to bring a sense of clarity to what was a complicated process that took a long time. The more we can shorten the bureaucratic process, the more quickly we see a development and the more quickly we get the development to market. If it is a block of units, for instance, and the government can reduce bureaucracy by between three and six months, that is a major advantage to developers, particularly when you take the cost of a development into consideration. If we can reduce the cost to a developer, ultimately, those costs and savings will be passed on to the consumer. Anything we can do as a government to streamline our processes, we should do.
The member for Johnston is right; this passes the public interest test. He went on to ramble about a couple of little political issues we are facing, brought a bit of politics in and started to talk about things outside the bill.
We are working on the Towards a Regional Land Use Plan and he talked about the perception he has that this government tries to hide things and do things behind people’s backs. He raised the fact the Towards a Regional Land Use Plan was released before Christmas. It was released before Christmas because it was ready. The Planning Commission had finished its work and released the document, plain and simple. We were not going to hold it over until the new year, because that just slows the process of government. It was released; however, I did listen to the community when there were concerns raised. Of course, as the member for Johnston mentioned, we extended the date to 10 March for people to respond.
He mentioned Nightcliff island; the island that does not exist. It is a mud flat, there is no island, but he had to mention the island. He again mentioned the process, and the process was followed. It is not a government proposal. A developer has applied to the government for a lease over a section of land so they can do some drilling to find out whether the substructure is up to any development in the first place.
It was advertised, so the community was notified and processes were followed. In this case, the member for Johnston asked if the processes change to the point where we change things to the way they were done before. No, many of the processes are exactly what they were before.
You mentioned proposed sections 30A and 30B. When you talk about a planner who helps, initially, I understand that caused a bit of angst. You too, member for Nelson, had a bit of angst in the briefings about that, but I assure you the Department of Lands and Planning already does this, particularly for major developments. It already has planners, who help developers go through the process and help them get through what, in some cases, can be a very arduous process. It already occurs, but we wanted it built into the legislation. We already do it, but we wanted it covered in the legislation.
The focus of the planner is to save time and energy. The objective is to speed up – this is not an added problem. The objective of having a planner sit with a developer and go through what is required to get the development over the line –any advice the department can provide that developer up front – is to speed up that process. It is no good they come in every Friday, Tuesday or Thursday of every week, month after month, because developers would give you the indication of the goalposts. They would say, ‘All right, we have fixed that’, and there is something else they have to deal with; the goalposts have shifted.
They fix that and come back a week later, and the goalposts, in their minds, have shifted. In some cases, it is simply because the developers have not covered off on everything required to get their development over the line. The department will have specialised planners working with developers with the sole intent of being able to cover off as much as possible, if not everything required to get that development over the line.
There are times where a planner will say something, in their experience, is outside the boundaries of what the Planning Act allows, even outside the boundaries of government policy. There will be advice given to developers that they must rethink their development. Essentially, the objective, again, is to save them time, money and energy. The objective of those planners is to speed up the process.
Member for Nelson, you asked if we could have concurrent application processes. If that was to occur, you would be doubling the fees for any developer, doubling the bureaucracy, because you would have two processes running at the same time, two lots of advertising, two lots of everything. There are two separate processes involved, and all we are doing is trying to weld both together so there is one fee paid. There would be one lot of advertising done, one lot of hearings held by the DCA, instead of going through two longer processes. The simple answer to why we would not go that way is because of cost and, of course, added bureaucracy. You must remember, there are public servants working on these processes in separate areas of the department. If you had two processes working separately, you would have many staff working on, essentially, the same thing.
It must be pointed out again, this is not a requirement; this is an additional pathway for developers. There will be many developers who will not want to use this pathway. They will want to do things the way they do now. It is open and available for them to do that. Of course, it will not always work. This new legislation will not always be suitable for every developer. There will be developments that need some lead-in time. They want to get their rezoning sorted out now, and it may be two, three or five years from now when they will be ready to develop. Conversely, there will be developers that are ready to roll and really want to get on with the job. It involves the two processes: the rezoning and the development consent. This gives them the pathway to do it in one process.
You talked about early intervention by the minister. That has me a little confused because the process is the same now, under this proposed legislation, as exists currently. I do not intervene. The planning advisor you spoke of does not report back to me; they report to the proponent. Their sole job is to provide advice to the proponent, not to me.
You talked about significant developments, and government will decide whether to offer significant development status, very similar to – what is the one for major projects? It is major projects, isn’t it? A government can offer major project status to a developer. That essentially provides a doorway for a developer that we will help walk them through the government processes. This is something you would offer, which is significant. There is a process to being offered significant developer status. There must be benefits to the community. There must be real and tangible benefits in why we would want a development to have that status.
We have a housing crisis in the Northern Territory. We need more housing developments, more land release, more developers who have the confidence to come to the Northern Territory to build houses and units, and provide roofs over the heads of Territory workers and families. That is one example where, if government was provided with an opportunity to work with a developer that will provide many houses, units or other accommodation, you would work with them to try to have that development approved as soon as possible. This would recognise that we have a serious housing situation in the Northern Territory.
Having said that, the processes remain the same when it comes to land capability studies, environmental assessments that would be required and development consent. There are public hearings involved where the public has the opportunity to report back. We are still making sure that although a developer may be walked through the processes, the processes do not change. We are not lowering standards when it comes to environmental assessment or land capability. We must ensure the right developments are developed in the right areas. That is where we are at the moment …
Debate suspended.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders from 132 petitioners relating to the regional authority for Nauiyu community, Daly River. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I have covered off on all questions asked earlier by the members for Johnston and Nelson.
In summary, this legislation provides a clear pathway for developers, should they choose to use it. We are a government that is all about trying to find the cleanest and clearest way to do business, to reduce bureaucracy and get on and help the Territory develop.
As I said earlier, this in no way takes away or lowers any of our environmental standards in relation to land capability or environmental standards at all. This is in addition to the processes we use today to rezone land and approve development consent for developers. I will cover off on any other questions members may have during the committee stage. As I said, it will be the wish of the parliament to go to committee. It is my wish, as I have a number of amendments to make within the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.1:
Mr CHAIR: He did it in reverse.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr CHAIR: I ask that any member wishing to discuss the proposed amendments to clause 6 do so, amendment by amendment, after the member moves each individual amendment. Members are reminded to confine their questions or comments to the amendment being proposed.
Mr VOWLES: With regard to proposed section 30A, the planning advisor – the bill gives you the power to appoint a public sector employee to be a planning advisor. Many public servants give advice to clients and customers across a broad range of policy and service delivery. Why have you mandated the appointment of the planning advisor?
Mr CHANDLER: Good point, member for Johnston. The process already exists within the department of Lands and Planning. We want to make it mandatory within this legislation, one of the reasons being this is a process designed to speed up the development process. If we can sit with developers and go through, point by point, what the requirements are, it will speed up that process. We want to build this into the mechanism to ensure developers who want to undertake this process go through dealing with a planner.
As I said, it already exists, but we wanted it to be part of this legislation. The reality is there are two processes here; there is the old way they could continue to use, or they can use this new process. However, because it is new and designed to streamline the process, we think it is very important to have a planner involved.
Mr VOWLES: Will that be an internal employment situation or will you look to an external appointment?
Mr CHANDLER: In most circumstances, it will be an internal planner within the department of Lands and Planning.
Mr VOWLES: Can you give me an example of what would be an external process; will you look to have somebody within the department, or will you have a proper recruitment process?
Mr CHANDLER: No, it is internal, and, as I said before, this process occurs now. We have planners working with developers to step them through the processes required. This legislation makes it mandatory.
Mr WOOD: You might have this process occurring now, but you say the minister may appoint a public sector employee to be a planning advisor. In other words, you are saying a private person outside the department can be a planning advisor?
Mr CHANDLER: No, in this legislation it would be a public servant employed within the department of Lands and Planning.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you used the word ‘may’, not ‘must’.
Mr CHANDLER: If it helps, I will change it to ‘must’.
Mr WOOD: We should change it now, because we are at the point in the legislation where it would need to be changed. I do not know if I should move that the word ‘may’ be omitted, and the word ‘must’ be inserted.
Mr CHANDLER: I do not have any disagreement with that. We can make the change on the floor if you want.
Mr WOOD: I move an amendment to proposed section 30A that the word ‘may’ be omitted and the word ‘must’ be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions there, on the same section. Does a developer have to pay for a planning advisor and if so, how would they pay?
Mr CHANDLER: No, it is just part of the normal process.
Mr WOOD: I know you said this already happens, but it is not formalised in the act. This is a new clause in the act. Are there any guidelines as to what the planning advisor can actually advise? I will put it this way: you are putting a development up, and I presume the planning person is not going to say, ‘Fantastic idea. We will love this’, etcetera, because that would say the department is supporting a particular development. Is it a case that some guidelines are set out for the planning advisor to stick to, for instance, technical details, rather than giving opinions on the proposed development?
Mr CHANDLER: The Planning Act is quite specific, as are the regulations we work under. Any planning advisor would be providing advice within the framework that exists. Like you say, for a developer to come along and for someone to get excited about the development – no, that is my job. A planner would be purely stepping a developer through the process of what would be required, and even assessing whether or not this is the correct process to use for their development.
Mr WOOD: Okay. That has answered those questions.
Mr VOWLES: On proposed section 30B, about a developer or proponent with a concurrent application meeting with the planning advisor, is there a time frame for that meeting? Is there a time frame at all?
Mr CHANDLER: Can you repeat the question? The time frame from when the …
Mr VOWLES: Yes, is there a time frame from a meeting with the planning advisor to getting an answer, if that is true or not?
Mr CHANDLER: As it says in point three:
It is not written as a specific time, but as soon as practicable.
Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.2. Proposed section 30C(4) sets out the information that must be submitted as part of a valid concurrent application. This includes standard requirements generally applicable to development and planning scheme amendment applications. The amendment simply includes a requirement for a concurrent application to address issues surrounding unit title schemes. This is an existing requirement for development applications; however, it was not included in the drafting of the bill previously presented.
Mr WOOD: I wanted to ask questions about proposed section 30D(3). I need to get this clarified. This is in relation to the significant development proposal. Some of this may relate to existing legislation, but there is an opportunity to ask because it is in this bill. Is it you alone who considers whether a development proposal will be a significant development proposal?
Mr CHANDLER: Good question. Probably the best way to describe it would be through a demonstration. If a developer came to me with a proposal and I made the decision it was something significant, I would, in the first instance, refer it to the Planning Commission. I would make a decision based on my assessment of the proposal. I would then give it to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission would provide me with advice on whether or not it should be a significant proposal. I would be requiring and requesting advice from the Planning Commissioner.
Mr WOOD: I probably should have asked this question second; I will go back one step. The heading of proposed section 30D is:
I believe you said this is normal in an initial decision, when responding to the member for Johnston and I after the second reading speech. However, just so I get it clear in my head, do you make an initial decision about development applications?
Mr CHANDLER: There are occasions, particularly areas outside we would consider the normal development consent process. Yes, there are times when I would be the authority to approve something. In recent times there have been a number of proposals outside the areas we cover. I have deferred that responsibility to the DCA and asked them to do that on my behalf. That is just in recent times.
Mr WOOD: I understand that – outside the Planning Authority. But in a standard application inside the Planning Authority, would you make an initial decision about, for example, a 30-storey block of units in Darwin? That would be the development part of it, rather than rezoning. Would you normally comment on that, or does it go straight to the DCA?
Mr CHANDLER: No, I would not formally comment, but it does not prevent a developer asking to have a meeting with the minister, in fact, any minister here, to put forward a proposal. That has nothing to do with the formal stages the proposal has to go through.
I have proposals put to me all the time. No decisions are made at that meeting. They would still be required to go through the normal processes. Obviously it ends up with the DCA, and I end up, as the minister, with a report on my desk from the department and the DCA.
Mr WOOD: I understand. What I am getting at is that proposed section 30D(1) says:
There are two sides to the concurrent application. There is the planning amendment and the development. Normally you would not comment on the development, but according to what is written here, you would have the power to comment on both the planning amendment and the development. It does not distinguish between either of those phases we are going through.
Mr CHANDLER: I have nothing more.
Mr WOOD: It only needs a yes or no. Whether I agree you should have that power is another matter, but it is saying you normally do not have that power to comment on a development application through the normal process. Forget whether you are the Planning Authority, where we are dealing with areas outside normal planning scheme areas; this clause gives you the power to make comment on development. In fact, you can ask someone to amend that development, if I read that as it is. This is a power you do not have under the Planning Act at present.
Mr CHANDLER: I am not sure how you are reading it, but I can think of a time where a developer might come to me and put forward a proposal. I must make a number of recommendations to the developer about what they should do. The development is put forward, I have advisors in the room and people from the department who help put these people on the right track. There might be, at that meeting, a requirement that this developer must do something else to meet my requirement.
This might be that we are trying to provide general advice on which pathway they should take. Based on that development – let us say we have a developer with a set of units they want to put on a block of land currently owned by the Crown or not zoned appropriately. We must provide advice on what is the most appropriate pathway. If all the information is not there, you will be saying to somebody, ‘Perhaps you should bring us some more information’, set up a meeting with the department and even meet with the planner.
You must remember these things usually happen before the formal process has taken place. We need more information to make a better decision.
Mr WOOD: I do not disagree with any of that, but we have a new situation – setting up of an official planning advisor. My understanding of what you said is the planning advisor would be giving the developer all that information, so it should not get to you in a state of ifs and buts. You have a special person to do that. My concern is we are not talking about just an informal meeting with the developer. The developer normally puts in an application for a 30-storey block of flats. For argument’s sake, it is rezoned for that area as medium density, high density or the like. They put in an application and you would normally not have anything to do with that. Is that correct?
Mr CHANDLER: You are right, in the first instance I would not. This section provides the basis for determination of a number of precursors leading up to the initial decision by the minister on the suitability of a proposal for public exhibition. Proposed subsections 30D(1) and 30D(2) enable the minister to require additional information to be requested from the applicant to enable proper consideration of the proposal.
It also provides for the application to be rejected if this information is not provided, or the information provided is insufficient to enable proper consideration.
Mr WOOD: The whole idea of concurrent applications is that we speed up the system. All that is proposed is instead of waiting six months for a planning amendment approval, followed by a longer wait for a development application, you have put them together. I presume the same rules apply for both sides of that equation.
What I find difficult to understand is you are now involved in the development side, as distinct from the planning amendment side, which you are allowed to be involved in. This seems to be at odds with what happens now. My concern is that all of a sudden you have come in – it does not matter if it is an initial decision because you would not be involved, even in the existing process, when it comes to development. Would you be involved in the block of flats I mentioned? If they had put in an application to the DCA, would you get involved in an initial decision to reject it?
Mr CHANDLER: I would not say that, because we are the government. People come to see the government on a number of issues, and we are inundated by developers who come forward with proposals. There are often times when you are providing guidance to developers on the best way to approach their developments. That has happened before formal processes have even begun.
Mr WOOD: Is this not a formal process?
Mr ELFERINK: Can I join in this debate? I understand where you are coming from, but there is a legal parallel, which is courts of original jurisdiction and courts of appellant jurisdiction. You are saying that under the development process, the minister has a role which is like an appellant role. There is a process of going through the DCA, and you finally get to the minister’s desk as a final court of appeal or arbitration on those issues. Alternatively, there are also roles for the minister, with regard to having a form of original jurisdiction, where he can, early in the piece, insert himself in the process of changing a town plan.
You say they are two separate arguments, and the minister acknowledged the fit can be a bit awkward in places. Where you have this sort of disposition, or change from an original to appellant jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the superior court is the one holding sway. There is a melding in, through the development process, into the town plan changing process, which is what this whole legislation is about, to make the system easier. It is my understanding that the minister remains a governing body in relation to this, which is what governments do; they govern.
Mr CHANDLER: The difference between this process and the current process is we are requiring developers to have everything they need up front before we consider the concurrent process. Under normal circumstances, a developer comes along and wants to rezone. They go through the process - you are very familiar with that process - and at a later stage, they go through the development consent process. All the information, planning and detail required at the second stage is required up front. There will be times when we do not have all the information to allow them to go through this new process. There will also be times where they are encouraged to use the current process. There is a lot to ask a developer to provide up front, and I need to have the ability to say, ‘You do not have enough information. Go back and get it before you can use this new process.’
Mr VOWLES: I have a question around when it becomes the significant …
Mr WOOD: I have not finished, the minister was - I am still in the same section, sorry.
I hope I have not lost my train of thought. It is an important area, because if I was a developer, I would be asking why you are interfering in the development, and you could tell me it is in the act. I asked about planning advisors; what role do they have to play? It is not their job to say someone has painted a lovely wall. Your job is to purely say, ‘You need all these conditions up front before it goes to planning’. Are you in a similar role to a planning advisor? If I look at proposed section 30D(2):
This is what you are doing; is this information you require, or are you personally liking or disliking an application? Will your concerns be purely based on some development or planning issues you think are lacking in the application?
Mr CHANDLER: I think we are getting a bit carried away and we have this around the wrong way. A developer would speak to me well before they have even, perhaps, spoken to a planner within the department of Lands and Planning. They would come to me in the first instance. During those meetings, we would discuss which is the right pathway for them to take, whether it is using the existing process or the new process.
There might be information in that room – and a lot of people might think I know everything, but in fact, I do not. I have advisors and experts to help guide us through this, so if there is something raised in that if they are considering using this process, they might need more information. They might need to get that information, and the next step might be they submit their applications. They would then talk to one of the planners at the department of Lands and Planning.
It is not the other way around. The developer would come to me first. We would have a meeting and discuss it with advisors and people from the department of Lands and Planning to provide them with, perhaps, the correct pathway for their development. That is all.
Mr VOWLES: Who makes the decision about the significant development proposal if it goes to the planning advisor?
Mr CHANDLER: We have already covered that. Initially, if someone came to me with, for example, a rather large development, but I make a decision the Planning Commission should look at it, I would refer it to the Planning Commissioner. His advice, or the board’s advice, would come back to me and would either suggest we make it a significant development – that is just to help, again, the process go through a little quicker.
Mr VOWLES: Is that through a concurrent application as well?
Mr CHANDLER: No, it is a separate process.
Mr VOWLES: Would a concurrent application be a significant development proposal?
Mr CHANDLER: In that case, if it was considered a significant proposal, I can stop the clock, under this legislation, and refer it to the Planning Commission to ensure we have the right advice on that proposal. It broadens the scope of not only the independent advice back to government, but ensures we have a strengthened regulatory framework to make sure we have appropriate development.
Mr WOOD: It then goes to the commission as a significant development proposal; does it come back to the DCA?
Mr CHANDLER: I have been told that if advice comes back from the commission that it should be a significant development, it is referred to the DCA.
Mr VOWLES: Do the provisions of the bill or current act, in respect to significant development proposals, give you any discretionary powers over developments or rezoning? Can you still make decisions under the provisions of this bill that reduce existing rights of developers and the public?
Mr CHANDLER: It does not change anything that currently exists.
Mr VOWLES: Do the existing provisions for public consultation, in respect to such things as public notices, time lines and appeals, apply to significant development proposals?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, they do and it is all the same.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.3.
The intent of amendment 14.3 remains unchanged. The amendment is necessary to clarify the different notification requirements of a decision made under proposed section 30D(5)(a):
Mr CHANDLER: You are correct.
Mr WOOD: That is all right.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHAIR: Amendment 14.4 refers to proposed section 30P(1). Does anyone want to discuss anything prior to that?
Mr WOOD: Yes, this is just a nuts and bolts question. Proposed section 30G has a heading of:
Have you worked out what sort of signage you will use so people can easily see something is a concurrent application?
Mr VOWLES: Different colour?
Mr WOOD: Well, it might be two signs.
Mr CHANDLER: That is a good point, member for Nelson, because most people are used to seeing pink or yellow signs. I suggest it would be a different colour. That colour has not been chosen yet, but I am sure it will be a bright one.
Mr WOOD: I was not too worried about the colour. Obviously the colour might be different. I suppose people will not know much about concurrent applications, so hopefully there will be a little education about a new sign. We know green is for liquor, yellow is for rezoning and pink is for development. This is a new process and if people are interested, they will realise they must be on the ball because the development application is going through with the planning amendment. As long as people know this is happening, and if they see this sign, they will hopefully understand what is going on. The other argument is, ‘I did not know what that sign was’, and before you have gone too far, the time for responding to planning applications has finished.
Mr CHANDLER: May I suggest you and I have a photo of the new sign together and it can go in your newsletter, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mr CHANDLER: You are right, though, it does need to be different. It needs to stand out and demonstrate clearly that this is a different process to what we have currently.
Mr WOOD: I thought you were going to say we should have our photos on the sign. That would scare them away.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.4. The intent and operation again remains unchanged. The consent authority would not write a submission under section 30M, therefore, would not be completing such a procedure as referred to within originally proposed section 30P(1).
Mr WOOD: I will try to read this out. The new section 30P(1) should say, ‘as soon as practicable after the end of the exhibition period, and (if applicable) after completing procedures for sections 30L and 30N, the consent authority must make a preliminary decision’, etcetera. Why do we now have ‘if applicable’ in brackets? In other words, what has happened to 30L, 30M and 30N to make them only sometimes required?
Mr CHANDLER: Can you read that again, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: 30P(1) has been changed, and that is the amendment we are talking to. It says to:
I will read the whole line. The existing amendment says:
The new amendment says:
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nelson, if there are no submissions, there is no need for a hearing, so it is if it is applicable.
Mr WOOD: It would be nice to put in what you just said, rather than leave it to me asking what that means. It should have a little note to say, ‘But if there are no submissions, 30L, 30M and 30N do not apply’. I know that …
Mr CHANDLER: It would have helped me too.
Mr WOOD: At least it will be in the debate if someone wants to look it up. One thing that happened in previous days of the government, when people were confused about my role, was that I was part of moving to have notes. You will see notes in this – there is a reference to notes coming up under – there is a small section where you have changed a note. Under amendment 14.7, clause 6, proposed section 30R(1), a note is changed. This might be an opportunity for a note to be written under that to explain what ‘if applicable’ means. As you say, it does not leave much explanation.
That is a suggestion as to why we have notes in legislation. It could be done another time.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, would you like to move amendment 14.5?
Mr WOOD: Sorry. We just did one, did we not? You are quicker than I can think, Mr Chair.
Could I ask a question: why do we need a preliminary decision?
Mr CHANDLER: On what?
Mr WOOD: Proposed section 30P(1), as amended, would say: As soon as practicable after the end of the exhibition period and (if applicable) after completing procedures for sections 30L and 30N, the consent authority must make a preliminary decision that, if the minister were to approve the amendment proposal in the concurrent application, the authority would be likely to determine to:
(a) consent to the development …
(b) refuse to consent …
This one says it is a preliminary decision. Why is this needed; why is it not just ‘a decision’?
Mr CHANDLER: The simple answer is to save time.
Mr WOOD: I thought it would increase time, because you must make another decision, which makes two decisions, instead of one.
Help me through this bit; what happens after the preliminary decision? It says:
My question is why is it not simply ‘the decision’?
Mr CHANDLER: Under this process, there are two parts to it: one is the rezoning and one is the DCA. The DCA might make a preliminary decision and then, if I choose to approve the rezoning, it does not have to revisit it. It can use its delegation to continue; it saves time.
Mr WOOD: I would say, ‘Why do you not make a final decision based on two things?’ The DCA approves the subdivision, subject to the rezoning being approved. …
Mr CHANDLER: That is essentially what it does.
Mr WOOD: It is the final decision.
Mr CHANDLER: It is a play on words.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I do not want to have a life spent upstairs on the left, but I am not trying to be silly either. When I read it, I thought the process looked like it was getting longer, rather than shorter. The whole idea of this was to make it more compact and user-friendly.
As long as people understand it should be revisited later to see whether it could be a bit more streamlined.
Mr CHANDLER: To be clear, if the DCA has made a preliminary decision, it cannot make a final decision until the rezoning has been approved by me. I may not approve the rezoning, which means it cannot make a final decision. It would be a final decision on the development being approved. It may not be approved, if I do not approve the rezoning. It can only be a preliminary decision.
Mr WOOD: I agree. To clarify, a final decision says: ‘We support this development subject to approval from the minister’; that is all.
Amendment agreed to
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.5. The intent and operation again remain unchanged. This amendment is necessary to maintain corrections – subsection references as a result of the amendment of the proposed section 30D as detailed above, which is clause 6, proposed section 30P(2)(c).
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.6. Once again, the intent and operation remains unchanged. This amendment is necessary to maintain corrections and subsection references as a result of the insertion of proposed section 30ZC(1). You should have those details in front of you.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: With proposed section 30P(2)(r): this is a copy of section 51 of the act, as it is at present. In the existing act, in section R – I cannot say it is exactly section R in the main act – it says:
Mr WOOD: It may be the same, but we have gone down the path of copying section 51, which is about matters the consent authority must take into account in normal circumstances. We have changed that clause, so there is an inconsistency in the wording from exactly the same section to this section.
My two questions are: should it be consistent, because everything else, as far as I can read, is consistent? Also, is there – and I am not the lawyer here – a difference between:
Mr CHANDLER: My first instinct would be that in anyone’s reckoning, they would mean the same thing. Someone looking at something as they see ‘fit’, other matters the consent authority considers ‘relevant’. This is semantics. It means exactly the same thing, so I cannot see what the real problem is.
If something means the same thing, and is in the legislation with exactly the same meaning, what are you against?
Mr WOOD: I am not against anything, but you just explained it to me perfectly. If it means the same thing, why did they change the wording? I still leave the question. I am not a lawyer, and the member for Port Darwin is very good on some things, particularly the meanings of words. I am just saying this has changed; it is a change from the main act. I raise it because that is what my job is during the committee stage. I raised it as something that may have no relevance at all, but then again, it may have some relevance.
Mr ELFERINK: Sometimes we send things to parliamentary draughtspeople. We ask them to prepare amendments for us, and they will choose certain language for certain reasons. There are occasions when language may be simplified or altered, for whatever reason, without changing the meaning. I will not second guess the parliamentary draughtsman’s motivations for changing language. It might simply be because the modern trend amongst parliamentary draughtsmen is to convert more archaic language to plain English; that is one of the trends in modern drafting.
There are a number of trends in modern drafting, and there may be any number of reasons the draughtsman has chosen to use the phraseology. The intent and function of legislation does not functionally change when you move something from older forms of English, and older forms of drafting, to the more simplified plain English-type legislation we use today.
This parliament could probably forbear to accept that the intent of the parliamentary draughtsman in this instance was not to change the intent of the legislation. Simply, words were chosen which were different to the original wording. You can say the same thing in different ways, and I believe that is what the minister is driving at in this instance.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.7. This amendment is necessary to maintain correct subsection references as a result of the amendment of proposed section 30T. The intent and operation remains unchanged.
Mr WOOD: Noted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.8. Proposed section 30S specifies the matters to be taken into account in the minister’s determination of the amendment proposal in the concurrent application. These include: the reports provided to the minister required under the proposed section 30D relating to the determination of the proposal as a significant development, if applicable; and the report on submissions and the consultation process under proposed section 30Q.
Further matters identified are common to the matters to be taken into account in determining development proposals under the Planning Act and under this proposed part. This includes a requirement to take into account the planning scheme and the amendment forming part of the application. This is a requirement to take into account any integrated strategic plan, area plan, planning principle, policy or guideline contained or referenced in the scheme, in addition to specific statutory matters.
This provides the strategic context and direction to any land use decision represented in the determination of the amendment proposal. Proposed subclause 30S(o) also provides for the minister to consider other matters considered relevant.
Mr WOOD: I will not ask the minister about proposed section 30S(o), but I will ask him about the alterations and exhibitions of concurrent applications. Proposed section 30S deals with a development application, that is, the thing that developers are required to put forward in their application. Again, I run into this issue of what your role is when it comes to proposed section 30T(1):
Mr CHANDLER: There is a flow-on effect but, yes, that is correct.
Mr WOOD: To make it clear, you would only ask for an amendment based on all those things in proposed section 30S? Is that correct? What would be an example of an amendment that you might require of the applicant?
Mr CHANDLER: A case where a developer asks for a particular zone and I make the decision to approve another zone is an example of this.
Mr WOOD: That would then be a major change, which must be exhibited? Is that correct?
Mr CHANDLER: It could be, but it would depend on the circumstances.
Mr WOOD: It is worth making sure we understand for people who may be looking at this later. What would you regard as a minor change, because that is also dealt with here?
Mr CHANDLER: A minor change might be if the original intent was moved slightly. Goalposts shift all the time, so if the intent changed, that would be a minor change, I am assuming.
Mr WOOD: I hesitate to ask, but what do you mean by ‘intent’ in this case?
Mr CHANDLER: The intent of a development.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but we are not dealing with development; we are dealing with amendments to zones. I presume that is what a planning amendment is. I am wondering what a minor change is.
Mr CHANDLER: You forget that under this concurrent legislation, all information is required up front from the developer. If the intent changed during that process, it might change my view of whether zoning is correct or not. Remember, the current situation is that someone can apply to have land rezoned, and it may be years before it is developed. In this legislation, you are talking about a developer who is required to have all that information up front. During the process, if the intent changes that would perhaps be considered minor, but it would depend on how minor the change was or how much the intent changed during the process.
Mr WOOD: My concern is – I know what it is like going to DCA meetings. You have put your submission in, then all of sudden things change because the developer has come up with amendments and they hand them around to everyone but the people sitting in the back seats. It goes through. Generally speaking, I hope people will have a chance to comment on the changes if this happens, because that is the gripe I hear from people sometimes. Yes, they have been to the department and been told, ‘Look, we need some changes to this’. Those changes often do not get back to the public, because they are not advertised until that person turns up at a meeting and says, ‘I did not know there was a new plan or an amended plan’. I get the gist, minister.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.9. The minister, when considering a proposed planning scheme amendment that is not part of a concurrent application at existing section 25, has the power to alter and determine the proposal without the need to re-exhibit. This existing ability to alter and determine a planning scheme amendment proposal without re-exhibition is provisional on the alteration not being sufficiently extensive or significant to justify re-exhibition.
Proposed section 30T, as originally presented, was intended to mimic the decision-making process at existing section 25. However, the section did not include provision for the minister to alter and determine an amendment proposal that is part of a concurrent application. In cases where the alteration of the amendment proposal is of a minor nature, the omission of a provision to alter and determine created the potential for additional time, administrative and financial cost burden on the applicant, the consent authority and the minister, with little or no benefit to the public interest. The amendments proposed reflect existing provisions for stand-alone planning scheme amendments in permitting the alteration and determination of an amendment proposal, while setting limits on the scale of alteration that warrants re-exhibition on the proposal.
Mr VOWLES: I just want to get some reassurance from the minister. Would they have to readvertise the exhibition period? Is it the same?
Mr CHANDLER: It would be a decision based on whether it was significant enough and the determination has to be made. If it was yes, you would go through that process. If it was not, you would not.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.10; again, the previous answers cover this one.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.11. Proposed section 30V provides that division 5 only applies to concurrent applications where the consent authority has been notified of the minister’s determination to approve the amendment proposal in the application.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.12. The intent and operation remains unchanged. Amending the heading to proposed section 30Y creates consistency with the heading to existing section 53B and indicates this is something different from the consent in a notice of determination, referred to in the heading to proposed section 30X.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.13. The intent and operation, again, remain unchanged. Proposed section 30Y sets out notification requirements where no submissions were received or the development proposal is of a type which does not give rise to third-party appeal rights. Consistent with proposed section 30X above, the section is drafted to retain existing rights and notice obligations under the Planning Act for the development proposal component of the concurrent application.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.14 and, again, I am just clarifying where we are. There is a muck-up with my numbering. With proposed section 30Y, this is the same again; it sets out notification requirements where no submissions were received or the development proposal is of a type that does not give rise to third-party appeal rights. Consistent with proposed section 30X above, the section is drafted to retain existing rights and notice obligations under the Planning Act for the development proposal component in the concurrent application.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.15. The intent and operation remain unchanged; amending the heading to proposed section 30Z creates consistency with existing section 53C.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.16; the amendment to include this section replicates the provisions of existing sections 85(1) and (2), specific to a concurrent application. This amendment simply clarifies the minister’s powers to direct the consent authority in relation to a concurrent application. It should be noted that the amendment does not go so far as to allow the minister to call in an application and declare him or herself to be the consent authority, as is the case with a stand-alone development application, thus maintaining the separation of powers in determining a concurrent application.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.17. The proposed change to notification requirements at section 16(3) in relation to a proposed planning scheme amendment permit had unanticipated ramifications, administratively and operationally. An example, a proposed change to the zoning table for zone GI would have resulted in the minister being required to serve a notice on every landowner with land zoned general industry.
The minister needs to be able to retain the discretion to decide that it is impractical to serve notices on landowners because of the location or number of parcels of land and that it is/could be reasonably expected that affected landowners would become aware of the proposal through publication or advertising in the newspaper.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.18. The intent remains unchanged. The amendment maintains consistency with other provisions throughout the bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the changes are welcome and will help speed up development applications that are sometimes slowed down. This is not because people do not have the opportunity to look at them, but because applications have had a slow process built into them. These changes will be welcome, and it is shown in the new bill that rights of appeal are still covered. If something needs to change in relation to third-party appeals at some other stage, they should consider allowing people in the rural area to have the same rights as people in the city in relation to third-party appeals.
My concern is something I will keep an eye on. I am concerned about the initial decision-making process. While we have a planning advisor, there really should not be any need for initial decisions to be made by the minister. In fact, this bill, as shown during the debate, shows the minister still has powers further on in the process. That area is in conflict with the existing processes used for rezoning and development.
My other concern is in relation to significant development proposals. I did raise it. My concern is this section of the act could take away some rights from the community that it currently has. Regardless of whether it is a small or large proposal, I hope all things go through the normal Development Consent Authority process.
The previous government, I always believed, did something I never worked out, and I will give you an example. If people want to go crook at me about certain arrangements I made with previous governments, one of them was to try to pull the Middle Arm peninsula back into the Litchfield Shire planning area. I was concerned it had been taken out, and governments obviously think major or significant developments do not want to be inhibited by silly old councils and development consent authorities.
To some extent, what the previous government did was redraw the line around INPEX and take the application away from the local DCA to deal with something that was a significant development proposal. I am unsure whether that piece of land has been put back into the local Development Consent Authority area. While it is not in that area, a significant development proposal, like INPEX, is only heard by the minister or his delegate. I have concerns that governments sometimes consider it too important to be heard by the local DCA, and they will go around the process and make those decisions through a different procedure.
They were two issues raised during the debate. One was the initial decision-making process, and the other was how the significant development proposals will work in reality. I am not sure any significant development proposal has yet been put to government. I would imagine something like the port at Glyde Point, the Taranaki proposal or the Elizabeth River proposal would be regarded as significant development. If so, would they sidestep the normal planning processes we have today?
In summing up, even though they are my concerns, what you put forward today are positive changes which promote development in a sensible way. We are not getting away from exhibitions and those sorts of comments. Overall, it is a good change to the Planning Act. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, having spoken to the opposition about this, I am about to present an airhead motion, and the airhead is me. This is a mea maxima culpa - I have managed to do it twice in two days – which I do not think has been done anywhere before. I seek leave for an amendment be made to the second reading speech for the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Serial 69) which I delivered this morning.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The amendment needs to be inserted into the second reading speech immediately following the sentence, ‘The court may therefore receive information from persons who are not parties to the proceeding ‘as it thinks fit’ under section 104, in the same way it would consider a character reference in any other sentencing proceeding’.
The words to be inserted are:
I will now address the amendment to section 107 of the Sentencing Act, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take into account summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment.
As I said at the outset, it is my fault, my bad, and I thank the opposition for allowing me to correct the same mistake twice in two days.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I believe it would be highly remiss of me if I did not point out: John, can you count? Last week, you gave a very excited speech about my spelling and grammar, but this is the second day in a row you have missed a page in your speech. Thank you for updating the House. I just thought I would point that out.
Mr Elferink: Notice that it was mea maxima culpa.
Continued from 17 October 2013
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I wish to speak on this bill and state that we will be supporting it.
In summary, this bill deals with a loophole that has been exploited in our hit-and-run laws, whereby people have been able to avoid certain charges of not stopping to render assistance in a traffic accident because the person was dead or beyond assistance being rendered.
Everyone knows about hit-and-run laws; people know that if you are involved in an accident where someone is injured, you cannot just take off. You have a responsibility to render assistance, and inform and cooperate with the police. Everyone supports this intent; however, as is often the case, turning this intent into legislation that adequately accommodates every possible scenario and challenge is a far more complex matter.
This bill amends a section of the Criminal Code Act to insert a requirement to report to police an incident involving a vehicle where a person is killed or suffers serious harm. The section was introduced in 2008 as part of reforms of the Criminal Code Act. It makes it an offence if the driver of a vehicle does not stop and render reasonable assistance where the driver’s vehicle is involved in an accident which results in another person suffering serious harm or being killed. Penalties of up to 10 years apply.
This section has a significant penalty for people who do not render assistance; it holds a strong deterrent against the possible desire of people to flee the scene of an accident.
The bill was initiated by the death of Rikki Colosimo and the result of a recent Supreme Court case involving his death. Since the compilation of the bill, there has been another similar case involving the death of Levi Griffiths. The families of these two victims would have expected that if it was proved the defendants had indeed committed hit-and-run, serious penalties would apply. I am sure neither family was aware of this loophole involving death, and our deepest sympathies go to both families and the fact they had to go through this.
The deaths of these two men are tragic enough and will have caused families and friends much pain. More pain is caused when the law does not meet our community’s expectations. When the law does not meet its intent in cases like this, it can be very painful and emotional for everyone involved.
The Attorney-General outlined the specific decisions of the Supreme Court and their reasons, in relation to this case. Essentially, without there being a requirement to notify police of the incident in the event of a hit-and-run, a driver will not have committed an offence if they are involved in an incident where a person dies. If they stop and decide no assistance is necessary or possible, they can then drive off. They then, of course, avoid the requirement to be breath tested. Depending on the nature and location of the incident and evidence at the scene, they may never be identified.
This is not what people understand the intent of hit-and-run laws to be. I am sure most people involved in an accident or an incident involving a death would remain at the scene, not just because it is morally the right thing to do, but because that is their understanding of the law. It is certainly the intent of the law. This bill now makes it very clear that a driver must notify police, regardless of whether assistance is required.
The bill includes provisions on complying with directions of police in relation to the incident. One issue that can arise is that such an incident can be extremely traumatic and stressful. It is understandable that people may be in shock or turmoil and not necessarily acting in a rational or logical manner. This is understandable, as long as people do not flee and they cooperate with police, and this can be accommodated within the law.
This bill makes it clear the driver is responsible for reporting the incident to police. There may be cases where someone does this on behalf of the driver. This could be because the driver is injured, too traumatised to call or perhaps is not proficient in English. Strictly speaking, this does not comply with the provisions of the law. However, we have confidence in the response from officers who drafted the legislation that so long as the driver is aware the incident is being reported and cooperates with police, this will not be considered a breach. Of course, this is within reason. Perhaps in his summation the Attorney-General could explain exactly how this issue is catered for.
We have seen two recent cases where the community has raised concerns about the penalties involved in hit-and-run incidents where a death has occurred. Without reflecting on the decisions of the court, our sympathy from this side of the House goes to the families of the deceased, who I know are of the view that the sentence penalties were inadequate. While it will not help their particular case, we hope the law changing will give them comfort.
I note the Attorney-General indicated he would encourage the DPP to review whether it would appeal the sentence in relation to the death of Levi Griffiths. We support the DPP reviewing the case. I do not believe it is the role of this House to comment on such sentences, especially if we have not sat through the hearing and heard all arguments. However, the community believes, quite reasonably, that it does not appear the sentence fitted the crime. If the Attorney-General could update the House in relation to this matter, that would also be appreciated.
We support this bill, which ensures the intent of the law is prescribed in the legislation. It closes a loophole that, unfortunately, has been exploited. The message is now very clear: if you are involved in an incident, do not flee; very serious charges and penalties will apply.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, as a former police prosecutor, I came across many instances like this. People looked at the law, and people in the legal profession would be looking for ways to lessen the impact of what their clients had done or to do some sort of a deal.
This amendment takes out some of that ambiguity in the way the Criminal Code Act is written. I, for one, support this wholeheartedly. It obviously makes changes to the law that require a driver to comply with any practical directions given by a representative of the police force in relation to the incident. We now have people who work for the police force who are civilians and are required, by other legislation, to do things. This tidies up what a person is required to do.
Other speakers have made mention of a driver’s moral duty to stop, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. They have a requirement to stop and assist police, and provide assistance to anyone who has been in an accident. It is appalling and terrible that some people have avoided any penalty for their action of failing to stop, and we need to fix that.
The driver obviously is required to stop at the scene and administer assistance, regardless of whether they believe their actions can improve the condition of the person involved in the accident. I have heard arguments in the past where people have said, ‘Well, yes, the person was upright. I had a conversation with him and left.’ Of course, in some instances, it has been proven that was not the case. The person was dying and someone had being drinking, driving without a driver’s licence or some other issue that would cause them to be in a lot of trouble.
There are many very good people in the legal profession who give some very good advice, but there is the odd one or two who try to manipulate the facts to suit loopholes in the legislation. What we now do is make it obvious to people as a deterrent, and take away the ability of some, not all, in the legal profession to do that. This amendment will close that loophole and I am glad members opposite have seen this and seen fit to support this legislation. Thank you
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their support in the passage of this legislation. It is commonsense legislation. There is a certain prophylactic quality to this legislation, by virtue of what we are attempting to do is prevent a defence reliant on the argument from the Colosimo case.
While the defence ran the argument, essentially, the court did not accept it. I am grateful to the court for that, but because of the legislation being drafted in the fashion it was, it allowed the requisite wriggle room for the argument to be run in the first place.
What caused a lot of public upset was the nature of that argument and the fact there was a capacity for it to be run. Consequently, we have moved, as a government, to alter the legislation in such a fashion as to reflect the intention of this House in the first instance. This intention is if you have an accident, you will be required to stop, unless there is some imperilling reason for you not to. Even then, there is still a requirement for you, at some early opportunity, to contact authorities.
Essentially, as the argument was run in this case, the defence basically said, ‘You have to stop to render assistance, but if you have hit somebody so badly it is clear there is no assistance you can render them, you are not bound by legislation’. That type of argument really gets under the skin of Mr and Mrs Average, because it is lawyering that is too cute by half. It is not a great surprise the Supreme Court rejected that.
I remind members of the profession that while they have a duty to the client, they have a primary duty to the court. It also reflects on the profession that with their enthusiasm for their duties to clients, some lawyers have pushed the bounds of reasonableness, certainly as seen through the eyes of Mr and Mrs Joe Public, Mr and Mrs Malak. In this instance, the fact the argument alone was run and given air in the courtroom upset many people in the public domain.
As a consequence, the government has moved to reassert and reaffirm, in stronger terms, the original policy intent of this legislation. We have not changed the law in that what parliament wanted to first achieve is in any way being changed. It is being supported by the passage of this legislative instrument today.
I pick up on some of the comments from the member for Nightcliff in relation to the Shonky Cassidy matter. Mr Cassidy was charged with offences appropriate to his conduct. It is my understanding, from memory, that what he was charged with and convicted of was perverting the course of justice.
While I will not trawl over the facts of that matter, Mr Cassidy engaged in certain conduct which was best covered by the offence of perverting the course of justice. I must look to my advisor, but I do not believe there were any other criminal offences attached to it? There were? Okay. In that case, Mr Cassidy stopped, and part of the reason we are changing this law was the result of the decision in The Queen v Yusoff [2013] NTSC 43. In any instance, he was ultimately convicted - the charge was withdrawn, by the way - of perverting the course of justice. The public do not often make a clear distinction with the nature of the charge a person faces. They simply see the facts of the case and expect when a guilty verdict is handed down, the person has been found guilty of the offence which suits the facts. This is not always the case; it was not the case in the Cassidy matter, but through his conduct, he was determined to have perverted the course of justice and was convicted appropriately.
I spoke to the head of the DPP about considering an appeal, which is something I have no influence over. I can merely suggest something to the head of the DPP, but, quite properly through the independence of the DPP’s office, they are in no way bound to respond to it. I am not aware of any appeal on the sentence, and I believe the appeal stage will have expired by now. That being the case, I suspect the decision of the DPP, in review of the matter, would simply be to decide it was not worth reviewing or taking back on appeal. The grounds of appeal on a sentence like that are if a sentence was manifestly inadequate. I can only presume the DPP came to the conclusion the sentence was not manifestly inadequate when you consider the perverting the course of justice conviction.
That is where I suspect that is at, and I can refer the honourable member to Jack Karczewski as the head of the DPP if she wants to ask further questions. I have no more influence over Mr Karczewski than any other member of this House. That being the case, I also thank the Minister for Transport for his observations and comments about his personal experiences as a police prosecutor. This is good law; it gives strength to the original intent of this House, and I am grateful to members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In Committee:
MR CHAIR: The committee has before it the Criminal Code Amendment (Hit and Run) Bill 2013 (Serial 57).
Mr WOOD: Clause 4 is about the changes you have introduced, which are:
Mr ELFERINK: Fail to stop after an accident.
Mr WOOD: It is:
That section also relates to contacting the police. The first question is, do the two conflict with one another in relation to when you have to contact police? In the Traffic Regulations, it talks about
So, is there a problem with …
Mr ELFERINK: The short answer is no and the reason is they are two quite specific offences. Occasionally, offences will cover the same sort of turf, arising out of similar fact scenarios, but when you refer to section 19 of the Traffic Regulations, which I think is the failure to report an accident – it is a long time since I read those regulations.
Mr WOOD: It is:
If you are particularly charged with that offence, it would arise out of circumstances where, for example, you had a fender bender or prang, something like that, and you have been charged with an offence under the Traffic Regulations. That is dealt with accordingly. In this instance, the legislation we are talking about covers a much wider field; it is an indictable offence, which means it carries a much more serious penalty. Therefore, there are a number of defences available under the operation of the Criminal Code Act. As a consequence, the court will respond to the offence for which you have been charged.
It is not inconceivable you could be charged with both simultaneously, arising from the same facts. It has happened on a number of occasions in the past where the same facts would lead to a number of charges. Colloquially among police officers, I think that is called charging someone with ‘a hamburger with the lot’, but the court will respond to the offence you have been charged with. It will then reflect upon the facts surrounding the circumstances leading up to that charge.
What would normally happen in the practical world is if you are charged with the more serious indictable offence and the lesser offence, the lesser offence would drop away during the prosecution process. This does not necessarily have to occur, but in likelihood it would drop away and you would be answerable for the indictable offence. Alternatively, if the indictable offence cannot be made out for want of evidence or the presence of a reasonable excuse from the operation of the Criminal Code Act, the prosecution may pull the indictable offence and proceed with the regulatory offence. I hope that explains what you are after.
Mr WOOD: I have had a bit to do with regulatory offences and how difficult it is to get out of them. You require a very good lawyer. It does make sense. To clarify another thing, regulation 19 also deals with property. I presume, according to this, it means horses, cattle, buffalo, camels, sheep, pigs or dogs.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I suppose you would be right.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Obviously, that does not apply to the law we are putting through here. This is to do with human beings who have been killed or injured. I hope this is not a dumb question, but why have that regulation? Why not remove the human side of the regulation, leave it in the Criminal Code Act, and just leave the rest, which is related to property, in the regulations?
Mr ELFERINK: That is not a dumb question. When I talk about regulatory and indictable offences, it really comes down to if you wanted to amalgamate the two. In reality, their nature is quite different.
For example, say I have a fender bender in the Coles supermarket car park; I buckle up somebody else’s quarter panel and drive off. The offence to charge me with is an indictable offence; it means I would, in every likelihood, go to the Supreme Court. It is a level of seriousness that is really high, so it requires a massive amount of investigation. This is where you get QCs in and that sort of thing and is not really a good fit for a fender bender. Alternatively, if you were just to rely on the regulatory offence for these sorts of offences, where somebody has been knocked off their bike on the side of the road and very badly injured, that offence pulls up way short of public expectation of retribution against the person convicted of that offence.
The circumstances of why you would be charged with a breach of the Traffic Regulations would be quite different to why you would be charged with a breach of this particular law. It has a lot to do with seriousness. When one charge is asked to capture a raft of possible circumstances, it is not unusual to break that into different charges. Otherwise, you end up having massive police investigations for indictable offences, because you have so many more hurdles to jump in the prosecution of an indictable offence that it would not be worth your while, honestly. As a police force, would you really commit huge amounts of resources to investigating a fender bender because you must meet all benchmarks required for a Supreme Court file in pursuing an indictable offence? Not really. It is pure pragmatism that drives legislation in this fashion.
Mr WOOD: This is a practical question. There is an accident and someone is knocked over, and someone does not stay around. The police officers, I presume, are the ones who make a decision which way they are charged, through regulation or the Criminal Code Act?
Mr ELFERINK: Essentially, the first level of discretion in any prosecution does not rest with the courts. The courts have made this abundantly clear. There is a common law acceptance of the principle of regulatory discretion. Moreover, the courts go one step further and say they expect us to use it. The first judge in any matter is PC Plod.
Take something like a speeding offence, 5 km/h over the speed limit. That is a regulatory offence, and if you wrote out the ticket, it would be almost impossible to argue it. However, the copper comes along and asks why a person was speeding, and they say they were in a hurry. It would not be reasonable to pursue a ticket for 5 km/h over, so the copper wags the finger and says, ‘Do not do it again’. That is an expression of the power of discretion: the lower the standard of the offence, the broader the power of the discretion. Courts are not going to get excited if police officers give verbal warnings for very minor types of traffic offences and those sorts of things. The more serious the offence, the general principle would be the smaller the amount of discretion.
I would not like to see a police officer or investigating authority come to the point where they investigate a murder and say, ‘We are not going to look in to it. We will exercise our discretion.’ The test of whether or not the police officer is acting appropriately is the test of reasonableness. As I have said before, there are textbooks written on the concept of reasonableness. It is well established in law. Basically, common sense applies.
Mr WOOD: This is the last question, and it may not be something you can deal with. In relation to punishment penalties for the Criminal Code Act amendment we have today versus regulations, do you have any idea if they are vastly different or if they are similar?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the common law around regulatory offences, without dragging it out, has created a system by which regulatory offences can be declared. If you go back to the history of regulatory offences, what they effectively do is run a test, and courts have run a test over what is a regulatory offence. Among the things is the seriousness of penalty.
I have expressed my concern on a number of occasions that we have regulatory offences with gaol sentences attached to them; I question that. I have some concerns about that, and have articulated that, in fact, in published articles. However, for section 19 of the Traffic Regulations, I do not think I have ever heard of a person going to gaol for it. It is called, in old common law terms, a misdemeanour. What we are doing today is not a misdemeanour. It is an indictable offence: in the old language, a felony. It is the serious end of the deal, in regard to the regulatory offence, seriousness, public impression or public approbation.
The public would frown upon somebody driving away from a fender bender or running over somebody’s dog. The public would not be impressed and would expect some response, but I do not imagine the public would generally expect people to be thrown into gaol in those circumstances. The public approbation around this is manifest in the amount of noise made in the public domain in the Colosimo case in response to an argument the lawyers had run. Clearly, the public expectation where a human being is involved and is injured and/or killed is much higher and, therefore, the indictable offence is appropriate.
I doubt anybody has ever gone to gaol for a breach of the Traffic Regulations. If anybody has done gaol time, it is because they were charged with that and other offences, but I could stand corrected on that.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. The crossbenches support this legislation. It is good legislation and I thank you for bringing it to the House.
Mr ELFERINK: No problems. I think we can move through it, Mr Chair.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, the key issue for the future of the Northern Territory is the development of northern Australia, and the Territory’s capabilities and opportunities sit at the centre of this emphasis. In planning for our long-term future, this government is ensuring the context is set, clear direction is given to ensure communities are planned for that will thrive and all the ingredients of development, industry and infrastructure required for growth are properly researched, assessed and considered.
The Planning Amendment Bill 2012 amended the Planning Act to establish a Planning Commission, and its primary function is to prepare integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria for inclusion in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme.
The Northern Territory Planning Commission is developing the Darwin regional land use plan, a framework for facilitating growth and increased population, including future transport, utility corridors and sites for essential facilities. It is in two parts: a strategic long-term plan for the whole region that contains clear land use policy statements, and a definition of the sequence and timing of specific implementation projects in the region.
The Darwin regional land use plan will provide a policy framework for future development. It will position Darwin as an important regional centre in northern Australia and unlock the region’s economic potential. This important body of work is needed to identify and leverage opportunities associated with the Northern Territory’s geographical proximity to Asia. Demand for land across the industrial, commercial and residential sectors is strong, creating a need for strategic land use planning, as the Territory continues its robust growth.
On 17 December 2013, the Planning Commission released the Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014 for community input. It covers the subregions of Darwin, Palmerston, East Arm, Litchfield, Cox Peninsula, Finniss and Coomalie, presents the commission’s preliminary thinking and builds upon community feedback received to date. The commission is seeking comments up until 10 March 2014 to assist with its consideration of: ‘what’ land uses are required, ‘where’ they are to be located and ‘why’; within the context of further investigations into the various components, with potential to accommodate growth.
In addition, the plan canvasses infill options to support future land needs, such as Berrimah Farm and Berrimah North. New growth areas, including inner urban and rural activity centres, will also be investigated. Greenfield options have also been identified, such as future port facilities on the Gunn Point peninsula, new residential opportunities in Hughes and Noonamah and urban development opportunities around a new regional hospital in Palmerston north.
Planning for significant infrastructure, including airports, sea ports, rail and arterial roads will influence the final plan and the commission will ensure strategic land use and transport plans are integrated.
Feedback from the community will assist the commission in developing a final Darwin regional land use plan, and I note there will be further opportunities to comment throughout 2014, as this body of work is undertaken.
It is important to note the plan takes into account the City of Palmerston’s planning for Palmerston CBD and the City of Darwin’s work on the Darwin City Centre Master Plan. As we are all well aware, Darwin is one of only four cities in northern Australia with regional populations of more than 100 000, the others being Cairns, Mackay and Townsville. Overall, it is ideally placed to become a high-value, key urban zone within northern Australia, and should be the headquarters for the secretariat dealing with northern Australian initiatives. In order to attract global businesses, a world-class blueprint has been initiated for the development of the central business district that considers the entire commercial context of the CBD.
The Darwin City Centre Master Plan is a joint project between the Australian government, the Territory government and the City of Darwin. Funding comprises $250 000 under the Australian government’s Liveable Cities program, a $125 000 contribution from the Territory government under the auspices of the Capital City Committee and matched by another $125 000 provided by City of Darwin, totalling $500 000 towards this project. Extensive information gathering and background work was carried out by the Northern Territory government, in conjunction with City of Darwin. One-hundred-and-twenty stakeholder meetings and workshops have been held, as well as three structured community sessions.
The project included contributions from consultants across many professional spheres including landscape architects and economists, directed by the overall project manager, the leading urban designer, Mr Steve Thorne. A draft master plan has been prepared on evidence-based analysis, and aligned with the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, criteria for capital cities. The draft plan identifies three focal centres, a range of actionable projects and includes policies and guidelines intended for potential inclusion in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme.
It has been referred to the Planning Commission and government agencies for comments, due in February 2014. The master plan will then be finalised and some elements potentially incorporated into the NT Planning Scheme.
We have a regional land use plan under way, and a capital city master plan, which takes into account Darwin’s unique character. Both are substantive bodies of work, which have taken an immense amount of effort over the past year. I thank every public servant, consultant and member of our community who has contributed to date. I have stated before that one of the reasons I entered politics was I felt the ball had been dropped by the previous Labor government, particularly in regard to planning. There was no planning for the future; Labor’s Territory 2030 document was a set of goals without any game-plays; words without defined strategy. Mention was made of the densification of medium density housing, but no policy was set.
Labor’s lack of planning is why we see high rents today. The former government aimed for industrial growth, without the infrastructure and residences to support growth. The claim made by the former Labor minister, the member for Barkly, during estimates on 16 June 2010 was sad, due to the degree of self-delusion. He said:
No, they did not. In 2010, we saw one of the lowest land release figures of the past 20 years. In 2011, in Darwin it was even worse.
I also note that in 2010-11, the average application processing time was more than 60 days. In 2008-09, it was, again, far worse at 77 days to process an application through to approval. Today, it is around 52 days and reducing.
The member for Barkly said:
That is what it said, and it was not. One example is the SOHO project, where planning began six years ago; nine meetings were held over nine straight months. The developer was then told to pull the application completely, due to the sudden application of new setback laws. As a result, the project was set back more than 12 months. That 12 months has been critical, with the pressure on CBD accommodation and the need for new hotel rooms.
Now at least, we see more cranes on the Darwin skyline than at any point since 2006-07. However, as recently as 20 January 2014, the former minister for Planning, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was claiming the Territory’s high ranking in the latest Commsec Economic Insights reports was achieved:
It was no wonder we received an immediate, heated rebuttal from Territory developers in response. That ill-judged Labor media release confirms that Labor cannot be trusted in opposition, because it continues to mislead the public about the state of the Territory and the policies of this government.
Let me read a bit more. Firstly, what about the claim that the Territory’s current high ranking:
That is so misleading; it was deficit spending. Secondly, the CLP government has been, according to the media release by the former minister:
That is not true. Labor told Territorians that Berrimah would come on line; they wrote that:
will be the focus of new land release. Nothing happened. Labor went on to say there would be 10 000 housing lots at Weddell, completely overlooking the fundamentals of infrastructure investment, and that living and jobs need to be linked, based on sound economic analysis.
This is the very reason why this government has placed Murrumujuk on the map as a township to service a second port. The other thing to note is that compact cities require 40% less transport energy, and medium density housing, for example, is 25% more energy efficient than detached housing. Not only is infrastructure and transport less costly, potential workers can reach a much greater range of jobs.
Urban intensification means reasonably optimising the current footprint, thus ensuring our capital city becomes more productive and does not repeat the mistakes made by other Australian cities, where there are examples of a huge disconnect between the present and future working and living.
Not only did the previous Labor government display a complete lack of comprehension of market forces, publishing glossy proposals missing the fine detail, but it also overlooked the urgent need to match sustainable residential growth to industrial growth. Here is one example: On Wednesday, 16 June 2010, the former minister for Planning stated:
What happened? Precisely nothing. This government recognised that fractured responses that do not correlate with a complete strategy are not the way forward.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 36: the state of the House. This is such an important statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr CHANDLER: Once the NT Planning Commission was established, it was charged with preparing a report on this location.
It was recognised that issues had to be addressed with full regard to the new CBD master plan. It was recommended that the whole precinct be subject to a master plan that, in the words of the commission:
Again, this is not true. This government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, incorporating home ownership and rental initiatives, will see up to 21 developments, which will deliver over 800 new homes in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The initiative is already under way at Coolalinga and Tennant Creek.
The opposition then turned the focus on Alice Springs and doubled the misinformation with the claim:
In fact, it took this government to get Kilgariff off the ground, and lots are being sold off the plan as I speak.
It was of great concern to me, as the minister for Planning, to find, upon taking office, that the planning hiatus also affected the Territory’s major regional centres. I am, therefore, pleased to report the Planning Commission has submitted a proposed Katherine Land Use Plan that positions the town to better respond to potential growth in the mining, tourism and agribusiness sectors.
At Tennant Creek – the former Lands minister’s home town – land use framework was incorporated into the NT Planning Scheme in June 2013. This included provision of appropriate areas for future industrial development to the west of the town. A discussion paper is being prepared for Alice Springs CBD, due to be released in the first half of this year.
Beyond high-level strategic planning and a renewed focus on land release, this government is also intent on cutting unnecessary red tape, wherever and whenever possible. For Lands and Planning, this means streamlining development approval processes, like concurrent rezoning as we saw passed in the House today, and subdivision applications for which legislation is before this parliament. This will create an improved survey plan process, bonding of subdivision works, building approvals online and much more; let me summarise.
Looking back to Labor’s days in office, momentum slowed. Developers looked elsewhere and the Labor code of ‘can’t do’ was evidently winning the day. Looking forward, the Planning Commission’s commitment to engaging with the community ensures issues that matter to Territorians feature in the integrated strategic plans for our regions. Their strategic planning work will make an important contribution towards northern Australia, providing a workable framework, a structure for the future of the Northern Territory.
Momentum takes time to rebuild. However, with integrated strategic plans in place, the foundation is being set for our future population and economic growth. These plans will provide certainty and confidence for the community, industry and investors on future land uses.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, this is a negative and backward statement. The minister prefers to look in the rear vision mirror, as opposed to developing plans and opportunities for sustainable development into the future. The Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014 was rushed out before Christmas under the cover of the holiday period. Under public pressure, the time for comment on the plan was extended by one month. While I welcome this decision by the minister, the regional land use plan was 18 months in the making. It is a single A3 sheet of paper. The plan is a rehash of old CLP plans to build three dams and develop heavy industry at Glyde Point.
Madam Speaker, I made some comments this morning on planning amendments, but it is worth restating that, as the member for Goyder, you recently placed on the public record your views about the Darwin regional use plan. You have opposed damming Elizabeth River, because of potential flooding in Bees Creek and Virginia, and you have expressed other concerns about urban sprawl in Noonamah and along the Stuart Highway. On 7.30 NT, in response to the Elizabeth River dam proposal, you said:
You have also expressed concerns about urban sprawl in the rural area, and been scathing about the lack of detail in the land use plan’s recommendations on further development.
Many people I have spoken to agree with your critique that the area land use plan is:
A rehash of an old CLP plan on an A3 page is an insult to the public. What was the response of the two men who do not seem to talk to each other? The minister said, in an all-time classic statement:
People certainly are agitated, particularly because of your secret approach to planning. I am sure the member for Goyder would love you to go to Coolalinga and listen firsthand to her constituents and their ideas about damming the Elizabeth. The community gets agitated when you sneak things out during the Christmas holidays to avoid scrutiny, so agitated that you caved in to the public’s demand to extend the time for comment on the plan.
I will turn to the disservice you did to both the community and the proponent of what you refer to as Halikos island shortly, but let us look at the Planning Commission’s response to your criticisms, Madam Speaker. You said you thought the plan released during the Christmas holidays was:
The Planning Commissioner said:
We need a response from the minister on this extraordinary approach to public consultation.
Do you agree government should, as a matter of policy, restrict information on important matters about our future utilisation of land and sustainable development? Do you think the government should deliberately restrict information on important land use issues on the bizarre basis it will encourage public participation? My constituents do not support this approach, and I would be surprised if the broader community is receptive to the government’s strange approach to public consultation.
I turn to the minister’s comments about Halikos island and his approach, saying agitation is good for you. Last Monday, with many of my colleagues from this side of the House, led by the Leader of the Opposition, I attended the community forum organised by the member for Nightcliff. There was a lot of agitation about the lack of information from the government about the proposal. There was concern about there being no information in the draft land use plan concerning a major offshore development in Nightcliff.
There was also concern that the plan for the infill of Ludmilla Creek and the adjacent area was not mentioned, which the project would require. Had you properly engaged the community on this significant proposal when you first approved the oyster lease, there might not so much agitation. When you sign a five-year lease in secret, in the run-up to the Christmas holidays, and do not tell the community what is going on, you should not be surprised when people become angry and agitated.
As I said earlier, you have done both the community and the proponent a grave disservice. On the point of consulting with the community, the minister could learn a few things if he read today’s letter to the editor in the NT News from Mr Graham Kirby, a resident of Nightcliff. For the minister and government’s benefit, I will read some of Mr Kirby’s comments into Hansard. The title is ‘Don’t let blow-ins run riot in Darwin’:
There will be a range of views on the Nightcliff island proposal, but the minister has shown no interest whatsoever in consulting the community or engaging local residents. I commend the work of the member for Nightcliff in representing her constituents and their views. While most of us on this side of the House attended the information session last Monday, the residents and concerned people are angry and upset about the lack of information coming out. I commend the member for Nightcliff for doing her job and representing the people who voted her in.
I mentioned earlier the minister’s, and this government’s, preoccupation with the past, always looking in the rearview mirror. There is no understanding of what is required to establish a sustainable land use strategy for the Territory’s future. He shares a preoccupation with the Chief Minister for attacking the former Labor government, as opposed to delivering a better future for Territorians.
I will not go into much detail, but if the minister wants to look in the rearview mirror with a constructive focus, he might see a few of the former government’s achievements in the Lands and Planning portfolio. The previous government developed a coordinated planning framework, released a visionary and comprehensive greater Darwin regional land use plan, reduced red tape and sped up development processes via a one-stop shop and case management, fast-tracked land release with five new suburbs in Palmerston, and released land across the regions in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. It planned the development of a new city, Weddell, suitable for 45 000 people, and we did the heavy lifting in negotiations for the Kenbi Land Claim to enable the possible development of Cox Peninsula. This was fought against by the CLP government for 27 years. Minister, when will you sign the Kenbi Land Claim? That would free up that area.
We partnered with the airport to develop the Kilgariff land release in Alice Springs. We undertook strategic planning decisions around large infrastructure projects, such as Darwin prison, the Marine Supply Base and the INPEX workers’ village. We doubled the number of DCA meetings to keep the pipeline of development activity smooth and moving quickly. If you are preoccupied with the past, do not be fixated by the Chief Minister’s negativity. Be positive, receptive and look at the former Labor government’s greater Darwin plan 2012.
I will not go into too much detail, but I would be happy to give you a copy of the plan. Inside you will find seven strategic directions to support growth with sustainability at its centre. These strategic directions include: residential growth and diversity; sustainable future; strong and healthy communities; economic development; a green region; land use integration and regional connections. These strategic directions would be a good foundation for your Towards a Greater Darwin Land Use Plan 2014.
I mentioned earlier that Kilgariff was a Labor initiative and, of course, the brand new suburb of Kilgariff was conceived, planned, costed and ready to go under the Labor government. You have mismanaged this development to the point where the original lease has been slashed by two-thirds. Under the previous CLP government, there was no new residential land release in Alice Springs for 10 years. The CLP absolutely refused to deal with native title holders; Labor successfully negotiated with native title holders. As a result, Alice Springs got three new residential developments in Stirling Heights, Ridges Estate and Mt Johns, where homes are built, families are living and where local businesses have benefited.
I have already mentioned the unwillingness of the CLP to consult with the community on planning matters. This unwillingness to consult is compounded by an incredible amount of confusion within government on planning matters in general, to the point that the Chief Minister’s newsletter this month indicated he has no idea about the Nightcliff island proposal. These are hallmarks of an incompetent and secretive government, and the tragedy is that planning and engaging the community is very important. Why? Because they involve vital issues in relation to sustainable development, access to services like health and education, protection of the environment and our cultural heritage, and the kinds of towns, cities and rural environments all people want to live in.
The government has shown it cannot be trusted to manage these vital issues.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate, and I am disappointed this statement has approximately five-and-a-half pages out of 12 that deal with planning. The others deal with kicking the Labor Party. I do not mind that, we are in a house of politics, but it is disappointing if we keep looking to the past after this government has been in power for over a year-and-a-half. It is really something it needs to put away for the time being. You are in power now. Going back in history criticising the previous government is a waste of hot air.
We need to work towards developing the Territory in a way that is, as I have said before, sustainable. People should also view it as affordable – which is one of the tricks – and this can be done by bringing the community with that development, rather than fighting it all the time. I have five-and-a-half pages, and maybe the last page has a bit on it, but the rest is good note paper at the moment. This statement could be a lot thicker with much more detail.
The government talks about a number of things, but we need to remember how many planning documents have been issued. The CLP issued the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1990. There was a plan before that as well; I cannot remember its name. The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan was issued specifically to have a case against the Kenbi Land Claim. It was issued in a hurry, with very little public consultation. However, it was a good base to show how Darwin should be developed, and it still has some very good points in it.
One of those points, which needs to be reiterated, is that plan essentially said Darwin Harbour is the centre of our city, and we will develop a number of smaller cities around the harbour. I still believe that is a good concept. Unfortunately, the word ‘infill’ has come in to muddy the waters of that concept, because governments are a bit scared to develop new towns. The government is more interested in infill as a quick fix to housing problems. One of the things missing in this whole plan is a decent discussion about Weddell. I will get back to that later.
The Labor Party brought out a paper as well; I think it was Growing Darwin or something similar, in 2012. The CLP issued a rehash of the 1990 plan in about 2011, which was put out for public comment. The government is now trying to put out a new greater Darwin regional plan which has much in common with previous plans, not necessarily with the Labor Party’s plan, but certainly the CLP’s plans. You just have to look at it. The Elizabeth River dam and the port are back again, and there are a few things that mirror what was included before. That is not to say they were bad, but it shows we have used previous plans, and we are now tinkering with them.
Basically, the same philosophy is there about developing a number of cities around Darwin Harbour. The major change is the move to densify. I love that word; it is a planner’s word: ‘densification’. I had never heard it until the planners got hold of it. It means put little blocks on rural land, in many cases. ‘Infill’ and ‘densification’ seem to be the in words these days, when it comes to planning. Nobody talks about the social implications with that sort of development, and that is a concern.
I will go through some of the issues the minister raised. There is a statement that we now have, a Towards Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014. It is there for community input. It says:
I would love to know what that community feedback is. The classic example of community feedback is when it came to the Elizabeth River dam, at least 10 000 people said no. The government said, ‘Okay, we hear what the people have to say and it will not go ahead’. I will show this to you, minister, you may not have seen it. It is from the NT News of Wednesday 24 January 2001, 13 years ago when it was 90, a reasonable price. The article says, ‘You said no, so dam scrapped’.
This is by Camden Smith; you would know him well.
‘Smaller city plan to go ahead’:
And it goes on.
I wonder what it means when the statement says the Towards the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan builds upon community feedback received to date. Is that community feedback from certain groups, political groups, planning groups or developers? Look at the plans for Noonamah-Hughes. The member for Goyder is fairly knowledgeable about that area from when this proposal popped up under the previous government to densify the area and put lots of small blocks there.
I am not sure the majority of the community living there is rapt with the idea of thousands of small blocks of land there. Regardless of whether it has been developed or is greenfield, it is still rural. I again query what community feedback was received to develop that land. It seems to be a bit of a rehash of previous plans influenced by other sources. I do not think, at this stage, some of those things could be regarded as the ‘overall community’ when it comes to community feedback. I will look at some of those matters further.
I need to put on the record that there was a letter from the Litchfield Shire mayor regarding the Noonamah-Hughes development. I questioned the council over whether that was a council document. It was written by the mayor, but not in conjunction with council approval. I asked if this was the council’s position on the Noonamah-Hughes development, because that letter basically said the council gives it positive support. I found out that letter had not come from the council and had not been approved by the council. The Planning Commission, which I called about it, presumed that comment had come from the council.
I am saying that because I hope community feedback is not based on that letter either. The reality is that was a personal letter from the mayor. He has every right to write a letter, but the Planning Commission obviously took that letter to be a statement from the council, and that was not the case.
The minister talked about Berrimah Farm and Berrimah North, and we have discussed this issue many times in parliament. I was talking to one of the major industrial developers there, who recently told me he was always told that land would not be residential. You need to be very careful developing that area. It certainly looks like prime land for residential development. I will not die on the stake if you want to put houses there – that is your decision – but there are some industrial developments around there that would not suit a residential development nearby.
There are issues about noise from the Hidden Valley race track, sandflies and noise from the highway. There is a range of issues, and I hope before the government made a decision it gave it some thought, because there is also development at East Arm port. What is the future over 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years? Will that land need to be set aside for industrial development? You have industrial development at Pruen Road and Tivendale Road, so you would set up residential land between two industrial precincts. You would also have a large industrial development, Ostojic, nearby, which crushes rock or works with extracted materials because it has a concrete batching plant there.
There is a range of issues the government needs to be careful of. It looks good on paper, but whether it is the right place is different, so I will give you a suggestion, because everything seems to be disappearing in Darwin, like badminton and the printing office. How about getting rid of the Fannie Bay race track and putting it at Berrimah, on the highway, beautifully flat, where it is a nice position between both cities? You could then develop Fannie Bay for housing and give our race track a chance to expand, maybe even have a trotting track and the dogs there as well.
You could then sell off Winnellie greyhounds as well. I give this as a positive thing, not just a silly thing; there is land there, close to the highway which could be developed for both horse and dog racing. This would free up some of the land that you are talking about.
Poor old Fannie Bay has always been squeezed in within the community. When there was an expansion of the stables not long ago, there were many complaints from residents about the smell that would come from those stables. You have a major drain at the edge of where the racing stables sit, at the side of Fannie Bay. To some extent, it is crammed in, and it is difficult to expand because of its proximity to housing, the mangroves and some of the drainage works around there.
I do not say this as a silly proposition. You have land there, you might be better to move some existing facilities there and redevelop those parcels of land for housing. The member for Goyder will be pleased to know we have this statement: urban development opportunities around a new regional hospital in Palmerston north.
You are the minister for Planning, and the minister for place names. I hope you can find where Palmerston north is.
Mr Chandler: It is in your electorate.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not. The member for Goyder, who lives close by there, and her mother would not be pleased with it being called Palmerston north. It was attempted once in rates notices about 15 years ago, and it disappeared quickly. It is Holtze, named after the gentleman who looked after the botanical gardens. That is its name; it is not Palmerston north, and, by the way. north is north and east is east. If you can tell me the hospital will be north of Palmerston, you obviously were not in the boy scouts, because it is definitely not north of Palmerston, it is east in Holtze.
Mr Chandler: North of my house.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but your house is somewhere else. It is not north of Palmerston, unless you have a funny map. A concern of people in the Wallaby Holtze Road area will be not so much having some development within the hospital precinct; it is probably fine to have some units and flats for people who work there, but there is a plan for peri-urban – Oh, I love that word; it is so ‘planning’. What it means is 0.4 ha, which are 4000 m2 metre blocks. These are not permitted in Litchfield’s rural zone, unless they are within a district centre.
All of a sudden the land from the hospital, right through to Kowandi north is all pink.
Mr Chandler: Do you like that name?
Mr WOOD: No, I do not like the name, and I do not believe there has been any community feedback. When the road was planned - the extension of Tiger Brennan, which you might look to name as we do not think ‘the extension of Tiger Brennan’ will sound too good - there were meetings. The government at the time, which I think was CLP because I was on the council, promised the land around the area would remain rural: 1 ha below the road, 2 ha above it. What we now have is 0.4 ha and 1 ha. I know where the push is coming from. There are certain developers in this town who do not like Litchfield’s minimum lot size of 1 ha, and they have been pushing - I have seen the letters - at Noonamah and elsewhere about the exemption Litchfield has. It says the RR zone – minimum lot size 1 ha – is not coming from the rural people; it is coming from developers and some people, I think, within the department of Lands and Planning. It is not something that is wanted, and there is plenty of land available.
Could I put my two bobs worth in here? You can develop that land much more cheaply than you can suburban land, because you do not need kerb and guttering and underground stormwater drainage. You will allow an option for people, which is rural living, or rural residential, an option I would love to hear the government say is a legitimate lifestyle that it supports. What is happening here is nibbling away at that lifestyle.
Peri-urban is a nice name for nothing else but densification of the rural area, and it does not have community support. There might be a mayor in Litchfield who may support it, but there is not general support for it. You only had to go to the public meeting that was held about the so-called workers’ camp on the corner of Fitzgerald Road and Stow Road some years ago. You had a cross-section of rural people of all political persuasions, some very high up in the CLP, who said, ‘Go away’. They do not want to see that rural lifestyle attacked.
That is what I see as the danger in this plan, because there is so much in it; it is difficult for people to have a voice because there are so many issues here.
The minister talked about Gunn Point peninsula. It is an issue I am not necessarily opposing, but because it is a sensitive issue, it needs to be looked at very carefully. In fact, when you look at the maps, once again the planners have not taken into account the vast amount of mangroves, nor the rainforest in that area. Instead of taking those out of the development, they have just been covered in purple. On other areas of the map, planners have not done that; they have shown areas which will not be suitable for development. When it comes to the Glyde Point port, there does not seem to be any willingness to understand concerns about how that will be developed.
There is talk about planning; I raise the issue of the prison because I believe it is in the right spot. Some people objected, but most people consider it is in the right place. In fact, the member for Goyder and I discussed this before it went there, and she thought it was in the right place too.
What concerns me is the Chief Minister has made two statements to say, ‘If I had my way, I would never have built that prison’. I tell people to look at the prison and look at the conditions some prisoners live in. If they cannot tell me it is antiquated, and nearly inhumane in some cases, they obviously have a different point of view about how we should treat our prisoners.
I know the member for Port Darwin may be critical, but on the other side, I believe he is very pleased opportunities will come from that prison which help prisoners, such as with his Sentenced to a Job program, the ability to get nearly every prisoner in that prison working through industrial development in that area. If you go there and see what is happening, the women are doing the bakery, they will be doing their own laundry. There will be an invitation for companies to go there, do some work and get people employed. Yes, it has been expensive, there is no doubt about it, but I could not live with myself if we kept putting 1000 or so prisoners in the existing place. It is a hole; there are some good areas where the single quarters are, but some of the medium-security areas are out of date, inefficient and, to some extent, inhumane. That is an area I want to mention. Weddell does not get much of a mention.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Where is the debate about Weddell? Will it purely focus on whether we dam the Elizabeth River? That has come back for debate. The government said it wants to put it on the cards again, and we will have that debate. There were also options put by the previous government. These were done by independent assessors to show you could still develop a town of Weddell for 55 000 to 65 000 people without damming the Elizabeth River. They did a great deal of work on design and where the sandflies were; there was a great deal of preliminary work.
I would be very disappointed if the government shelved that work, regardless of whether it came from Labor. It was not done by Labor people; it was done by the same company that did Kilgariff in Central Australia.
I would hate Weddell to drop off the board, because there was a lot of work and input from the public and experts about whether Weddell could be developed without having a dam. That will come up and it is fair enough. We will debate that as time goes on.
The other area missing in the discussion was Aboriginal land in planning for growth towns. They are not called growth towns now; they have a new name, sorry about that. You get used to one name and they change it to another name. I thought we could have some discussion about planning overall in the rest of the Territory, not just Alice Springs or Darwin.
Where is planning headed in many Aboriginal communities? We have heard statements about the government being open for business. We have heard statements from the government saying what they will do for Aboriginal people. If infrastructure and planning are not right, then you will not get anywhere. Before this government came into power, how much discussion was being held about leases? We do not have a Council of Territory Corporation which, love it or hate it, was at least a committee which had the ability to question the government over a period of time, not just now. What is the state of affairs with leases? What is the state of affairs with housing …
Mr Chandler: Would you like a briefing? I can organise one.
Mr WOOD: That is all right, okay.
Mr Chandler: Because there is a lot of work …
Mr WOOD: That is right, but it is not here. This is five pages of good stuff and six pages of, ‘This is what Labor did and we are telling you all of your sins’. I do not really want to know that any more. I want to know what the present government is doing, and about some of those issues that were previously critical regarding development on Aboriginal land.
One of those keys is definitely the issue of leases. I have not heard any report about leases. When we had the Council of Territory Cooperation, the department would come to a meeting and give us an update on where leases were. It would say which communities had leases, the length of those leases, whether they were 40-year, 12-year or 99-year leases, and whether they were town or individual leases. They are all important to know about if we are to develop the Northern Territory. This statement does not touch that; it touches a range of things and leaves that out. That is something that needs some debate. At least, thank heavens, minister, you listen to me, but I know that others will not.
We need some form of CTC again. You can call it some other name, but we need an overarching committee which is bipartisan and can call on the government to tackle these issues.
For the last 18 months, I have not known what is going on. I have no way of finding out, except an odd question to the minister for Planning; I asked one question about leasing. We used to sit for two hours with departmental heads and question them at a public hearing about the state of affairs with Aboriginal housing, housing maintenance, leases and lots of other issues, like Mataranka. We could at least do that; we cannot do that anymore, which is so sad.
The minister also talked about the Darwin CBD plan. I gather that was launched today. I was asked to give my comments, and I wonder if it is too late. I made comments to the planning authority when one of those buildings went up on Wood Street. I said if the development was allowed to occur without adequate space around it, we would have six 30-storey blocks side by side in the future. There was that amount of land left that could be developed, and we now have three of them. I find it a crying shame that when I come in on Tiger Brennan Drive I see the great wall of flats, like the Great Wall of China. Those flats have now blocked the skyline from the view of people coming to the city; there is no space around them, they are side by side. Some have a slight angle, hardly worth any architectural merit.
We then have another block of flats next to the Defence housing flats near the back of the NT News building. When those flats were built, there was room allowed around them, and you could get a feel they go up, but at least there was space. The modern version of the housing commission flats has now gone up there. Have a look at it. I honestly wonder where we have moved in our architectural values. It is a grey, mundane looking block. Maybe it will be painted, but go to Port Melbourne and I will show you a multistorey housing commission block that does not look much different.
We have also lost that architectural merit. I talked about the Marrakai flats, maybe even the Mantra Pandanas does not look too bad, except there is no place for buses to go. I think it is the Holiday Inn, the one on this end, near the corner of Bennett Street and the Esplanade. It is on an angle, and has space around it. I was on Smith Street the other day and some of those old buildings have a bit of lawn in front of them, set back on Smith Street; wow, I have room to breathe! I know I put applications in many times, and yet these things have happened and we now have the Darwin CBD plan, so I start to wonder if it is too late.
Yes, you can talk about cranes on the skyline, but will we just end up with a concrete jungle? I used to criticise the Gold Coast. I would say the Gold Coast is a mile ahead of Darwin now. The Gold Coast has tall buildings, but it has space. It has parks between them; you can walk around them. I have always said development should be based on a formula. The higher you go, the more open space must be provided at the base. If you only have a small block of land, you only go up a little way. Urban planners, designers, commissioners and all sorts of people have put forward proposals, but in the end we have wall to wall blocks of flats on Wood Street which have spoiled our city.
We have plans for Halikos to put in an island. I have listened to the debate, and it does concern me. I think the Chief Minister said on radio, ‘Oh, Halikos island, wonderful, wonderful’. If the theory is we do not comment on it until we know what it is, how can you say it is ‘wonderful, wonderful’, unless the Chief Minister knows what it is? We should value our harbour much more than we sometimes realise.
The harbour is the jewel in development around our city. I do not think there is a need to put something in the middle of the harbour; we are not short of land. It is a bit like my argument about the Elizabeth dam or weir. Do we need to do it? It is done to have a recreational lake and to increase the amount of land we can use by getting rid of sandflies. If you live outside that area, can you put in a dam on the high ground, build a dam and have it maintained from the salt water in the Elizabeth River? Would it do the same thing you are trying to do, without destroying an estuary? I know there was mention today where they said you had referred to it as a drain or something similar. It is not a drain; it is actually an estuary and an important part of the ecological development of the whole harbour. That is one of the concerns I have, that damming estuaries or interfering with them is not a good process in this day and age. That has been proven.
There is a lot of work to happen here. I will hopefully be holding some meetings of my own in relation to what is going on. I will mention to the people on Wallaby Holtze Road that the government wants to call them Palmerston north. Look out for the e-mails; I am sure they will come. We might suggest it is referred to as Holtze, because that is exactly the piece of country it is in.
I thank you for the statement. It is a little light-on, a little too critical of the previous government, and it certainly missed broad issues in regard to Aboriginal land development. I look forward to perhaps another planning statement in a couple of months. It would be nice to have an update on what is happening, because there are so many things happening, and we should hear from you more often. Do not forget the Berrimah Farm idea about putting all our horses and dog racing out there, because we could build up something really good.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the statement entitled Planning for the Future by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment.
The combination of a regional land use plan and the capital city master plan will firmly set the foundations on which Darwin’s future will depend. Indeed, this Country Liberals government has every confidence Darwin will thrive as the capital of northern Australia, and this framework will facilitate growth, welcome increased populations and embrace future transport utility corridors and sites for essential services. To attract the next INPEX, grow business opportunities with Asia, establish trade corridors and encourage the development of new world-class mining operations, we need to plan now so we can do all those things later. In short, we need to set the groundwork so future generations of Territorians can benefit.
The Northern Territory, in particular Darwin, is the envy of many Australian jurisdictions, thanks to the work this government has done to attract business, encourage new business and help existing businesses grow. This government has recognised that in order to escape the massive debt left to us by Labor, we have to grow our economy. This will be done by creating an environment conducive to business and driving economic growth and development through private sector investment. While the minister primarily spoke about developments of the Darwin regional land use plan, there are land use proposals which position our smaller centres to better respond to potential growth in the mining, tourism and agribusiness sectors. The many Territorians who live and do business in our regional centres will welcome this news.
This government is making sure all areas of the business community prosper, with a real emphasis on growing job opportunities in regional and rural areas. Demand for land for industrial, commercial and residential sectors is strong right across the Northern Territory, and the need for strategic land use planning has never been more important. This was something the former government did not grasp. As the planning minister said:
It was exciting to hear the progress of this government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, which is incorporating home ownership and rental initiatives. These will see up to 21 developments, delivering over 800 new homes in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
As the local member for Katherine I am delighted the Planning Commission has submitted a proposed Katherine Land Use Plan. This will position the town to better respond to housing shortages caused by our booming economy and lack of land release by the former Labor government. However, Katherine is in a unique position, as it is the only regional centre in the Northern Territory where the presence of the Defence force, in this case, the RAAF Base Tindal, has a large impact on housing availability. It is exciting that there are plans under way to build up to 50 tropical-design houses on the Tindal base over the next two years, subject to approval by the federal parliament’s public works committee. It was fantastic the public works committee conducted a public hearing in Katherine a few short weeks ago, where I had an opportunity to present evidence to the committee on opportunities for growth of housing in Katherine. This included the demographic of the Tindal base and how it interacts with the demographic of Katherine, as well as the availability, under this new government, of land for residential use being made available in Katherine.
This project will also help relieve the housing shortage in Katherine, as well as provide ongoing employment opportunities and a great boost for the Katherine economy. While there is a housing shortage in Katherine, due in no small part to the failure of the previous government to release land in a timely fashion, there is now no shortage of land available in Katherine, thanks to this government.
The Northern Territory government, in accordance with our election commitments, has already released more Crown land for residential development to boost the supply of new, reasonably priced homes. There are 170 blocks of land in Katherine East which are due for release in the next 18 months. The government identified a 52 ha site in Katherine East for residential, and some commercial, development. This will go a long way towards helping ease the pressure on the Katherine housing market and meeting future demand as the town grows. Once completed, this site will provide land for between 400 and 500 new homes. Growth in the region is expected as economic and job opportunities flow from a number of projects. The Territory government has accelerated land release to increase the supply of homes.
Katherine plays an important role in the Territory’s economic future, and the Country Liberals government is ensuring there is enough land available for new housing and commercial opportunities. As the Planning minister said in his statement:
I certainly support this statement on planning for the future, delivered by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. In closing, I want to reiterate some points that have perhaps already been made, and maybe touch on a few things the member for Nelson spoke about. I do not intend to address too much of that. This government is driven to provide the necessary infrastructure and opportunities for economic growth to occur, both in Darwin and across the Northern Territory in rural, regional and remote areas.
It is terrific to see the amount of work being put in by the minister, his department and staff with whom he works to identify new opportunities around land release and getting future planning right. What we do not want is an ad hoc approach to planning in the Northern Territory. We certainly want to have a strategic plan, something that is big, far sighted, that reaches out and, in some cases, might be considered a little pie in the sky. However, without having those types of lofty goals available to us, we will be forever constrained to the type of planning that was a hallmark of the previous Labor government. It could probably be best described as non-existent or, at worst, ad hoc.
I will quickly touch on a couple of things the member for Nelson raised. The member for Nelson was reasonably critical of the statement in some respects, insofar as he thought it needed to touch on far more topics and more aspects of planning across the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson must understand this is a statement on a particular topic. I know the minister is keen to pursue other opportunities to present statements in this House that will cover a much broader range of topics.
The other thing I want to touch on is something I see more and more of with the member for Nelson as time rolls by: his preference for governing by committee. I have heard the member for Nelson time and time again talk about wanting to have a committee for this and a committee for that and a committee for every other thing going on in the Northern Territory. That might have suited the Labor Party’s agenda when it was in government, because committees tend to stall process. They certainly stop things from happening in a timely fashion and, of course, that would have suited the previous Labor government nicely.
I am surprised, in some ways, there was not some sort of water committee the former government could blame for the backlog of water licence applications that were not processed. I am digressing, but I say to the member for Nelson that we do not need to govern by committee. If you want to govern by committee, join a council.
This is the parliament of the Northern Territory. We have a Country Liberals government that is driven to achieve a great many things in the Northern Territory over a term of government, and that is what we will do. We will continue down the path we are on now. We will certainly not hold things up by placing them before committees just for the edification and satisfaction of the member for Nelson. All these totally unnecessary things just add extra bureaucracy, slow down time frames and reduce approvals, and that is not where we want to be.
Member for Nelson, you can talk a lot about committees if you so wish. Where there is a burning need to have one, this government will consider that in the course of its business. We will not react to your call for committee after committee as a form of governing this great place, the Northern Territory.
I again thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. I look forward to the growth of the Northern Territory that will be both driven and facilitated by the good work and planning being done by the minister and this government.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the previous Speaker, Hon Jane Aagaard. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CONLAN (Housing): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the former Speaker of the parliament, the former member for Nightcliff, Hon Jane Aagaard. I bring to her attention how well behaved we are on this side of the House and how badly behaved the opposition is. Opposition must bring out people’s true colours because they have not really edified themselves in glory lately …
Ms Walker: She threw you out a few times, Matt.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, she did throw me out a few times, but I gave as good as I got in those days.
I support this statement in my capacity as the Minister for Housing. It plays a direct role, of course, with the housing situation and finding affordable housing solutions for Northern Territorians.
With growth comes a bigger population, and with my portfolio of Housing we are here and planning for that future. We are delivering more affordable housing across the Northern Territory than ever before. While there is no definitive definition, I refer to the member for Nelson, who recently asked in parliament what the definition of affordable housing is. There is not an actual or definitive definition of housing affordability; it is a relative term about the capacity to enter the housing market, that is: cost and availability.
Affordability of housing will be affected by a few points: locations; access to employment; access to education facilities; essential services and proximity to social and family networks. It is worth noting that the National Affordable Housing Summit group delivered its definition of affordable housing. It is housing which:
Let us look at Real Housing for Growth. This government announced a plan for 2000 affordable homes across the Northern Territory in the first four years of government. These homes are to assist employers to attract and retain key skilled workers and to ease the cost of living for those workers. I am very pleased to advise the House that my department is currently ahead of targets in the delivery of those 2000 homes. The Real Housing for Growth plan has a raft of components to assist us get more homes built and ease the pressure on the housing market in the Northern Territory. We have been negotiating with developers across the Territory from Alice Springs through to Tennant Creek, Katherine and, of course, Palmerston and Darwin.
Our head lease initiative, in which we will take a guaranteed lease for 10 years, has provided the support and confidence for banks to finance developers wanting to build homes for our key workers. Developers receive the full market grant from the government, and we subsidise key workers who pay only 70% of the weekly rental.
We cannot build all we would like, thanks to, of course, the $5.5bn debt left to us by the current Opposition Leader, but we can, and are, assisting development and construction in other ways.
Tennant Creek, the back yard of the former Planning minister, has already benefited, and new homes and construction have commenced at Coolalinga.
In Tennant Creek, our head lease scheme is also addressing the soaring cost of rents in the Territory. As part of this government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, our head leasing scheme provides guaranteed market rent to owner investors, while the Territory government sublets the dwellings to eligible key service industry workers at about 30% below the market rate. This is a great initiative, and I am delighted to report the first of these units have been tenanted in Tennant Creek – great stuff under way.
Under the Real Housing for Growth head leasing scheme, the newly-constructed one bedroom apartments in Chittock Street were rented for $231, which is 30% below the market rate. The demand for the brand new apartments has been strong. In just a few weeks, three of the apartments have been tenanted, with another four approved applicants due to move in very shortly. The one-bedroom units include an open plan living area, a European style kitchen and are located within walking distance of town and all local amenities. At 30% below the market rate, it is no wonder they have been snapped up very quickly.
This saving will make a real difference to the lives of those living in Tennant Creek, and the young families struggling with the cost of rents caused by the former Labor government’s failed policies. Tennant Creek has been experiencing close to 0% vacancy rates in recent times, with a shortage of quality affordable rental accommodation …
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is the same in Katherine.
Mr CONLAN: It is the same in Katherine. New apartments are the first of approximately 20 affordable dwellings expected to be delivered in the region. These will help to ease housing cost pressures and support the attraction and retention of low to middle income key service industry workers in the Territory, in this case, in Tennant Creek.
These key workers can include the local mechanic, shop workers, hairdressers, health workers, hospitality workers and apprentices, just to name a few. These are people who provide services to us. We are very keen to retain them and provide them with affordable housing. The Territory government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, a head lease scheme, will help stimulate the housing construction industry and deliver 2000 affordable homes across the Territory over the next four years.
We are releasing land and building houses faster than ever to support expansion that will come with the northern Australia development. It is critical, and is important to this government. According to the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory figures, the median house price in Darwin/Palmerston increased to an average of about 10.65% every year from 2002-12. Growth in property value has now stabilised to a more sustainable 6% in 2013.
The Planning minister – and I take my hat off to him – spoke about land use. The release of land is critical to affordable housing to meet a growing population. Most people recognise the biggest expense in their weekly pay packet is the rent or the mortgage. That is why the cost of living has been pushed up in the Northern Territory, and it can be blamed fairly and squarely on the previous government’s failed policies. When we needed land release and innovative solutions to the land across the Northern Territory, what did it do? The answer was nothing or very little. It is because of Labor’s lack of planning that we are left with high rents today, fairly and squarely. It had no plan to support growth that came with major projects like INPEX, and Territorians are literally paying the price for this.
Labor will try and spin its way out of it through mistruths and misleading. After all, their leader is not called, dare I say it, ‘DeLiar’ for nothing, but the facts do not lie.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw. During the former Labor government’s term in 2010 was one of the lowest land release figures of the past 20 years. Twenty years! Just when we needed to be preparing for growth, Labor put the handbrake on land release. This is a legacy Labor has left us.
I was interested to hear the minister talk about the SOHO project in Darwin city, with residential apartments and the new 300-room hotel called lan, which is superb. It will be opening in a few months. You would think it would be pretty important, but Labor put the handbrake on that too. Forget about all the planning over the last six years, Labor said, ‘Let us stall it for another 12 months. We do not need any more new hotels. We do not need any more accommodation in Darwin to prepare for growth. Forget about the need for accommodation and hotel rooms, let us just put it back on the backburner; put the handbrake on and shut up shop. We are closed for business.’ Labor then has the gall to berate us for the pressures on accommodation in general, particularly the accommodation sector in Darwin.
Let us look at some redevelopment projects. The government has taken steps to improve the lives of people living in Kurringal Flats. We have called for expressions of interest to redevelop this well-recognised black spot in Darwin. Again, this is something the previous government was unwilling to do. Why? I have no idea. A subdivision of the flats from the Fannie Bay seniors’ complex has been lodged with the minister’s department, and will assist us to get the best outcomes.
The Department of Housing has also called for expressions of interest for redevelopment on Runge Street in Coconut Grove. I am advised it expects to execute a development agreement with a preferred developer soon. Again, to obtain the best return for the people of the Northern Territory on this valuable asset, we have had the site rezoned to medium density residential to support this project.
We are using planning processes to help increase housing stock and ease the pressure on prices across the Northern Territory. This is what governments do, it is what governments should do and it is what this government is doing. Why did the previous government not help with cost of living pressures felt by Territorians? The answer remains unknown.
Central Australia was ignored by the previous Labor government for eleven-and-a-half long years. There are so many examples, and I do not have the time to articulate the neglect felt by Central Australia.
It is unbelievable to consider a government would ignore a major economic region for so long, but that is what we had to put up with in the Northern Territory and Central Australia. Land release in Alice Springs has been sporadic and primarily driven by the private sector. The opposition will bang their drum about Kilgariff, but all it did was say it would build it. It took a Country Liberals government to start developing it; as I said today, 33 blocks, 21 expressions of interest already. It was going to be 2015 before we saw any works undertaken at Kilgariff by the previous government; thank goodness the Territory saw sense. It is up to us to clean up the mess and address the housing shortages in Central Australia which we have been left with by the previous government. We expect to have titles issued and construction of homes started well before 2015.
I am told we have received 21 expressions of interested already. We have altered zoning on the old bowling club site in Alice Springs to encourage development. How long did that sit vacant under the previous Labor government? It is a large tract of land, smack bang in the middle of the CBD which has been doing nothing for years, while Labor watched house prises increase, along with the cost of living.
Thanks to my colleague, the minister for Justice, who enabled prisoners to gain skills through the Sentenced to a Job program, we have taken an aged block of units in Elliott Street, had them refurbished and they are available for affordable senior housing, which is fantastic. Three cheers for the Sentenced to a Job program, initiated by the minister for Justice, and the efforts of the Department of Housing. Up to 100 local tradespeople were engaged and 10 qualified, affordable homebuyers can buy a home for the very first time. We are using tools available to us under the Planning Act to assist Territorians in accessing affordable homes, something the previous government never did. We are utilising the tools available to us, as a government, to make life better and more affordable for Territorians.
In closing, I commend the minister for Lands and Planning, I congratulate him on his initiatives. I congratulate all my colleagues, who are doing everything they can to ease the cost of living and provide affordable housing solutions for all Territorians across the entire Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak tonight on the loss of a great man from Pine Creek in my electorate, I would like to mention my disgust at the behaviour of the member of Barkly in Question Time today.
I consider his yelling at me to be extremely aggressive and highly offensive. As a survivor of repeated domestic abuse, his behaviour brought back terrible memories. I realise I should have spoken out about this at the time of the behaviour. I was so shocked at the misogynous behaviour on display I did not say anything. I consider the member for Barkly’s conduct highly out of order and not welcome in this Chamber or today’s society.
As Minister for Women’s and men’s policy, it is this type of behaviour I am trying to get rid of. There is no excuse for it, despite the robust nature of parliament. I am more than happy to have robust debates about issues, but it is clear the opposition cannot. Instead, they resort to grubby personal attacks, abuse and aggressive conduct. It is extremely sad to see members of parliament demonstrating such poor behaviour and the public expect better from us. The worst thing is schoolchildren see behaviour like that and consider it okay.
I wish to talk about the loss suffered by the community of Pine Creek recently. I am referring to the loss of Mr Leslie ‘Tex’ Milton Moore, a long-term resident of Pine Creek. Tex reached the ripe old age of 87 years. He lived for over 70 years in the Northern Territory, moving here in the 1940s. Tex is survived by three children: Lynne, Jan and Les.
As with many great Northern Territory men, Tex helped build the Northern Territory. There are plenty of stories about Tex I cannot tell this House or put on Hansard that attest to his legend. However, there is one story I can tell about him and his adventures. Early in life, while mustering, Tex grabbed hold of a bull’s tail. As he rode along behind the bull at great speed holding its tail, Tex did not see the fast-approaching tree. He smashed into the tree and ended up breaking his right collarbone but, being a true bushie, Tex got on with life and never had his shoulder fixed. If you ever met Tex, you could clearly see his damaged shoulder.
Tex did not stop at developing relationships with trees. He had a range of adventures. One of them was being a guide for a group of geologists who were looking to explore country around Dorisvale. Tex, and the geologists, were travelling with pack mules when the trail became narrow and quite dangerous. The trail was so narrow the group had to remove the packs from the mules to get through, as the width of the packs would have knocked the mules from the trail. As they passed through one by one, Tex and the geologists had to go back to bring the mules’ packs through one by one.
Tex was also interested in minerals and found baryte west of Dorisvale. Madam Speaker would know, from her extensive time in the industry, the mineral consists of barium sulphate, which is used in a range of anti-friction products for mining, paint, engine parts, cement, glass and medical equipment. Tex owned Dorisvale Station for approximately 20 years from 1959. After selling Dorisvale, he moved to a smaller piece of land near the Claravale Crossing called El Rancho, but not so grando!
Tex was one of the true characters of Pine Creek and a life member of the Pine Creek Turf Club. He will be remembered at a service at Pussycat Flats on Saturday 22 February 2014 at midday. Rest in peace, Tex. I offer my deepest condolences to his children. Thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I mention several schools in my electorate, what they are proposing to do for the year, and to acknowledge a couple of the great teachers who work in the schools. Not that every teacher in the schools is not great, but I want to mention a few.
The first school I would like to reference is Middle Point Primary School, one of the small government schools in my electorate. It is located, as I have mentioned before, on Anzac Parade at Middle Point, which is quite close to Fogg Dam. Recently, with the large amount of rainfall and the Arnhem Highway being taken out because of flooding, many of the children attending the school who live on the other side of the Adelaide River were not able to get to school, as often happens. We have heard about Taminmin College students in the past, but we do not often hear about other students or schools being affected. Middle Point was one of those schools.
From the school on the other side, Principal, Narelle Dahl and her other teacher, Sarah Felosi, did up school packs, and one of the nearby residents kindly used his helicopter to take them from the school to the other side of the river to the Corroboree Tavern area. About half of the students – 15 – were stuck on the other side and were able to continue their schooling. The principal, Narelle, rang the homes to make sure the students were keeping up with their schoolwork and they understood what was in their packs. I say congratulations. It is not every day you hear of these types of activities and what teachers do to make sure their students get the best education possible. Thank you to Middle Point Primary School Principal Narelle Dahl, to Sarah Felosi, and Donna Bradford, the administrative support person.
To anyone who wants to visit a really nice school in the Northern Territory, I recommend making an appointment, through the minister’s office, to visit Middle Point. They have some interesting challenges. Not every school principal has to check there are no crocodiles on the oval before the students go out to play. That job lands in the principal’s office, given the closeness to Fogg Dam. They also do a lot of snake patrols because, as we know, there is a large snake population in that area as well. Congratulations to Middle Point Primary School.
The other one I wanted to reference was Humpty Doo Primary School and Principal Susanne Fisher, and Geoff Gillman and all the staff. It is a really hard-working school. It is a very old school, with over 350 students from around the rural area. Many Vietnamese families send their children there and it is a very multicultural school. Every year they have a wonderful Harmony Day, which is on 21 March, where they invite communities and families from around the rural area to showcase and sample food, and conduct activities such as making things out of coconut leaves and that type of thing. It is a great day and I have been there a few times. Barbara Doukas is often heavily involved with organising that and, no doubt, they will do it this year. Congratulations to that school and I look forward to working with them this year. They have their AGM coming up in early March, which I, hopefully, can attend. We will see a new committee and council there.
Next is Girraween Primary School, which is not exactly in my electorate but many children who attend it come from my electorate, predominately from the Herbert area and further afield. Helen Chatto is Principal, and Marissa Boscato Assistant Principal. This is also, as are all schools in the rural area, a great school. They also have a great Harmony Day with breakfast and all types of activities which embrace our multicultural community and families in the rural area, particularly Asian families. They also have their AGM coming up on 11 March and, hopefully, I can attend that. They will also have a new school council.
Girraween Primary School is also well-known for its small farm at the back of the school. It has an open day, or field day. I have been a few times now and it is wonderful to see how the students raise poultry. They have a couple of goats, a cow and, of course, a huge amount of – at the back of the school they have chickens and …
Mr Vatskalis: Ducks?
Ms PURICK: I do not know about ducks. They …
Mr Vatskalis: Turkeys?
Ms PURICK: The cow lives with the goats, and the chickens live somewhere. They grow an amazing array of vegetables and herbs. It is good to see because we need to encourage all our young students and families to grow their own produce. Well done Girraween. I am sure they will have a busy year, like normal. Congratulations to the assistant principal and all the teachers.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, minister Chandler spoke on his Lands and Planning statement. I will not speak about the statement as such, but I want to comment again – I have made representations to the Planning Commission regarding some of the items in its two-page document. The member for Nelson raised this issue, and I also raise the issue that there is no such place as Palmerston north.
The proposed hospital is located in Holtze, which is in the Litchfield Council boundaries. For those of you who have ever done rogaining, bushwalking or been a scout or guide, there is a distinct difference between north and true north. Clearly, someone who does not know the difference has been involved with the documentation.
It is a great location for the hospital. It would be great for people in the rural area as well as others who will need care. I have asked the minister in the past, and will be asking again, to look at the final naming of the hospital. North of Palmerston is not in Holtze. North is back towards Darwin. We need to get that clear right from the word go. There is no way people who live in the Holtze region, which is quite extensive, will accept being included in the suburbs of Palmerston. I will not say why they do not like it; that is for you to imagine. I will not go back to them putting their rubbish in our rubbish dumps – that is a story from the past.
It is a great proposal and I commend the government on the hospital. The sooner we start building it the better because it is 10 minutes down the road from me.
I will be putting in another submission in regard to the greater Darwin regional plan.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about a matter of great interest to both me and the member for Greatorex, tourism. We agree to disagree on many things, but we both agree tourism is one of the biggest industries in the Northern Territory. I got under his skin because I went to China and met with people and he realised he should have done it. He did not do it and thinks I stole his thunder, but that is not the case. I went to China because he said nobody knows what the Chinese consumer wants.
First, let us find out about the Chinese consumer or consumers from northeast Asia. Are many coming to Australia? Yes, there are. Are many coming to the Northern Territory? According to Tourism NT statistics visitors from northeast Asia, which includes China, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan, there was a 6.9% increase between 2012-13. They must be coming to the Territory. We had 16 000 visitors in 2012, and 17 000 in 2013. He also said, ‘If you care about China now, what did you do when you were Minister for Tourism?’ I made a mistake, it was not 2005; it was 2008. It was the first time I went to China as a guest of CCTV, the channel which makes documentaries promoting different areas around the world. In that year a crew of CCTV-9 were in the Northern Territory filming a documentary Heaven on Earth, which was shown to 750 million people in China.
I went to Tourism NT and looked at the statistics on Chinese visitors to the Territory. In 1999-00 we had 155 visitors from China. The year after there were 10 times as many, with 1600 visitors from China. In 2002 it went down to 200, in 2003 it went up to 2600. In 2004 it was 2700. In 2005 it was only 143, a bad year. However, since then the number of Chinese visitors to the Territory has increased steadily.
The numbers are: in 2006, 1800; in 2007, 4900; in 2008, 3700; in 2009, 1800; in 2010, 2500; in 2011, 2500; in 2012, 4000; and in 2013, 5000. Obviously something is happening and these people have finally discovered the Territory.
The member for Greatorex said, and I quote from Hansard of 11 February 2014:
As a matter of fact they do. Tourism Australia has conducted a survey which they forwarded to me after my visit to their headquarters in Hong Kong. I received it last week. They surveyed Chinese consumers from Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Nanjing, and Shenzhen and the results are displayed on their website. You have obviously not seen it. The department has not provided it to you. I invite you to look at what the Chinese consumer wants. They asked what they would choose for a holiday destination. Fifty-five percent said world-class beauty in a natural environment, 57% said a safe and secure destination, 42% said good food and wine, and 18% said a long distance non-stop flight. They further asked, for destinations, what they considered the best factors. For world-class natural beauty the preferred destination was Hawaii, second was Australia. For safety and security, first was Singapore and third was Australia. For food and wine, we came fifth after France and Italy, and I can understand why.
For friendly and open citizens, Australia was third again. When they asked about the cost of scenery, Australia was second. They went further and asked again, so we now know what the Chinese consumer wants. ‘What attracts you to Australia?’ Australian beaches were 57%, Australian wildlife 51%, rainforests and national parks 48%, Aboriginal culture 33% and 15% said the Outback. When they were asked, ‘Which areas do you like?’ Sydney was the preferred city at 57%, with the Gold Coast at 55%. Only 13% liked Kakadu and 17% the Red Centre. Byron Bay was 15%, Broome and the Kimberley 12% and Adelaide 5%.
What is important is Tasmania, Margaret River and the Territory were at the bottom. Why? These places have not been promoted heavily in China. Nowhere in China have I seen anything about Tasmania, Margaret River, Kakadu or the Red Centre.
You have an agent in Shanghai who meets people and talks to tourism operators, because the majority of people, when booking, will do it through an offline travel agent. They like personal contact. Your representative in Shanghai talks to people in Hong Kong – the tourism operators – they told me they see him regularly. When I say, ‘You’ve seen the representative from Tourism NT, but has the government had a big promotion in Hong Kong?’ It has not. When I asked the same in Guangzhou, there was none. Mind you, a few years ago I asked the same question in Singapore and Tourism Australia told me they were pulling their hair out because Tourism NT had done no promotion in Singapore, despite the fact people from Singapore who visited Darwin were raving about the experience. There must be a gap between what we think is happening, and what is happening.
Remember the saying, ‘You’ll never, never know if you never, never go.’ If you never, never see it, you’ll never, never know where to go! Where would you go in the Territory if the only thing you knew about was the Rock?
When I asked them about Katherine Gorge a lot of them said, ‘What gorge?’ When I mentioned Kakadu, they had heard about Kakadu but never seen it. When I asked them about Darwin and surrounds, they were not aware of it. They were not aware of the culture of Darwin, the Chinese presence in Darwin or the events of the war, which attracts a lot of Chinese people.
My point was not about pulling money out of traditional markets. The traditional markets are there; we have done it before. Your department, in the past 20 years, has done good work in America and London. I have already mentioned being in the London underground waiting for the tube, and on the wall opposite was a picture of a train of camels. This was in 2001. I have been to London many times since and there is nothing about the Territory. There is no Kakadu, only the Rock; there are many advertisements about the Rock.
We have to adjust our campaign to what today’s consumer wants. In the 1980s, Paul Hogan and, ‘Throw a shrimp on the barbie’ was the idea. In 2008, Tourism Australia thought the film Australia would bring droves of tourists to Australia. It did not happen. They misjudged what people around the world wanted.
My argument is not to take money out of the traditional markets. It is great we had an increase of 3.5% and 5% in our traditional markets, continue that work, but work with the emerging markets.
I went through the same process with mining. Everybody told me the place to be was Europe and Canada. We visited and had no response. When we decided to go to China the world changed its mind about mining. There was an influx of interest and people coming here to invest in mining projects.
I recommend and encourage you to take the CEO of your department to China and do not listen to what people say, because they see it from their point of view. You have to look as a consumer. Talk to the airlines and attract ones that can fly direct from China to Darwin in five hours …
Mr Conlan: Give up.
Mr VATSKALIS: Your attitude is dismissive because you do not understand tourism. You believe what the department tells you is sacrosanct.
Minister, you obviously have no idea about tourism, which is why you are so dismissive of new markets. Our tourism industry in the Territory will suffer because of that. Here is an anecdote for you: an operator here told me a delegation from China came to the Territory and the translator spoke Cantonese not Mandarin. Mandarin is the official language of China. People were on the bus and the translator spoke Cantonese. That is why we are not seeing people come to the Territory.
Departments sometimes make mistakes; they are not perfect. It is also because you cannot lead your department on the right path. I am still waiting for reports on Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Casuarina has given me a lot of material and I do not have the time to respond to it all.
It is extraordinary the shadow minister for Tourism, the member for Casuarina, has been exposed by my recent comments regarding China and our traditional markets, and we cannot keep him off his feet. He has to spruik what an expert he is on China. If you are an expert on China, that is great. Perhaps we should put you on as a consultant.
The point you are trying to make, which I articulated quite well, is what do we need to put in front of the Chinese consumer to attract them to the Northern Territory? You still have not answered that. We are seeing a steady increase in visits to Australia, but that is Tourism Australia’s promotion and is largely around the east coast. We are getting about 8000 Chinese visitors to the Northern Territory from the 800 000 or so visiting the east coast.
If you think you have all the answers I am more than happy to hear them. We are working overtime and investing huge amounts of money in the right places; not billboards with camels on them at the tube, or wherever it might be. We are investing our money wisely to attract the Chinese tourist, but we can disagree on that if you like, member for Casuarina, and I am sure we will. You can remark on and assess my performance as Tourism minister, but we will see how well Tourism NT, under my leadership, has performed when the visitor stats come out. I am pretty confident we still see an increase.
The member for Casuarina has left me a world of material, probably several 30 or 40 minute speeches in that little outburst. That is for another day and I look forward to that. I will take joy in those speeches at the next parliamentary sittings in three weeks.
I wanted to put on the record that during Question Time this morning, the member for Casuarina asked about Tourism NT’s relocation to Alice Springs. How dare we relocate a government department to the regions, let alone Alice Springs!
As we know, Alice Springs is a part of the Northern Territory the Labor Party finds distasteful. They have not liked Alice Springs for a number of years, particularly while they were in government. We have all seen the results of that, particularly those of us who live there, but more broadly the Country Liberal Party and now the Country Liberal government. It is little wonder and no surprise the age old question is, ‘Why the hell?’ and, ‘What do you think you’re doing moving a government department to that terrible, wretched place of Alice Springs? Why would you do that? The sky will fall in.’ It comes as no surprise. I said I would provide the member with the details. He, somehow, expected I would have the exact facts and figures in my head. No one in their right mind would have the exact facts and figures, nor should they. If any minister of the Crown is able to commit certain facts and figures to memory, I would say, ‘Get your priorities right. There are bigger fish to fry. You have departments and staff to provide you with those figures at a moment’s notice.’ I did just that. I tried to get them before the end of Question Time, but we finished a minute or two early so I did not have it. Nevertheless, I have them now for you.
The question was:
I have already addressed that. That is something the opposition finds abhorrent and distasteful.
I assume you mean Darwin or Alice Springs. I am not sure but it says:
The cost of moving Tourism NT to Jalistan House, Alice Springs, the breakdown: the fit-out $702 310; fit-out management was $68 697; the lease cost part year $55 408; and office move with WiFi – another initiative, WiFi through the Todd Mall – $61 965; a total of $888 380. I also put on the record that this information is widely available. I mentioned this in estimates last year. I was specifically asked by the former shadow minister for Tourism about this and provided all that information to the former shadow minister for Tourism. I do not blame you for not receiving the information from the former shadow minister for Tourism, who was sacked because he was unable to perform in his job.
Nevertheless, if you wanted to get off your backside and do a bit of work for a change, while in opposition you might have been able to look up the website and find that information, which is widely available. However, I will spend another 10 minutes telling you again, member for Casuarina, seeing you were not able to comprehend it last time.
That is the cost of Jalistan House – $888 380. The staff breakdown: the relocation allowance, $24 571.76; accommodation, $1748.23; removal and storage expenses, $70 976.58; air fares, $6268.57; and advertising $3154.86, which comes to a total of $106 720. The current cost, to relocate Tourism NT to Alice Springs is $995 100.29.
The second part of your question about Tourism NT positions, ‘How many staff remain in Darwin, how many in Alice Springs etcetera?’ In Alice Springs as of 12 February 2014 there were 29 staff and in Darwin 42. Staff on the books of Tourism NT in our interstate offices total six. That gives a total of 77 staff working for Tourism NT. Again, the breakdown: 29 in Alice Springs and 42 in Darwin.
The third and final part of your question was about the cost of departmental travel between Alice Springs and Darwin compared to two years ago when Tourism NT was based in Darwin. Between 1 July 2011 and 20 February 2012 – two years ago – total intra-Territory travel: accommodation, fares, and travel allowance was $126 897.44. Let us go to the same period, 1 July 2013 to 20 February 2014. The total intra-Territory expenditure by Tourism NT was $114 091.26. On those figures, it has been more efficient to base the headquarters in Alice Springs. I am sorry to burst your bubble but it is not more expensive to base Tourism NT in Alice Springs. I am sorry to shatter your argument. You are on a high but, unfortunately for you fortunately for the Territory, Tourism NT and the taxpayer of the Northern Territory, it is more efficient to operate the HQ of Tourism NT out of Alice Springs. They are the facts and figures and I can table it if you want.
Mr Vatskalis: Yes, please.
Mr CONLAN: I look forward to addressing the rest of the claims and allegations made by the member for Casuarina at the next sittings
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Tonight I talk about an important issue facing Territorians: the impact of smoking. It is this government’s view that Territorians who smoke should be encouraged to not smoke, but that, ultimately, it is an individual’s responsibility and comes down to individual choice. The Country Liberals government is committed to reducing the impact of smoking within our community. Tobacco use is the largest cause of preventable death and chronic disease, contributing to 7.8% of the total Australian burden of disease. In the Northern Territory, this is equivalent to 169 preventable deaths and $764m in cost per year. The Northern Territory has consistently been identified as having the highest rates of smokers in the country, with an overall adult smoking rate of 25% compared to 17% Australia-wide.
Nationally, there is a comprehensive evidence base that passive smoking, or exposure to second-hand smoke, can cause asthma, bronchitis,, pneumonia and, with prolonged exposure, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Children are even more susceptible to the harmful effects of smoking due to their smaller lung capacity, their body weight and under-developed immune system. Consistent with our policy of individual responsibility but having a commitment to protect children from the choices irresponsible adults may make, I recently announced we will soon be legislating to ban smoking in cars carrying children under 16 years of age.
The confined space of a motor vehicle dramatically increases the harmful effect of second-hand smoke. Research specific to the effects second-hand smoke has on passengers in motor vehicles has found:
1. air quality when smoking in the confined space of a car, even with the windows down, is more hazardous than levels found in smoky bars and restaurants
2. there was a widespread inaccurate belief by the general public that second-hand smoke was not hazardous when the windows were down, and
3. the exposure of children to second-hand smoke is associated with increased rates of respiratory illness, middle ear infections, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.
As Minister for Health, I am often asked about the issue of patients smoking at the front of Royal Darwin Hospital. The reality is, despite this being an activity that is not allowed, it is difficult to change addictive behaviours, especially when traumatic experiences may be occurring in your life which have caused you to end up in hospital or be visiting a loved one in hospital. It has been put to me by doctors, patients and visitors alike that a practical solution to the problem could be a designated smoking area away from the entrance and passers-by, where we could place information encouraging smokers to quit.
When I looked into this issue and raised it with the management of Royal Darwin Hospital, they informed me they were in the process of putting such a regime in place. They also informed me that, as strange as it sounds, designated smoking areas were always envisaged to be a part of the Royal Darwin Hospital smoke free policy. That is the decision management of the hospital has taken. I understand a designated smoking area for patients will be put into place over the coming weeks.
The Country Liberals government supports practical and realistic policy measures. We support measures which reduce the impact of smoking in our community, but we are pragmatic about how quickly our efforts can educate the community and how that will affect the necessary changes. Additionally, this measure will ensure the impact of second-hand smoke for people in the vicinity of the hospital is greatly reduced. This is the type of commonsense, no nonsense approach this government takes to the regulation of what is still a legal product.
In this vein, I can also inform the House the government has made the decision to allow people in outdoor smoking areas at licenced premises, which include pubs and clubs, to pick up counter meals from the bar and take them into the smoking area to eat if they choose to do so. We have the absurd situation at the moment where you can buy a meat pie, a packet of chips, any packaged food, Mars bars, whatever, and take it into a designated outdoor smoking area, but you cannot take what, in most cases, are healthier food options.
Additionally, rather than encouraging people who smoke to consume food whilst they are consuming alcohol beverages, this half-baked solution encourages more dangerous drinking practices. The Country Liberals will continue to encourage smokers to quit, but we are pragmatic about ineffective policies that simply do not work. The primary responsibility for the health and wellbeing of an individual must, by necessity, remain the responsibility of that individual. We are in the process of drafting the necessary regulatory changes to put in place later this year.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I try to influence government policy. I will start with a preamble about one of the passions in my life – to support Indigenous development. I have spent more than half my life in education and health shedding blood, sweat and tears with my family, and living and working amongst Aboriginal people in the hope of providing an important level of support.
I have engaged in urban areas, regional areas and very remote areas. I have just spent a fortnight in this House listening to government statements and debate. I would like to influence that debate, particularly for Indigenous Territorians, by trying to facilitate a shift in resources back into the early childhood health and education area.
In the last two weeks I have heard lots of visionary statements, lots of blame, lots of excuses, and a script which smacks of a government in opposition. It is all about blame, denial and trying to play the politics of the media, the smoke screen politics and avoid the real work.
I found an article in the newspaper which really articulated the challenges we have. After spending more than half of my life working in Indigenous affairs as well as in the general community, as a father, teacher, principal and foster carer, I think this articulates well what the problems relate to. After spending more than half my life battling, I have never seen it tougher out there. I would like to share with the House what I think is a good articulation of the challenges ahead for all Territorians. It comes from the Weekend Australian 2 February 2014. It is called ‘PM for Indigenous Affairs has his tasks cut out on that front: the key to Aboriginal health lies in improving conditions from infancy, not in funding cuts’. It is by Ernest Hunter.
The rest of the article talks about politics, and we are in the business of politics. The politics in this House is robust, but I am afraid if the Chief Minister is serious about changing things with his rhetoric around doing things differently, we will take heed of that article. We will dig into the science and the facts, and how we can make serious changes. This is as opposed to playing politics, reading statements and pitching personal abuse across the Chamber, along with a rhetoric of denial, complete abrogation of any responsibility other than to make tomorrow’s news, to ridicule and put down the opposition then march off into the sunset. This is real! This is a serious issue, and within the realm of government to start impacting.
The frightening part of that article makes me reflect on more than half my life working and living with Aboriginal people and raising my family in remote communities. It says it will take a long time to work through the continual levels of neglect and abuse, those generations will be challenging, and will slowly see improvement if we apply our thinking, rigor and our resources to this situation.
The government, in the last fortnight, has given us plenty of rhetoric and visionary statements. The Chief Minister touched once on Indigenous health, and it was almost a preamble which led into, ‘I will solve it all because I am will get these people a job’. Indigenous health and education are the two factors that will get Indigenous people into work. I plead with and urge the government, if there is any level of bipartisanship in this House it should be among the members from regional and remote areas whose majority constituency is Aboriginal. We should start celebrating that bipartisanship because it is Aboriginal children and families we are talking about.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the rest of the Territory has it challenges and is way ahead of the game. I ask that this article be seriously considered in government policy.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak in this parliament for the last time. In September last year I issued a statement saying I was considering my future. My consideration was shaped by my respect for my family, for Roz and her years of support, and my children, who have grown from children to adults while I have served here. My consideration was shaped by my thoughts of the families of my electorate of Blain, and for the Northern Territory and the unique place it has in our nation with all its challenges and opportunities. However, the challenges are manifold.
All of these considerations were guided by one central question: how best can Terry Mills add value? Honourable members, I have concluded it is time to provide the opportunity for another to serve as member for Blain.
I leave now to focus my attention on a project which drew me to the Territory over 25 years ago. A driving passion which pre-existed my interest in serving in parliament is the Australian/Indonesian relationship, principally for our region, and more broadly. I will continue to serve the best interests of the Northern Territory and our nation but, now, in a very different way.
It is a rare honour for anyone to serve in this or any parliament. It was an honour to serve the families of Palmerston as Principal of Palmerston Christian School for 10 years, then in this parliament for a further 14 years.
I acknowledge all the members who have served in this House in the time I have been here. In fact, I started in this very seat, in this very position. I can remember how nervous I was when I gave my first speech. I never imagined this speech, nor did I imagine giving it in the same seat, 14 years later.
I acknowledge all members personally. I have known you since I came here in 1999. The day I came in, Denis Burke had just started as Chief Minister, and Shane Stone was a backbencher, as was I. I have seen so much, met so many people and learnt so many things in that time. I acknowledge you as members. There have been friendships and there has been respect gained on both sides, but I acknowledge you more for what you represent. You represent the hopes and aspirations of families who struggle, who sit around tables hopefully, but often not, wondering about their future. You represent them.
I acknowledge that important role about a legacy greater than announcements. plaques or headlines in newspapers, but is, ultimately, a legacy that will be measured in the lives of families that will endure after we have gone. It is my firm belief, it is what drew me here, and I acknowledge Roz and my two young kids at the time. They knew they were following me because there was something of significance that had to be done. In fact, it was recognition that Australia is part of a broader region. No, it is not part of a market; it is in the presence of millions of other people we need to get to know and learn to work with. That is what brought me here and I believe the Northern Territory has, particularly now, a significant role to play in that area.
Our challenge, wherever we work at whatever level, is to bring our community together. That is our project, our task in the Northern Territory with its uniqueness, its challenges and its opportunities. It is an opportunity for us to bring our community and our country together, particularly in this place where the gap is widest. It is to remind our nation we are part of a neighbourhood, one that is different to what we are accustomed to and comfortable with. It is a neighbourhood that is changing and the quality of our engagement with that neighbourhood will bear a direct result in who we are, what we think, and how we interact with one another, ultimately to our mutual advantage.
This, honourable members, has been the most difficult speech because, it is hard to say, but it has been a genuine honour to serve in this parliament. As a member of parliament, I have served as a backbencher and a shadow minister. At one time, I had 11 or 12 portfolios and there were just four of us. I have also served as Opposition Leader, a minister, and Chief Minister.
I wish all members well, my colleagues in particular, those who have travelled this journey with me on different lengths of that path, Cabinet, and Chief Minister Giles. We bear an enormous responsibility. The Attorney-General often recites these words, but they have been a part of my language from the beginning and are part of our underlying considerations for everything we do: our efforts in this House must deliver true welfare to the people of the Northern Territory so our legacy is lodged in the lives of Territorians, and a lasting benefit is gained after we have left. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the precedence is if members have spoken in adjournment and wish to speak in regard to the retiring member they can speak again for five minutes. If you have not spoken, it is the usual 10 minutes.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): As a long-serving member of this parliament and as Leader of the Opposition, I want to acknowledge the contribution the member for Blain has made to Territorians, true to his constituency in Blain, but true to the broader Territory constituency. Whilst we may have our different views on policy, and I am sure the forthcoming by-election will bear that out, I believe we have always shared a deep desire to improve the lives of Territorians. I have witnessed the member for Blain through his journey, as a government backbencher, into opposition, as Opposition Leader then as a shadow minister, back to Opposition Leader and then, credit to his perseverance, determination and great personal strength, he took government for the Country Liberal Party. This is a rare thing.
I remember politics from the 1970s, and it was the great Gough Letts who became the first leader of the House for the Country Liberal Party. They then enjoyed successive terms of government. They were never challenged so much as when they went into opposition, and I saw the leadership of the member for Blain trying to forge a cohesive team through all those challenges. I have often found the work you did highly instructive for the way I have approached opposition with my team.
You took a collegiate approach, an approach of decency, and whilst I recognise we have different policy perspectives, you, as best as possible, shied away from playing the person. You were often put in a situation where you might have, but your core decency led you to land in a better and more gentlemanly space than might otherwise have occurred.
I, for one, will acknowledge the work you have done for the communities. I have seen the close relationship you have had across the multicultural communities. With the possible exception of the member for Sanderson, no member in the Country Liberals has forged such a close relationship in the 13 years’ experience I have had in public life. I know you are held in very high esteem through all those multicultural communities. I have witnessed the friendships you established with people in those communities.
I have seen, to our peril, the way you ventured into the remote communities of the Northern Territory and signed contracts for what you believed in, wanting to improve the lives of Territorians, which was your nature in forming relationships. This has been a great strength of yours and will hold us all in good stead with regard to your project and the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. Your ability to forge relationships, born through a core honesty and decency, is admired and respected and will hold the Territory in good stead. As I say, we do not share the same policy perspectives but do share a deep and abiding desire to improve the lot of people. I recognise yours is strengthened through faith, and I have respected and admired your deep and abiding commitment to holding true to your faith.
I have seen the way in which you have worked with people from a variety of backgrounds. I have enjoyed watching you interact with people with disabilities at Dancing with Celebrities – stretching your skills on the dance floor – and some of the tough endurance you do on the rubber hitting the road as a politician. You have done it with dignity, and, by and large, with decency and people can take a leaf out of your book.
I want to thank you for your contribution. We will hit the hustings and be on different sides of the battle lines drawn in the division of Blain. I look forward to the opportunity of being out on the hustings and the opportunity of a fair and decent political battle for the hearts and minds of the voters of Blain.
I wish you the very vest. I commit to working with you constructively as Opposition Leader regarding our bilateral relationship – our very important relationship with Indonesia – and if given the opportunity in the future to lead a Labor government, I look forward to working with you in that way as well. We will be taking it seat by seat, hopefully starting with Blain.
Thank you, sincerely, for the contribution you have made to the public life of the Territory. You were a hard worker as a backbencher; you were an even harder worker in opposition. You did not stop for a moment. You became a tireless worker as Chief Minister. It has been a difficult year, but you have done it with dignity and grace that very few politicians in our nation are able to show, and I congratulate you for that as well. All the very best to your family, who I daresay are looking forward to spending a bit more time with you. Roz and the kids have paid the price political families pay in less time than they would like, but I have seen Roz out and about at functions with you. She has been an asset, so I pass my best wishes on to her, and I am sure your mother will enjoy a few more visits as well. All the best, member for Blain.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her comments and civility. Member for Blain, Terry, it is sad to see you go. You have provided a valuable contribution to the Northern Territory, to this Chamber, to parliament and to the people of Blain for many a long year. I do not have the date you first came in back in the late 1990s representing the seat of Blain, taking over from the retiring Barry Coulter at the time. However, to come to 2014 is a generation in itself, a large part of your life, and would be a large part of anyone’s time in public life, or in any vocation for that matter.
We have often spoken about the commitment you have shown to the people of Blain. You have often spoken about the electorate, the demographics of the electorate and how committed they are to giving their support to you. That is testament to someone who has not just the tenacity, but the values to be supported so well by a positive electorate such as Blain. You have brought the representation and values of those constituents to this Chamber from a time before I was in parliament, and also since I have been in parliament. Even during our most recent conversations about some of the issues affecting your constituents, you have remained eager to fight for those constituents and raise their concerns.
Obviously this announcement is somewhat of a surprise, so I have not had a chance to speak to the party president of the Country Liberals or any of our close personal friends, colleagues and stakeholders in the party. I would like to think I could speak on their behalf by thanking you for the contribution you have made to parliament, to good citizenship in the Northern Territory, and for being a valued part of the Country Liberals Party machine and team for many a long year.
When we look to where we are today, despite the demographics of this parliament changing, you have put us in a position where we are of sound mind and sound policy to take the Northern Territory forward into the future. The contribution you have made over those years will ensure we maintain a very strong policy footing, and make sure we also hold those same values the Attorney-General has stuck all over his office: standing up for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
While it is extremely sad to see you go, anybody’s retirement presents an opportunity to move to another phase in life. You spoke about your dedication, commitment, interest and passion, particularly in relation to Asian relations and trade, and the Leader of the Opposition spoke about your connection to multicultural affairs and multicultural society. Despite your leaving today being an important milestone, it presents itself, potentially, with an opportunity to chase a passion in your life. We have, on this side of the Chamber, as a government, presented a strong case for actively wanting to pursue the role of northern Australia development and Asian engagement. That is something we are very interested in and, with you pursuing the same values, it will be very important for you and for the future of the Northern Territory and the country.
On a daily basis you can read in the paper the circumstances of some of our Asian neighbours. The more people we have, particularly from the Northern Territory, who can represent strong values and connections to those neighbours – it is important. You will make a valuable contribution in that part.
In regard to Roz, I know what it is like being away from family and the pressures political life or any intensive job puts on family. You will be in a good position tonight, where Roz will be able to welcome you back into the family home. That must have been challenging over many long years.
I have always believed you never know exactly what you learn off a person until you stop that learning through disassociation. I already have taken much away from you as the leader in opposition, as Chief Minister, and the strong sense of oneself you have shown as member for Blain. I have learnt from that, but I will learn more from you once you leave this parliament in the things I did not realise I had learnt in the period when we had that close working and political relationship. I thank you for that.
As I said, this is somewhat of a surprise. I would have liked a longer period of time to prepare a lasting speech. However, I know many of my colleagues would like to say a few words themselves.
Terry, from the bottom of my heart I wish you all the best. I look forward to seeing you in our travels from time to time. You still have a lot of valuable contributions to make for the Northern Territory, I hope for northern Australia and this nation, particularly whichever way we go forward in regard to the north of the Northern Territory. Thank you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be here for this announcement. I want to speak briefly about my dealings with the member for Blain, Terry. Terry Mills and I met a fair while ago and then I was fortunate enough to be pre-selected for the seat of Blain in 2008 ...
Mr Mills: That’s right. I thought I had seen you before.
Mr VOWLES: It probably leads on to Terry laughing at me, but I knew I would cop a hiding and I am still a bit sore about that. The hiding was duly handed out to me in 2008 because the people of Blain, although I was a great candidate, knew Terry was a forthright and honest man and his history in that area as a former school principal – I knew I was buggered.
Anyway, I went through the process. It was a learning curve, and history shows I am here. However, it is all about Terry tonight.
I wanted to go back because not too many people know that about Terry and me. The first time I met the member for Brennan was during that campaign as well. We have to be adversaries here. When I finally met Terry, and I did not know how it would go, he shook my hand and said, ‘G’day’, and wished me the best of luck. I thought, ‘That’s not what I’m used to. We have to at least sledge each other, do something here.’ As I said, history shows I copped a hiding but I got over it.
In 2012, the people of the Northern Territory voted for Terry Mills. They wanted Terry as Chief Minister. Almost a year to the day – I do not believe what happened was right. You were the elected Chief Minister and history will show what happened. We have moved forward, and I am sure you have moved forward, mate. However, on this side of the House, regardless of the banter and the toing and froing, we have always respected you. We have always respected your ability, experience, and skills in this Chamber. Probably more importantly, when we step outside this Chamber we respect you as an individual. We respect you as Terry Mills and that is important in our lives.
On behalf of all of us – especially me – I wish you well. Your family deserves the time they have not had with you. I hope you enjoy that time with your family. Your presence will be deeply missed here, and I wish you luck and be safe.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Terry, your announcement tonight has come completely out of the blue and I have to express my sadness at your announcement. I know for you it has been a big and tough decision, because I have no doubt, and have never had any doubt, that you are truly committed to the people of Blain and always have been. I imagine even outside this House you will remain committed to them. I know what a decision that is to you, because I think it is the fundamental that has kept you in the game for so long. You have been through thick and thin.
Without any skerrick of a doubt, you have cemented your place in Northern Territory history. You will go down as one of the great leaders. You are the first and only person to date who has led the CLP out of opposition. That is a formidable task and something only you can claim to have done. There is no other person like that.
You are a grassroots politician of the best kind. I think about politicians I have known – Roger Steele, Daryl Manzie and, on the other side of the Chamber, people like Chris Burns – who were truly, totally and absolutely in touch with their electorates and the people they serve. That is a commendable thing.
I have always had – as much as this might surprise some people – the deepest respect and admiration for Terry, and a friendship, above all. Terry and I have been on the same trajectory for some time. I was in the federal parliament when Terry was battling it out here as leader of a small rump of an opposition, an incredibly difficult task indeed. I enjoyed your confidence, Terry, and much appreciate your respect and support over the years. I know in my heart of hearts it has always been there, and I genuinely say I will miss you.
From Alicia, William and Henry, my family, we wish you the best. We wish Roz and the kids the best, and I am praying this will not be the end of our relationship in the years to come. I look forward to happy times in the future.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, where do I start? The man sitting over there is the man who brought me to this place. He is not that old, but I looked on him as a father figure. He was always there to provide advice.
When I was chair at Bakewell I was having run ins with Syd Stirling, Education minister at the time. I was frustrated the government of the day did not see Palmerston was growing and needed extra infrastructure. I walked into Terry’s office and said, ‘Can I grab a few minutes of your time?’ He said, ‘Of course’. That is the mark of him and how he stood up for the community; he was always there for the community. He said, ‘Come in, sit down’. I said, ‘I am frustrated. How do you get some common decency? How do you bring some common sense to government?’ Of course, he said, ‘Sit down’, and from that first discussion with Terry I ended up joining the Country Liberals. I suppose the rest is history.
The truth is he is this man I looked to for guidance, for the inspiration to do what I did. I have not come from a conservative background or the Liberal side of politics. I have not come from a wealthy family. My father said to me, ‘You are joining what?’ I said, ‘The Country Liberals, dad’. He said, ‘What?’ I said, ‘The Country Liberals’. He said, ‘How much country is in the Liberals?’ I said, ‘Well, there is a fair bit of country in the Liberals’, and he said, ‘I can live with that’.
If you described Terry Mills, would you call him a true liberal? Would you call him a conservative? I would call him a Country Liberal with a social conscience. That is how I would like to be remembered – to be seen as keeping the guiding light on what direction we should take for Territorians.
I appreciate the many talks we have had, the guidance you provided, the understanding of the role we play and how it can be difficult in this House with the argy bargy. It can get pretty heated from time to time. The one thing I like is – and sometimes I still struggle to understand – we can be belting the hell out of each other here and then I run into Ken and say, ‘G’day Ken, how are you going?’, yet we have just been tearing strips off each other. I look back at when I played rugby league, last century, and it was rough and tough on the field, but the moment you walked off you were the best of friends and enjoyed a beer together or whatever.
I want to thank Terry for the humility he has brought to the role of politician and the honesty and integrity. In your line of work, Ken, you will understand what playing with a straight bat means. This man played with a straight bat, always. I will remember him for this, and the time we had in this House is not the end of our relationship. This relationship will go on for many years. I truly hope what you do next – as this door closes another opens, and I think you have opened a window – the opportunity is there for you because of the foundation you have laid. The opportunity would not be there if you were not the person you are. The foundation you have laid has provided much guidance for many of us in politics, and I would go as far as saying not just for this side of the House, but also to our opposition when they were in government because you played with a straight bat. Honesty and integrity are, in this game, sometimes hard to find but you do not have to look further than Terry Mills.
When something like this hits you, you have nothing prepared, nothing written down. There is a lot of history with Terry Mills, but I recall one story he told me – I know it is funny and, because it is funny I will muck it up. He told me about this character who came into the office – all of us have characters who come into the office. This one – I know I will muck it up but it does not matter, it is a truth story. This character came into the office with a conspiracy theory that people were looking at him, watching him. He worried so much for this constituent he got personnel to look into his house to demonstrate there was no way he could be spied on; it could not happen. This person kept turning up at the office, and, at the end of the day – if the story is right you ask Barry Coulter for some advice – the next time the man came into the office to talk about conspiracies and people watching him Terry said, ‘Sshh’ and pointed to the ceiling. The guy never turned up at the office again.
There are lessons you can learn when dealing with people and some of the issues brought to you.
Terry also had a fabulous sense of humour. Some of the jokes we have shared, e-mails, texts – the funny side, the movies. He enjoys The Life of Brian and slapstick humour. Today, with many comedians, if you are not swearing you are not funny. There was a time where just falling over was funny. Sometimes you look at things and wonder what is funny then you think, ‘Yes, I get it’. It is a different level of humour the Americans will never get but the British understand.
My friendship will Terry will be ongoing. I owe him so much. He provided me with the guidance and courage to do something different. As I said, with my background I would probably never have looked at the conservative side of politics, but Terry showed me the constitution of the Country Liberals. When I went home that night and read it, I thought it was so much like the life we should all lead. The constitution of the Country Liberals was more about Territorians than anything else and doing what was right for the Territory. The more I came to know Terry, and looking at this constitution, the more I wanted to be involved with this side of politics, particularly under Terry’s leadership. He provided inspiration and guidance, and I will be forever in his debt. Thank you, Terry.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker – wow! One thing I think we all agree on is this came like a bolt from the blue. We all knew it would happen eventually, because all things come to an end, but I doubt any of us thought you would go so quickly, Terry.
Our relationship goes back to 2007 and the Greatorex by-election when it was just the four of us – you, me, Faye and Jodeen – and we slogged it out for about 12 months. We had about 10 or 12 portfolios each; we slogged it out over in that little corner of the Chamber thinking we were doing a pretty good job. A lot of the time we were kidding ourselves. We were being hammered by the 19 member government on this side, but we relentlessly turned up every day and tried to do the best we could for the Territory. That was largely under your leadership, Terry, when you took over from Jodeen quite early in my term.
We forged a great friendship which stood solid for many years. Politics can be so deeply personal, and our friendship took a turn during the leadership issue. I am trying to be completely honest. These things can hurt, be deeply personal and leave people wondering why, what happened, where and what. I am sure there are still a number of questions you would like answered in regard to that. My affection, my trust and my faith in you has not changed.
My family has always thought highly of you, in particular my wife, Elara, has always had great affection and admiration for you, Terry. I know some wounds take a long time to heal, and some never heal. I said to you at one stage during that difficult period, I hope we can get through this and one day restore our friendship to what it once was, which was very tight and close. Politics can be personal and very hurtful at times, and there is no doubt that left a lot of people feeling that way during that period. No doubt you felt that way yourself.
As I said last year – I only have five minutes because I have already spoken but am happy to take 10 – after five years or so in opposition we won the 2012 election and came to government. You showed enormous confidence in me by appointing me to your first ever Cabinet, something no one can take away. I am honoured to have been a member of the first ever Mills ministry. Working together during that short period we achieved a lot – as a minister working under your chief ministership. I would not be in this position today, or in a position where I can work for the betterment of the Northern Territory in the capacity of a minister of the Crown in this government, if it was not for the initial confidence you showed in me in September 2012, a couple of weeks after the election.
You provided me with an enormous opportunity, Terry, and the significance of that is not lost on me. For that gift, and the confidence you showed in me in 2007, I will be eternally grateful. It is now up to me to make the most of that, and I hope I am able to execute my position as a minister of the Crown and honour the confidence you showed in me in 2012.
It is not necessarily the end. While it is the end of this parliamentary career for you – 14 years from 1999 to 2015, it is just the beginning. Terry, in a number of media interviews you mentioned you still would like to serve. I know serving is very important to you. You are deeply committed to serving your country and your community. I am sure we will see more of Terry Mills in one way, shape or form serving his community. I am sure the Northern Territory will reap enormous benefits from the experience you have gained from this parliament, being in government and being Chief Minister. I am sure the Territory will be a lot better off. The future of the Territory is in good hands with the prospect of you serving the community beyond this parliament.
Terry, thank you and congratulations on an incredible career. Not many people last more than a decade in here. A few have lasted 18 years, some 15. You are one of the not-too-many people who have stuck around for as long as you have. There have been a number of elections and you have done a great job. We are all very proud of you and all thankful for your commitment to and presence in this Chamber over the last 15 years.
From me, Elara, Harvey and Cleo, thank you, Terry, congratulations, and all the very best.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is a terrible shock to be standing here tonight. Terry does not make decisions light-heartedly; he has thought long and hard about this. If this is his decision I fully respect and support it.
I was fortunate to be part of Terry’s team. He saw something in me, thought I could be part of the team and could offer something to the people of Drysdale. If it was not for him I might not be standing here.
It has been an incredibly difficult 18 months in government, and we have all felt and shared the pain of what has happened. Many of us are ashamed of what has happened. There are many people here who have always loved and supported you, and will continue to love and support you in everything you do. I am grateful we had that time together, and you gave everything you had and did a very good job. I do not care what anyone says.
The people of Blain love you and will be devastated when they see the front page of the NT News and read about this. I hope you did a sneaky letterbox drop tonight letting everyone know.
It is devastating, and a loss to the Territory. You gave so much, and we can only take so much of you. Again, thank you for everything. Do not worry, Pete and I will be fine. We will defend the hell out of Blain, and if these Labor people think they can come anywhere close to Palmerston bring it on, because we will nail you at the ballot box. Bring it on!
We love you Terry, thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I have only known Terry for three or four years, and have found he always gave me honest advice on any question I asked him. I wish him well into the future.
I will relay a story about one of the first interviews I had with Terry. He was the Opposition Leader and he asked me a question. I have never told him this story, but a few people who are close to me know it. Terry said to me: ‘If you get into parliament will you be after my job?’ My response to him was, ‘No way. I don’t want that job.’ The bit that floated in my mind was who in hell wants to be Opposition Leader? Definitely not me. I was not running for parliament to be Opposition Leader.
Terry, thank you very much. I have never been in opposition and do not intend being in opposition. I admire you for what you did in opposition. Thank you very much.
One point which needs noting is Terry is only one of two people to have led a party to government in the Territory. Thank you.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): I had a great adjournment ready for tonight, not having done one for a while, but in honour of the member for Blain I will put that to one side. It is far more important to acknowledge the contribution I have seen the member for Blain make to this parliament and the Northern Territory over a number of years.
He is the grandfather of the House and his departure will leave a great gap. We on this side know what it feels like. This is how we felt when the former member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson announced his resignation. He was sworn in on the same day as the member for Blain, and also a former Chief Minister.
I understand how members opposite feel about the departure of someone who is part of their close-knit team, the grandfather of their team and who has seen it all. We have heard from members on both sides of the House about what he has been through in the many years from government to opposition, back to government and Chief Minister. That is a hell of a story the member for Blain can tell his grandchildren and his family, and we all know the impact this job has on our families and our lives.
Whilst I am sure this was not an easy decision for the member for Blain, I know there will be an element of relief within his family that they will get their husband, father and grandfather back and have a bit more time with him. We all think about that. We would be lying if we did not think about the time we will say, ‘I’ve had enough, I can’t do this anymore. It’s time to move on.’ Clearly, the member for Blain has thought carefully about this decision, and the timing is always difficult.
You want to do the best for your team, the best for the people you represent, and first and foremost that is probably where the member for Blain is coming from – the people he has represented for so many years that have supported him and he has given support to. At the end of the day, they are the most important people to us, aside from our families, when we stand in this House.
During my time in this House on the backbenches of government, and a lot of time sitting in the chair as Deputy Speaker, I listened to many hours of debate. There is always something peculiar to each member you remember – some are deadly dull and you switch off. I will not say who they are, I will save that for my memoirs, but I remember the contributions made by the member for Blain always characterised by passion, humanity, humility and a deep sense of commitment and dedication to whatever it was, be it a private members’ bill from opposition or from the government benches. I recognised in him as well, as a former educator, that sense of being able to communicate, to care for people, and to have a pastoral care aspect. His departure from this House, and from the people he has represented in Blain, will be a great loss.
I put on the record my enormous gratitude to the member for Blain as Chief Minister. I speak from the heart, on behalf of the people of Nhulunbuy, about the efforts he made to secure the future of our community. I said to him, jokingly, after he finished his adjournment, ‘I didn’t really mean all those nasty things I said about you’. One day I hope to say that to many people in this House. There is something about the theatre of parliament – all here are often not our true selves as we might be outside, or home with our families or with people on the street.
I genuinely thank the member for Blain for his efforts in lobbying and securing a future for Nhulunbuy. It is a stand out for me. Beyond it, whilst circumstances and decisions were changed, I further place on the record my thanks to the member for Blain for going out on a limb and, no doubt, causing some angst on his side. I have quoted on the record on a number of occasions – and will continue to do so – your opinion piece in the NT News on 13 August – I was only reading it yesterday – to further stand by your position and the decision you took. It was not only a brave thing to do, it shows a genuine sense of commitment about decisions he had made and was prepared to stand by, even though he was no longer in Cabinet, knowing it would have ruffled the feathers of his colleagues. This is the sort of thing we hold dear for people who serve in the parliament and serve the people of the Northern Territory.
Member for Blain, I thank you, and the people of my electorate will be – I know they were disappointed with your departure as Chief Minister. On behalf of them, I pass on my very best wishes to you for your future. Thank you most sincerely.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, tonight I pay my respects to Terry Mills, without getting too emotional. Terry is a man of great integrity, a man of God, a family man and has achieved great heights in his career over the last 14 years as a politician. Tonight gives me a small window of opportunity to talk about our partnership when we first came to government.
I do not think anyone in this parliament realised the difficulty of taking over government after 11 years of another government in place. As a new government, the experience Terry and I had in the six months we were Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister was extraordinary. The task ahead of you is enormous; you barely know where to begin. You have done all the necessary preparation, identified people you think will be good staff members, people to surround you, guide you and work with you and generally assist in the enormous task ahead.
On top of that is extraordinary pressure. As soon as you get to government people want to see results – see things happen. You have election commitments piled high, and the expectation and pressure on us was enormous. Terry, being Terry, had spent many years as Leader of the Opposition and was prepared; he ticked all the boxes and was prepared to be Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. We supported him through that. He was kept on as Opposition Leader for many years because people liked Terry, people respected him and people could see he had very broad appeal across the Northern Territory. He did not just appeal to traditional voters; he appealed to people across the political spectrum because of who he was, how he presented himself, the kind and compassionate words he spoke, together with the fact he was a good politician. He analysed things thoroughly and formed his opinions based on fact and evidence. He was an all-rounder, and that is why we chose him to be our leader in opposition and to take us into government as Chief Minister.
During those heady first six months of being in government we had to make decisions about where we were taking this government, where we were taking the Northern Territory and the pressure on many of us in this parliamentary wing became almost too much to bear. Decisions around the changes to power and water tariffs were extraordinary. Public pressure and pressure from the media made the pressure on Terry and I untenable. Throughout his time as Chief Minister he never lost sight of what makes a good leader, but also how to navigate us through that time. He was always well-grounded, very approachable and very Terry; I do not know how else to put it.
It ended, as someone said earlier today, almost 12 months ago. Terry was voted out as Chief Minister and we now have Adam Giles as Chief Minister and life has gone on. The last 12 months for Terry Mills have probably been some of the hardest in his life, and for that I feel sad. Having said that, that is politics; there are winners and losers. As soon as you win, you are probably just about to lose. As soon as you get to the highest point, they say the only way to go is probably down. That is what happened to Terry.
My admiration and respect for him over the last 12 months has only increased. He has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the Country Liberal Party, his constituents in Blain and to the parliamentary wing. He has attended meetings that, if I was in his position, I doubt I could have. He has never given up on the Northern Territory, and I respect him so much for his commitment. I did not know he intended to resign today; it has come as a bit of a shock but how do you keep a man like Terry Mills on the backbench of the Northern Territory parliament for more than 12 months? He has callings elsewhere; he is being beckoned to go and share his talents and knowledge elsewhere. That is a good thing for Terry and his family and our loss. I love Terry Mills, the privilege of working with him and I wish him all the best.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues this evening in paying my respects to the member for Blain after 14 years of service to the Territory community.
As a new member of parliament, you observe other members of this Chamber and take note of how they present themselves, how they hold themselves, and how they go about their job. Terry probably would not know it, but I have been working around this building since 2006 – about eight years – and I was watching you, Terry. He is the sort of guy who is a genuinely, friendly, down-to-earth, lovely man. Whenever you passed him in the corridors of this place or in the lift Terry always said, ‘Hi’. He always had a friendly smile on his face. I watched how he conducted himself on the floor of parliament. One thing I have seen is Terry Mills is a decent man who holds very high standards. He is a man who rolls up his sleeves and does a lot of hard work - you can see that. He is the type of politician who does not only do it in this place; you would always see him at community events. He took his job seriously, and the roles and responsibilities placed on his shoulders as a member of parliament.
It is also very clear he has a very warm heart. One thing for sure is the good people of Blain love you, Terry. No matter what the swings were in past elections, you always went against them. You stood strong, even against the wonderful now member for Johnston.
I have particularly enjoyed the opportunity to listen when you have spoken in this parliament. You hold yourself with incredible poise and grace. We can all learn much from you in that regard.
It is also clear you have a deep love for your family. Your family has participated, where it can, and supported your political career and your ambitions. It shows there is a lot of love there. I hope you enjoy the next chapter of your life where you get to spend a bit more time with those important people. Clearly, this job means a lot of time away from them and much sacrifice. It is a huge sacrifice in one’s life, so I hope you enjoy the next period of your life, member for Blain.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. All the best for the future. I am sure you will do a terrific job. Yes, I will see you running on those stairs. Good luck, Terry.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I add to the praise of many other members in this Chamber.
My connections with the member for Blain - with the permission of the House I will use Terry’s first name. My contacts with Terry go back to the mid-1970s when I spent time in Carnarvon. As most people in this House know, Terry comes from around the Mullewa area of Western Australia, which is wheat belt, farming country. His relatives once had Brick House Station. Terry and I have talked about this and think he may have been there when I was there, because I spent a lot of time on Brick House Station with his uncle and cousins. It was an interesting time in life, and we have often reflected on those experiences which set you up for the rest of your life.
Fast forwarding through to the end of the 1980s and 1990s, when Terry came to the Territory in the beginning of the 1990s, the first thing he did was became active in politics. He is committed to our philosophical beliefs. When he became Principal of Palmerston Christian School, he immediately became involved with and immersed in his community. From the first day he arrived – and it is still happening today as we speak – Terry Mills has embedded himself within his community and worked tirelessly for not only his constituents, but everyone else around him, be it in Western Australia, the Territory, Queensland, or any other part of this country. Terry is one of those people – that is what he does.
Talking about jobs, both sides of this House are asked, ‘What do you do for a job?’ We do not have a job; we just do this. Some people do it better than others, and Terry has done an outstanding job in Blain, in Darwin and the Northern Territory.
If we go back to the 1990s when he joined – we were both members of the party in those days and would have some interesting debates. Politics is an interesting business and can be a bit rough. Sometimes you’re with them, sometimes you’re agin them, and that does not happen just between us and the opposition, it happens on our side.
There have been many debates at Central Council where Terry and I stood together and battled the other side. There were also times when we swapped sides and battled each other. That type of involvement keeps you sharp and makes you pay attention to what is happening. It keeps you on your toes. Terry, I have really appreciated the fact you have kept me on my toes for years in debates, in the policy development area, in so many things. I have really appreciated those conversations and, sometimes, the battles we have had because, at the end of every battle, we come together and have a drink. It has made me able to function as a member of parliament.
Terry entered parliament in the by-election of 1999. I remember the by-elections well. We had three members go – we had a couple and John Bailey went and Paul Henderson came in. They all came in in the 1999 by-election.
I would like to go to the period after the 2005 election when we had four members. It was a struggle, not only for members in the House, but also the party members and those in the real world. Terry was the only member in Darwin, Fay Miller was in Katherine, and there were a couple from Alice Springs. I would see Terry out everywhere. Some of us dedicated party members were out working, especially with the multicultural communities and various sporting groups. They needed to be heard and wanted to pass on their feelings about what was happening.
Terry was always there. We always ran into each other at multicultural functions, but Terry had to carry the load. It was an enormous job, not only to be working with only four members handling the portfolio loads, but to be working day in, day out, weekends and public holidays – he was working with the multicultural community to ensure their voice was heard, not only in our party but in parliament. I commend you, Terry for all the hard work done between 2005 and 2008. It was an enormous give.
It is behoves us all to acknowledge Terry’s family. Roz was always there and has been a rock for Terry. He has said that on a number of occasions. His son and daughter have come through very well in that family environment where politics is very much a part of it. They are both successful young people, and I am sure they will make a fantastic contribution to their community, as Terry has done.
I have come across Terry at various places around the world. I ran into him in Kupang, of all places, in the main street just down from the Flobamor II some years ago. One of the things Terry and I share, although he is probably much better at it than me, is Indonesian language. We used to say a couple of words in Bahasa Indonesia when we were in restaurants and it was great. I have seen him Bali and a number of other places.
It has been an interesting journey, Terry, and you have been very much a part of mentoring me as a politician. You have challenged me, given me advice, most of which I took, some I challenged, but you have been a rock for so many people in this House. You went through some of the darkest hours and were there as a light for us in the Top End. Fortunately, in those days Alice Springs had a few, but it is at the darkest time the stars shine brightest. We had some dark hours, and the shining light called Terry Mills kept the faithful going, kept the party members going and people slogging away. When we were thrashed you were there. I commend you for that and appreciate the fact that when I rang you, you would give our side of politics some hope. Everybody needs hope because without it, you do not bother getting up in the morning.
Lots of things have been said tonight. Had we known, we would have said a whole lot more, but you were always full or surprises, Terry and today is no different. You and I go back in the party more than just about anyone in this House. On behalf of the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory, I thank you very much for the efforts you put in, the policy development, the debates, the challenges and all the things which make a party strong. Without that type of leadership, you do not have the people who will follow through thick and thin and be there at the end. When it was our turn to come into government, those people were there strong and united because they had some leadership and we thank you for that.
There is not much more I can say in this short period of time, Terry except to wish you the very best of luck on your travels. Thank you, happy journey and in Bahasa Indonesia: terima kasih banyak dan selamat jalan.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am utterly unprepared, having just returned to the House after being at a function, only to hear the news a few moments ago. It will not be polished, but I hope what I lack in polish I make up for in sincerity.
I ask honourable members to remember a night, for some members probably before they were really politically aware, when a Prime Minister walked up to a microphone after an election – I think the year was 1996 – and said:
The place erupted because, to the surprise of everybody, Paul Keating had defeated John Hewson in …
Ms Fyles: It was1993, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Was it 1993? That message resonated across the country to a television set where a young chalkie – I am not sure he was a principal at the time – was struck by that comment and decided to commit himself to his beliefs in a way many people do not. He pursued those beliefs and, in 1999 if memory serves me, entered this parliament alongside Paul Henderson. I remember the arrival of both. I do not carry the title, ‘Father of the House’; that is Terry Mills’ to carry. My three year hiatus from the House means he has served this House one year longer than me.
In that time, the Country Liberal Party swung from government into opposition, into oblivion, back into opposition then finally, under Terry Mills’ leadership, back into government. It has been a torturous road. Politics is not a game for the faint-hearted; it is not kind or fair. It chews people up and spits them out, but there have been occasions where I have reflected upon Terry Mills’ quality of endurance. His endurance has been tested beyond the normal limits of what average politicians face. Throughout that whole process Terry Mills maintained, in his political career, his honesty, integrity and dignity, no matter how challenging that was. Over the years, like all politicians and all members of political parties, whether it is opposing parties or within our own party, there are challenges and points of difference we all face. I have had my share of points of difference with Terry, but I have never doubted his honesty, integrity or commitment to the people of the Northern Territory or the people of Blain.
Terry has brought a quality to this House and our political party which is not often found in any political party. It is measured, tempered, considered and, for that reason, valuable. There is a rarity of those qualities in politics, and I wish I had more of them. I fall down regularly, particularly in the area of a temperate attitude. That has never been the case with Terry Mills. I never pitch a person should be given a fair go in politics in the sense they should be mollycoddled or catered for, but for many years I watched Terry Mills struggle, particularly in the role of Opposition Leader of four, and that is a challenging place to be.
The whole way through it he remained measured, considered and sought judgment in the fairest possible terms. If there was ever a criticism to be made of Terry Mills, it is perhaps he was too fair a person in an unfair environment, but it is what it is. Terry announced tonight he is stepping away from his career as a politician, and that is a large chunk out of his life. What a lot of people forget is for people like Terry Mills, it is a large chunk of a most productive part of their lives. People forget that a young principal who steps away from being a principal for about 15 years has lost a large slice of a career path that could have taken him in a number of different directions. The sacrifice Terry Mills made was his teaching career for another career in pursuit of the service of the people of the Northern Territory. That has been the undeniable truth of Terry’s passion. I was much younger and a lot more stupid when I first met Terry, and I often thought …
A member: What has changed?
Mr ELFERINK: Thanks, guys. I like to think I am less young, but I have looked at Terry and thought how he has suffered, and suffered in silence so often?
I wish Terry the very best. I can imagine his disappointments along the way. I imagine they burned, and continue to burn in some respects, but, nevertheless, Terry has come to a decision and I respect that decision, as we all must. It is a big thing to give a large slice of your life to a belief. I wish more people in the community would do so, no matter what their beliefs are, and give of themselves in that way. Whilst politicians have a reputation somewhere around a second-hand car salesman and lawyers, they give a lot more than the general public every truly appreciates.
Roz has paid an enormous price for Terry’s belief in the people of the Northern Territory and I hope she gets a whole lot more of Terry back, as she so thoroughly deserves. Families pay and suffer in silence. Wives and spouses, in particular, rail with rage when they see some of the things that happen to their partners. Roz has suffered that as well, and has done so in silence. I think of Roz at this moment, and ask if Terry Mills could pass on my thanks to Roz for her sacrifice to the people of the Northern Territory.
Terry, you are a decent, upright block. On occasion, I have had points of difference with you but have never doubted your decency, and your departure from this House will leave a large gap. I, for what it is worth, will miss it. Whilst you have been the yin to my yang in so many instances, I believe a place like this should have balance. Terry, you brought that balance. Whomsoever should replace you will have an extraordinarily difficult job and extraordinarily big shoes to fill because of the character and qualities you have brought to the position of member for Blain, a minister of the Crown, and as Chief Minister.
I thank you for your service and I wish you the very best for the future. God bless you, and God bless your wife.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I too pay my respects to the departing member for Blain. Terry, I first met you in the early 1990s through the swimming club, hanging out with your daughter, Kristen. Although she swam for the wrong club, we were all mates; that is the Territory way.
In 1999, I campaigned against you, but you won that battle of the dogs, letterboxing and doorknocking. You went into parliament with somebody I look up to, Paul Henderson. You and Paul carried respect as members of parliament. In politics it is important to remember that attribute, and that is something you have. Fourteen years serving in this parliament is an amazing chunk of your life gone. We have heard from many of your colleagues you have given up something. Your family would have missed special times and it is always a juggling balance. However, you will take with you some amazing memories of being a member of parliament, a Chief Minister, and a minister.
I wish you all the best on your next journey. I thank you, on behalf of the members of my community and the Territory community, for that commitment and for leading the Territory.
Madam Speaker, tonight I also speak on an issue – I have apologised to Terry, but I need to make this speech. Yesterday, the minister for Education accused me of tarnishing the names of public servants with untruths as a way to deflect attention from his bungling of the Education portfolio, and the impact of the CLP’s cuts in education. I completely reject these allegations.
The minister also tabled an e-mail purported to be a response to my invitation to the Planning Commissioner to attend a community meeting I hosted last Monday evening at 5.30 pm, concerning the proposed Nightcliff island development. The minister said the e-mail he tabled was from Commissioner Garry Nairn, dated Monday 10 February at 8.57 am, and was copied to the Northern Territory Planning Commission and my electorate office. I never received such e-mail.
As you know Madam Speaker, I pride myself on running an efficient and effective electorate office serving the people of Rapid Creek, Coconut Grove and Nightcliff. My office staff and I have checked e-mails received. The only e-mail we have received – me and electorate.nightcliff – on this matter from the Planning Commissioner is dated Wednesday 19 February at 8.47 am. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that e-mail.
Leave granted.
Ms FYLES: On Wednesday morning when I received that e-mail, both my office staff and I commented it was two days late. I was very surprised later that afternoon, when the minister made his accusation and tabled an e-mail with the same content as the one I had received on Wednesday morning, to see it had a different date.
I am serious about understanding why there is a discrepancy between the two e-mails: the e-mail tabled by the minister dated Monday 10 February and the one I received on Wednesday 19 February. Minister for Education, perhaps your office may know where this e-mail came from. Does your Chief of Staff, Lawson Broad, know where this e-mail came from?
Madam Speaker, I have lodged a freedom of information request which may help us get to the bottom of this matter. I look forward to seeing what documents are discovered under FOI, and hope they may clarify this situation.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would also like to extend my best wishes to the member for Blain, Terry Mills, to Roz, his wife, and his family. The journey you take in political life and an elected position is one with many challenges and tests. The measure of any person is how they deal with the journey, challenges and the tests that confront them. Whatever you do from now on, member for Blain, Terry Mills, I am sure you will do it well. Your choice to retire is clearly yours, and made at a time right for you and your family.
I wish the very best to you and your family, and know whatever journeys and ventures you undertake from now on will be for the benefit of you, your family, and the people of the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
ABSENCE OF
MINISTER FOR MINES AND ENERGY
MINISTER FOR MINES AND ENERGY
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Minister for Mines and Energy, the member for Katherine, will not be available for Question Time today. He has, sadly, been called to a funeral and I will take questions on behalf.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Drysdale
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I ask that a leave of absence be granted for 18 to 27 March 2014 for the member for Drysdale on an account of personal matters. For the information of all members, those personal matters are the member for Drysdale’s nuptials. I am sure all members of this House will shower the member for Drysdale and her hapless victim with feelings of felicitations and good wishes.
Leave granted.
Member for Fannie Bay
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence be granted to the member for Fannie Bay for today on an account of his attendance at a funeral in Alice Springs.
Leave granted.
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 69)
(Serial 69)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. For honourable members’ attention, it is a fairly long second reading speech, so if anybody needs a cup of tea, now is the time to do it.
All amendments in this bill have arisen as a result of issues with the interpretation or application of the Sentencing Act, as identified by members of the judiciary or legal profession. In response to those concerns, the operation of sections 64, 104A, and 107 of the Sentencing Act was thoroughly reviewed and investigated. The result of that process is the bill before the House today.
The purpose of this bill is to:
1. amend section 64 of the Sentencing Act to ensure that every parolee is required to serve any unexpired term of imprisonment upon sentencing for a new offence, whether their parole has been revoked by a court or the Parole Board;
2. amend section 131 of the Youth Justice Act to mirror the amendments to section 64, but with application to youth offenders;
3. amend section 104A of the Sentencing Act to alleviate inconsistency with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth);
4. amend section 107 of the Sentencing Act to allow the Supreme Court to take into account summary offences when sentencing an offender for indictable offences; and
5. introduce new sections 388, 389, 390 and 391 into the Criminal Code to allow the Supreme Court to finalise and dispose of summary charges when sentencing an offender for indictable offences.
Let me first address the amendment to section 64 of the Sentencing Act by explaining the history of the matter.
When an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a court may set a parole date, which will be the earliest date the offender may be released on parole. Once released, if the offender’s parole is breached, their parole may be revoked and they will be required to serve the time remaining on their sentence in prison, rather than in the community on parole.
Section 64 of the Sentencing Act operates when an offender commits further offences on parole and requires the court (upon sentencing the offender to imprisonment for the new offences) to order the unserved (or ‘unexpired’) period of imprisonment commence at the term of imprisonment for the new offences.
The Court of Criminal Appeal in Hankin v The Queen 25 NTLR 110 held that the wording of section 64 led to the conclusion that the provision only applied when an offender’s parole was revoked by a court upon sentence to imprisonment for new offences and did not apply if the Parole Board formally revoked parole prior to the sentence. As a result of this technical anomaly, any offender whose parole had been revoked by the Parole Board would not be required to serve the unexpired period of imprisonment and will therefore receive an unfair benefit.
It is clear that the provisions of section 64 of the Sentencing Act were never intended to give an unfair advantage to offenders whose parole was cancelled by the Parole Board as opposed to a court sentencing the offender for new offences. This bill addresses this by providing that section 64 applies equally to every parolee.
The bill repeals and replaces section 64 with an amended provision providing that every parolee who commits a new offence while on parole, is required to serve any unexpired term of imprisonment upon sentencing to imprisonment for the new offence, whether their parole has been cancelled or revoked by a court or the Parole Board.
In accordance with the current section 64, the unexpired term of imprisonment is to be served at the expiration of the term of imprisonment for the new offence.
It should be noted that the amended section 64 does not alter the current legislative position under section 14(1)(a) of the Parole of Prisoners Act that offenders are not to be credited for ‘street-time’, with section 64(2) of the Sentencing Act supporting this position by providing the term of imprisonment remaining on the offender’s sentence is to be calculated from their date of release on parole.
During drafting of the bill it was identified that section 131 of the Youth Justice Act suffered from the same defects as section 64 of the Sentencing Act, except it related to youth offenders.
In order to ensure consistency regarding the terms of an offender’s parole and consequences for reoffending while on parole, the bill also amends section 131 of the Youth Justice Act to mirror the amendments to section 64.
I will now turn to the amendment of Section 104A of the Sentencing Act, which prescribes the manner in which a court can receive information regarding customary law or cultural practice.
In accordance with section 5 of the Sentencing Act, a court must consider various principles when sentencing an offender including punishment, deterrence, the protection of the community, denunciation and rehabilitation, in addition to balancing matters specific to the offender and the seriousness of the offending conduct. Without receiving information about an offender’s cultural background, including any customary law, a court cannot make an adequate assessment of the offender’s particular circumstances and any individual sentence delivered may not address the individual circumstances of the offending.
Section 104 of the Sentencing Act outlines the general procedure for a court to receive information during the sentencing process for any offender, without reference to a particular race. It does not provide any procedural requirements, nor any restriction on information being provided; it simply allows the court to consider material ‘as it thinks fit’. Under this section, the court may be provided with information in the form of character references, victim impact statements or informal input from other members of the community. There is no requirement this information be given on oath, in affidavit form or by statutory declaration.
In contrast, section 104A of the Sentencing Act applies only to Aboriginal people and prevents a sentencing court from taking into account any aspect of Aboriginal customary law or the views of members of an Aboriginal community when sentencing an offender, unless certain procedural requirements are met.
The procedural requirements are outlined in section 104A(2) and (3) of the Sentencing Act and include a requirement that any information regarding Aboriginal customary law or the views of members of an Aboriginal community are provided on oath, in affidavit or by statutory declaration.
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency raised concern that section 104A is racially discriminatory and, therefore, inconsistent with section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) as it singles out and disproportionately impacts upon Aboriginal people as they are precluded from fully participating in the sentencing process unless the strict requirements of the section are met.
Section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) provides a state or territory law will be invalid if the law does not allow people of a particular race to enjoy a right to the same extent as people of a different race.
The Solicitor-General provided the advice because section 104A of the Sentencing Act restricts the rights of Aboriginal people compared to any other race when providing information to a court during the sentencing process, it is ‘more likely than not’ inconsistent with the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
In light of this advice and following consultation with the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the bill proposes amendment to section 104A of the Sentencing Act to:
(a) broaden the scope of the section so that the procedural requirements apply to any form of customary law or cultural practice, rather than solely applying to Aboriginal customary law; and
(b) provide the court with discretion regarding compliance with the procedural requirements, thereby giving the court the option of ordering parties to provide information in an evidentiary manner.
This amendment is designed to alleviate any inconsistency with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by ensuring the court may receive information regarding customary law or cultural practice during the sentencing process without restriction.
It is envisaged that the court would exercise discretion to receive information on oath, in affidavit form or by statutory declaration in appropriate cases having regard to the difficulties in some remote communities with literacy, the time and resource constraints on agencies providing legal assistance and the suitability of informal processes in the majority of cases.
Previously, section 104A restricted the court from receiving information from Aboriginal community members unless the information was presented by a party to the proceeding and complied with the relevant procedural requirements. As a result, community members (for example elders participating in a community court) could not present information to the court to be considered when sentencing an offender.
The only way this information could be taken into account was if one of the parties to the proceeding (either prosecution or defence) sought to present the information to the court.
Amended section 104A still applies if a party seeks to present information from a community member, however, the provision no longer excludes community members, who are not parties to the proceedings, from presenting information to the court. The court may therefore receive information from persons who are not parties to the proceeding ‘as it thinks fit’ under section 104, in the same way it would consider a character reference in any other sentence proceeding.
The amendment to section 104A has been drafted to balance the importance of customary law and culture when a court is sentencing an offender with allowing the court to order information be provided in an evidentiary fashion, if deemed necessary. However, the amendments to section 104A should not be read so as to allow the court to take into account any form of customary law or cultural practice as a reason for exercising, justifying, authorising, requiring, lessening or aggravating the seriousness of the defendant’s actions contrary to section 16AA of the Crimes Act which was introduced by the Commonwealth’s Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2012.
It is intended that information is to be received under section 104A in order to provide a context and explanation for an offender’s actions and to provide information about their role in the community, predisposition to offend, rehabilitation prospects and the impact of their offending on the community so that the court can make an assessment of the offender’s particular circumstances.
I will now address the amendment to section 107 of the Sentencing Act, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take into account summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment.
The need for amendment to section 107 was brought to the attention of the Department of the Attorney-General by the Chief Justice and Justice Jenny Blokland (in her former capacity as Chief Magistrate).
As former Chief Magistrate, she raised her concerns in the case of Police v Sullivan [2009] NTMC 035. In that case, the defendant had been sentenced in the Supreme Court for a serious sex offence which occurred in the context of a breach of domestic violence order. Although it was desirable for both charges to be disposed of by the Supreme Court in one comprehensive sentence, the court noted that the operation of section 107(6) of the Sentencing Act precluded the Supreme Court from taking into account the related summary charge of a breach of domestic violence order.
The construction of section 107(1) and (3) clearly provides for the Supreme Court to take into account related summary offences when sentencing an offender on indictment. However, section 107(6) specifically states that the court ‘must not take into account a charge of an offence which it would not have jurisdiction to try even with the consent of the person charged with it’.
As the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine summary charges, this clause prevents the Supreme Court taking into account summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment.
In the case of the Police v Sullivan, this meant that the breach of domestic violence order charge remained before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for finalisation. In order to address this issue, the former Chief Magistrate suggested that section 107(6) required ‘legislative adjustment’ to ensure that the Supreme Court could take related summary charges into account.
In the Northern Territory Criminal Code, offences are divided into three categories: crimes; simple offences; and regulatory offences. A ‘crime’ is an offence which is punishable by a period of more than two years imprisonment and ordinarily proceeds on an indictment in the Supreme Court. Simple and regulatory offences are dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
The Justices Act also provides a list of circumstances where less serious crimes, which would ordinarily be dealt with on indictment, may be finalised in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. These offences are classified as ‘minor indictable offences’.
When an offender is being sentenced on indictment, it is common practice for a sentencing schedule to be prepared, which, in addition to the indictable offence, refers to related summary offences, colloquially known as ‘back-up’ charges. The purpose of this schedule is to allow the sentencing judge to take into account summary charges at the time of sentencing for the indictable offence. This is a practice that takes place in other jurisdictions, however, it was ceased in the Northern Territory due to the problems with the interpretation of section 107.
The bill before the House was prepared in consultation with the judiciary and amends section 107 of the Sentencing Act to address the issues with interpretation and application of the provision.
Other minor amendments are also made by the bill to modernise the wording and construction of the provision. However, the intention of the original provision is retained.
Amended section 107 applies to offences that it is alleged the offender has committed, whether or not they have been charged. Although current section 107 only applies to charged acts, the expansion of the provision to include uncharged acts was raised during consultation with the Chief Magistrate and is similar to interstate practices.
Allowing the court to take into account uncharged acts will further the efficient administration of justice. There are many reasons why it may be beneficial for the court to take into account uncharged acts. For example, the defendant may have committed a large number of unlawful entry offences which it would be extremely costly to investigate, particularise, charge, and present indictments for. The operation of section 107, in this situation, would allow the prosecution to present an indictment for the most serious offences and tender a schedule of listed offences which the court would take into account when sentencing the offender.
Current section 107 is not confined, in application, to the Supreme Court, and can apply to any court, including the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In amending section 107, this position has not been altered and the provision may also be applied to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Consequently, if an offender wishes other offences, whether charged or uncharged, to be taken into account when being sentenced for an offence in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, they may rely on section 107. New section 107(3A) will, however, clarify that the intention of the provision is for the Supreme Court to take into account summary charges and not for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to take into account indictable offences that it would not otherwise be able to hear.
It should however be noted that this provision will not impact on the operation of sections 120 and 121A of the Justices Act, which allow the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to hear and determine ‘minor indictable offences’.
During consultation with the judiciary, it became clear there was a need to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to not only take summary charges into account, but also allow for summary charges to be finally disposed of when sentencing an offender on an indictment.
The practical effect of the current situation is that an offender must be dealt with by the Supreme Court on the indictable charge and then return to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for sentencing on a later date, in relation to the summary charges. Further, the Supreme Court is unable to consider all relevant conduct on sentencing, and would ultimately be handing out a sentence which does not reflect the full gravity of the offender’s actions.
The double handling of the offender sentencing in both the Supreme Court and Court of Summary Jurisdiction increases the cost to the community and delays in the administration of justice in the Northern Territory.
Accordingly, in addition to amending section 107 to allow the Supreme Court to take summary charges ‘into account’ when sentencing an offender on indictment, the bill creates brand new provisions in the Criminal Code to allow the Supreme Court to completely finalise and dispose of summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment. Without these additional provisions, section 107 of the Sentencing Act will only allow the Supreme Court to take summary matters into account when sentencing an offender on indictment, no formal plea is entered and the offender is not convicted of the summary offences. However, under the new Criminal Code provisions the offender is convicted and sentenced in the same way as if they had been dealt with by a magistrate. As a result, the defendant will only have to appear once, for one sentencing procedure, instead of twice.
The term ‘summary offence’ as it is used in relation to the new provisions, is intended to include offences generally known as summary offences, being simple and regulatory offences, which are punishable by less than two years imprisonment, in addition to any indictable offence that may be dealt with summarily (for example minor indictable offences and certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act).
When sentencing an offender for summary charges under the new provisions, the Supreme Court may make any orders in relation to the summary offence that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction could have made. This means that the Supreme Court may sentence an offender for the summary charges but may not impose any penalty higher than that which a magistrate could impose, if the matter were being dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
It is intended that the new provisions will not apply to all summary offences laid against the defendant, with the Supreme Court retaining discretion not to hear and determine a summary charge if it is not appropriate to do so. To give you an idea, the following are examples of the scope of matters that may be subject to the new provisions:
(a) an indictable assault which also constitutes a breach of domestic violence order;
(b) dangerous driving causing death or serious harm committed while driving unlicensed; or
The application of the new provisions will allow the Supreme Court to consider and dispose of relevant summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment in order to gain a clear understanding of the gravity of the offender’s actions and deliver a comprehensive sentence addressing all offending.
Notwithstanding the proposed amendment to section 107 of the Sentencing Act and the introduction of new provisions in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court will retain its discretion to refuse to deal with summary charges, if it does not deem it appropriate, thereby ensuring that the ‘floodgates’ are not opened to allow any or all summary charges to be dealt with in the Supreme Court.
The bill also includes transitional provisions for each of the new and amended sections.
It is the intention of the bill that all amendments apply to any proceedings in which sentencing submissions have not yet been heard once the act commences. The application of the amended provisions is therefore retrospective, with regard to the offence date, as the provisions apply even if the offences were committed prior to the commencement of the act.
In essence, this means the amended provisions are to apply, even if the defendant formally entered a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of the Justice and Other Legislation and Amendment Act 2014, as long as sentencing submissions have not commenced.
The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 will alleviate a variety of issues with the interpretation and applications of section 64, 104A and 107 of the Sentencing Act, section 131 of the Youth Justice Act and will provide for the full disposal of summary charges by the Supreme Court when sentencing an offender on indictment, all of which will contribute to swift justice and ultimately reduce the cost to the community.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PLANNING AMENDMENT (CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS) BILL
(Serial 59)
(Serial 59)
Continued from 4 December 2013.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we are always prepared to support good public policy and good legislation, particularly when there are tangible benefits for the Territory. The bill before the House seems to pass the public interest test. The public benefit approach to policy is so obvious that you might wonder why I see the need to articulate it at all. I will cite a couple of issues I have about process, before I turn to the specific provisions in the bill.
Just before Christmas, to avoid scrutiny, the government used the public holiday period to release its Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014. The plan is a rehash of the discredited 1990s bid to create three dams and strangle our beautiful Darwin Harbour. The plan provides scant detail and, in contrast to the approach of the previous Labor government, does not protect Glyde Point from heavy industry.
The use of the holiday period to limit opportunity for public submissions indicates an arrogant disregard for the legitimate right of Territorians to comment on a significant planning issue. The draft Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014 has implications not only for the physical environment, but for a broad range of social and economic issues, such as access to health, education and recreation facilities; public transport and infrastructure; planning; housing; and sustainable economic growth.
Significantly, in response to public pressure about the use of the Christmas holidays to effectively truncate the consultation period, the deadline for submissions has been extended by one month to 10 March.
Madam Speaker, I note you have expressed strong reservations about the draft regional land use plan, particularly its lack of detail. You have opposed damming the Elizabeth River because of potential flooding in Bees Creek and Virginia, and you have expressed other concerns about urban sprawl in Noonamah and along the Stuart Highway.
On 7.30 NT, in response to the Elizabeth River Dam proposal, you said:
- That’s completely unacceptable – the Elizabeth River is a drainage channel and if it was to be dammed, apart from the environmental impacts and the social impacts, it would flood major parts of the Bees Creek, Virginia area.
I note you have also expressed concern about urban sprawl in the rural area. You have been scathing about the lack of detail in the land use plan’s recommendation on further development. Many people I have spoken to agree with your critique that the area land use plan is:
- … very lazy and sloppy.
- The only involvement of the government is to categorise what the private developer is doing as a significant development proposal, which allows the NT Planning Commission to provide advice to the Lands and Planning minister.
The Chief Minister said recently he did not take a holiday and worked through the Christmas vacation period. However, you must wonder what planet the Chief Minister was working from, because everybody knows, except for the Chief Minister, that in the run up to Christmas the minister for Lands and Planning approved a lease to permit geotechnical assessment of the proposed Nightcliff island site. The minister did the proponents a great disservice by not publicising the lease or involving the community early in the process.
When the proposed drilling of the site was advertised by proponents, many residents of Nightcliff and the wider community were shocked. Why? Because the minister did not disclose his earlier decision to the public to award a lease to permit exploratory drilling, and we now know from his newsletter that this decision was also withheld from the Chief Minister.
There are other examples of the minister’s shortcomings, and I am sure they will be the focus of extensive debate at some point during these sittings. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, because in this bill he has the balance right.
In assessing the policy merits of the bill, it is useful to consider the objectives of the act, enumerated in section 2A. I will cite them, in full, to inform debate on the bill, because they are a good lens through which to view specific policy and legislative proposals:
- (1) The objects of this Act are to plan for, and provide a framework of controls for, the orderly use and development of land.
(2) The objectives are to be achieved by:
- (a) strategic planning of land use and development and for the sustainable use of resources;
(b) strategic planning of transport corridors and other public infrastructure;
(c) effective controls and guidelines for the appropriate use of land, having regard to its capabilities and limitations;
- (e) minimising adverse impacts of development on existing amenity and, wherever possible, ensuring that amenity is enhanced as a result of development;
(f) ensuring, as far as possible, that planning reflects the wishes and needs of the community through appropriate public consultation and input in both the formulation and implementation of planning schemes; and
(g) fair and open decision making and appeals processes.
- … the wishes and needs of the community, through appropriate public consultation and input in both the formulation and implementation of planning schemes …
Views of residents and stakeholders are invaluable and essential to a viable development and consent process. It would be unacceptable to the opposition if the proposed amendments contained any diminution of public notification and appeals rights in the Planning Act in relation to development consent processes. The fact those rights have been retained removes what would have been a major impediment to our support for this bill.
Sustainable development consistent with the objectives of the Planning Act is vitally important to the Territory. It creates jobs, essential infrastructure, housing, health, education and recreation facilities. The multiplier effect of development has important flow-on effects for growth in the Territory economy.
There is widespread recognition in the community of the entrepreneurs, developers and businesses that are prepared to take the risk of investing in the Territory’s future. If we can retain accountability and community consultation provisions in the existing Planning Act while adopting provisions to reduce costs and processing time associated with development projects, that would be generally viewed as a commonsense and productive outcome by the public.
It is important to note the process of concurrent applications for development approval and a planning scheme amendment as proposed in the bill are not compulsory. It remains open to a proponent to utilise the current separate and consequential arrangements.
I wish to share some observations about proposed sections 30A and 30B, concerning the appointment of planning advisors as a mandatory requirement for an applicant to meet with a planning advisor before a concurrent application is lodged. In my view, it is good policy to require a meeting between a proponent and a planning advisor before a concurrent application is lodged.
The concurrent application involves additional risk for the developer, to the extent that the integrated exhibition process would generally require more up-front investment in a detailed development proposal. However, if consultation with a planning advisor is mandatory, the minister must ensure there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified planning advisors available to participate in pre-lodgement meetings with applicants. Any significant delays in this aspect of the process for concurrent applications would defeat the overall objective of reduced processing times and costs under the proposed new arrangements.
This is not an idle observation; we have already seen savage cuts in the public sector and the culling of experienced frontline workers in departments like Lands and Planning. We know further savage cuts of at least 10% are also planned. I therefore contend it is reasonable for the minister to provide an assurance to the Assembly that there will be a sufficient number of planning advisors appointed to undertake this new statutory role.
It would also be useful if the minister could clarify the role of the planning advisor beyond the mere participation of the planning advisor in the meeting provided for in proposed section 30B. Will the planning advisor be required to provide a report on the meeting to the minister and, if so, what weight would the minister give to that report? What would happen, for example, if a planning advisor advised an applicant not to proceed with a concurrent application, but the applicant insisted on doing so? Is it really beneficial to the process to mandate the meeting in the act, or could this requirement simply be advertised on the agency website or included in application forms?
The majority of Territorians support development based on principles of sustainability, public consultation and government accountability. There is a mainstream consensus about these issues. However, the principles of sustainable development are not always embraced by the minister’s colleagues. We saw this with the unsustainable allocation of huge amounts of water from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer to the former CLP candidate for Lingiari. We saw it in the evolution of strategic Indigenous reserves, designed to support sustainable development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. On this occasion, the minister has the balance right.
I thank the minister’s office for arranging a briefing on the bill. I also thank Mr Fabio Finocchiaro and Mark Meldrum, professional and respected public servants, for their technical advice on the bill and service to the people of the Northern Territory.
It is our intention to support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing forward this legislation. The crossbenches will support this legislation, even though they find it a bit complicated. The member for Johnston raised some broad planning issues, and I will be raising those in response to the minister’s statement later this afternoon. I will not go down that path at the present time.
I also thank the department for the briefing it gave me, and I did work my way through the amendments late at night. There are some advantages in not releasing a statement from the government late at night. It gave me more of a chance to wade through these amendments. After you have got your head around them, most of them make pretty good sense.
I will give some general comments, and then we are going to committee stage. There are a quite a few amendments, so it is probably better we go down that path.
I put in here – and this is my step back from all this observation – why could you not fill out two parallel applications? Presently, we have an application for a planning amendment, which is a rezoning in layman’s terms. We also have an application for development. I have been around development consent authorities and I was on the old planning authority. More than occasionally, when a rezoning application went in, someone would put forward a development application – not formally – which would have a sometimes detailed description of what the intention was for the rezoned land. I wonder why we cannot simply have the two existing processes running parallel. This gets a little complicated and adds new things that I wonder if are absolutely necessary.
If you said to someone they can have a concurrent application but should apply in the current way for a rezoning application and the same for a development application, and when they put them together they send them both to the department, one going to the minister and one to the DCA, I imagine the DCA would look at it first because, under current legislation, if the DCA says a development plan is no good, the minister would not even bother worrying about a rezoning because it had been rejected. The DCA would know there was an application in at the same time for rezoning. It could hear it at the same time, which happens at present. You could have the development application heard, and the DCA would make its own mind up about that. At the same time, it would be dealing with the rezoning application and would report to the minister.
In a couple of weeks’ time, or however long the process takes – it might even be at the same time, because if the meeting is held and both matters are dealt with at the same time, the DCA normally makes its decision that afternoon, unless it wants to defer it or is asking for more information. For argument’s sake, if it supported it, it would then send that support in with its observations about the rezoning application, which is what happens now.
What we have here is an added – while I understand what you are doing and am not against that – layer which says, ‘Following receipt of notification of the minister’s …’ – I will get this right because I had trouble understanding it. It says you will have an initial decision-making role. In other words, you tell people they must go to a planning advisor. I heard what the member for Johnston said about whether you will have enough people in the public service. However, there is obviously a clause here, which we might discuss later, which says that planning advisor does not necessarily have to be a member of the public service. Obviously, you can go to private practice.
You have this process now, which says if you want to do something you must see a planning advisor. The planning advisor gives you planning advice. It then goes to the minister, who can say, ‘I do not like it’ or ‘I want more information’. Why is the minister involved at that stage? Normally, he would not be involved at that stage. With a normal application, he waits until it turns up on his desk. Why do we have the minister involved here? You are paying someone to be your planning advisor, and you hope your planning advisor is smart enough. Why do we need a planning advisor in the first place if the minister is going to check off on it as well?
There will be a planning advisor; he gives good advice and says, ‘You will need to do this, this, this and this so your application is up to the standard required’. It then goes down the normal path. However, for some reason the minister is involved in making the initial decision. That is the philosophical bit I am worried about. Why is the minister involved at that stage? I am not sure how the minister can be involved in the development application side of it as well.
The minister can be involved in the planning amendment area – that is their role – but my understanding is in this initial application you will have two things: the planning amendment application and the development application. The minister is not normally involved in the development application side of it. Are you saying, in your initial decision-making, you will be making comment about the rezoning application and the development application? It is not so much a concern you will do anything wrong, but the existing process does not do that.
The existing process leaves rezoning or planning amendment changes to the minister, and land development to the DCA. There is an initial requirement under proposed section 30D, which is:
- (1) If, in the Minister’s opinion, additional information is necessary to enable a proper consideration of the concurrent application, the Minister may require the applicant to provide the information.
Proposed section 30D(1) says the minister can ask for more information. I do not think the minister would normally ask for more information on a development application. He may ask for more information on the planning amendment side of it, but proposed section 30D(1) says:
- … additional information is necessary to enable a proper consideration of the concurrent application …
The concurrent application obviously includes rezoning or planning amendments and includes development. I am interested in that as well.
I am interested to know about the ‘significant development proposals’. I am worried, and it is an area we might discuss in the statement. Proposed section 30D(3) says:
- If the Minister considers the development proposal in the concurrent application is a significant development proposal, the Minister may request the Commission to give the Minister a significant development report.
I am wondering what happens to it after that? Once it is locked into a significant development report, I gather it moves away from the normal processes for planning. It goes, more or less, back – the minister is the decision-maker after it has been through a significant development proposal. Tell me if I am wrong, but that bit worries me because of things like Halikos island and Lake Elizabeth. I see those as, regardless of whether you support them or not, things which need to go through public planning processes without being put into a new category of a significant development proposal, and perhaps disappearing from normal planning analysis.
My hesitation is because I have not found it easy going through this bill. It is not because I do not understand it; it is trying to look at it bearing in mind we already have an existing Planning Act. This is using existing processes, but making it a little more complicated by trying to put two things which normally happen separately together.
In that process, many other parts of the Planning Act must be adjusted. Many of the amendments we have relate to this concurrency causing ongoing changes to part of the act, so it reflects what this new legislation is about.
I will sum up. I am interested to hear the minister’s view as to what would be the difference if a person could make concurrent applications – a planning amendment application and a development application – and give them to the department? They would work as though they were separate, but the department would know to speed up. The intention of what you are trying to do – I do not have any problems with it, because I know how long planning amendments take. They can take a long time, and by the time the minister gets around to agreeing to the planning amendment, the developer must say, ‘I have approval, now I will spend some money on getting the plans ready’. This process says, ‘Look, government, I would like to put in a concurrent application. I will spend the money showing you what my development is.’ What you are doing is upgrading the standard whereby if you prepare a rezoning application, you might prepare a general development application, not drawings to the high standard you would require if you were going full steam ahead.
Even if you were to use a planning advisor, it would all go back to the developer who would then put forward, after advice from the planning advisor, all matters required under normal processes. They would understand it as a concurrent application with clauses saying if one is rejected, the other will be. As long as the developer knows and is clear about the process – there are risks involved. As you read through the legislation, you see if someone goes down this path, they take the risk they must start all over again if one part of this application is rejected.
This is my main issue. I had the feeling this was more complicated than required to achieve what you are trying to do. As I said, I support the philosophy behind what you are doing.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Nelson and Johnston. I gather the bill will be supported by both of you, which I appreciate. We will go through the amendments and I will answer as many questions as I can. For the record, the bill amends the Planning Act to allow planning scheme amendment proposals and dependent development proposals, including applications for subdivisions, to be lodged via a single application and determined in an integrated and concurrent process. I need to stress that this will provide an additional pathway. It does not replace what already exists.
The member for Johnston said this bill appears to have passed the public interest test. He is right. We are trying to bring a sense of clarity to what was a complicated process that took a long time. The more we can shorten the bureaucratic process, the more quickly we see a development and the more quickly we get the development to market. If it is a block of units, for instance, and the government can reduce bureaucracy by between three and six months, that is a major advantage to developers, particularly when you take the cost of a development into consideration. If we can reduce the cost to a developer, ultimately, those costs and savings will be passed on to the consumer. Anything we can do as a government to streamline our processes, we should do.
The member for Johnston is right; this passes the public interest test. He went on to ramble about a couple of little political issues we are facing, brought a bit of politics in and started to talk about things outside the bill.
We are working on the Towards a Regional Land Use Plan and he talked about the perception he has that this government tries to hide things and do things behind people’s backs. He raised the fact the Towards a Regional Land Use Plan was released before Christmas. It was released before Christmas because it was ready. The Planning Commission had finished its work and released the document, plain and simple. We were not going to hold it over until the new year, because that just slows the process of government. It was released; however, I did listen to the community when there were concerns raised. Of course, as the member for Johnston mentioned, we extended the date to 10 March for people to respond.
He mentioned Nightcliff island; the island that does not exist. It is a mud flat, there is no island, but he had to mention the island. He again mentioned the process, and the process was followed. It is not a government proposal. A developer has applied to the government for a lease over a section of land so they can do some drilling to find out whether the substructure is up to any development in the first place.
It was advertised, so the community was notified and processes were followed. In this case, the member for Johnston asked if the processes change to the point where we change things to the way they were done before. No, many of the processes are exactly what they were before.
You mentioned proposed sections 30A and 30B. When you talk about a planner who helps, initially, I understand that caused a bit of angst. You too, member for Nelson, had a bit of angst in the briefings about that, but I assure you the Department of Lands and Planning already does this, particularly for major developments. It already has planners, who help developers go through the process and help them get through what, in some cases, can be a very arduous process. It already occurs, but we wanted it built into the legislation. We already do it, but we wanted it covered in the legislation.
The focus of the planner is to save time and energy. The objective is to speed up – this is not an added problem. The objective of having a planner sit with a developer and go through what is required to get the development over the line –any advice the department can provide that developer up front – is to speed up that process. It is no good they come in every Friday, Tuesday or Thursday of every week, month after month, because developers would give you the indication of the goalposts. They would say, ‘All right, we have fixed that’, and there is something else they have to deal with; the goalposts have shifted.
They fix that and come back a week later, and the goalposts, in their minds, have shifted. In some cases, it is simply because the developers have not covered off on everything required to get their development over the line. The department will have specialised planners working with developers with the sole intent of being able to cover off as much as possible, if not everything required to get that development over the line.
There are times where a planner will say something, in their experience, is outside the boundaries of what the Planning Act allows, even outside the boundaries of government policy. There will be advice given to developers that they must rethink their development. Essentially, the objective, again, is to save them time, money and energy. The objective of those planners is to speed up the process.
Member for Nelson, you asked if we could have concurrent application processes. If that was to occur, you would be doubling the fees for any developer, doubling the bureaucracy, because you would have two processes running at the same time, two lots of advertising, two lots of everything. There are two separate processes involved, and all we are doing is trying to weld both together so there is one fee paid. There would be one lot of advertising done, one lot of hearings held by the DCA, instead of going through two longer processes. The simple answer to why we would not go that way is because of cost and, of course, added bureaucracy. You must remember, there are public servants working on these processes in separate areas of the department. If you had two processes working separately, you would have many staff working on, essentially, the same thing.
It must be pointed out again, this is not a requirement; this is an additional pathway for developers. There will be many developers who will not want to use this pathway. They will want to do things the way they do now. It is open and available for them to do that. Of course, it will not always work. This new legislation will not always be suitable for every developer. There will be developments that need some lead-in time. They want to get their rezoning sorted out now, and it may be two, three or five years from now when they will be ready to develop. Conversely, there will be developers that are ready to roll and really want to get on with the job. It involves the two processes: the rezoning and the development consent. This gives them the pathway to do it in one process.
You talked about early intervention by the minister. That has me a little confused because the process is the same now, under this proposed legislation, as exists currently. I do not intervene. The planning advisor you spoke of does not report back to me; they report to the proponent. Their sole job is to provide advice to the proponent, not to me.
You talked about significant developments, and government will decide whether to offer significant development status, very similar to – what is the one for major projects? It is major projects, isn’t it? A government can offer major project status to a developer. That essentially provides a doorway for a developer that we will help walk them through the government processes. This is something you would offer, which is significant. There is a process to being offered significant developer status. There must be benefits to the community. There must be real and tangible benefits in why we would want a development to have that status.
We have a housing crisis in the Northern Territory. We need more housing developments, more land release, more developers who have the confidence to come to the Northern Territory to build houses and units, and provide roofs over the heads of Territory workers and families. That is one example where, if government was provided with an opportunity to work with a developer that will provide many houses, units or other accommodation, you would work with them to try to have that development approved as soon as possible. This would recognise that we have a serious housing situation in the Northern Territory.
Having said that, the processes remain the same when it comes to land capability studies, environmental assessments that would be required and development consent. There are public hearings involved where the public has the opportunity to report back. We are still making sure that although a developer may be walked through the processes, the processes do not change. We are not lowering standards when it comes to environmental assessment or land capability. We must ensure the right developments are developed in the right areas. That is where we are at the moment …
Debate suspended.
PETITION
Regional Authority for Nauiyu Community, Daly River
Regional Authority for Nauiyu Community, Daly River
Mr HIGGINS (Daly)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders from 132 petitioners relating to the regional authority for Nauiyu community, Daly River. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- We the undersigned of Nauiyu community, Daly River feel that we should go with the new regional authority to the west because of our cultural ties (through families, songs, dance, language and ceremonies), and economical reasons (employment opportunities and training). We feel that we would be better off with moving into the new regional authority with Peppimenarti, Wadeye and Palumpa.
PLANNING AMENDMENT (CONCURRENT
APPLICATIONS) BILL
(Serial 59)
APPLICATIONS) BILL
(Serial 59)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I have covered off on all questions asked earlier by the members for Johnston and Nelson.
In summary, this legislation provides a clear pathway for developers, should they choose to use it. We are a government that is all about trying to find the cleanest and clearest way to do business, to reduce bureaucracy and get on and help the Territory develop.
As I said earlier, this in no way takes away or lowers any of our environmental standards in relation to land capability or environmental standards at all. This is in addition to the processes we use today to rezone land and approve development consent for developers. I will cover off on any other questions members may have during the committee stage. As I said, it will be the wish of the parliament to go to committee. It is my wish, as I have a number of amendments to make within the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.1:
- (1) Section 4(1),
- omit
- subsection (4)
- insert
- subsections (4) and (6)
(2) After section 4(5)
Insert
(3) If a Division of the Development Consent Authority is not established in relation to an area of land to which a concurrent application relates, the consent authority in relation to the land is the person or body appointed under section 30D(9) to be the consent authority for the application.
Mr CHAIR: He did it in reverse.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr CHAIR: I ask that any member wishing to discuss the proposed amendments to clause 6 do so, amendment by amendment, after the member moves each individual amendment. Members are reminded to confine their questions or comments to the amendment being proposed.
Mr VOWLES: With regard to proposed section 30A, the planning advisor – the bill gives you the power to appoint a public sector employee to be a planning advisor. Many public servants give advice to clients and customers across a broad range of policy and service delivery. Why have you mandated the appointment of the planning advisor?
Mr CHANDLER: Good point, member for Johnston. The process already exists within the department of Lands and Planning. We want to make it mandatory within this legislation, one of the reasons being this is a process designed to speed up the development process. If we can sit with developers and go through, point by point, what the requirements are, it will speed up that process. We want to build this into the mechanism to ensure developers who want to undertake this process go through dealing with a planner.
As I said, it already exists, but we wanted it to be part of this legislation. The reality is there are two processes here; there is the old way they could continue to use, or they can use this new process. However, because it is new and designed to streamline the process, we think it is very important to have a planner involved.
Mr VOWLES: Will that be an internal employment situation or will you look to an external appointment?
Mr CHANDLER: In most circumstances, it will be an internal planner within the department of Lands and Planning.
Mr VOWLES: Can you give me an example of what would be an external process; will you look to have somebody within the department, or will you have a proper recruitment process?
Mr CHANDLER: No, it is internal, and, as I said before, this process occurs now. We have planners working with developers to step them through the processes required. This legislation makes it mandatory.
Mr WOOD: You might have this process occurring now, but you say the minister may appoint a public sector employee to be a planning advisor. In other words, you are saying a private person outside the department can be a planning advisor?
Mr CHANDLER: No, in this legislation it would be a public servant employed within the department of Lands and Planning.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you used the word ‘may’, not ‘must’.
Mr CHANDLER: If it helps, I will change it to ‘must’.
Mr WOOD: We should change it now, because we are at the point in the legislation where it would need to be changed. I do not know if I should move that the word ‘may’ be omitted, and the word ‘must’ be inserted.
Mr CHANDLER: I do not have any disagreement with that. We can make the change on the floor if you want.
Mr WOOD: I move an amendment to proposed section 30A that the word ‘may’ be omitted and the word ‘must’ be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions there, on the same section. Does a developer have to pay for a planning advisor and if so, how would they pay?
Mr CHANDLER: No, it is just part of the normal process.
Mr WOOD: I know you said this already happens, but it is not formalised in the act. This is a new clause in the act. Are there any guidelines as to what the planning advisor can actually advise? I will put it this way: you are putting a development up, and I presume the planning person is not going to say, ‘Fantastic idea. We will love this’, etcetera, because that would say the department is supporting a particular development. Is it a case that some guidelines are set out for the planning advisor to stick to, for instance, technical details, rather than giving opinions on the proposed development?
Mr CHANDLER: The Planning Act is quite specific, as are the regulations we work under. Any planning advisor would be providing advice within the framework that exists. Like you say, for a developer to come along and for someone to get excited about the development – no, that is my job. A planner would be purely stepping a developer through the process of what would be required, and even assessing whether or not this is the correct process to use for their development.
Mr WOOD: Okay. That has answered those questions.
Mr VOWLES: On proposed section 30B, about a developer or proponent with a concurrent application meeting with the planning advisor, is there a time frame for that meeting? Is there a time frame at all?
Mr CHANDLER: Can you repeat the question? The time frame from when the …
Mr VOWLES: Yes, is there a time frame from a meeting with the planning advisor to getting an answer, if that is true or not?
Mr CHANDLER: As it says in point three:
- (3) As soon as practicable after the notice is lodged, a planning adviser must arrange to hold a meeting with the person about the concurrent application.
It is not written as a specific time, but as soon as practicable.
Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.2. Proposed section 30C(4) sets out the information that must be submitted as part of a valid concurrent application. This includes standard requirements generally applicable to development and planning scheme amendment applications. The amendment simply includes a requirement for a concurrent application to address issues surrounding unit title schemes. This is an existing requirement for development applications; however, it was not included in the drafting of the bill previously presented.
Mr WOOD: I wanted to ask questions about proposed section 30D(3). I need to get this clarified. This is in relation to the significant development proposal. Some of this may relate to existing legislation, but there is an opportunity to ask because it is in this bill. Is it you alone who considers whether a development proposal will be a significant development proposal?
Mr CHANDLER: Good question. Probably the best way to describe it would be through a demonstration. If a developer came to me with a proposal and I made the decision it was something significant, I would, in the first instance, refer it to the Planning Commission. I would make a decision based on my assessment of the proposal. I would then give it to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission would provide me with advice on whether or not it should be a significant proposal. I would be requiring and requesting advice from the Planning Commissioner.
Mr WOOD: I probably should have asked this question second; I will go back one step. The heading of proposed section 30D is:
- 30D Consideration and initial decision by Minister
I believe you said this is normal in an initial decision, when responding to the member for Johnston and I after the second reading speech. However, just so I get it clear in my head, do you make an initial decision about development applications?
Mr CHANDLER: There are occasions, particularly areas outside we would consider the normal development consent process. Yes, there are times when I would be the authority to approve something. In recent times there have been a number of proposals outside the areas we cover. I have deferred that responsibility to the DCA and asked them to do that on my behalf. That is just in recent times.
Mr WOOD: I understand that – outside the Planning Authority. But in a standard application inside the Planning Authority, would you make an initial decision about, for example, a 30-storey block of units in Darwin? That would be the development part of it, rather than rezoning. Would you normally comment on that, or does it go straight to the DCA?
Mr CHANDLER: No, I would not formally comment, but it does not prevent a developer asking to have a meeting with the minister, in fact, any minister here, to put forward a proposal. That has nothing to do with the formal stages the proposal has to go through.
I have proposals put to me all the time. No decisions are made at that meeting. They would still be required to go through the normal processes. Obviously it ends up with the DCA, and I end up, as the minister, with a report on my desk from the department and the DCA.
Mr WOOD: I understand. What I am getting at is that proposed section 30D(1) says:
- (1) If, in the Minister’s opinion, additional information is necessary to enable a proper consideration of the concurrent application, the Minister may require the applicant to provide the information.
There are two sides to the concurrent application. There is the planning amendment and the development. Normally you would not comment on the development, but according to what is written here, you would have the power to comment on both the planning amendment and the development. It does not distinguish between either of those phases we are going through.
Mr CHANDLER: I have nothing more.
Mr WOOD: It only needs a yes or no. Whether I agree you should have that power is another matter, but it is saying you normally do not have that power to comment on a development application through the normal process. Forget whether you are the Planning Authority, where we are dealing with areas outside normal planning scheme areas; this clause gives you the power to make comment on development. In fact, you can ask someone to amend that development, if I read that as it is. This is a power you do not have under the Planning Act at present.
Mr CHANDLER: I am not sure how you are reading it, but I can think of a time where a developer might come to me and put forward a proposal. I must make a number of recommendations to the developer about what they should do. The development is put forward, I have advisors in the room and people from the department who help put these people on the right track. There might be, at that meeting, a requirement that this developer must do something else to meet my requirement.
This might be that we are trying to provide general advice on which pathway they should take. Based on that development – let us say we have a developer with a set of units they want to put on a block of land currently owned by the Crown or not zoned appropriately. We must provide advice on what is the most appropriate pathway. If all the information is not there, you will be saying to somebody, ‘Perhaps you should bring us some more information’, set up a meeting with the department and even meet with the planner.
You must remember these things usually happen before the formal process has taken place. We need more information to make a better decision.
Mr WOOD: I do not disagree with any of that, but we have a new situation – setting up of an official planning advisor. My understanding of what you said is the planning advisor would be giving the developer all that information, so it should not get to you in a state of ifs and buts. You have a special person to do that. My concern is we are not talking about just an informal meeting with the developer. The developer normally puts in an application for a 30-storey block of flats. For argument’s sake, it is rezoned for that area as medium density, high density or the like. They put in an application and you would normally not have anything to do with that. Is that correct?
Mr CHANDLER: You are right, in the first instance I would not. This section provides the basis for determination of a number of precursors leading up to the initial decision by the minister on the suitability of a proposal for public exhibition. Proposed subsections 30D(1) and 30D(2) enable the minister to require additional information to be requested from the applicant to enable proper consideration of the proposal.
It also provides for the application to be rejected if this information is not provided, or the information provided is insufficient to enable proper consideration.
Mr WOOD: The whole idea of concurrent applications is that we speed up the system. All that is proposed is instead of waiting six months for a planning amendment approval, followed by a longer wait for a development application, you have put them together. I presume the same rules apply for both sides of that equation.
What I find difficult to understand is you are now involved in the development side, as distinct from the planning amendment side, which you are allowed to be involved in. This seems to be at odds with what happens now. My concern is that all of a sudden you have come in – it does not matter if it is an initial decision because you would not be involved, even in the existing process, when it comes to development. Would you be involved in the block of flats I mentioned? If they had put in an application to the DCA, would you get involved in an initial decision to reject it?
Mr CHANDLER: I would not say that, because we are the government. People come to see the government on a number of issues, and we are inundated by developers who come forward with proposals. There are often times when you are providing guidance to developers on the best way to approach their developments. That has happened before formal processes have even begun.
Mr WOOD: Is this not a formal process?
Mr ELFERINK: Can I join in this debate? I understand where you are coming from, but there is a legal parallel, which is courts of original jurisdiction and courts of appellant jurisdiction. You are saying that under the development process, the minister has a role which is like an appellant role. There is a process of going through the DCA, and you finally get to the minister’s desk as a final court of appeal or arbitration on those issues. Alternatively, there are also roles for the minister, with regard to having a form of original jurisdiction, where he can, early in the piece, insert himself in the process of changing a town plan.
You say they are two separate arguments, and the minister acknowledged the fit can be a bit awkward in places. Where you have this sort of disposition, or change from an original to appellant jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the superior court is the one holding sway. There is a melding in, through the development process, into the town plan changing process, which is what this whole legislation is about, to make the system easier. It is my understanding that the minister remains a governing body in relation to this, which is what governments do; they govern.
Mr CHANDLER: The difference between this process and the current process is we are requiring developers to have everything they need up front before we consider the concurrent process. Under normal circumstances, a developer comes along and wants to rezone. They go through the process - you are very familiar with that process - and at a later stage, they go through the development consent process. All the information, planning and detail required at the second stage is required up front. There will be times when we do not have all the information to allow them to go through this new process. There will also be times where they are encouraged to use the current process. There is a lot to ask a developer to provide up front, and I need to have the ability to say, ‘You do not have enough information. Go back and get it before you can use this new process.’
Mr VOWLES: I have a question around when it becomes the significant …
Mr WOOD: I have not finished, the minister was - I am still in the same section, sorry.
I hope I have not lost my train of thought. It is an important area, because if I was a developer, I would be asking why you are interfering in the development, and you could tell me it is in the act. I asked about planning advisors; what role do they have to play? It is not their job to say someone has painted a lovely wall. Your job is to purely say, ‘You need all these conditions up front before it goes to planning’. Are you in a similar role to a planning advisor? If I look at proposed section 30D(2):
- (2) If the applicant does not provide any additional information after being required to do so …
This is what you are doing; is this information you require, or are you personally liking or disliking an application? Will your concerns be purely based on some development or planning issues you think are lacking in the application?
Mr CHANDLER: I think we are getting a bit carried away and we have this around the wrong way. A developer would speak to me well before they have even, perhaps, spoken to a planner within the department of Lands and Planning. They would come to me in the first instance. During those meetings, we would discuss which is the right pathway for them to take, whether it is using the existing process or the new process.
There might be information in that room – and a lot of people might think I know everything, but in fact, I do not. I have advisors and experts to help guide us through this, so if there is something raised in that if they are considering using this process, they might need more information. They might need to get that information, and the next step might be they submit their applications. They would then talk to one of the planners at the department of Lands and Planning.
It is not the other way around. The developer would come to me first. We would have a meeting and discuss it with advisors and people from the department of Lands and Planning to provide them with, perhaps, the correct pathway for their development. That is all.
Mr VOWLES: Who makes the decision about the significant development proposal if it goes to the planning advisor?
Mr CHANDLER: We have already covered that. Initially, if someone came to me with, for example, a rather large development, but I make a decision the Planning Commission should look at it, I would refer it to the Planning Commissioner. His advice, or the board’s advice, would come back to me and would either suggest we make it a significant development – that is just to help, again, the process go through a little quicker.
Mr VOWLES: Is that through a concurrent application as well?
Mr CHANDLER: No, it is a separate process.
Mr VOWLES: Would a concurrent application be a significant development proposal?
Mr CHANDLER: In that case, if it was considered a significant proposal, I can stop the clock, under this legislation, and refer it to the Planning Commission to ensure we have the right advice on that proposal. It broadens the scope of not only the independent advice back to government, but ensures we have a strengthened regulatory framework to make sure we have appropriate development.
Mr WOOD: It then goes to the commission as a significant development proposal; does it come back to the DCA?
Mr CHANDLER: I have been told that if advice comes back from the commission that it should be a significant development, it is referred to the DCA.
Mr VOWLES: Do the provisions of the bill or current act, in respect to significant development proposals, give you any discretionary powers over developments or rezoning? Can you still make decisions under the provisions of this bill that reduce existing rights of developers and the public?
Mr CHANDLER: It does not change anything that currently exists.
Mr VOWLES: Do the existing provisions for public consultation, in respect to such things as public notices, time lines and appeals, apply to significant development proposals?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, they do and it is all the same.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.3.
The intent of amendment 14.3 remains unchanged. The amendment is necessary to clarify the different notification requirements of a decision made under proposed section 30D(5)(a):
- (a) accept the application for exhibition …
- (b) refuse to amend the planning scheme as specified in the amendment proposal.
Mr CHANDLER: You are correct.
Mr WOOD: That is all right.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHAIR: Amendment 14.4 refers to proposed section 30P(1). Does anyone want to discuss anything prior to that?
Mr WOOD: Yes, this is just a nuts and bolts question. Proposed section 30G has a heading of:
- 30G Exhibition of details of concurrent application
Have you worked out what sort of signage you will use so people can easily see something is a concurrent application?
Mr VOWLES: Different colour?
Mr WOOD: Well, it might be two signs.
Mr CHANDLER: That is a good point, member for Nelson, because most people are used to seeing pink or yellow signs. I suggest it would be a different colour. That colour has not been chosen yet, but I am sure it will be a bright one.
Mr WOOD: I was not too worried about the colour. Obviously the colour might be different. I suppose people will not know much about concurrent applications, so hopefully there will be a little education about a new sign. We know green is for liquor, yellow is for rezoning and pink is for development. This is a new process and if people are interested, they will realise they must be on the ball because the development application is going through with the planning amendment. As long as people know this is happening, and if they see this sign, they will hopefully understand what is going on. The other argument is, ‘I did not know what that sign was’, and before you have gone too far, the time for responding to planning applications has finished.
Mr CHANDLER: May I suggest you and I have a photo of the new sign together and it can go in your newsletter, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mr CHANDLER: You are right, though, it does need to be different. It needs to stand out and demonstrate clearly that this is a different process to what we have currently.
Mr WOOD: I thought you were going to say we should have our photos on the sign. That would scare them away.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.4. The intent and operation again remains unchanged. The consent authority would not write a submission under section 30M, therefore, would not be completing such a procedure as referred to within originally proposed section 30P(1).
Mr WOOD: I will try to read this out. The new section 30P(1) should say, ‘as soon as practicable after the end of the exhibition period, and (if applicable) after completing procedures for sections 30L and 30N, the consent authority must make a preliminary decision’, etcetera. Why do we now have ‘if applicable’ in brackets? In other words, what has happened to 30L, 30M and 30N to make them only sometimes required?
Mr CHANDLER: Can you read that again, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: 30P(1) has been changed, and that is the amendment we are talking to. It says to:
- omit
all words from ‘after’ to ‘must’
- insert
I will read the whole line. The existing amendment says:
- (1) As soon as practicable …
The new amendment says:
- … after the end of the exhibition period and (if applicable) after completing procedures for sections 30L and 30N, the consent authority must …
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nelson, if there are no submissions, there is no need for a hearing, so it is if it is applicable.
Mr WOOD: It would be nice to put in what you just said, rather than leave it to me asking what that means. It should have a little note to say, ‘But if there are no submissions, 30L, 30M and 30N do not apply’. I know that …
Mr CHANDLER: It would have helped me too.
Mr WOOD: At least it will be in the debate if someone wants to look it up. One thing that happened in previous days of the government, when people were confused about my role, was that I was part of moving to have notes. You will see notes in this – there is a reference to notes coming up under – there is a small section where you have changed a note. Under amendment 14.7, clause 6, proposed section 30R(1), a note is changed. This might be an opportunity for a note to be written under that to explain what ‘if applicable’ means. As you say, it does not leave much explanation.
That is a suggestion as to why we have notes in legislation. It could be done another time.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, would you like to move amendment 14.5?
Mr WOOD: Sorry. We just did one, did we not? You are quicker than I can think, Mr Chair.
Could I ask a question: why do we need a preliminary decision?
Mr CHANDLER: On what?
Mr WOOD: Proposed section 30P(1), as amended, would say: As soon as practicable after the end of the exhibition period and (if applicable) after completing procedures for sections 30L and 30N, the consent authority must make a preliminary decision that, if the minister were to approve the amendment proposal in the concurrent application, the authority would be likely to determine to:
(a) consent to the development …
(b) refuse to consent …
This one says it is a preliminary decision. Why is this needed; why is it not just ‘a decision’?
Mr CHANDLER: The simple answer is to save time.
Mr WOOD: I thought it would increase time, because you must make another decision, which makes two decisions, instead of one.
Help me through this bit; what happens after the preliminary decision? It says:
- … the authority would be likely to determine to:
- (a) determine to consent to the development proposal …
- (b) refuse to consent …
- (1) After making a preliminary decision under section 30P(1), the consent authority must give the Minister a written report about the concurrent application.
- (a) the preliminary decision;
My question is why is it not simply ‘the decision’?
Mr CHANDLER: Under this process, there are two parts to it: one is the rezoning and one is the DCA. The DCA might make a preliminary decision and then, if I choose to approve the rezoning, it does not have to revisit it. It can use its delegation to continue; it saves time.
Mr WOOD: I would say, ‘Why do you not make a final decision based on two things?’ The DCA approves the subdivision, subject to the rezoning being approved. …
Mr CHANDLER: That is essentially what it does.
Mr WOOD: It is the final decision.
Mr CHANDLER: It is a play on words.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I do not want to have a life spent upstairs on the left, but I am not trying to be silly either. When I read it, I thought the process looked like it was getting longer, rather than shorter. The whole idea of this was to make it more compact and user-friendly.
As long as people understand it should be revisited later to see whether it could be a bit more streamlined.
Mr CHANDLER: To be clear, if the DCA has made a preliminary decision, it cannot make a final decision until the rezoning has been approved by me. I may not approve the rezoning, which means it cannot make a final decision. It would be a final decision on the development being approved. It may not be approved, if I do not approve the rezoning. It can only be a preliminary decision.
Mr WOOD: I agree. To clarify, a final decision says: ‘We support this development subject to approval from the minister’; that is all.
Amendment agreed to
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.5. The intent and operation again remain unchanged. This amendment is necessary to maintain corrections – subsection references as a result of the amendment of the proposed section 30D as detailed above, which is clause 6, proposed section 30P(2)(c).
- omit
- 30D(7)(b)(iii)
- insert
30D(6)(c)(iii)
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.6. Once again, the intent and operation remains unchanged. This amendment is necessary to maintain corrections and subsection references as a result of the insertion of proposed section 30ZC(1). You should have those details in front of you.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: With proposed section 30P(2)(r): this is a copy of section 51 of the act, as it is at present. In the existing act, in section R – I cannot say it is exactly section R in the main act – it says:
- (t) other matters it thinks fit.
- (r) other matters the consent authority considers relevant.
Mr WOOD: It may be the same, but we have gone down the path of copying section 51, which is about matters the consent authority must take into account in normal circumstances. We have changed that clause, so there is an inconsistency in the wording from exactly the same section to this section.
My two questions are: should it be consistent, because everything else, as far as I can read, is consistent? Also, is there – and I am not the lawyer here – a difference between:
- (t) other matters it thinks fit
(r) other matters the consent authority considers relevant
Mr CHANDLER: My first instinct would be that in anyone’s reckoning, they would mean the same thing. Someone looking at something as they see ‘fit’, other matters the consent authority considers ‘relevant’. This is semantics. It means exactly the same thing, so I cannot see what the real problem is.
If something means the same thing, and is in the legislation with exactly the same meaning, what are you against?
Mr WOOD: I am not against anything, but you just explained it to me perfectly. If it means the same thing, why did they change the wording? I still leave the question. I am not a lawyer, and the member for Port Darwin is very good on some things, particularly the meanings of words. I am just saying this has changed; it is a change from the main act. I raise it because that is what my job is during the committee stage. I raised it as something that may have no relevance at all, but then again, it may have some relevance.
Mr ELFERINK: Sometimes we send things to parliamentary draughtspeople. We ask them to prepare amendments for us, and they will choose certain language for certain reasons. There are occasions when language may be simplified or altered, for whatever reason, without changing the meaning. I will not second guess the parliamentary draughtsman’s motivations for changing language. It might simply be because the modern trend amongst parliamentary draughtsmen is to convert more archaic language to plain English; that is one of the trends in modern drafting.
There are a number of trends in modern drafting, and there may be any number of reasons the draughtsman has chosen to use the phraseology. The intent and function of legislation does not functionally change when you move something from older forms of English, and older forms of drafting, to the more simplified plain English-type legislation we use today.
This parliament could probably forbear to accept that the intent of the parliamentary draughtsman in this instance was not to change the intent of the legislation. Simply, words were chosen which were different to the original wording. You can say the same thing in different ways, and I believe that is what the minister is driving at in this instance.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.7. This amendment is necessary to maintain correct subsection references as a result of the amendment of proposed section 30T. The intent and operation remains unchanged.
Mr WOOD: Noted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.8. Proposed section 30S specifies the matters to be taken into account in the minister’s determination of the amendment proposal in the concurrent application. These include: the reports provided to the minister required under the proposed section 30D relating to the determination of the proposal as a significant development, if applicable; and the report on submissions and the consultation process under proposed section 30Q.
Further matters identified are common to the matters to be taken into account in determining development proposals under the Planning Act and under this proposed part. This includes a requirement to take into account the planning scheme and the amendment forming part of the application. This is a requirement to take into account any integrated strategic plan, area plan, planning principle, policy or guideline contained or referenced in the scheme, in addition to specific statutory matters.
This provides the strategic context and direction to any land use decision represented in the determination of the amendment proposal. Proposed subclause 30S(o) also provides for the minister to consider other matters considered relevant.
Mr WOOD: I will not ask the minister about proposed section 30S(o), but I will ask him about the alterations and exhibitions of concurrent applications. Proposed section 30S deals with a development application, that is, the thing that developers are required to put forward in their application. Again, I run into this issue of what your role is when it comes to proposed section 30T(1):
- (1) Before making an amendment decision for the concurrent application, the Minister may decide to alter the amendment proposal …
Mr CHANDLER: There is a flow-on effect but, yes, that is correct.
Mr WOOD: To make it clear, you would only ask for an amendment based on all those things in proposed section 30S? Is that correct? What would be an example of an amendment that you might require of the applicant?
Mr CHANDLER: A case where a developer asks for a particular zone and I make the decision to approve another zone is an example of this.
Mr WOOD: That would then be a major change, which must be exhibited? Is that correct?
Mr CHANDLER: It could be, but it would depend on the circumstances.
Mr WOOD: It is worth making sure we understand for people who may be looking at this later. What would you regard as a minor change, because that is also dealt with here?
Mr CHANDLER: A minor change might be if the original intent was moved slightly. Goalposts shift all the time, so if the intent changed, that would be a minor change, I am assuming.
Mr WOOD: I hesitate to ask, but what do you mean by ‘intent’ in this case?
Mr CHANDLER: The intent of a development.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but we are not dealing with development; we are dealing with amendments to zones. I presume that is what a planning amendment is. I am wondering what a minor change is.
Mr CHANDLER: You forget that under this concurrent legislation, all information is required up front from the developer. If the intent changed during that process, it might change my view of whether zoning is correct or not. Remember, the current situation is that someone can apply to have land rezoned, and it may be years before it is developed. In this legislation, you are talking about a developer who is required to have all that information up front. During the process, if the intent changes that would perhaps be considered minor, but it would depend on how minor the change was or how much the intent changed during the process.
Mr WOOD: My concern is – I know what it is like going to DCA meetings. You have put your submission in, then all of sudden things change because the developer has come up with amendments and they hand them around to everyone but the people sitting in the back seats. It goes through. Generally speaking, I hope people will have a chance to comment on the changes if this happens, because that is the gripe I hear from people sometimes. Yes, they have been to the department and been told, ‘Look, we need some changes to this’. Those changes often do not get back to the public, because they are not advertised until that person turns up at a meeting and says, ‘I did not know there was a new plan or an amended plan’. I get the gist, minister.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.9. The minister, when considering a proposed planning scheme amendment that is not part of a concurrent application at existing section 25, has the power to alter and determine the proposal without the need to re-exhibit. This existing ability to alter and determine a planning scheme amendment proposal without re-exhibition is provisional on the alteration not being sufficiently extensive or significant to justify re-exhibition.
Proposed section 30T, as originally presented, was intended to mimic the decision-making process at existing section 25. However, the section did not include provision for the minister to alter and determine an amendment proposal that is part of a concurrent application. In cases where the alteration of the amendment proposal is of a minor nature, the omission of a provision to alter and determine created the potential for additional time, administrative and financial cost burden on the applicant, the consent authority and the minister, with little or no benefit to the public interest. The amendments proposed reflect existing provisions for stand-alone planning scheme amendments in permitting the alteration and determination of an amendment proposal, while setting limits on the scale of alteration that warrants re-exhibition on the proposal.
Mr VOWLES: I just want to get some reassurance from the minister. Would they have to readvertise the exhibition period? Is it the same?
Mr CHANDLER: It would be a decision based on whether it was significant enough and the determination has to be made. If it was yes, you would go through that process. If it was not, you would not.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.10; again, the previous answers cover this one.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.11. Proposed section 30V provides that division 5 only applies to concurrent applications where the consent authority has been notified of the minister’s determination to approve the amendment proposal in the application.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.12. The intent and operation remains unchanged. Amending the heading to proposed section 30Y creates consistency with the heading to existing section 53B and indicates this is something different from the consent in a notice of determination, referred to in the heading to proposed section 30X.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.13. The intent and operation, again, remain unchanged. Proposed section 30Y sets out notification requirements where no submissions were received or the development proposal is of a type which does not give rise to third-party appeal rights. Consistent with proposed section 30X above, the section is drafted to retain existing rights and notice obligations under the Planning Act for the development proposal component of the concurrent application.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.14 and, again, I am just clarifying where we are. There is a muck-up with my numbering. With proposed section 30Y, this is the same again; it sets out notification requirements where no submissions were received or the development proposal is of a type that does not give rise to third-party appeal rights. Consistent with proposed section 30X above, the section is drafted to retain existing rights and notice obligations under the Planning Act for the development proposal component in the concurrent application.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.15. The intent and operation remain unchanged; amending the heading to proposed section 30Z creates consistency with existing section 53C.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.16; the amendment to include this section replicates the provisions of existing sections 85(1) and (2), specific to a concurrent application. This amendment simply clarifies the minister’s powers to direct the consent authority in relation to a concurrent application. It should be noted that the amendment does not go so far as to allow the minister to call in an application and declare him or herself to be the consent authority, as is the case with a stand-alone development application, thus maintaining the separation of powers in determining a concurrent application.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.17. The proposed change to notification requirements at section 16(3) in relation to a proposed planning scheme amendment permit had unanticipated ramifications, administratively and operationally. An example, a proposed change to the zoning table for zone GI would have resulted in the minister being required to serve a notice on every landowner with land zoned general industry.
The minister needs to be able to retain the discretion to decide that it is impractical to serve notices on landowners because of the location or number of parcels of land and that it is/could be reasonably expected that affected landowners would become aware of the proposal through publication or advertising in the newspaper.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 14.18. The intent remains unchanged. The amendment maintains consistency with other provisions throughout the bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the changes are welcome and will help speed up development applications that are sometimes slowed down. This is not because people do not have the opportunity to look at them, but because applications have had a slow process built into them. These changes will be welcome, and it is shown in the new bill that rights of appeal are still covered. If something needs to change in relation to third-party appeals at some other stage, they should consider allowing people in the rural area to have the same rights as people in the city in relation to third-party appeals.
My concern is something I will keep an eye on. I am concerned about the initial decision-making process. While we have a planning advisor, there really should not be any need for initial decisions to be made by the minister. In fact, this bill, as shown during the debate, shows the minister still has powers further on in the process. That area is in conflict with the existing processes used for rezoning and development.
My other concern is in relation to significant development proposals. I did raise it. My concern is this section of the act could take away some rights from the community that it currently has. Regardless of whether it is a small or large proposal, I hope all things go through the normal Development Consent Authority process.
The previous government, I always believed, did something I never worked out, and I will give you an example. If people want to go crook at me about certain arrangements I made with previous governments, one of them was to try to pull the Middle Arm peninsula back into the Litchfield Shire planning area. I was concerned it had been taken out, and governments obviously think major or significant developments do not want to be inhibited by silly old councils and development consent authorities.
To some extent, what the previous government did was redraw the line around INPEX and take the application away from the local DCA to deal with something that was a significant development proposal. I am unsure whether that piece of land has been put back into the local Development Consent Authority area. While it is not in that area, a significant development proposal, like INPEX, is only heard by the minister or his delegate. I have concerns that governments sometimes consider it too important to be heard by the local DCA, and they will go around the process and make those decisions through a different procedure.
They were two issues raised during the debate. One was the initial decision-making process, and the other was how the significant development proposals will work in reality. I am not sure any significant development proposal has yet been put to government. I would imagine something like the port at Glyde Point, the Taranaki proposal or the Elizabeth River proposal would be regarded as significant development. If so, would they sidestep the normal planning processes we have today?
In summing up, even though they are my concerns, what you put forward today are positive changes which promote development in a sensible way. We are not getting away from exhibitions and those sorts of comments. Overall, it is a good change to the Planning Act. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
LEAVE TO INCORPORATE INTO HANSARD
Page Nine of Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
(Serial 69)
Page Nine of Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
(Serial 69)
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, having spoken to the opposition about this, I am about to present an airhead motion, and the airhead is me. This is a mea maxima culpa - I have managed to do it twice in two days – which I do not think has been done anywhere before. I seek leave for an amendment be made to the second reading speech for the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Serial 69) which I delivered this morning.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The amendment needs to be inserted into the second reading speech immediately following the sentence, ‘The court may therefore receive information from persons who are not parties to the proceeding ‘as it thinks fit’ under section 104, in the same way it would consider a character reference in any other sentencing proceeding’.
The words to be inserted are:
- The amendment to section 104A has been drafted to balance the importance of customary law and culture when a court is sentencing an offender with allowing the court to order information be provided in an evidentiary fashion, if deemed necessary. However, the amendments to section 104A should not be read so as to allow the court to take into account any form of customary law or cultural practice as a reason for excusing, justifying, authorising, requiring, lessening or aggravating the seriousness of the defendant’s actions contrary to section 16AA of the Crimes Act, which was introduced by the Commonwealth’s Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2012. It is intended that information is to be received under section 104A in order to provide a context and explanation for an offender’s actions and to provide information about their role in the community, predisposition to offend, rehabilitation prospects and the impact of their offending on the community so that the court can make an assessment of the offender’s particular circumstances.
I will now address the amendment to section 107 of the Sentencing Act, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take into account summary charges when sentencing an offender on indictment.
As I said at the outset, it is my fault, my bad, and I thank the opposition for allowing me to correct the same mistake twice in two days.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I believe it would be highly remiss of me if I did not point out: John, can you count? Last week, you gave a very excited speech about my spelling and grammar, but this is the second day in a row you have missed a page in your speech. Thank you for updating the House. I just thought I would point that out.
Mr Elferink: Notice that it was mea maxima culpa.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (HIT AND RUN) BILL
(Serial 57)
(Serial 57)
Continued from 17 October 2013
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I wish to speak on this bill and state that we will be supporting it.
In summary, this bill deals with a loophole that has been exploited in our hit-and-run laws, whereby people have been able to avoid certain charges of not stopping to render assistance in a traffic accident because the person was dead or beyond assistance being rendered.
Everyone knows about hit-and-run laws; people know that if you are involved in an accident where someone is injured, you cannot just take off. You have a responsibility to render assistance, and inform and cooperate with the police. Everyone supports this intent; however, as is often the case, turning this intent into legislation that adequately accommodates every possible scenario and challenge is a far more complex matter.
This bill amends a section of the Criminal Code Act to insert a requirement to report to police an incident involving a vehicle where a person is killed or suffers serious harm. The section was introduced in 2008 as part of reforms of the Criminal Code Act. It makes it an offence if the driver of a vehicle does not stop and render reasonable assistance where the driver’s vehicle is involved in an accident which results in another person suffering serious harm or being killed. Penalties of up to 10 years apply.
This section has a significant penalty for people who do not render assistance; it holds a strong deterrent against the possible desire of people to flee the scene of an accident.
The bill was initiated by the death of Rikki Colosimo and the result of a recent Supreme Court case involving his death. Since the compilation of the bill, there has been another similar case involving the death of Levi Griffiths. The families of these two victims would have expected that if it was proved the defendants had indeed committed hit-and-run, serious penalties would apply. I am sure neither family was aware of this loophole involving death, and our deepest sympathies go to both families and the fact they had to go through this.
The deaths of these two men are tragic enough and will have caused families and friends much pain. More pain is caused when the law does not meet our community’s expectations. When the law does not meet its intent in cases like this, it can be very painful and emotional for everyone involved.
The Attorney-General outlined the specific decisions of the Supreme Court and their reasons, in relation to this case. Essentially, without there being a requirement to notify police of the incident in the event of a hit-and-run, a driver will not have committed an offence if they are involved in an incident where a person dies. If they stop and decide no assistance is necessary or possible, they can then drive off. They then, of course, avoid the requirement to be breath tested. Depending on the nature and location of the incident and evidence at the scene, they may never be identified.
This is not what people understand the intent of hit-and-run laws to be. I am sure most people involved in an accident or an incident involving a death would remain at the scene, not just because it is morally the right thing to do, but because that is their understanding of the law. It is certainly the intent of the law. This bill now makes it very clear that a driver must notify police, regardless of whether assistance is required.
The bill includes provisions on complying with directions of police in relation to the incident. One issue that can arise is that such an incident can be extremely traumatic and stressful. It is understandable that people may be in shock or turmoil and not necessarily acting in a rational or logical manner. This is understandable, as long as people do not flee and they cooperate with police, and this can be accommodated within the law.
This bill makes it clear the driver is responsible for reporting the incident to police. There may be cases where someone does this on behalf of the driver. This could be because the driver is injured, too traumatised to call or perhaps is not proficient in English. Strictly speaking, this does not comply with the provisions of the law. However, we have confidence in the response from officers who drafted the legislation that so long as the driver is aware the incident is being reported and cooperates with police, this will not be considered a breach. Of course, this is within reason. Perhaps in his summation the Attorney-General could explain exactly how this issue is catered for.
We have seen two recent cases where the community has raised concerns about the penalties involved in hit-and-run incidents where a death has occurred. Without reflecting on the decisions of the court, our sympathy from this side of the House goes to the families of the deceased, who I know are of the view that the sentence penalties were inadequate. While it will not help their particular case, we hope the law changing will give them comfort.
I note the Attorney-General indicated he would encourage the DPP to review whether it would appeal the sentence in relation to the death of Levi Griffiths. We support the DPP reviewing the case. I do not believe it is the role of this House to comment on such sentences, especially if we have not sat through the hearing and heard all arguments. However, the community believes, quite reasonably, that it does not appear the sentence fitted the crime. If the Attorney-General could update the House in relation to this matter, that would also be appreciated.
We support this bill, which ensures the intent of the law is prescribed in the legislation. It closes a loophole that, unfortunately, has been exploited. The message is now very clear: if you are involved in an incident, do not flee; very serious charges and penalties will apply.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, as a former police prosecutor, I came across many instances like this. People looked at the law, and people in the legal profession would be looking for ways to lessen the impact of what their clients had done or to do some sort of a deal.
This amendment takes out some of that ambiguity in the way the Criminal Code Act is written. I, for one, support this wholeheartedly. It obviously makes changes to the law that require a driver to comply with any practical directions given by a representative of the police force in relation to the incident. We now have people who work for the police force who are civilians and are required, by other legislation, to do things. This tidies up what a person is required to do.
Other speakers have made mention of a driver’s moral duty to stop, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. They have a requirement to stop and assist police, and provide assistance to anyone who has been in an accident. It is appalling and terrible that some people have avoided any penalty for their action of failing to stop, and we need to fix that.
The driver obviously is required to stop at the scene and administer assistance, regardless of whether they believe their actions can improve the condition of the person involved in the accident. I have heard arguments in the past where people have said, ‘Well, yes, the person was upright. I had a conversation with him and left.’ Of course, in some instances, it has been proven that was not the case. The person was dying and someone had being drinking, driving without a driver’s licence or some other issue that would cause them to be in a lot of trouble.
There are many very good people in the legal profession who give some very good advice, but there is the odd one or two who try to manipulate the facts to suit loopholes in the legislation. What we now do is make it obvious to people as a deterrent, and take away the ability of some, not all, in the legal profession to do that. This amendment will close that loophole and I am glad members opposite have seen this and seen fit to support this legislation. Thank you
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their support in the passage of this legislation. It is commonsense legislation. There is a certain prophylactic quality to this legislation, by virtue of what we are attempting to do is prevent a defence reliant on the argument from the Colosimo case.
While the defence ran the argument, essentially, the court did not accept it. I am grateful to the court for that, but because of the legislation being drafted in the fashion it was, it allowed the requisite wriggle room for the argument to be run in the first place.
What caused a lot of public upset was the nature of that argument and the fact there was a capacity for it to be run. Consequently, we have moved, as a government, to alter the legislation in such a fashion as to reflect the intention of this House in the first instance. This intention is if you have an accident, you will be required to stop, unless there is some imperilling reason for you not to. Even then, there is still a requirement for you, at some early opportunity, to contact authorities.
Essentially, as the argument was run in this case, the defence basically said, ‘You have to stop to render assistance, but if you have hit somebody so badly it is clear there is no assistance you can render them, you are not bound by legislation’. That type of argument really gets under the skin of Mr and Mrs Average, because it is lawyering that is too cute by half. It is not a great surprise the Supreme Court rejected that.
I remind members of the profession that while they have a duty to the client, they have a primary duty to the court. It also reflects on the profession that with their enthusiasm for their duties to clients, some lawyers have pushed the bounds of reasonableness, certainly as seen through the eyes of Mr and Mrs Joe Public, Mr and Mrs Malak. In this instance, the fact the argument alone was run and given air in the courtroom upset many people in the public domain.
As a consequence, the government has moved to reassert and reaffirm, in stronger terms, the original policy intent of this legislation. We have not changed the law in that what parliament wanted to first achieve is in any way being changed. It is being supported by the passage of this legislative instrument today.
I pick up on some of the comments from the member for Nightcliff in relation to the Shonky Cassidy matter. Mr Cassidy was charged with offences appropriate to his conduct. It is my understanding, from memory, that what he was charged with and convicted of was perverting the course of justice.
While I will not trawl over the facts of that matter, Mr Cassidy engaged in certain conduct which was best covered by the offence of perverting the course of justice. I must look to my advisor, but I do not believe there were any other criminal offences attached to it? There were? Okay. In that case, Mr Cassidy stopped, and part of the reason we are changing this law was the result of the decision in The Queen v Yusoff [2013] NTSC 43. In any instance, he was ultimately convicted - the charge was withdrawn, by the way - of perverting the course of justice. The public do not often make a clear distinction with the nature of the charge a person faces. They simply see the facts of the case and expect when a guilty verdict is handed down, the person has been found guilty of the offence which suits the facts. This is not always the case; it was not the case in the Cassidy matter, but through his conduct, he was determined to have perverted the course of justice and was convicted appropriately.
I spoke to the head of the DPP about considering an appeal, which is something I have no influence over. I can merely suggest something to the head of the DPP, but, quite properly through the independence of the DPP’s office, they are in no way bound to respond to it. I am not aware of any appeal on the sentence, and I believe the appeal stage will have expired by now. That being the case, I suspect the decision of the DPP, in review of the matter, would simply be to decide it was not worth reviewing or taking back on appeal. The grounds of appeal on a sentence like that are if a sentence was manifestly inadequate. I can only presume the DPP came to the conclusion the sentence was not manifestly inadequate when you consider the perverting the course of justice conviction.
That is where I suspect that is at, and I can refer the honourable member to Jack Karczewski as the head of the DPP if she wants to ask further questions. I have no more influence over Mr Karczewski than any other member of this House. That being the case, I also thank the Minister for Transport for his observations and comments about his personal experiences as a police prosecutor. This is good law; it gives strength to the original intent of this House, and I am grateful to members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In Committee:
MR CHAIR: The committee has before it the Criminal Code Amendment (Hit and Run) Bill 2013 (Serial 57).
Mr WOOD: Clause 4 is about the changes you have introduced, which are:
- …
(b) the driver fails to do anything of the following:
- (i) stop the vehicle at the scene of the incident;
(ii) give any assistance …
Mr ELFERINK: Fail to stop after an accident.
Mr WOOD: It is:
- 19 Duties of driver after crash
That section also relates to contacting the police. The first question is, do the two conflict with one another in relation to when you have to contact police? In the Traffic Regulations, it talks about
- … not later than 24 hours …
- … as soon as practicable …
So, is there a problem with …
Mr ELFERINK: The short answer is no and the reason is they are two quite specific offences. Occasionally, offences will cover the same sort of turf, arising out of similar fact scenarios, but when you refer to section 19 of the Traffic Regulations, which I think is the failure to report an accident – it is a long time since I read those regulations.
Mr WOOD: It is:
- 19 Duties of driver after crash.
If you are particularly charged with that offence, it would arise out of circumstances where, for example, you had a fender bender or prang, something like that, and you have been charged with an offence under the Traffic Regulations. That is dealt with accordingly. In this instance, the legislation we are talking about covers a much wider field; it is an indictable offence, which means it carries a much more serious penalty. Therefore, there are a number of defences available under the operation of the Criminal Code Act. As a consequence, the court will respond to the offence for which you have been charged.
It is not inconceivable you could be charged with both simultaneously, arising from the same facts. It has happened on a number of occasions in the past where the same facts would lead to a number of charges. Colloquially among police officers, I think that is called charging someone with ‘a hamburger with the lot’, but the court will respond to the offence you have been charged with. It will then reflect upon the facts surrounding the circumstances leading up to that charge.
What would normally happen in the practical world is if you are charged with the more serious indictable offence and the lesser offence, the lesser offence would drop away during the prosecution process. This does not necessarily have to occur, but in likelihood it would drop away and you would be answerable for the indictable offence. Alternatively, if the indictable offence cannot be made out for want of evidence or the presence of a reasonable excuse from the operation of the Criminal Code Act, the prosecution may pull the indictable offence and proceed with the regulatory offence. I hope that explains what you are after.
Mr WOOD: I have had a bit to do with regulatory offences and how difficult it is to get out of them. You require a very good lawyer. It does make sense. To clarify another thing, regulation 19 also deals with property. I presume, according to this, it means horses, cattle, buffalo, camels, sheep, pigs or dogs.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I suppose you would be right.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Obviously, that does not apply to the law we are putting through here. This is to do with human beings who have been killed or injured. I hope this is not a dumb question, but why have that regulation? Why not remove the human side of the regulation, leave it in the Criminal Code Act, and just leave the rest, which is related to property, in the regulations?
Mr ELFERINK: That is not a dumb question. When I talk about regulatory and indictable offences, it really comes down to if you wanted to amalgamate the two. In reality, their nature is quite different.
For example, say I have a fender bender in the Coles supermarket car park; I buckle up somebody else’s quarter panel and drive off. The offence to charge me with is an indictable offence; it means I would, in every likelihood, go to the Supreme Court. It is a level of seriousness that is really high, so it requires a massive amount of investigation. This is where you get QCs in and that sort of thing and is not really a good fit for a fender bender. Alternatively, if you were just to rely on the regulatory offence for these sorts of offences, where somebody has been knocked off their bike on the side of the road and very badly injured, that offence pulls up way short of public expectation of retribution against the person convicted of that offence.
The circumstances of why you would be charged with a breach of the Traffic Regulations would be quite different to why you would be charged with a breach of this particular law. It has a lot to do with seriousness. When one charge is asked to capture a raft of possible circumstances, it is not unusual to break that into different charges. Otherwise, you end up having massive police investigations for indictable offences, because you have so many more hurdles to jump in the prosecution of an indictable offence that it would not be worth your while, honestly. As a police force, would you really commit huge amounts of resources to investigating a fender bender because you must meet all benchmarks required for a Supreme Court file in pursuing an indictable offence? Not really. It is pure pragmatism that drives legislation in this fashion.
Mr WOOD: This is a practical question. There is an accident and someone is knocked over, and someone does not stay around. The police officers, I presume, are the ones who make a decision which way they are charged, through regulation or the Criminal Code Act?
Mr ELFERINK: Essentially, the first level of discretion in any prosecution does not rest with the courts. The courts have made this abundantly clear. There is a common law acceptance of the principle of regulatory discretion. Moreover, the courts go one step further and say they expect us to use it. The first judge in any matter is PC Plod.
Take something like a speeding offence, 5 km/h over the speed limit. That is a regulatory offence, and if you wrote out the ticket, it would be almost impossible to argue it. However, the copper comes along and asks why a person was speeding, and they say they were in a hurry. It would not be reasonable to pursue a ticket for 5 km/h over, so the copper wags the finger and says, ‘Do not do it again’. That is an expression of the power of discretion: the lower the standard of the offence, the broader the power of the discretion. Courts are not going to get excited if police officers give verbal warnings for very minor types of traffic offences and those sorts of things. The more serious the offence, the general principle would be the smaller the amount of discretion.
I would not like to see a police officer or investigating authority come to the point where they investigate a murder and say, ‘We are not going to look in to it. We will exercise our discretion.’ The test of whether or not the police officer is acting appropriately is the test of reasonableness. As I have said before, there are textbooks written on the concept of reasonableness. It is well established in law. Basically, common sense applies.
Mr WOOD: This is the last question, and it may not be something you can deal with. In relation to punishment penalties for the Criminal Code Act amendment we have today versus regulations, do you have any idea if they are vastly different or if they are similar?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the common law around regulatory offences, without dragging it out, has created a system by which regulatory offences can be declared. If you go back to the history of regulatory offences, what they effectively do is run a test, and courts have run a test over what is a regulatory offence. Among the things is the seriousness of penalty.
I have expressed my concern on a number of occasions that we have regulatory offences with gaol sentences attached to them; I question that. I have some concerns about that, and have articulated that, in fact, in published articles. However, for section 19 of the Traffic Regulations, I do not think I have ever heard of a person going to gaol for it. It is called, in old common law terms, a misdemeanour. What we are doing today is not a misdemeanour. It is an indictable offence: in the old language, a felony. It is the serious end of the deal, in regard to the regulatory offence, seriousness, public impression or public approbation.
The public would frown upon somebody driving away from a fender bender or running over somebody’s dog. The public would not be impressed and would expect some response, but I do not imagine the public would generally expect people to be thrown into gaol in those circumstances. The public approbation around this is manifest in the amount of noise made in the public domain in the Colosimo case in response to an argument the lawyers had run. Clearly, the public expectation where a human being is involved and is injured and/or killed is much higher and, therefore, the indictable offence is appropriate.
I doubt anybody has ever gone to gaol for a breach of the Traffic Regulations. If anybody has done gaol time, it is because they were charged with that and other offences, but I could stand corrected on that.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. The crossbenches support this legislation. It is good legislation and I thank you for bringing it to the House.
Mr ELFERINK: No problems. I think we can move through it, Mr Chair.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Planning Services
Planning Services
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, the key issue for the future of the Northern Territory is the development of northern Australia, and the Territory’s capabilities and opportunities sit at the centre of this emphasis. In planning for our long-term future, this government is ensuring the context is set, clear direction is given to ensure communities are planned for that will thrive and all the ingredients of development, industry and infrastructure required for growth are properly researched, assessed and considered.
The Planning Amendment Bill 2012 amended the Planning Act to establish a Planning Commission, and its primary function is to prepare integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria for inclusion in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme.
The Northern Territory Planning Commission is developing the Darwin regional land use plan, a framework for facilitating growth and increased population, including future transport, utility corridors and sites for essential facilities. It is in two parts: a strategic long-term plan for the whole region that contains clear land use policy statements, and a definition of the sequence and timing of specific implementation projects in the region.
The Darwin regional land use plan will provide a policy framework for future development. It will position Darwin as an important regional centre in northern Australia and unlock the region’s economic potential. This important body of work is needed to identify and leverage opportunities associated with the Northern Territory’s geographical proximity to Asia. Demand for land across the industrial, commercial and residential sectors is strong, creating a need for strategic land use planning, as the Territory continues its robust growth.
On 17 December 2013, the Planning Commission released the Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014 for community input. It covers the subregions of Darwin, Palmerston, East Arm, Litchfield, Cox Peninsula, Finniss and Coomalie, presents the commission’s preliminary thinking and builds upon community feedback received to date. The commission is seeking comments up until 10 March 2014 to assist with its consideration of: ‘what’ land uses are required, ‘where’ they are to be located and ‘why’; within the context of further investigations into the various components, with potential to accommodate growth.
In addition, the plan canvasses infill options to support future land needs, such as Berrimah Farm and Berrimah North. New growth areas, including inner urban and rural activity centres, will also be investigated. Greenfield options have also been identified, such as future port facilities on the Gunn Point peninsula, new residential opportunities in Hughes and Noonamah and urban development opportunities around a new regional hospital in Palmerston north.
Planning for significant infrastructure, including airports, sea ports, rail and arterial roads will influence the final plan and the commission will ensure strategic land use and transport plans are integrated.
Feedback from the community will assist the commission in developing a final Darwin regional land use plan, and I note there will be further opportunities to comment throughout 2014, as this body of work is undertaken.
It is important to note the plan takes into account the City of Palmerston’s planning for Palmerston CBD and the City of Darwin’s work on the Darwin City Centre Master Plan. As we are all well aware, Darwin is one of only four cities in northern Australia with regional populations of more than 100 000, the others being Cairns, Mackay and Townsville. Overall, it is ideally placed to become a high-value, key urban zone within northern Australia, and should be the headquarters for the secretariat dealing with northern Australian initiatives. In order to attract global businesses, a world-class blueprint has been initiated for the development of the central business district that considers the entire commercial context of the CBD.
The Darwin City Centre Master Plan is a joint project between the Australian government, the Territory government and the City of Darwin. Funding comprises $250 000 under the Australian government’s Liveable Cities program, a $125 000 contribution from the Territory government under the auspices of the Capital City Committee and matched by another $125 000 provided by City of Darwin, totalling $500 000 towards this project. Extensive information gathering and background work was carried out by the Northern Territory government, in conjunction with City of Darwin. One-hundred-and-twenty stakeholder meetings and workshops have been held, as well as three structured community sessions.
The project included contributions from consultants across many professional spheres including landscape architects and economists, directed by the overall project manager, the leading urban designer, Mr Steve Thorne. A draft master plan has been prepared on evidence-based analysis, and aligned with the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, criteria for capital cities. The draft plan identifies three focal centres, a range of actionable projects and includes policies and guidelines intended for potential inclusion in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme.
It has been referred to the Planning Commission and government agencies for comments, due in February 2014. The master plan will then be finalised and some elements potentially incorporated into the NT Planning Scheme.
We have a regional land use plan under way, and a capital city master plan, which takes into account Darwin’s unique character. Both are substantive bodies of work, which have taken an immense amount of effort over the past year. I thank every public servant, consultant and member of our community who has contributed to date. I have stated before that one of the reasons I entered politics was I felt the ball had been dropped by the previous Labor government, particularly in regard to planning. There was no planning for the future; Labor’s Territory 2030 document was a set of goals without any game-plays; words without defined strategy. Mention was made of the densification of medium density housing, but no policy was set.
Labor’s lack of planning is why we see high rents today. The former government aimed for industrial growth, without the infrastructure and residences to support growth. The claim made by the former Labor minister, the member for Barkly, during estimates on 16 June 2010 was sad, due to the degree of self-delusion. He said:
- … we have comprehensive plans to provide strategic land use, and policy to manage that growth.
No, they did not. In 2010, we saw one of the lowest land release figures of the past 20 years. In 2011, in Darwin it was even worse.
I also note that in 2010-11, the average application processing time was more than 60 days. In 2008-09, it was, again, far worse at 77 days to process an application through to approval. Today, it is around 52 days and reducing.
The member for Barkly said:
- The planning and the vision for the oil and gas industry in the Northern Territory is very much in the thinking of government and there will be lots of important planning around it.
- Residential development in the CBD will be promoted.
That is what it said, and it was not. One example is the SOHO project, where planning began six years ago; nine meetings were held over nine straight months. The developer was then told to pull the application completely, due to the sudden application of new setback laws. As a result, the project was set back more than 12 months. That 12 months has been critical, with the pressure on CBD accommodation and the need for new hotel rooms.
Now at least, we see more cranes on the Darwin skyline than at any point since 2006-07. However, as recently as 20 January 2014, the former minister for Planning, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was claiming the Territory’s high ranking in the latest Commsec Economic Insights reports was achieved:
- … off the back of construction activity planned and approved on Labor’s watch.
Labor’s stimulus construction activity included development approval for high rise residential units in Darwin CBD …
It was no wonder we received an immediate, heated rebuttal from Territory developers in response. That ill-judged Labor media release confirms that Labor cannot be trusted in opposition, because it continues to mislead the public about the state of the Territory and the policies of this government.
Let me read a bit more. Firstly, what about the claim that the Territory’s current high ranking:
- … can be attributed to the former Labor government’s economic stimulus?
That is so misleading; it was deficit spending. Secondly, the CLP government has been, according to the media release by the former minister:
… ‘taking credit’ for the Labor government’s projects and land release.
That is not true. Labor told Territorians that Berrimah would come on line; they wrote that:
- … future development areas around Noonamah …
will be the focus of new land release. Nothing happened. Labor went on to say there would be 10 000 housing lots at Weddell, completely overlooking the fundamentals of infrastructure investment, and that living and jobs need to be linked, based on sound economic analysis.
- … $950 000 to continue investigative studies for the new city of Weddell.
- Cities are shaped by where people live, where they work, and how they get around.
This is the very reason why this government has placed Murrumujuk on the map as a township to service a second port. The other thing to note is that compact cities require 40% less transport energy, and medium density housing, for example, is 25% more energy efficient than detached housing. Not only is infrastructure and transport less costly, potential workers can reach a much greater range of jobs.
Urban intensification means reasonably optimising the current footprint, thus ensuring our capital city becomes more productive and does not repeat the mistakes made by other Australian cities, where there are examples of a huge disconnect between the present and future working and living.
Not only did the previous Labor government display a complete lack of comprehension of market forces, publishing glossy proposals missing the fine detail, but it also overlooked the urgent need to match sustainable residential growth to industrial growth. Here is one example: On Wednesday, 16 June 2010, the former minister for Planning stated:
- Following extensive community consultation, government released a revised master plan in June 2009 to develop the old hospital site. The concept proposes approximately 80% of the 8.7 hectare site be developed as a tropical park, and the remaining 20% will comprise medium density housing and high-rise apartments up to eight storeys.
What happened? Precisely nothing. This government recognised that fractured responses that do not correlate with a complete strategy are not the way forward.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 36: the state of the House. This is such an important statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr CHANDLER: Once the NT Planning Commission was established, it was charged with preparing a report on this location.
It was recognised that issues had to be addressed with full regard to the new CBD master plan. It was recommended that the whole precinct be subject to a master plan that, in the words of the commission:
- …must be of the highest quality and be seen as something very special to the community.
- … not delivered any new land release for housing developments.
Again, this is not true. This government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, incorporating home ownership and rental initiatives, will see up to 21 developments, which will deliver over 800 new homes in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The initiative is already under way at Coolalinga and Tennant Creek.
The opposition then turned the focus on Alice Springs and doubled the misinformation with the claim:
- The CLP government has stalled development at Kilgariff, the new suburb that was planned and budgeted for by the previous Labor government.
In fact, it took this government to get Kilgariff off the ground, and lots are being sold off the plan as I speak.
It was of great concern to me, as the minister for Planning, to find, upon taking office, that the planning hiatus also affected the Territory’s major regional centres. I am, therefore, pleased to report the Planning Commission has submitted a proposed Katherine Land Use Plan that positions the town to better respond to potential growth in the mining, tourism and agribusiness sectors.
At Tennant Creek – the former Lands minister’s home town – land use framework was incorporated into the NT Planning Scheme in June 2013. This included provision of appropriate areas for future industrial development to the west of the town. A discussion paper is being prepared for Alice Springs CBD, due to be released in the first half of this year.
Beyond high-level strategic planning and a renewed focus on land release, this government is also intent on cutting unnecessary red tape, wherever and whenever possible. For Lands and Planning, this means streamlining development approval processes, like concurrent rezoning as we saw passed in the House today, and subdivision applications for which legislation is before this parliament. This will create an improved survey plan process, bonding of subdivision works, building approvals online and much more; let me summarise.
Looking back to Labor’s days in office, momentum slowed. Developers looked elsewhere and the Labor code of ‘can’t do’ was evidently winning the day. Looking forward, the Planning Commission’s commitment to engaging with the community ensures issues that matter to Territorians feature in the integrated strategic plans for our regions. Their strategic planning work will make an important contribution towards northern Australia, providing a workable framework, a structure for the future of the Northern Territory.
Momentum takes time to rebuild. However, with integrated strategic plans in place, the foundation is being set for our future population and economic growth. These plans will provide certainty and confidence for the community, industry and investors on future land uses.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, this is a negative and backward statement. The minister prefers to look in the rear vision mirror, as opposed to developing plans and opportunities for sustainable development into the future. The Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014 was rushed out before Christmas under the cover of the holiday period. Under public pressure, the time for comment on the plan was extended by one month. While I welcome this decision by the minister, the regional land use plan was 18 months in the making. It is a single A3 sheet of paper. The plan is a rehash of old CLP plans to build three dams and develop heavy industry at Glyde Point.
Madam Speaker, I made some comments this morning on planning amendments, but it is worth restating that, as the member for Goyder, you recently placed on the public record your views about the Darwin regional use plan. You have opposed damming Elizabeth River, because of potential flooding in Bees Creek and Virginia, and you have expressed other concerns about urban sprawl in Noonamah and along the Stuart Highway. On 7.30 NT, in response to the Elizabeth River dam proposal, you said:
- That’s completely unacceptable – the Elizabeth River is a drainage channel and if it was to be dammed, apart from the environmental and the social impacts, it would flood major parts of the Bees Creek, Virginia area.
You have also expressed concerns about urban sprawl in the rural area, and been scathing about the lack of detail in the land use plan’s recommendations on further development.
Many people I have spoken to agree with your critique that the area land use plan is:
- … very lazy and sloppy.
A rehash of an old CLP plan on an A3 page is an insult to the public. What was the response of the two men who do not seem to talk to each other? The minister said, in an all-time classic statement:
- A lot of people, you know, sometimes get a little bit agitated when we talk about things like Lake Elizabeth or even things like Halikos Island – they get agitated when you talk about it. Well I actually think that’s a healthy thing, because we should be prepared to debate these things.
People certainly are agitated, particularly because of your secret approach to planning. I am sure the member for Goyder would love you to go to Coolalinga and listen firsthand to her constituents and their ideas about damming the Elizabeth. The community gets agitated when you sneak things out during the Christmas holidays to avoid scrutiny, so agitated that you caved in to the public’s demand to extend the time for comment on the plan.
I will turn to the disservice you did to both the community and the proponent of what you refer to as Halikos island shortly, but let us look at the Planning Commission’s response to your criticisms, Madam Speaker. You said you thought the plan released during the Christmas holidays was:
- … very lazy and sloppy.
The Planning Commissioner said:
- If you provide a lot of detail the usual criticism is, oh well you’ve already done all of this detail, you don’t really want to know what we think.
We need a response from the minister on this extraordinary approach to public consultation.
Do you agree government should, as a matter of policy, restrict information on important matters about our future utilisation of land and sustainable development? Do you think the government should deliberately restrict information on important land use issues on the bizarre basis it will encourage public participation? My constituents do not support this approach, and I would be surprised if the broader community is receptive to the government’s strange approach to public consultation.
I turn to the minister’s comments about Halikos island and his approach, saying agitation is good for you. Last Monday, with many of my colleagues from this side of the House, led by the Leader of the Opposition, I attended the community forum organised by the member for Nightcliff. There was a lot of agitation about the lack of information from the government about the proposal. There was concern about there being no information in the draft land use plan concerning a major offshore development in Nightcliff.
There was also concern that the plan for the infill of Ludmilla Creek and the adjacent area was not mentioned, which the project would require. Had you properly engaged the community on this significant proposal when you first approved the oyster lease, there might not so much agitation. When you sign a five-year lease in secret, in the run-up to the Christmas holidays, and do not tell the community what is going on, you should not be surprised when people become angry and agitated.
As I said earlier, you have done both the community and the proponent a grave disservice. On the point of consulting with the community, the minister could learn a few things if he read today’s letter to the editor in the NT News from Mr Graham Kirby, a resident of Nightcliff. For the minister and government’s benefit, I will read some of Mr Kirby’s comments into Hansard. The title is ‘Don’t let blow-ins run riot in Darwin’:
- Don’t you think ‘blow-in’ politicians, with no lasting allegiance to Darwin or its stable residents and who invariably return south after a term or two of tenure, should not wield the power and influence they currently do?
The people who are seriously affected by development should have a significant input into that development.
Clearly this is not the case with the present regime, where normal planning protocols are merely paid lip service; where cronyism, patronage and commercial consideration rule all other considerations.
- Our politicians and planners seem intent on destroying what other cities around the world are trying to resurrect. That is natural green spaces, green corridors, protection of habitat that enables the natural environment and the animals and flora in it to flourish.
I believe planners seriously underestimate the value of space, sky, sea and natural habitat and that they do it to the detriment of our mental and physical health and cities’ ecological future.
To sacrifice Dick Ward Drive to a swathe of industrial ugliness and the inevitable congestion and pollution is myopic, not visionary.
To sacrifice Ludmilla Bay, the remaining mangroves, the habitat of untold numbers of animals on land, sea and air to another squadron of yachts, most of which will never smell the salt of the open sea, to housing that few locals could afford, or want, is myopic, not visionary.
The plan for this entire area needs to be taken back to the drawing board and all interested parties consulted instead of a headlong rush into ill-conceived development ignoring the other viable options available.
There will be a range of views on the Nightcliff island proposal, but the minister has shown no interest whatsoever in consulting the community or engaging local residents. I commend the work of the member for Nightcliff in representing her constituents and their views. While most of us on this side of the House attended the information session last Monday, the residents and concerned people are angry and upset about the lack of information coming out. I commend the member for Nightcliff for doing her job and representing the people who voted her in.
I mentioned earlier the minister’s, and this government’s, preoccupation with the past, always looking in the rearview mirror. There is no understanding of what is required to establish a sustainable land use strategy for the Territory’s future. He shares a preoccupation with the Chief Minister for attacking the former Labor government, as opposed to delivering a better future for Territorians.
I will not go into much detail, but if the minister wants to look in the rearview mirror with a constructive focus, he might see a few of the former government’s achievements in the Lands and Planning portfolio. The previous government developed a coordinated planning framework, released a visionary and comprehensive greater Darwin regional land use plan, reduced red tape and sped up development processes via a one-stop shop and case management, fast-tracked land release with five new suburbs in Palmerston, and released land across the regions in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. It planned the development of a new city, Weddell, suitable for 45 000 people, and we did the heavy lifting in negotiations for the Kenbi Land Claim to enable the possible development of Cox Peninsula. This was fought against by the CLP government for 27 years. Minister, when will you sign the Kenbi Land Claim? That would free up that area.
We partnered with the airport to develop the Kilgariff land release in Alice Springs. We undertook strategic planning decisions around large infrastructure projects, such as Darwin prison, the Marine Supply Base and the INPEX workers’ village. We doubled the number of DCA meetings to keep the pipeline of development activity smooth and moving quickly. If you are preoccupied with the past, do not be fixated by the Chief Minister’s negativity. Be positive, receptive and look at the former Labor government’s greater Darwin plan 2012.
I will not go into too much detail, but I would be happy to give you a copy of the plan. Inside you will find seven strategic directions to support growth with sustainability at its centre. These strategic directions include: residential growth and diversity; sustainable future; strong and healthy communities; economic development; a green region; land use integration and regional connections. These strategic directions would be a good foundation for your Towards a Greater Darwin Land Use Plan 2014.
I mentioned earlier that Kilgariff was a Labor initiative and, of course, the brand new suburb of Kilgariff was conceived, planned, costed and ready to go under the Labor government. You have mismanaged this development to the point where the original lease has been slashed by two-thirds. Under the previous CLP government, there was no new residential land release in Alice Springs for 10 years. The CLP absolutely refused to deal with native title holders; Labor successfully negotiated with native title holders. As a result, Alice Springs got three new residential developments in Stirling Heights, Ridges Estate and Mt Johns, where homes are built, families are living and where local businesses have benefited.
I have already mentioned the unwillingness of the CLP to consult with the community on planning matters. This unwillingness to consult is compounded by an incredible amount of confusion within government on planning matters in general, to the point that the Chief Minister’s newsletter this month indicated he has no idea about the Nightcliff island proposal. These are hallmarks of an incompetent and secretive government, and the tragedy is that planning and engaging the community is very important. Why? Because they involve vital issues in relation to sustainable development, access to services like health and education, protection of the environment and our cultural heritage, and the kinds of towns, cities and rural environments all people want to live in.
The government has shown it cannot be trusted to manage these vital issues.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate, and I am disappointed this statement has approximately five-and-a-half pages out of 12 that deal with planning. The others deal with kicking the Labor Party. I do not mind that, we are in a house of politics, but it is disappointing if we keep looking to the past after this government has been in power for over a year-and-a-half. It is really something it needs to put away for the time being. You are in power now. Going back in history criticising the previous government is a waste of hot air.
We need to work towards developing the Territory in a way that is, as I have said before, sustainable. People should also view it as affordable – which is one of the tricks – and this can be done by bringing the community with that development, rather than fighting it all the time. I have five-and-a-half pages, and maybe the last page has a bit on it, but the rest is good note paper at the moment. This statement could be a lot thicker with much more detail.
The government talks about a number of things, but we need to remember how many planning documents have been issued. The CLP issued the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1990. There was a plan before that as well; I cannot remember its name. The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan was issued specifically to have a case against the Kenbi Land Claim. It was issued in a hurry, with very little public consultation. However, it was a good base to show how Darwin should be developed, and it still has some very good points in it.
One of those points, which needs to be reiterated, is that plan essentially said Darwin Harbour is the centre of our city, and we will develop a number of smaller cities around the harbour. I still believe that is a good concept. Unfortunately, the word ‘infill’ has come in to muddy the waters of that concept, because governments are a bit scared to develop new towns. The government is more interested in infill as a quick fix to housing problems. One of the things missing in this whole plan is a decent discussion about Weddell. I will get back to that later.
The Labor Party brought out a paper as well; I think it was Growing Darwin or something similar, in 2012. The CLP issued a rehash of the 1990 plan in about 2011, which was put out for public comment. The government is now trying to put out a new greater Darwin regional plan which has much in common with previous plans, not necessarily with the Labor Party’s plan, but certainly the CLP’s plans. You just have to look at it. The Elizabeth River dam and the port are back again, and there are a few things that mirror what was included before. That is not to say they were bad, but it shows we have used previous plans, and we are now tinkering with them.
Basically, the same philosophy is there about developing a number of cities around Darwin Harbour. The major change is the move to densify. I love that word; it is a planner’s word: ‘densification’. I had never heard it until the planners got hold of it. It means put little blocks on rural land, in many cases. ‘Infill’ and ‘densification’ seem to be the in words these days, when it comes to planning. Nobody talks about the social implications with that sort of development, and that is a concern.
I will go through some of the issues the minister raised. There is a statement that we now have, a Towards Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014. It is there for community input. It says:
- It covers the subregions of Darwin, Palmerston, East Arm, Litchfield, Cox Peninsula, Finniss and Coomalie, and presents the commission’s preliminary thinking and builds upon community feedback received to date.
I would love to know what that community feedback is. The classic example of community feedback is when it came to the Elizabeth River dam, at least 10 000 people said no. The government said, ‘Okay, we hear what the people have to say and it will not go ahead’. I will show this to you, minister, you may not have seen it. It is from the NT News of Wednesday 24 January 2001, 13 years ago when it was 90, a reasonable price. The article says, ‘You said no, so dam scrapped’.
This is by Camden Smith; you would know him well.
‘Smaller city plan to go ahead’:
- Plans to dam the Elizabeth River for the new satellite city of Weddell have been scrapped.
Chief Minister Denis Burke said yesterday the Territory electorate had not supported the controversial proposal …
And it goes on.
I wonder what it means when the statement says the Towards the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan builds upon community feedback received to date. Is that community feedback from certain groups, political groups, planning groups or developers? Look at the plans for Noonamah-Hughes. The member for Goyder is fairly knowledgeable about that area from when this proposal popped up under the previous government to densify the area and put lots of small blocks there.
I am not sure the majority of the community living there is rapt with the idea of thousands of small blocks of land there. Regardless of whether it has been developed or is greenfield, it is still rural. I again query what community feedback was received to develop that land. It seems to be a bit of a rehash of previous plans influenced by other sources. I do not think, at this stage, some of those things could be regarded as the ‘overall community’ when it comes to community feedback. I will look at some of those matters further.
I need to put on the record that there was a letter from the Litchfield Shire mayor regarding the Noonamah-Hughes development. I questioned the council over whether that was a council document. It was written by the mayor, but not in conjunction with council approval. I asked if this was the council’s position on the Noonamah-Hughes development, because that letter basically said the council gives it positive support. I found out that letter had not come from the council and had not been approved by the council. The Planning Commission, which I called about it, presumed that comment had come from the council.
I am saying that because I hope community feedback is not based on that letter either. The reality is that was a personal letter from the mayor. He has every right to write a letter, but the Planning Commission obviously took that letter to be a statement from the council, and that was not the case.
The minister talked about Berrimah Farm and Berrimah North, and we have discussed this issue many times in parliament. I was talking to one of the major industrial developers there, who recently told me he was always told that land would not be residential. You need to be very careful developing that area. It certainly looks like prime land for residential development. I will not die on the stake if you want to put houses there – that is your decision – but there are some industrial developments around there that would not suit a residential development nearby.
There are issues about noise from the Hidden Valley race track, sandflies and noise from the highway. There is a range of issues, and I hope before the government made a decision it gave it some thought, because there is also development at East Arm port. What is the future over 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years? Will that land need to be set aside for industrial development? You have industrial development at Pruen Road and Tivendale Road, so you would set up residential land between two industrial precincts. You would also have a large industrial development, Ostojic, nearby, which crushes rock or works with extracted materials because it has a concrete batching plant there.
There is a range of issues the government needs to be careful of. It looks good on paper, but whether it is the right place is different, so I will give you a suggestion, because everything seems to be disappearing in Darwin, like badminton and the printing office. How about getting rid of the Fannie Bay race track and putting it at Berrimah, on the highway, beautifully flat, where it is a nice position between both cities? You could then develop Fannie Bay for housing and give our race track a chance to expand, maybe even have a trotting track and the dogs there as well.
You could then sell off Winnellie greyhounds as well. I give this as a positive thing, not just a silly thing; there is land there, close to the highway which could be developed for both horse and dog racing. This would free up some of the land that you are talking about.
Poor old Fannie Bay has always been squeezed in within the community. When there was an expansion of the stables not long ago, there were many complaints from residents about the smell that would come from those stables. You have a major drain at the edge of where the racing stables sit, at the side of Fannie Bay. To some extent, it is crammed in, and it is difficult to expand because of its proximity to housing, the mangroves and some of the drainage works around there.
I do not say this as a silly proposition. You have land there, you might be better to move some existing facilities there and redevelop those parcels of land for housing. The member for Goyder will be pleased to know we have this statement: urban development opportunities around a new regional hospital in Palmerston north.
You are the minister for Planning, and the minister for place names. I hope you can find where Palmerston north is.
Mr Chandler: It is in your electorate.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not. The member for Goyder, who lives close by there, and her mother would not be pleased with it being called Palmerston north. It was attempted once in rates notices about 15 years ago, and it disappeared quickly. It is Holtze, named after the gentleman who looked after the botanical gardens. That is its name; it is not Palmerston north, and, by the way. north is north and east is east. If you can tell me the hospital will be north of Palmerston, you obviously were not in the boy scouts, because it is definitely not north of Palmerston, it is east in Holtze.
Mr Chandler: North of my house.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but your house is somewhere else. It is not north of Palmerston, unless you have a funny map. A concern of people in the Wallaby Holtze Road area will be not so much having some development within the hospital precinct; it is probably fine to have some units and flats for people who work there, but there is a plan for peri-urban – Oh, I love that word; it is so ‘planning’. What it means is 0.4 ha, which are 4000 m2 metre blocks. These are not permitted in Litchfield’s rural zone, unless they are within a district centre.
All of a sudden the land from the hospital, right through to Kowandi north is all pink.
Mr Chandler: Do you like that name?
Mr WOOD: No, I do not like the name, and I do not believe there has been any community feedback. When the road was planned - the extension of Tiger Brennan, which you might look to name as we do not think ‘the extension of Tiger Brennan’ will sound too good - there were meetings. The government at the time, which I think was CLP because I was on the council, promised the land around the area would remain rural: 1 ha below the road, 2 ha above it. What we now have is 0.4 ha and 1 ha. I know where the push is coming from. There are certain developers in this town who do not like Litchfield’s minimum lot size of 1 ha, and they have been pushing - I have seen the letters - at Noonamah and elsewhere about the exemption Litchfield has. It says the RR zone – minimum lot size 1 ha – is not coming from the rural people; it is coming from developers and some people, I think, within the department of Lands and Planning. It is not something that is wanted, and there is plenty of land available.
Could I put my two bobs worth in here? You can develop that land much more cheaply than you can suburban land, because you do not need kerb and guttering and underground stormwater drainage. You will allow an option for people, which is rural living, or rural residential, an option I would love to hear the government say is a legitimate lifestyle that it supports. What is happening here is nibbling away at that lifestyle.
Peri-urban is a nice name for nothing else but densification of the rural area, and it does not have community support. There might be a mayor in Litchfield who may support it, but there is not general support for it. You only had to go to the public meeting that was held about the so-called workers’ camp on the corner of Fitzgerald Road and Stow Road some years ago. You had a cross-section of rural people of all political persuasions, some very high up in the CLP, who said, ‘Go away’. They do not want to see that rural lifestyle attacked.
That is what I see as the danger in this plan, because there is so much in it; it is difficult for people to have a voice because there are so many issues here.
The minister talked about Gunn Point peninsula. It is an issue I am not necessarily opposing, but because it is a sensitive issue, it needs to be looked at very carefully. In fact, when you look at the maps, once again the planners have not taken into account the vast amount of mangroves, nor the rainforest in that area. Instead of taking those out of the development, they have just been covered in purple. On other areas of the map, planners have not done that; they have shown areas which will not be suitable for development. When it comes to the Glyde Point port, there does not seem to be any willingness to understand concerns about how that will be developed.
There is talk about planning; I raise the issue of the prison because I believe it is in the right spot. Some people objected, but most people consider it is in the right place. In fact, the member for Goyder and I discussed this before it went there, and she thought it was in the right place too.
What concerns me is the Chief Minister has made two statements to say, ‘If I had my way, I would never have built that prison’. I tell people to look at the prison and look at the conditions some prisoners live in. If they cannot tell me it is antiquated, and nearly inhumane in some cases, they obviously have a different point of view about how we should treat our prisoners.
I know the member for Port Darwin may be critical, but on the other side, I believe he is very pleased opportunities will come from that prison which help prisoners, such as with his Sentenced to a Job program, the ability to get nearly every prisoner in that prison working through industrial development in that area. If you go there and see what is happening, the women are doing the bakery, they will be doing their own laundry. There will be an invitation for companies to go there, do some work and get people employed. Yes, it has been expensive, there is no doubt about it, but I could not live with myself if we kept putting 1000 or so prisoners in the existing place. It is a hole; there are some good areas where the single quarters are, but some of the medium-security areas are out of date, inefficient and, to some extent, inhumane. That is an area I want to mention. Weddell does not get much of a mention.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Where is the debate about Weddell? Will it purely focus on whether we dam the Elizabeth River? That has come back for debate. The government said it wants to put it on the cards again, and we will have that debate. There were also options put by the previous government. These were done by independent assessors to show you could still develop a town of Weddell for 55 000 to 65 000 people without damming the Elizabeth River. They did a great deal of work on design and where the sandflies were; there was a great deal of preliminary work.
I would be very disappointed if the government shelved that work, regardless of whether it came from Labor. It was not done by Labor people; it was done by the same company that did Kilgariff in Central Australia.
I would hate Weddell to drop off the board, because there was a lot of work and input from the public and experts about whether Weddell could be developed without having a dam. That will come up and it is fair enough. We will debate that as time goes on.
The other area missing in the discussion was Aboriginal land in planning for growth towns. They are not called growth towns now; they have a new name, sorry about that. You get used to one name and they change it to another name. I thought we could have some discussion about planning overall in the rest of the Territory, not just Alice Springs or Darwin.
Where is planning headed in many Aboriginal communities? We have heard statements about the government being open for business. We have heard statements from the government saying what they will do for Aboriginal people. If infrastructure and planning are not right, then you will not get anywhere. Before this government came into power, how much discussion was being held about leases? We do not have a Council of Territory Corporation which, love it or hate it, was at least a committee which had the ability to question the government over a period of time, not just now. What is the state of affairs with leases? What is the state of affairs with housing …
Mr Chandler: Would you like a briefing? I can organise one.
Mr WOOD: That is all right, okay.
Mr Chandler: Because there is a lot of work …
Mr WOOD: That is right, but it is not here. This is five pages of good stuff and six pages of, ‘This is what Labor did and we are telling you all of your sins’. I do not really want to know that any more. I want to know what the present government is doing, and about some of those issues that were previously critical regarding development on Aboriginal land.
One of those keys is definitely the issue of leases. I have not heard any report about leases. When we had the Council of Territory Cooperation, the department would come to a meeting and give us an update on where leases were. It would say which communities had leases, the length of those leases, whether they were 40-year, 12-year or 99-year leases, and whether they were town or individual leases. They are all important to know about if we are to develop the Northern Territory. This statement does not touch that; it touches a range of things and leaves that out. That is something that needs some debate. At least, thank heavens, minister, you listen to me, but I know that others will not.
We need some form of CTC again. You can call it some other name, but we need an overarching committee which is bipartisan and can call on the government to tackle these issues.
For the last 18 months, I have not known what is going on. I have no way of finding out, except an odd question to the minister for Planning; I asked one question about leasing. We used to sit for two hours with departmental heads and question them at a public hearing about the state of affairs with Aboriginal housing, housing maintenance, leases and lots of other issues, like Mataranka. We could at least do that; we cannot do that anymore, which is so sad.
The minister also talked about the Darwin CBD plan. I gather that was launched today. I was asked to give my comments, and I wonder if it is too late. I made comments to the planning authority when one of those buildings went up on Wood Street. I said if the development was allowed to occur without adequate space around it, we would have six 30-storey blocks side by side in the future. There was that amount of land left that could be developed, and we now have three of them. I find it a crying shame that when I come in on Tiger Brennan Drive I see the great wall of flats, like the Great Wall of China. Those flats have now blocked the skyline from the view of people coming to the city; there is no space around them, they are side by side. Some have a slight angle, hardly worth any architectural merit.
We then have another block of flats next to the Defence housing flats near the back of the NT News building. When those flats were built, there was room allowed around them, and you could get a feel they go up, but at least there was space. The modern version of the housing commission flats has now gone up there. Have a look at it. I honestly wonder where we have moved in our architectural values. It is a grey, mundane looking block. Maybe it will be painted, but go to Port Melbourne and I will show you a multistorey housing commission block that does not look much different.
We have also lost that architectural merit. I talked about the Marrakai flats, maybe even the Mantra Pandanas does not look too bad, except there is no place for buses to go. I think it is the Holiday Inn, the one on this end, near the corner of Bennett Street and the Esplanade. It is on an angle, and has space around it. I was on Smith Street the other day and some of those old buildings have a bit of lawn in front of them, set back on Smith Street; wow, I have room to breathe! I know I put applications in many times, and yet these things have happened and we now have the Darwin CBD plan, so I start to wonder if it is too late.
Yes, you can talk about cranes on the skyline, but will we just end up with a concrete jungle? I used to criticise the Gold Coast. I would say the Gold Coast is a mile ahead of Darwin now. The Gold Coast has tall buildings, but it has space. It has parks between them; you can walk around them. I have always said development should be based on a formula. The higher you go, the more open space must be provided at the base. If you only have a small block of land, you only go up a little way. Urban planners, designers, commissioners and all sorts of people have put forward proposals, but in the end we have wall to wall blocks of flats on Wood Street which have spoiled our city.
We have plans for Halikos to put in an island. I have listened to the debate, and it does concern me. I think the Chief Minister said on radio, ‘Oh, Halikos island, wonderful, wonderful’. If the theory is we do not comment on it until we know what it is, how can you say it is ‘wonderful, wonderful’, unless the Chief Minister knows what it is? We should value our harbour much more than we sometimes realise.
The harbour is the jewel in development around our city. I do not think there is a need to put something in the middle of the harbour; we are not short of land. It is a bit like my argument about the Elizabeth dam or weir. Do we need to do it? It is done to have a recreational lake and to increase the amount of land we can use by getting rid of sandflies. If you live outside that area, can you put in a dam on the high ground, build a dam and have it maintained from the salt water in the Elizabeth River? Would it do the same thing you are trying to do, without destroying an estuary? I know there was mention today where they said you had referred to it as a drain or something similar. It is not a drain; it is actually an estuary and an important part of the ecological development of the whole harbour. That is one of the concerns I have, that damming estuaries or interfering with them is not a good process in this day and age. That has been proven.
There is a lot of work to happen here. I will hopefully be holding some meetings of my own in relation to what is going on. I will mention to the people on Wallaby Holtze Road that the government wants to call them Palmerston north. Look out for the e-mails; I am sure they will come. We might suggest it is referred to as Holtze, because that is exactly the piece of country it is in.
I thank you for the statement. It is a little light-on, a little too critical of the previous government, and it certainly missed broad issues in regard to Aboriginal land development. I look forward to perhaps another planning statement in a couple of months. It would be nice to have an update on what is happening, because there are so many things happening, and we should hear from you more often. Do not forget the Berrimah Farm idea about putting all our horses and dog racing out there, because we could build up something really good.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the statement entitled Planning for the Future by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment.
The combination of a regional land use plan and the capital city master plan will firmly set the foundations on which Darwin’s future will depend. Indeed, this Country Liberals government has every confidence Darwin will thrive as the capital of northern Australia, and this framework will facilitate growth, welcome increased populations and embrace future transport utility corridors and sites for essential services. To attract the next INPEX, grow business opportunities with Asia, establish trade corridors and encourage the development of new world-class mining operations, we need to plan now so we can do all those things later. In short, we need to set the groundwork so future generations of Territorians can benefit.
The Northern Territory, in particular Darwin, is the envy of many Australian jurisdictions, thanks to the work this government has done to attract business, encourage new business and help existing businesses grow. This government has recognised that in order to escape the massive debt left to us by Labor, we have to grow our economy. This will be done by creating an environment conducive to business and driving economic growth and development through private sector investment. While the minister primarily spoke about developments of the Darwin regional land use plan, there are land use proposals which position our smaller centres to better respond to potential growth in the mining, tourism and agribusiness sectors. The many Territorians who live and do business in our regional centres will welcome this news.
This government is making sure all areas of the business community prosper, with a real emphasis on growing job opportunities in regional and rural areas. Demand for land for industrial, commercial and residential sectors is strong right across the Northern Territory, and the need for strategic land use planning has never been more important. This was something the former government did not grasp. As the planning minister said:
- … with integrated strategic plans in place, the foundation is being set for our future population and economic growth. These plans will provide certainty and confidence for the community, industry and investors on future land uses.
It was exciting to hear the progress of this government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, which is incorporating home ownership and rental initiatives. These will see up to 21 developments, delivering over 800 new homes in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
As the local member for Katherine I am delighted the Planning Commission has submitted a proposed Katherine Land Use Plan. This will position the town to better respond to housing shortages caused by our booming economy and lack of land release by the former Labor government. However, Katherine is in a unique position, as it is the only regional centre in the Northern Territory where the presence of the Defence force, in this case, the RAAF Base Tindal, has a large impact on housing availability. It is exciting that there are plans under way to build up to 50 tropical-design houses on the Tindal base over the next two years, subject to approval by the federal parliament’s public works committee. It was fantastic the public works committee conducted a public hearing in Katherine a few short weeks ago, where I had an opportunity to present evidence to the committee on opportunities for growth of housing in Katherine. This included the demographic of the Tindal base and how it interacts with the demographic of Katherine, as well as the availability, under this new government, of land for residential use being made available in Katherine.
This project will also help relieve the housing shortage in Katherine, as well as provide ongoing employment opportunities and a great boost for the Katherine economy. While there is a housing shortage in Katherine, due in no small part to the failure of the previous government to release land in a timely fashion, there is now no shortage of land available in Katherine, thanks to this government.
The Northern Territory government, in accordance with our election commitments, has already released more Crown land for residential development to boost the supply of new, reasonably priced homes. There are 170 blocks of land in Katherine East which are due for release in the next 18 months. The government identified a 52 ha site in Katherine East for residential, and some commercial, development. This will go a long way towards helping ease the pressure on the Katherine housing market and meeting future demand as the town grows. Once completed, this site will provide land for between 400 and 500 new homes. Growth in the region is expected as economic and job opportunities flow from a number of projects. The Territory government has accelerated land release to increase the supply of homes.
Katherine plays an important role in the Territory’s economic future, and the Country Liberals government is ensuring there is enough land available for new housing and commercial opportunities. As the Planning minister said in his statement:
- … the key issue for the future of the Northern Territory is the development of northern Australia, and the Territory’s capabilities and opportunities sit at the centre of this emphasis.
I certainly support this statement on planning for the future, delivered by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. In closing, I want to reiterate some points that have perhaps already been made, and maybe touch on a few things the member for Nelson spoke about. I do not intend to address too much of that. This government is driven to provide the necessary infrastructure and opportunities for economic growth to occur, both in Darwin and across the Northern Territory in rural, regional and remote areas.
It is terrific to see the amount of work being put in by the minister, his department and staff with whom he works to identify new opportunities around land release and getting future planning right. What we do not want is an ad hoc approach to planning in the Northern Territory. We certainly want to have a strategic plan, something that is big, far sighted, that reaches out and, in some cases, might be considered a little pie in the sky. However, without having those types of lofty goals available to us, we will be forever constrained to the type of planning that was a hallmark of the previous Labor government. It could probably be best described as non-existent or, at worst, ad hoc.
I will quickly touch on a couple of things the member for Nelson raised. The member for Nelson was reasonably critical of the statement in some respects, insofar as he thought it needed to touch on far more topics and more aspects of planning across the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson must understand this is a statement on a particular topic. I know the minister is keen to pursue other opportunities to present statements in this House that will cover a much broader range of topics.
The other thing I want to touch on is something I see more and more of with the member for Nelson as time rolls by: his preference for governing by committee. I have heard the member for Nelson time and time again talk about wanting to have a committee for this and a committee for that and a committee for every other thing going on in the Northern Territory. That might have suited the Labor Party’s agenda when it was in government, because committees tend to stall process. They certainly stop things from happening in a timely fashion and, of course, that would have suited the previous Labor government nicely.
I am surprised, in some ways, there was not some sort of water committee the former government could blame for the backlog of water licence applications that were not processed. I am digressing, but I say to the member for Nelson that we do not need to govern by committee. If you want to govern by committee, join a council.
This is the parliament of the Northern Territory. We have a Country Liberals government that is driven to achieve a great many things in the Northern Territory over a term of government, and that is what we will do. We will continue down the path we are on now. We will certainly not hold things up by placing them before committees just for the edification and satisfaction of the member for Nelson. All these totally unnecessary things just add extra bureaucracy, slow down time frames and reduce approvals, and that is not where we want to be.
Member for Nelson, you can talk a lot about committees if you so wish. Where there is a burning need to have one, this government will consider that in the course of its business. We will not react to your call for committee after committee as a form of governing this great place, the Northern Territory.
I again thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. I look forward to the growth of the Northern Territory that will be both driven and facilitated by the good work and planning being done by the minister and this government.
__________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Jane Aagaard
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Jane Aagaard
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the previous Speaker, Hon Jane Aagaard. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mr CONLAN (Housing): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the former Speaker of the parliament, the former member for Nightcliff, Hon Jane Aagaard. I bring to her attention how well behaved we are on this side of the House and how badly behaved the opposition is. Opposition must bring out people’s true colours because they have not really edified themselves in glory lately …
Ms Walker: She threw you out a few times, Matt.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, she did throw me out a few times, but I gave as good as I got in those days.
I support this statement in my capacity as the Minister for Housing. It plays a direct role, of course, with the housing situation and finding affordable housing solutions for Northern Territorians.
With growth comes a bigger population, and with my portfolio of Housing we are here and planning for that future. We are delivering more affordable housing across the Northern Territory than ever before. While there is no definitive definition, I refer to the member for Nelson, who recently asked in parliament what the definition of affordable housing is. There is not an actual or definitive definition of housing affordability; it is a relative term about the capacity to enter the housing market, that is: cost and availability.
Affordability of housing will be affected by a few points: locations; access to employment; access to education facilities; essential services and proximity to social and family networks. It is worth noting that the National Affordable Housing Summit group delivered its definition of affordable housing. It is housing which:
- is reasonably adequate in standard and location for a lower- or middle-income household; and
does not cost so much that such a household is unlikely to be able to meet other basic living costs on a sustainable basis.
Let us look at Real Housing for Growth. This government announced a plan for 2000 affordable homes across the Northern Territory in the first four years of government. These homes are to assist employers to attract and retain key skilled workers and to ease the cost of living for those workers. I am very pleased to advise the House that my department is currently ahead of targets in the delivery of those 2000 homes. The Real Housing for Growth plan has a raft of components to assist us get more homes built and ease the pressure on the housing market in the Northern Territory. We have been negotiating with developers across the Territory from Alice Springs through to Tennant Creek, Katherine and, of course, Palmerston and Darwin.
Our head lease initiative, in which we will take a guaranteed lease for 10 years, has provided the support and confidence for banks to finance developers wanting to build homes for our key workers. Developers receive the full market grant from the government, and we subsidise key workers who pay only 70% of the weekly rental.
We cannot build all we would like, thanks to, of course, the $5.5bn debt left to us by the current Opposition Leader, but we can, and are, assisting development and construction in other ways.
Tennant Creek, the back yard of the former Planning minister, has already benefited, and new homes and construction have commenced at Coolalinga.
In Tennant Creek, our head lease scheme is also addressing the soaring cost of rents in the Territory. As part of this government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, our head leasing scheme provides guaranteed market rent to owner investors, while the Territory government sublets the dwellings to eligible key service industry workers at about 30% below the market rate. This is a great initiative, and I am delighted to report the first of these units have been tenanted in Tennant Creek – great stuff under way.
Under the Real Housing for Growth head leasing scheme, the newly-constructed one bedroom apartments in Chittock Street were rented for $231, which is 30% below the market rate. The demand for the brand new apartments has been strong. In just a few weeks, three of the apartments have been tenanted, with another four approved applicants due to move in very shortly. The one-bedroom units include an open plan living area, a European style kitchen and are located within walking distance of town and all local amenities. At 30% below the market rate, it is no wonder they have been snapped up very quickly.
This saving will make a real difference to the lives of those living in Tennant Creek, and the young families struggling with the cost of rents caused by the former Labor government’s failed policies. Tennant Creek has been experiencing close to 0% vacancy rates in recent times, with a shortage of quality affordable rental accommodation …
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is the same in Katherine.
Mr CONLAN: It is the same in Katherine. New apartments are the first of approximately 20 affordable dwellings expected to be delivered in the region. These will help to ease housing cost pressures and support the attraction and retention of low to middle income key service industry workers in the Territory, in this case, in Tennant Creek.
These key workers can include the local mechanic, shop workers, hairdressers, health workers, hospitality workers and apprentices, just to name a few. These are people who provide services to us. We are very keen to retain them and provide them with affordable housing. The Territory government’s Real Housing for Growth plan, a head lease scheme, will help stimulate the housing construction industry and deliver 2000 affordable homes across the Territory over the next four years.
We are releasing land and building houses faster than ever to support expansion that will come with the northern Australia development. It is critical, and is important to this government. According to the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory figures, the median house price in Darwin/Palmerston increased to an average of about 10.65% every year from 2002-12. Growth in property value has now stabilised to a more sustainable 6% in 2013.
The Planning minister – and I take my hat off to him – spoke about land use. The release of land is critical to affordable housing to meet a growing population. Most people recognise the biggest expense in their weekly pay packet is the rent or the mortgage. That is why the cost of living has been pushed up in the Northern Territory, and it can be blamed fairly and squarely on the previous government’s failed policies. When we needed land release and innovative solutions to the land across the Northern Territory, what did it do? The answer was nothing or very little. It is because of Labor’s lack of planning that we are left with high rents today, fairly and squarely. It had no plan to support growth that came with major projects like INPEX, and Territorians are literally paying the price for this.
Labor will try and spin its way out of it through mistruths and misleading. After all, their leader is not called, dare I say it, ‘DeLiar’ for nothing, but the facts do not lie.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw. During the former Labor government’s term in 2010 was one of the lowest land release figures of the past 20 years. Twenty years! Just when we needed to be preparing for growth, Labor put the handbrake on land release. This is a legacy Labor has left us.
I was interested to hear the minister talk about the SOHO project in Darwin city, with residential apartments and the new 300-room hotel called lan, which is superb. It will be opening in a few months. You would think it would be pretty important, but Labor put the handbrake on that too. Forget about all the planning over the last six years, Labor said, ‘Let us stall it for another 12 months. We do not need any more new hotels. We do not need any more accommodation in Darwin to prepare for growth. Forget about the need for accommodation and hotel rooms, let us just put it back on the backburner; put the handbrake on and shut up shop. We are closed for business.’ Labor then has the gall to berate us for the pressures on accommodation in general, particularly the accommodation sector in Darwin.
Let us look at some redevelopment projects. The government has taken steps to improve the lives of people living in Kurringal Flats. We have called for expressions of interest to redevelop this well-recognised black spot in Darwin. Again, this is something the previous government was unwilling to do. Why? I have no idea. A subdivision of the flats from the Fannie Bay seniors’ complex has been lodged with the minister’s department, and will assist us to get the best outcomes.
The Department of Housing has also called for expressions of interest for redevelopment on Runge Street in Coconut Grove. I am advised it expects to execute a development agreement with a preferred developer soon. Again, to obtain the best return for the people of the Northern Territory on this valuable asset, we have had the site rezoned to medium density residential to support this project.
We are using planning processes to help increase housing stock and ease the pressure on prices across the Northern Territory. This is what governments do, it is what governments should do and it is what this government is doing. Why did the previous government not help with cost of living pressures felt by Territorians? The answer remains unknown.
Central Australia was ignored by the previous Labor government for eleven-and-a-half long years. There are so many examples, and I do not have the time to articulate the neglect felt by Central Australia.
It is unbelievable to consider a government would ignore a major economic region for so long, but that is what we had to put up with in the Northern Territory and Central Australia. Land release in Alice Springs has been sporadic and primarily driven by the private sector. The opposition will bang their drum about Kilgariff, but all it did was say it would build it. It took a Country Liberals government to start developing it; as I said today, 33 blocks, 21 expressions of interest already. It was going to be 2015 before we saw any works undertaken at Kilgariff by the previous government; thank goodness the Territory saw sense. It is up to us to clean up the mess and address the housing shortages in Central Australia which we have been left with by the previous government. We expect to have titles issued and construction of homes started well before 2015.
I am told we have received 21 expressions of interested already. We have altered zoning on the old bowling club site in Alice Springs to encourage development. How long did that sit vacant under the previous Labor government? It is a large tract of land, smack bang in the middle of the CBD which has been doing nothing for years, while Labor watched house prises increase, along with the cost of living.
Thanks to my colleague, the minister for Justice, who enabled prisoners to gain skills through the Sentenced to a Job program, we have taken an aged block of units in Elliott Street, had them refurbished and they are available for affordable senior housing, which is fantastic. Three cheers for the Sentenced to a Job program, initiated by the minister for Justice, and the efforts of the Department of Housing. Up to 100 local tradespeople were engaged and 10 qualified, affordable homebuyers can buy a home for the very first time. We are using tools available to us under the Planning Act to assist Territorians in accessing affordable homes, something the previous government never did. We are utilising the tools available to us, as a government, to make life better and more affordable for Territorians.
In closing, I commend the minister for Lands and Planning, I congratulate him on his initiatives. I congratulate all my colleagues, who are doing everything they can to ease the cost of living and provide affordable housing solutions for all Territorians across the entire Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak tonight on the loss of a great man from Pine Creek in my electorate, I would like to mention my disgust at the behaviour of the member of Barkly in Question Time today.
I consider his yelling at me to be extremely aggressive and highly offensive. As a survivor of repeated domestic abuse, his behaviour brought back terrible memories. I realise I should have spoken out about this at the time of the behaviour. I was so shocked at the misogynous behaviour on display I did not say anything. I consider the member for Barkly’s conduct highly out of order and not welcome in this Chamber or today’s society.
As Minister for Women’s and men’s policy, it is this type of behaviour I am trying to get rid of. There is no excuse for it, despite the robust nature of parliament. I am more than happy to have robust debates about issues, but it is clear the opposition cannot. Instead, they resort to grubby personal attacks, abuse and aggressive conduct. It is extremely sad to see members of parliament demonstrating such poor behaviour and the public expect better from us. The worst thing is schoolchildren see behaviour like that and consider it okay.
I wish to talk about the loss suffered by the community of Pine Creek recently. I am referring to the loss of Mr Leslie ‘Tex’ Milton Moore, a long-term resident of Pine Creek. Tex reached the ripe old age of 87 years. He lived for over 70 years in the Northern Territory, moving here in the 1940s. Tex is survived by three children: Lynne, Jan and Les.
As with many great Northern Territory men, Tex helped build the Northern Territory. There are plenty of stories about Tex I cannot tell this House or put on Hansard that attest to his legend. However, there is one story I can tell about him and his adventures. Early in life, while mustering, Tex grabbed hold of a bull’s tail. As he rode along behind the bull at great speed holding its tail, Tex did not see the fast-approaching tree. He smashed into the tree and ended up breaking his right collarbone but, being a true bushie, Tex got on with life and never had his shoulder fixed. If you ever met Tex, you could clearly see his damaged shoulder.
Tex did not stop at developing relationships with trees. He had a range of adventures. One of them was being a guide for a group of geologists who were looking to explore country around Dorisvale. Tex, and the geologists, were travelling with pack mules when the trail became narrow and quite dangerous. The trail was so narrow the group had to remove the packs from the mules to get through, as the width of the packs would have knocked the mules from the trail. As they passed through one by one, Tex and the geologists had to go back to bring the mules’ packs through one by one.
Tex was also interested in minerals and found baryte west of Dorisvale. Madam Speaker would know, from her extensive time in the industry, the mineral consists of barium sulphate, which is used in a range of anti-friction products for mining, paint, engine parts, cement, glass and medical equipment. Tex owned Dorisvale Station for approximately 20 years from 1959. After selling Dorisvale, he moved to a smaller piece of land near the Claravale Crossing called El Rancho, but not so grando!
Tex was one of the true characters of Pine Creek and a life member of the Pine Creek Turf Club. He will be remembered at a service at Pussycat Flats on Saturday 22 February 2014 at midday. Rest in peace, Tex. I offer my deepest condolences to his children. Thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I mention several schools in my electorate, what they are proposing to do for the year, and to acknowledge a couple of the great teachers who work in the schools. Not that every teacher in the schools is not great, but I want to mention a few.
The first school I would like to reference is Middle Point Primary School, one of the small government schools in my electorate. It is located, as I have mentioned before, on Anzac Parade at Middle Point, which is quite close to Fogg Dam. Recently, with the large amount of rainfall and the Arnhem Highway being taken out because of flooding, many of the children attending the school who live on the other side of the Adelaide River were not able to get to school, as often happens. We have heard about Taminmin College students in the past, but we do not often hear about other students or schools being affected. Middle Point was one of those schools.
From the school on the other side, Principal, Narelle Dahl and her other teacher, Sarah Felosi, did up school packs, and one of the nearby residents kindly used his helicopter to take them from the school to the other side of the river to the Corroboree Tavern area. About half of the students – 15 – were stuck on the other side and were able to continue their schooling. The principal, Narelle, rang the homes to make sure the students were keeping up with their schoolwork and they understood what was in their packs. I say congratulations. It is not every day you hear of these types of activities and what teachers do to make sure their students get the best education possible. Thank you to Middle Point Primary School Principal Narelle Dahl, to Sarah Felosi, and Donna Bradford, the administrative support person.
To anyone who wants to visit a really nice school in the Northern Territory, I recommend making an appointment, through the minister’s office, to visit Middle Point. They have some interesting challenges. Not every school principal has to check there are no crocodiles on the oval before the students go out to play. That job lands in the principal’s office, given the closeness to Fogg Dam. They also do a lot of snake patrols because, as we know, there is a large snake population in that area as well. Congratulations to Middle Point Primary School.
The other one I wanted to reference was Humpty Doo Primary School and Principal Susanne Fisher, and Geoff Gillman and all the staff. It is a really hard-working school. It is a very old school, with over 350 students from around the rural area. Many Vietnamese families send their children there and it is a very multicultural school. Every year they have a wonderful Harmony Day, which is on 21 March, where they invite communities and families from around the rural area to showcase and sample food, and conduct activities such as making things out of coconut leaves and that type of thing. It is a great day and I have been there a few times. Barbara Doukas is often heavily involved with organising that and, no doubt, they will do it this year. Congratulations to that school and I look forward to working with them this year. They have their AGM coming up in early March, which I, hopefully, can attend. We will see a new committee and council there.
Next is Girraween Primary School, which is not exactly in my electorate but many children who attend it come from my electorate, predominately from the Herbert area and further afield. Helen Chatto is Principal, and Marissa Boscato Assistant Principal. This is also, as are all schools in the rural area, a great school. They also have a great Harmony Day with breakfast and all types of activities which embrace our multicultural community and families in the rural area, particularly Asian families. They also have their AGM coming up on 11 March and, hopefully, I can attend that. They will also have a new school council.
Girraween Primary School is also well-known for its small farm at the back of the school. It has an open day, or field day. I have been a few times now and it is wonderful to see how the students raise poultry. They have a couple of goats, a cow and, of course, a huge amount of – at the back of the school they have chickens and …
Mr Vatskalis: Ducks?
Ms PURICK: I do not know about ducks. They …
Mr Vatskalis: Turkeys?
Ms PURICK: The cow lives with the goats, and the chickens live somewhere. They grow an amazing array of vegetables and herbs. It is good to see because we need to encourage all our young students and families to grow their own produce. Well done Girraween. I am sure they will have a busy year, like normal. Congratulations to the assistant principal and all the teachers.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, minister Chandler spoke on his Lands and Planning statement. I will not speak about the statement as such, but I want to comment again – I have made representations to the Planning Commission regarding some of the items in its two-page document. The member for Nelson raised this issue, and I also raise the issue that there is no such place as Palmerston north.
The proposed hospital is located in Holtze, which is in the Litchfield Council boundaries. For those of you who have ever done rogaining, bushwalking or been a scout or guide, there is a distinct difference between north and true north. Clearly, someone who does not know the difference has been involved with the documentation.
It is a great location for the hospital. It would be great for people in the rural area as well as others who will need care. I have asked the minister in the past, and will be asking again, to look at the final naming of the hospital. North of Palmerston is not in Holtze. North is back towards Darwin. We need to get that clear right from the word go. There is no way people who live in the Holtze region, which is quite extensive, will accept being included in the suburbs of Palmerston. I will not say why they do not like it; that is for you to imagine. I will not go back to them putting their rubbish in our rubbish dumps – that is a story from the past.
It is a great proposal and I commend the government on the hospital. The sooner we start building it the better because it is 10 minutes down the road from me.
I will be putting in another submission in regard to the greater Darwin regional plan.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about a matter of great interest to both me and the member for Greatorex, tourism. We agree to disagree on many things, but we both agree tourism is one of the biggest industries in the Northern Territory. I got under his skin because I went to China and met with people and he realised he should have done it. He did not do it and thinks I stole his thunder, but that is not the case. I went to China because he said nobody knows what the Chinese consumer wants.
First, let us find out about the Chinese consumer or consumers from northeast Asia. Are many coming to Australia? Yes, there are. Are many coming to the Northern Territory? According to Tourism NT statistics visitors from northeast Asia, which includes China, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan, there was a 6.9% increase between 2012-13. They must be coming to the Territory. We had 16 000 visitors in 2012, and 17 000 in 2013. He also said, ‘If you care about China now, what did you do when you were Minister for Tourism?’ I made a mistake, it was not 2005; it was 2008. It was the first time I went to China as a guest of CCTV, the channel which makes documentaries promoting different areas around the world. In that year a crew of CCTV-9 were in the Northern Territory filming a documentary Heaven on Earth, which was shown to 750 million people in China.
I went to Tourism NT and looked at the statistics on Chinese visitors to the Territory. In 1999-00 we had 155 visitors from China. The year after there were 10 times as many, with 1600 visitors from China. In 2002 it went down to 200, in 2003 it went up to 2600. In 2004 it was 2700. In 2005 it was only 143, a bad year. However, since then the number of Chinese visitors to the Territory has increased steadily.
The numbers are: in 2006, 1800; in 2007, 4900; in 2008, 3700; in 2009, 1800; in 2010, 2500; in 2011, 2500; in 2012, 4000; and in 2013, 5000. Obviously something is happening and these people have finally discovered the Territory.
The member for Greatorex said, and I quote from Hansard of 11 February 2014:
- If he had his way we would be removing money from our traditional markets and pouring it all into an emerging market. No one really has any idea what we need to put in front of Chinese consumers to get them to the Northern Territory. I bet you have no idea because the global tourism industry still has no idea what will attract a Chinese holidaymaker to a high-adventure playground like the Northern Territory.
As a matter of fact they do. Tourism Australia has conducted a survey which they forwarded to me after my visit to their headquarters in Hong Kong. I received it last week. They surveyed Chinese consumers from Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Nanjing, and Shenzhen and the results are displayed on their website. You have obviously not seen it. The department has not provided it to you. I invite you to look at what the Chinese consumer wants. They asked what they would choose for a holiday destination. Fifty-five percent said world-class beauty in a natural environment, 57% said a safe and secure destination, 42% said good food and wine, and 18% said a long distance non-stop flight. They further asked, for destinations, what they considered the best factors. For world-class natural beauty the preferred destination was Hawaii, second was Australia. For safety and security, first was Singapore and third was Australia. For food and wine, we came fifth after France and Italy, and I can understand why.
For friendly and open citizens, Australia was third again. When they asked about the cost of scenery, Australia was second. They went further and asked again, so we now know what the Chinese consumer wants. ‘What attracts you to Australia?’ Australian beaches were 57%, Australian wildlife 51%, rainforests and national parks 48%, Aboriginal culture 33% and 15% said the Outback. When they were asked, ‘Which areas do you like?’ Sydney was the preferred city at 57%, with the Gold Coast at 55%. Only 13% liked Kakadu and 17% the Red Centre. Byron Bay was 15%, Broome and the Kimberley 12% and Adelaide 5%.
What is important is Tasmania, Margaret River and the Territory were at the bottom. Why? These places have not been promoted heavily in China. Nowhere in China have I seen anything about Tasmania, Margaret River, Kakadu or the Red Centre.
You have an agent in Shanghai who meets people and talks to tourism operators, because the majority of people, when booking, will do it through an offline travel agent. They like personal contact. Your representative in Shanghai talks to people in Hong Kong – the tourism operators – they told me they see him regularly. When I say, ‘You’ve seen the representative from Tourism NT, but has the government had a big promotion in Hong Kong?’ It has not. When I asked the same in Guangzhou, there was none. Mind you, a few years ago I asked the same question in Singapore and Tourism Australia told me they were pulling their hair out because Tourism NT had done no promotion in Singapore, despite the fact people from Singapore who visited Darwin were raving about the experience. There must be a gap between what we think is happening, and what is happening.
Remember the saying, ‘You’ll never, never know if you never, never go.’ If you never, never see it, you’ll never, never know where to go! Where would you go in the Territory if the only thing you knew about was the Rock?
When I asked them about Katherine Gorge a lot of them said, ‘What gorge?’ When I mentioned Kakadu, they had heard about Kakadu but never seen it. When I asked them about Darwin and surrounds, they were not aware of it. They were not aware of the culture of Darwin, the Chinese presence in Darwin or the events of the war, which attracts a lot of Chinese people.
My point was not about pulling money out of traditional markets. The traditional markets are there; we have done it before. Your department, in the past 20 years, has done good work in America and London. I have already mentioned being in the London underground waiting for the tube, and on the wall opposite was a picture of a train of camels. This was in 2001. I have been to London many times since and there is nothing about the Territory. There is no Kakadu, only the Rock; there are many advertisements about the Rock.
We have to adjust our campaign to what today’s consumer wants. In the 1980s, Paul Hogan and, ‘Throw a shrimp on the barbie’ was the idea. In 2008, Tourism Australia thought the film Australia would bring droves of tourists to Australia. It did not happen. They misjudged what people around the world wanted.
My argument is not to take money out of the traditional markets. It is great we had an increase of 3.5% and 5% in our traditional markets, continue that work, but work with the emerging markets.
I went through the same process with mining. Everybody told me the place to be was Europe and Canada. We visited and had no response. When we decided to go to China the world changed its mind about mining. There was an influx of interest and people coming here to invest in mining projects.
I recommend and encourage you to take the CEO of your department to China and do not listen to what people say, because they see it from their point of view. You have to look as a consumer. Talk to the airlines and attract ones that can fly direct from China to Darwin in five hours …
Mr Conlan: Give up.
Mr VATSKALIS: Your attitude is dismissive because you do not understand tourism. You believe what the department tells you is sacrosanct.
Minister, you obviously have no idea about tourism, which is why you are so dismissive of new markets. Our tourism industry in the Territory will suffer because of that. Here is an anecdote for you: an operator here told me a delegation from China came to the Territory and the translator spoke Cantonese not Mandarin. Mandarin is the official language of China. People were on the bus and the translator spoke Cantonese. That is why we are not seeing people come to the Territory.
Departments sometimes make mistakes; they are not perfect. It is also because you cannot lead your department on the right path. I am still waiting for reports on Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Casuarina has given me a lot of material and I do not have the time to respond to it all.
It is extraordinary the shadow minister for Tourism, the member for Casuarina, has been exposed by my recent comments regarding China and our traditional markets, and we cannot keep him off his feet. He has to spruik what an expert he is on China. If you are an expert on China, that is great. Perhaps we should put you on as a consultant.
The point you are trying to make, which I articulated quite well, is what do we need to put in front of the Chinese consumer to attract them to the Northern Territory? You still have not answered that. We are seeing a steady increase in visits to Australia, but that is Tourism Australia’s promotion and is largely around the east coast. We are getting about 8000 Chinese visitors to the Northern Territory from the 800 000 or so visiting the east coast.
If you think you have all the answers I am more than happy to hear them. We are working overtime and investing huge amounts of money in the right places; not billboards with camels on them at the tube, or wherever it might be. We are investing our money wisely to attract the Chinese tourist, but we can disagree on that if you like, member for Casuarina, and I am sure we will. You can remark on and assess my performance as Tourism minister, but we will see how well Tourism NT, under my leadership, has performed when the visitor stats come out. I am pretty confident we still see an increase.
The member for Casuarina has left me a world of material, probably several 30 or 40 minute speeches in that little outburst. That is for another day and I look forward to that. I will take joy in those speeches at the next parliamentary sittings in three weeks.
I wanted to put on the record that during Question Time this morning, the member for Casuarina asked about Tourism NT’s relocation to Alice Springs. How dare we relocate a government department to the regions, let alone Alice Springs!
As we know, Alice Springs is a part of the Northern Territory the Labor Party finds distasteful. They have not liked Alice Springs for a number of years, particularly while they were in government. We have all seen the results of that, particularly those of us who live there, but more broadly the Country Liberal Party and now the Country Liberal government. It is little wonder and no surprise the age old question is, ‘Why the hell?’ and, ‘What do you think you’re doing moving a government department to that terrible, wretched place of Alice Springs? Why would you do that? The sky will fall in.’ It comes as no surprise. I said I would provide the member with the details. He, somehow, expected I would have the exact facts and figures in my head. No one in their right mind would have the exact facts and figures, nor should they. If any minister of the Crown is able to commit certain facts and figures to memory, I would say, ‘Get your priorities right. There are bigger fish to fry. You have departments and staff to provide you with those figures at a moment’s notice.’ I did just that. I tried to get them before the end of Question Time, but we finished a minute or two early so I did not have it. Nevertheless, I have them now for you.
The question was:
- One of your first actions in taking government was the widely criticised, politically motivated move to relocate Tourism NT from Darwin to Alice Springs.
I have already addressed that. That is something the opposition finds abhorrent and distasteful.
- Will you now tell us the real cost of moving Tourism NT to Alice Springs? How many staff are now based in …
I assume you mean Darwin or Alice Springs. I am not sure but it says:
- … how many remain in Darwin, and what is the cost of the departmental travel between Darwin and Alice Springs compared to two years ago when Tourism NT was in Darwin?
The cost of moving Tourism NT to Jalistan House, Alice Springs, the breakdown: the fit-out $702 310; fit-out management was $68 697; the lease cost part year $55 408; and office move with WiFi – another initiative, WiFi through the Todd Mall – $61 965; a total of $888 380. I also put on the record that this information is widely available. I mentioned this in estimates last year. I was specifically asked by the former shadow minister for Tourism about this and provided all that information to the former shadow minister for Tourism. I do not blame you for not receiving the information from the former shadow minister for Tourism, who was sacked because he was unable to perform in his job.
Nevertheless, if you wanted to get off your backside and do a bit of work for a change, while in opposition you might have been able to look up the website and find that information, which is widely available. However, I will spend another 10 minutes telling you again, member for Casuarina, seeing you were not able to comprehend it last time.
That is the cost of Jalistan House – $888 380. The staff breakdown: the relocation allowance, $24 571.76; accommodation, $1748.23; removal and storage expenses, $70 976.58; air fares, $6268.57; and advertising $3154.86, which comes to a total of $106 720. The current cost, to relocate Tourism NT to Alice Springs is $995 100.29.
The second part of your question about Tourism NT positions, ‘How many staff remain in Darwin, how many in Alice Springs etcetera?’ In Alice Springs as of 12 February 2014 there were 29 staff and in Darwin 42. Staff on the books of Tourism NT in our interstate offices total six. That gives a total of 77 staff working for Tourism NT. Again, the breakdown: 29 in Alice Springs and 42 in Darwin.
The third and final part of your question was about the cost of departmental travel between Alice Springs and Darwin compared to two years ago when Tourism NT was based in Darwin. Between 1 July 2011 and 20 February 2012 – two years ago – total intra-Territory travel: accommodation, fares, and travel allowance was $126 897.44. Let us go to the same period, 1 July 2013 to 20 February 2014. The total intra-Territory expenditure by Tourism NT was $114 091.26. On those figures, it has been more efficient to base the headquarters in Alice Springs. I am sorry to burst your bubble but it is not more expensive to base Tourism NT in Alice Springs. I am sorry to shatter your argument. You are on a high but, unfortunately for you fortunately for the Territory, Tourism NT and the taxpayer of the Northern Territory, it is more efficient to operate the HQ of Tourism NT out of Alice Springs. They are the facts and figures and I can table it if you want.
Mr Vatskalis: Yes, please.
Mr CONLAN: I look forward to addressing the rest of the claims and allegations made by the member for Casuarina at the next sittings
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Tonight I talk about an important issue facing Territorians: the impact of smoking. It is this government’s view that Territorians who smoke should be encouraged to not smoke, but that, ultimately, it is an individual’s responsibility and comes down to individual choice. The Country Liberals government is committed to reducing the impact of smoking within our community. Tobacco use is the largest cause of preventable death and chronic disease, contributing to 7.8% of the total Australian burden of disease. In the Northern Territory, this is equivalent to 169 preventable deaths and $764m in cost per year. The Northern Territory has consistently been identified as having the highest rates of smokers in the country, with an overall adult smoking rate of 25% compared to 17% Australia-wide.
Nationally, there is a comprehensive evidence base that passive smoking, or exposure to second-hand smoke, can cause asthma, bronchitis,, pneumonia and, with prolonged exposure, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Children are even more susceptible to the harmful effects of smoking due to their smaller lung capacity, their body weight and under-developed immune system. Consistent with our policy of individual responsibility but having a commitment to protect children from the choices irresponsible adults may make, I recently announced we will soon be legislating to ban smoking in cars carrying children under 16 years of age.
The confined space of a motor vehicle dramatically increases the harmful effect of second-hand smoke. Research specific to the effects second-hand smoke has on passengers in motor vehicles has found:
1. air quality when smoking in the confined space of a car, even with the windows down, is more hazardous than levels found in smoky bars and restaurants
2. there was a widespread inaccurate belief by the general public that second-hand smoke was not hazardous when the windows were down, and
3. the exposure of children to second-hand smoke is associated with increased rates of respiratory illness, middle ear infections, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.
As Minister for Health, I am often asked about the issue of patients smoking at the front of Royal Darwin Hospital. The reality is, despite this being an activity that is not allowed, it is difficult to change addictive behaviours, especially when traumatic experiences may be occurring in your life which have caused you to end up in hospital or be visiting a loved one in hospital. It has been put to me by doctors, patients and visitors alike that a practical solution to the problem could be a designated smoking area away from the entrance and passers-by, where we could place information encouraging smokers to quit.
When I looked into this issue and raised it with the management of Royal Darwin Hospital, they informed me they were in the process of putting such a regime in place. They also informed me that, as strange as it sounds, designated smoking areas were always envisaged to be a part of the Royal Darwin Hospital smoke free policy. That is the decision management of the hospital has taken. I understand a designated smoking area for patients will be put into place over the coming weeks.
The Country Liberals government supports practical and realistic policy measures. We support measures which reduce the impact of smoking in our community, but we are pragmatic about how quickly our efforts can educate the community and how that will affect the necessary changes. Additionally, this measure will ensure the impact of second-hand smoke for people in the vicinity of the hospital is greatly reduced. This is the type of commonsense, no nonsense approach this government takes to the regulation of what is still a legal product.
In this vein, I can also inform the House the government has made the decision to allow people in outdoor smoking areas at licenced premises, which include pubs and clubs, to pick up counter meals from the bar and take them into the smoking area to eat if they choose to do so. We have the absurd situation at the moment where you can buy a meat pie, a packet of chips, any packaged food, Mars bars, whatever, and take it into a designated outdoor smoking area, but you cannot take what, in most cases, are healthier food options.
Additionally, rather than encouraging people who smoke to consume food whilst they are consuming alcohol beverages, this half-baked solution encourages more dangerous drinking practices. The Country Liberals will continue to encourage smokers to quit, but we are pragmatic about ineffective policies that simply do not work. The primary responsibility for the health and wellbeing of an individual must, by necessity, remain the responsibility of that individual. We are in the process of drafting the necessary regulatory changes to put in place later this year.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I try to influence government policy. I will start with a preamble about one of the passions in my life – to support Indigenous development. I have spent more than half my life in education and health shedding blood, sweat and tears with my family, and living and working amongst Aboriginal people in the hope of providing an important level of support.
I have engaged in urban areas, regional areas and very remote areas. I have just spent a fortnight in this House listening to government statements and debate. I would like to influence that debate, particularly for Indigenous Territorians, by trying to facilitate a shift in resources back into the early childhood health and education area.
In the last two weeks I have heard lots of visionary statements, lots of blame, lots of excuses, and a script which smacks of a government in opposition. It is all about blame, denial and trying to play the politics of the media, the smoke screen politics and avoid the real work.
I found an article in the newspaper which really articulated the challenges we have. After spending more than half of my life working in Indigenous affairs as well as in the general community, as a father, teacher, principal and foster carer, I think this articulates well what the problems relate to. After spending more than half my life battling, I have never seen it tougher out there. I would like to share with the House what I think is a good articulation of the challenges ahead for all Territorians. It comes from the Weekend Australian 2 February 2014. It is called ‘PM for Indigenous Affairs has his tasks cut out on that front: the key to Aboriginal health lies in improving conditions from infancy, not in funding cuts’. It is by Ernest Hunter.
- ‘Early life experiences become hard-wired into the body, with lifelong effects on health and wellbeing.’ A very important statement – but not news. Research demonstrating the complex interplay of ‘givens’ (genetics) and early-life ‘contingent factors’ (the environment of pregnancy and early childhood) in determining lifelong risk of ill-health dates back to the middle of the last century. From diabetes to depression, the intra-uterine and early childhood environments critically influence the quality and length of our lives.
In fact, it can reasonably be argued that developmental adversity is the main contributor to the continuing poor health status of Indigenous Australians. That’s the bad news; to the extent that those effects ‘become hard-wired into the body’, it may not be possible to rectify – at times even to modify – the harm is done.
In my role as a psychiatrist and public health physician in Cape York, most of my work is about mitigating the downstream consequences, be it psychosis, depression, interpersonal violence, selfharm, alcohol abuse or chronic disease. There is no shortage of work for clinicians.
While Indigenous developmental vulnerability and its effects should be cause for alarm, it is not a reason for fatalism. Indeed, the good news is that the scope for intervention and prevention is enormous and, broadly, we know what needs to be achieved: equity in pregnancy and early childhood health and social outcomes.
Unfortunately, we do not know how to get there – although, clearly, it’s not through business as usual. Even if it is achievable it will take generations for the full effects of healthy pregnancies and early childhoods to be reflected in a reduction in the burden of chronic disease from midlife on, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities.
Imagine if somehow the pregnancies of young Indigenous woman, right now, were no more likely than non-Indigenous pregnancies to be exposed to smoking, alcohol consumption, other drug use, the effects of violence, high levels of maternal stress hormones and inadequate nutrition; if the babies were born to women at no greater rise of prematurity and labour complications, who have had access to the same quality of antenatal and birthing services. Don’t stop – imagine if those babies, now as healthy as their peers across Australia – could spend their infancies in safe, nurturing and stimulating environments in which they were nourished and cherished by their parents, no more likely to be exposed to abuse, neglect or removal from their families; if they do not live in overcrowded houses and were protected from the waves of chaos and stress that wash through homes in remote communities. Imagine.
Even if this miracle did occur, service demands will remain unchanged for a long time as the developmental adversity experienced by older relatives works its effects through the population. Indeed the consequences are evident already among their older siblings, let alone those suffering chronic diseases in middle age.
Educational disadvantage has received a lot of media attention, as has foetal alcohol exposure, both of which predispose affected children to a range of additional risks that will follow them through their lives. Lives that in many cases will be much shorter: the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian annual report on the deaths of children in Queensland records that between 2004-05 and 2012-13 the suicide rate of Indigenous children aged 10 to 17 was more than 5.5 times higher than of their non-Indigenous peers.
The rest of the article talks about politics, and we are in the business of politics. The politics in this House is robust, but I am afraid if the Chief Minister is serious about changing things with his rhetoric around doing things differently, we will take heed of that article. We will dig into the science and the facts, and how we can make serious changes. This is as opposed to playing politics, reading statements and pitching personal abuse across the Chamber, along with a rhetoric of denial, complete abrogation of any responsibility other than to make tomorrow’s news, to ridicule and put down the opposition then march off into the sunset. This is real! This is a serious issue, and within the realm of government to start impacting.
The frightening part of that article makes me reflect on more than half my life working and living with Aboriginal people and raising my family in remote communities. It says it will take a long time to work through the continual levels of neglect and abuse, those generations will be challenging, and will slowly see improvement if we apply our thinking, rigor and our resources to this situation.
The government, in the last fortnight, has given us plenty of rhetoric and visionary statements. The Chief Minister touched once on Indigenous health, and it was almost a preamble which led into, ‘I will solve it all because I am will get these people a job’. Indigenous health and education are the two factors that will get Indigenous people into work. I plead with and urge the government, if there is any level of bipartisanship in this House it should be among the members from regional and remote areas whose majority constituency is Aboriginal. We should start celebrating that bipartisanship because it is Aboriginal children and families we are talking about.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the rest of the Territory has it challenges and is way ahead of the game. I ask that this article be seriously considered in government policy.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak in this parliament for the last time. In September last year I issued a statement saying I was considering my future. My consideration was shaped by my respect for my family, for Roz and her years of support, and my children, who have grown from children to adults while I have served here. My consideration was shaped by my thoughts of the families of my electorate of Blain, and for the Northern Territory and the unique place it has in our nation with all its challenges and opportunities. However, the challenges are manifold.
All of these considerations were guided by one central question: how best can Terry Mills add value? Honourable members, I have concluded it is time to provide the opportunity for another to serve as member for Blain.
I leave now to focus my attention on a project which drew me to the Territory over 25 years ago. A driving passion which pre-existed my interest in serving in parliament is the Australian/Indonesian relationship, principally for our region, and more broadly. I will continue to serve the best interests of the Northern Territory and our nation but, now, in a very different way.
It is a rare honour for anyone to serve in this or any parliament. It was an honour to serve the families of Palmerston as Principal of Palmerston Christian School for 10 years, then in this parliament for a further 14 years.
I acknowledge all the members who have served in this House in the time I have been here. In fact, I started in this very seat, in this very position. I can remember how nervous I was when I gave my first speech. I never imagined this speech, nor did I imagine giving it in the same seat, 14 years later.
I acknowledge all members personally. I have known you since I came here in 1999. The day I came in, Denis Burke had just started as Chief Minister, and Shane Stone was a backbencher, as was I. I have seen so much, met so many people and learnt so many things in that time. I acknowledge you as members. There have been friendships and there has been respect gained on both sides, but I acknowledge you more for what you represent. You represent the hopes and aspirations of families who struggle, who sit around tables hopefully, but often not, wondering about their future. You represent them.
I acknowledge that important role about a legacy greater than announcements. plaques or headlines in newspapers, but is, ultimately, a legacy that will be measured in the lives of families that will endure after we have gone. It is my firm belief, it is what drew me here, and I acknowledge Roz and my two young kids at the time. They knew they were following me because there was something of significance that had to be done. In fact, it was recognition that Australia is part of a broader region. No, it is not part of a market; it is in the presence of millions of other people we need to get to know and learn to work with. That is what brought me here and I believe the Northern Territory has, particularly now, a significant role to play in that area.
Our challenge, wherever we work at whatever level, is to bring our community together. That is our project, our task in the Northern Territory with its uniqueness, its challenges and its opportunities. It is an opportunity for us to bring our community and our country together, particularly in this place where the gap is widest. It is to remind our nation we are part of a neighbourhood, one that is different to what we are accustomed to and comfortable with. It is a neighbourhood that is changing and the quality of our engagement with that neighbourhood will bear a direct result in who we are, what we think, and how we interact with one another, ultimately to our mutual advantage.
This, honourable members, has been the most difficult speech because, it is hard to say, but it has been a genuine honour to serve in this parliament. As a member of parliament, I have served as a backbencher and a shadow minister. At one time, I had 11 or 12 portfolios and there were just four of us. I have also served as Opposition Leader, a minister, and Chief Minister.
I wish all members well, my colleagues in particular, those who have travelled this journey with me on different lengths of that path, Cabinet, and Chief Minister Giles. We bear an enormous responsibility. The Attorney-General often recites these words, but they have been a part of my language from the beginning and are part of our underlying considerations for everything we do: our efforts in this House must deliver true welfare to the people of the Northern Territory so our legacy is lodged in the lives of Territorians, and a lasting benefit is gained after we have left. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the precedence is if members have spoken in adjournment and wish to speak in regard to the retiring member they can speak again for five minutes. If you have not spoken, it is the usual 10 minutes.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): As a long-serving member of this parliament and as Leader of the Opposition, I want to acknowledge the contribution the member for Blain has made to Territorians, true to his constituency in Blain, but true to the broader Territory constituency. Whilst we may have our different views on policy, and I am sure the forthcoming by-election will bear that out, I believe we have always shared a deep desire to improve the lives of Territorians. I have witnessed the member for Blain through his journey, as a government backbencher, into opposition, as Opposition Leader then as a shadow minister, back to Opposition Leader and then, credit to his perseverance, determination and great personal strength, he took government for the Country Liberal Party. This is a rare thing.
I remember politics from the 1970s, and it was the great Gough Letts who became the first leader of the House for the Country Liberal Party. They then enjoyed successive terms of government. They were never challenged so much as when they went into opposition, and I saw the leadership of the member for Blain trying to forge a cohesive team through all those challenges. I have often found the work you did highly instructive for the way I have approached opposition with my team.
You took a collegiate approach, an approach of decency, and whilst I recognise we have different policy perspectives, you, as best as possible, shied away from playing the person. You were often put in a situation where you might have, but your core decency led you to land in a better and more gentlemanly space than might otherwise have occurred.
I, for one, will acknowledge the work you have done for the communities. I have seen the close relationship you have had across the multicultural communities. With the possible exception of the member for Sanderson, no member in the Country Liberals has forged such a close relationship in the 13 years’ experience I have had in public life. I know you are held in very high esteem through all those multicultural communities. I have witnessed the friendships you established with people in those communities.
I have seen, to our peril, the way you ventured into the remote communities of the Northern Territory and signed contracts for what you believed in, wanting to improve the lives of Territorians, which was your nature in forming relationships. This has been a great strength of yours and will hold us all in good stead with regard to your project and the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. Your ability to forge relationships, born through a core honesty and decency, is admired and respected and will hold the Territory in good stead. As I say, we do not share the same policy perspectives but do share a deep and abiding desire to improve the lot of people. I recognise yours is strengthened through faith, and I have respected and admired your deep and abiding commitment to holding true to your faith.
I have seen the way in which you have worked with people from a variety of backgrounds. I have enjoyed watching you interact with people with disabilities at Dancing with Celebrities – stretching your skills on the dance floor – and some of the tough endurance you do on the rubber hitting the road as a politician. You have done it with dignity, and, by and large, with decency and people can take a leaf out of your book.
I want to thank you for your contribution. We will hit the hustings and be on different sides of the battle lines drawn in the division of Blain. I look forward to the opportunity of being out on the hustings and the opportunity of a fair and decent political battle for the hearts and minds of the voters of Blain.
I wish you the very vest. I commit to working with you constructively as Opposition Leader regarding our bilateral relationship – our very important relationship with Indonesia – and if given the opportunity in the future to lead a Labor government, I look forward to working with you in that way as well. We will be taking it seat by seat, hopefully starting with Blain.
Thank you, sincerely, for the contribution you have made to the public life of the Territory. You were a hard worker as a backbencher; you were an even harder worker in opposition. You did not stop for a moment. You became a tireless worker as Chief Minister. It has been a difficult year, but you have done it with dignity and grace that very few politicians in our nation are able to show, and I congratulate you for that as well. All the very best to your family, who I daresay are looking forward to spending a bit more time with you. Roz and the kids have paid the price political families pay in less time than they would like, but I have seen Roz out and about at functions with you. She has been an asset, so I pass my best wishes on to her, and I am sure your mother will enjoy a few more visits as well. All the best, member for Blain.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her comments and civility. Member for Blain, Terry, it is sad to see you go. You have provided a valuable contribution to the Northern Territory, to this Chamber, to parliament and to the people of Blain for many a long year. I do not have the date you first came in back in the late 1990s representing the seat of Blain, taking over from the retiring Barry Coulter at the time. However, to come to 2014 is a generation in itself, a large part of your life, and would be a large part of anyone’s time in public life, or in any vocation for that matter.
We have often spoken about the commitment you have shown to the people of Blain. You have often spoken about the electorate, the demographics of the electorate and how committed they are to giving their support to you. That is testament to someone who has not just the tenacity, but the values to be supported so well by a positive electorate such as Blain. You have brought the representation and values of those constituents to this Chamber from a time before I was in parliament, and also since I have been in parliament. Even during our most recent conversations about some of the issues affecting your constituents, you have remained eager to fight for those constituents and raise their concerns.
Obviously this announcement is somewhat of a surprise, so I have not had a chance to speak to the party president of the Country Liberals or any of our close personal friends, colleagues and stakeholders in the party. I would like to think I could speak on their behalf by thanking you for the contribution you have made to parliament, to good citizenship in the Northern Territory, and for being a valued part of the Country Liberals Party machine and team for many a long year.
When we look to where we are today, despite the demographics of this parliament changing, you have put us in a position where we are of sound mind and sound policy to take the Northern Territory forward into the future. The contribution you have made over those years will ensure we maintain a very strong policy footing, and make sure we also hold those same values the Attorney-General has stuck all over his office: standing up for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
While it is extremely sad to see you go, anybody’s retirement presents an opportunity to move to another phase in life. You spoke about your dedication, commitment, interest and passion, particularly in relation to Asian relations and trade, and the Leader of the Opposition spoke about your connection to multicultural affairs and multicultural society. Despite your leaving today being an important milestone, it presents itself, potentially, with an opportunity to chase a passion in your life. We have, on this side of the Chamber, as a government, presented a strong case for actively wanting to pursue the role of northern Australia development and Asian engagement. That is something we are very interested in and, with you pursuing the same values, it will be very important for you and for the future of the Northern Territory and the country.
On a daily basis you can read in the paper the circumstances of some of our Asian neighbours. The more people we have, particularly from the Northern Territory, who can represent strong values and connections to those neighbours – it is important. You will make a valuable contribution in that part.
In regard to Roz, I know what it is like being away from family and the pressures political life or any intensive job puts on family. You will be in a good position tonight, where Roz will be able to welcome you back into the family home. That must have been challenging over many long years.
I have always believed you never know exactly what you learn off a person until you stop that learning through disassociation. I already have taken much away from you as the leader in opposition, as Chief Minister, and the strong sense of oneself you have shown as member for Blain. I have learnt from that, but I will learn more from you once you leave this parliament in the things I did not realise I had learnt in the period when we had that close working and political relationship. I thank you for that.
As I said, this is somewhat of a surprise. I would have liked a longer period of time to prepare a lasting speech. However, I know many of my colleagues would like to say a few words themselves.
Terry, from the bottom of my heart I wish you all the best. I look forward to seeing you in our travels from time to time. You still have a lot of valuable contributions to make for the Northern Territory, I hope for northern Australia and this nation, particularly whichever way we go forward in regard to the north of the Northern Territory. Thank you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be here for this announcement. I want to speak briefly about my dealings with the member for Blain, Terry. Terry Mills and I met a fair while ago and then I was fortunate enough to be pre-selected for the seat of Blain in 2008 ...
Mr Mills: That’s right. I thought I had seen you before.
Mr VOWLES: It probably leads on to Terry laughing at me, but I knew I would cop a hiding and I am still a bit sore about that. The hiding was duly handed out to me in 2008 because the people of Blain, although I was a great candidate, knew Terry was a forthright and honest man and his history in that area as a former school principal – I knew I was buggered.
Anyway, I went through the process. It was a learning curve, and history shows I am here. However, it is all about Terry tonight.
I wanted to go back because not too many people know that about Terry and me. The first time I met the member for Brennan was during that campaign as well. We have to be adversaries here. When I finally met Terry, and I did not know how it would go, he shook my hand and said, ‘G’day’, and wished me the best of luck. I thought, ‘That’s not what I’m used to. We have to at least sledge each other, do something here.’ As I said, history shows I copped a hiding but I got over it.
In 2012, the people of the Northern Territory voted for Terry Mills. They wanted Terry as Chief Minister. Almost a year to the day – I do not believe what happened was right. You were the elected Chief Minister and history will show what happened. We have moved forward, and I am sure you have moved forward, mate. However, on this side of the House, regardless of the banter and the toing and froing, we have always respected you. We have always respected your ability, experience, and skills in this Chamber. Probably more importantly, when we step outside this Chamber we respect you as an individual. We respect you as Terry Mills and that is important in our lives.
On behalf of all of us – especially me – I wish you well. Your family deserves the time they have not had with you. I hope you enjoy that time with your family. Your presence will be deeply missed here, and I wish you luck and be safe.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Terry, your announcement tonight has come completely out of the blue and I have to express my sadness at your announcement. I know for you it has been a big and tough decision, because I have no doubt, and have never had any doubt, that you are truly committed to the people of Blain and always have been. I imagine even outside this House you will remain committed to them. I know what a decision that is to you, because I think it is the fundamental that has kept you in the game for so long. You have been through thick and thin.
Without any skerrick of a doubt, you have cemented your place in Northern Territory history. You will go down as one of the great leaders. You are the first and only person to date who has led the CLP out of opposition. That is a formidable task and something only you can claim to have done. There is no other person like that.
You are a grassroots politician of the best kind. I think about politicians I have known – Roger Steele, Daryl Manzie and, on the other side of the Chamber, people like Chris Burns – who were truly, totally and absolutely in touch with their electorates and the people they serve. That is a commendable thing.
I have always had – as much as this might surprise some people – the deepest respect and admiration for Terry, and a friendship, above all. Terry and I have been on the same trajectory for some time. I was in the federal parliament when Terry was battling it out here as leader of a small rump of an opposition, an incredibly difficult task indeed. I enjoyed your confidence, Terry, and much appreciate your respect and support over the years. I know in my heart of hearts it has always been there, and I genuinely say I will miss you.
From Alicia, William and Henry, my family, we wish you the best. We wish Roz and the kids the best, and I am praying this will not be the end of our relationship in the years to come. I look forward to happy times in the future.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, where do I start? The man sitting over there is the man who brought me to this place. He is not that old, but I looked on him as a father figure. He was always there to provide advice.
When I was chair at Bakewell I was having run ins with Syd Stirling, Education minister at the time. I was frustrated the government of the day did not see Palmerston was growing and needed extra infrastructure. I walked into Terry’s office and said, ‘Can I grab a few minutes of your time?’ He said, ‘Of course’. That is the mark of him and how he stood up for the community; he was always there for the community. He said, ‘Come in, sit down’. I said, ‘I am frustrated. How do you get some common decency? How do you bring some common sense to government?’ Of course, he said, ‘Sit down’, and from that first discussion with Terry I ended up joining the Country Liberals. I suppose the rest is history.
The truth is he is this man I looked to for guidance, for the inspiration to do what I did. I have not come from a conservative background or the Liberal side of politics. I have not come from a wealthy family. My father said to me, ‘You are joining what?’ I said, ‘The Country Liberals, dad’. He said, ‘What?’ I said, ‘The Country Liberals’. He said, ‘How much country is in the Liberals?’ I said, ‘Well, there is a fair bit of country in the Liberals’, and he said, ‘I can live with that’.
If you described Terry Mills, would you call him a true liberal? Would you call him a conservative? I would call him a Country Liberal with a social conscience. That is how I would like to be remembered – to be seen as keeping the guiding light on what direction we should take for Territorians.
I appreciate the many talks we have had, the guidance you provided, the understanding of the role we play and how it can be difficult in this House with the argy bargy. It can get pretty heated from time to time. The one thing I like is – and sometimes I still struggle to understand – we can be belting the hell out of each other here and then I run into Ken and say, ‘G’day Ken, how are you going?’, yet we have just been tearing strips off each other. I look back at when I played rugby league, last century, and it was rough and tough on the field, but the moment you walked off you were the best of friends and enjoyed a beer together or whatever.
I want to thank Terry for the humility he has brought to the role of politician and the honesty and integrity. In your line of work, Ken, you will understand what playing with a straight bat means. This man played with a straight bat, always. I will remember him for this, and the time we had in this House is not the end of our relationship. This relationship will go on for many years. I truly hope what you do next – as this door closes another opens, and I think you have opened a window – the opportunity is there for you because of the foundation you have laid. The opportunity would not be there if you were not the person you are. The foundation you have laid has provided much guidance for many of us in politics, and I would go as far as saying not just for this side of the House, but also to our opposition when they were in government because you played with a straight bat. Honesty and integrity are, in this game, sometimes hard to find but you do not have to look further than Terry Mills.
When something like this hits you, you have nothing prepared, nothing written down. There is a lot of history with Terry Mills, but I recall one story he told me – I know it is funny and, because it is funny I will muck it up. He told me about this character who came into the office – all of us have characters who come into the office. This one – I know I will muck it up but it does not matter, it is a truth story. This character came into the office with a conspiracy theory that people were looking at him, watching him. He worried so much for this constituent he got personnel to look into his house to demonstrate there was no way he could be spied on; it could not happen. This person kept turning up at the office, and, at the end of the day – if the story is right you ask Barry Coulter for some advice – the next time the man came into the office to talk about conspiracies and people watching him Terry said, ‘Sshh’ and pointed to the ceiling. The guy never turned up at the office again.
There are lessons you can learn when dealing with people and some of the issues brought to you.
Terry also had a fabulous sense of humour. Some of the jokes we have shared, e-mails, texts – the funny side, the movies. He enjoys The Life of Brian and slapstick humour. Today, with many comedians, if you are not swearing you are not funny. There was a time where just falling over was funny. Sometimes you look at things and wonder what is funny then you think, ‘Yes, I get it’. It is a different level of humour the Americans will never get but the British understand.
My friendship will Terry will be ongoing. I owe him so much. He provided me with the guidance and courage to do something different. As I said, with my background I would probably never have looked at the conservative side of politics, but Terry showed me the constitution of the Country Liberals. When I went home that night and read it, I thought it was so much like the life we should all lead. The constitution of the Country Liberals was more about Territorians than anything else and doing what was right for the Territory. The more I came to know Terry, and looking at this constitution, the more I wanted to be involved with this side of politics, particularly under Terry’s leadership. He provided inspiration and guidance, and I will be forever in his debt. Thank you, Terry.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker – wow! One thing I think we all agree on is this came like a bolt from the blue. We all knew it would happen eventually, because all things come to an end, but I doubt any of us thought you would go so quickly, Terry.
Our relationship goes back to 2007 and the Greatorex by-election when it was just the four of us – you, me, Faye and Jodeen – and we slogged it out for about 12 months. We had about 10 or 12 portfolios each; we slogged it out over in that little corner of the Chamber thinking we were doing a pretty good job. A lot of the time we were kidding ourselves. We were being hammered by the 19 member government on this side, but we relentlessly turned up every day and tried to do the best we could for the Territory. That was largely under your leadership, Terry, when you took over from Jodeen quite early in my term.
We forged a great friendship which stood solid for many years. Politics can be so deeply personal, and our friendship took a turn during the leadership issue. I am trying to be completely honest. These things can hurt, be deeply personal and leave people wondering why, what happened, where and what. I am sure there are still a number of questions you would like answered in regard to that. My affection, my trust and my faith in you has not changed.
My family has always thought highly of you, in particular my wife, Elara, has always had great affection and admiration for you, Terry. I know some wounds take a long time to heal, and some never heal. I said to you at one stage during that difficult period, I hope we can get through this and one day restore our friendship to what it once was, which was very tight and close. Politics can be personal and very hurtful at times, and there is no doubt that left a lot of people feeling that way during that period. No doubt you felt that way yourself.
As I said last year – I only have five minutes because I have already spoken but am happy to take 10 – after five years or so in opposition we won the 2012 election and came to government. You showed enormous confidence in me by appointing me to your first ever Cabinet, something no one can take away. I am honoured to have been a member of the first ever Mills ministry. Working together during that short period we achieved a lot – as a minister working under your chief ministership. I would not be in this position today, or in a position where I can work for the betterment of the Northern Territory in the capacity of a minister of the Crown in this government, if it was not for the initial confidence you showed in me in September 2012, a couple of weeks after the election.
You provided me with an enormous opportunity, Terry, and the significance of that is not lost on me. For that gift, and the confidence you showed in me in 2007, I will be eternally grateful. It is now up to me to make the most of that, and I hope I am able to execute my position as a minister of the Crown and honour the confidence you showed in me in 2012.
It is not necessarily the end. While it is the end of this parliamentary career for you – 14 years from 1999 to 2015, it is just the beginning. Terry, in a number of media interviews you mentioned you still would like to serve. I know serving is very important to you. You are deeply committed to serving your country and your community. I am sure we will see more of Terry Mills in one way, shape or form serving his community. I am sure the Northern Territory will reap enormous benefits from the experience you have gained from this parliament, being in government and being Chief Minister. I am sure the Territory will be a lot better off. The future of the Territory is in good hands with the prospect of you serving the community beyond this parliament.
Terry, thank you and congratulations on an incredible career. Not many people last more than a decade in here. A few have lasted 18 years, some 15. You are one of the not-too-many people who have stuck around for as long as you have. There have been a number of elections and you have done a great job. We are all very proud of you and all thankful for your commitment to and presence in this Chamber over the last 15 years.
From me, Elara, Harvey and Cleo, thank you, Terry, congratulations, and all the very best.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is a terrible shock to be standing here tonight. Terry does not make decisions light-heartedly; he has thought long and hard about this. If this is his decision I fully respect and support it.
I was fortunate to be part of Terry’s team. He saw something in me, thought I could be part of the team and could offer something to the people of Drysdale. If it was not for him I might not be standing here.
It has been an incredibly difficult 18 months in government, and we have all felt and shared the pain of what has happened. Many of us are ashamed of what has happened. There are many people here who have always loved and supported you, and will continue to love and support you in everything you do. I am grateful we had that time together, and you gave everything you had and did a very good job. I do not care what anyone says.
The people of Blain love you and will be devastated when they see the front page of the NT News and read about this. I hope you did a sneaky letterbox drop tonight letting everyone know.
It is devastating, and a loss to the Territory. You gave so much, and we can only take so much of you. Again, thank you for everything. Do not worry, Pete and I will be fine. We will defend the hell out of Blain, and if these Labor people think they can come anywhere close to Palmerston bring it on, because we will nail you at the ballot box. Bring it on!
We love you Terry, thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I have only known Terry for three or four years, and have found he always gave me honest advice on any question I asked him. I wish him well into the future.
I will relay a story about one of the first interviews I had with Terry. He was the Opposition Leader and he asked me a question. I have never told him this story, but a few people who are close to me know it. Terry said to me: ‘If you get into parliament will you be after my job?’ My response to him was, ‘No way. I don’t want that job.’ The bit that floated in my mind was who in hell wants to be Opposition Leader? Definitely not me. I was not running for parliament to be Opposition Leader.
Terry, thank you very much. I have never been in opposition and do not intend being in opposition. I admire you for what you did in opposition. Thank you very much.
One point which needs noting is Terry is only one of two people to have led a party to government in the Territory. Thank you.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): I had a great adjournment ready for tonight, not having done one for a while, but in honour of the member for Blain I will put that to one side. It is far more important to acknowledge the contribution I have seen the member for Blain make to this parliament and the Northern Territory over a number of years.
He is the grandfather of the House and his departure will leave a great gap. We on this side know what it feels like. This is how we felt when the former member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson announced his resignation. He was sworn in on the same day as the member for Blain, and also a former Chief Minister.
I understand how members opposite feel about the departure of someone who is part of their close-knit team, the grandfather of their team and who has seen it all. We have heard from members on both sides of the House about what he has been through in the many years from government to opposition, back to government and Chief Minister. That is a hell of a story the member for Blain can tell his grandchildren and his family, and we all know the impact this job has on our families and our lives.
Whilst I am sure this was not an easy decision for the member for Blain, I know there will be an element of relief within his family that they will get their husband, father and grandfather back and have a bit more time with him. We all think about that. We would be lying if we did not think about the time we will say, ‘I’ve had enough, I can’t do this anymore. It’s time to move on.’ Clearly, the member for Blain has thought carefully about this decision, and the timing is always difficult.
You want to do the best for your team, the best for the people you represent, and first and foremost that is probably where the member for Blain is coming from – the people he has represented for so many years that have supported him and he has given support to. At the end of the day, they are the most important people to us, aside from our families, when we stand in this House.
During my time in this House on the backbenches of government, and a lot of time sitting in the chair as Deputy Speaker, I listened to many hours of debate. There is always something peculiar to each member you remember – some are deadly dull and you switch off. I will not say who they are, I will save that for my memoirs, but I remember the contributions made by the member for Blain always characterised by passion, humanity, humility and a deep sense of commitment and dedication to whatever it was, be it a private members’ bill from opposition or from the government benches. I recognised in him as well, as a former educator, that sense of being able to communicate, to care for people, and to have a pastoral care aspect. His departure from this House, and from the people he has represented in Blain, will be a great loss.
I put on the record my enormous gratitude to the member for Blain as Chief Minister. I speak from the heart, on behalf of the people of Nhulunbuy, about the efforts he made to secure the future of our community. I said to him, jokingly, after he finished his adjournment, ‘I didn’t really mean all those nasty things I said about you’. One day I hope to say that to many people in this House. There is something about the theatre of parliament – all here are often not our true selves as we might be outside, or home with our families or with people on the street.
I genuinely thank the member for Blain for his efforts in lobbying and securing a future for Nhulunbuy. It is a stand out for me. Beyond it, whilst circumstances and decisions were changed, I further place on the record my thanks to the member for Blain for going out on a limb and, no doubt, causing some angst on his side. I have quoted on the record on a number of occasions – and will continue to do so – your opinion piece in the NT News on 13 August – I was only reading it yesterday – to further stand by your position and the decision you took. It was not only a brave thing to do, it shows a genuine sense of commitment about decisions he had made and was prepared to stand by, even though he was no longer in Cabinet, knowing it would have ruffled the feathers of his colleagues. This is the sort of thing we hold dear for people who serve in the parliament and serve the people of the Northern Territory.
Member for Blain, I thank you, and the people of my electorate will be – I know they were disappointed with your departure as Chief Minister. On behalf of them, I pass on my very best wishes to you for your future. Thank you most sincerely.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, tonight I pay my respects to Terry Mills, without getting too emotional. Terry is a man of great integrity, a man of God, a family man and has achieved great heights in his career over the last 14 years as a politician. Tonight gives me a small window of opportunity to talk about our partnership when we first came to government.
I do not think anyone in this parliament realised the difficulty of taking over government after 11 years of another government in place. As a new government, the experience Terry and I had in the six months we were Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister was extraordinary. The task ahead of you is enormous; you barely know where to begin. You have done all the necessary preparation, identified people you think will be good staff members, people to surround you, guide you and work with you and generally assist in the enormous task ahead.
On top of that is extraordinary pressure. As soon as you get to government people want to see results – see things happen. You have election commitments piled high, and the expectation and pressure on us was enormous. Terry, being Terry, had spent many years as Leader of the Opposition and was prepared; he ticked all the boxes and was prepared to be Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. We supported him through that. He was kept on as Opposition Leader for many years because people liked Terry, people respected him and people could see he had very broad appeal across the Northern Territory. He did not just appeal to traditional voters; he appealed to people across the political spectrum because of who he was, how he presented himself, the kind and compassionate words he spoke, together with the fact he was a good politician. He analysed things thoroughly and formed his opinions based on fact and evidence. He was an all-rounder, and that is why we chose him to be our leader in opposition and to take us into government as Chief Minister.
During those heady first six months of being in government we had to make decisions about where we were taking this government, where we were taking the Northern Territory and the pressure on many of us in this parliamentary wing became almost too much to bear. Decisions around the changes to power and water tariffs were extraordinary. Public pressure and pressure from the media made the pressure on Terry and I untenable. Throughout his time as Chief Minister he never lost sight of what makes a good leader, but also how to navigate us through that time. He was always well-grounded, very approachable and very Terry; I do not know how else to put it.
It ended, as someone said earlier today, almost 12 months ago. Terry was voted out as Chief Minister and we now have Adam Giles as Chief Minister and life has gone on. The last 12 months for Terry Mills have probably been some of the hardest in his life, and for that I feel sad. Having said that, that is politics; there are winners and losers. As soon as you win, you are probably just about to lose. As soon as you get to the highest point, they say the only way to go is probably down. That is what happened to Terry.
My admiration and respect for him over the last 12 months has only increased. He has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the Country Liberal Party, his constituents in Blain and to the parliamentary wing. He has attended meetings that, if I was in his position, I doubt I could have. He has never given up on the Northern Territory, and I respect him so much for his commitment. I did not know he intended to resign today; it has come as a bit of a shock but how do you keep a man like Terry Mills on the backbench of the Northern Territory parliament for more than 12 months? He has callings elsewhere; he is being beckoned to go and share his talents and knowledge elsewhere. That is a good thing for Terry and his family and our loss. I love Terry Mills, the privilege of working with him and I wish him all the best.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues this evening in paying my respects to the member for Blain after 14 years of service to the Territory community.
As a new member of parliament, you observe other members of this Chamber and take note of how they present themselves, how they hold themselves, and how they go about their job. Terry probably would not know it, but I have been working around this building since 2006 – about eight years – and I was watching you, Terry. He is the sort of guy who is a genuinely, friendly, down-to-earth, lovely man. Whenever you passed him in the corridors of this place or in the lift Terry always said, ‘Hi’. He always had a friendly smile on his face. I watched how he conducted himself on the floor of parliament. One thing I have seen is Terry Mills is a decent man who holds very high standards. He is a man who rolls up his sleeves and does a lot of hard work - you can see that. He is the type of politician who does not only do it in this place; you would always see him at community events. He took his job seriously, and the roles and responsibilities placed on his shoulders as a member of parliament.
It is also very clear he has a very warm heart. One thing for sure is the good people of Blain love you, Terry. No matter what the swings were in past elections, you always went against them. You stood strong, even against the wonderful now member for Johnston.
I have particularly enjoyed the opportunity to listen when you have spoken in this parliament. You hold yourself with incredible poise and grace. We can all learn much from you in that regard.
It is also clear you have a deep love for your family. Your family has participated, where it can, and supported your political career and your ambitions. It shows there is a lot of love there. I hope you enjoy the next chapter of your life where you get to spend a bit more time with those important people. Clearly, this job means a lot of time away from them and much sacrifice. It is a huge sacrifice in one’s life, so I hope you enjoy the next period of your life, member for Blain.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. All the best for the future. I am sure you will do a terrific job. Yes, I will see you running on those stairs. Good luck, Terry.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I add to the praise of many other members in this Chamber.
My connections with the member for Blain - with the permission of the House I will use Terry’s first name. My contacts with Terry go back to the mid-1970s when I spent time in Carnarvon. As most people in this House know, Terry comes from around the Mullewa area of Western Australia, which is wheat belt, farming country. His relatives once had Brick House Station. Terry and I have talked about this and think he may have been there when I was there, because I spent a lot of time on Brick House Station with his uncle and cousins. It was an interesting time in life, and we have often reflected on those experiences which set you up for the rest of your life.
Fast forwarding through to the end of the 1980s and 1990s, when Terry came to the Territory in the beginning of the 1990s, the first thing he did was became active in politics. He is committed to our philosophical beliefs. When he became Principal of Palmerston Christian School, he immediately became involved with and immersed in his community. From the first day he arrived – and it is still happening today as we speak – Terry Mills has embedded himself within his community and worked tirelessly for not only his constituents, but everyone else around him, be it in Western Australia, the Territory, Queensland, or any other part of this country. Terry is one of those people – that is what he does.
Talking about jobs, both sides of this House are asked, ‘What do you do for a job?’ We do not have a job; we just do this. Some people do it better than others, and Terry has done an outstanding job in Blain, in Darwin and the Northern Territory.
If we go back to the 1990s when he joined – we were both members of the party in those days and would have some interesting debates. Politics is an interesting business and can be a bit rough. Sometimes you’re with them, sometimes you’re agin them, and that does not happen just between us and the opposition, it happens on our side.
There have been many debates at Central Council where Terry and I stood together and battled the other side. There were also times when we swapped sides and battled each other. That type of involvement keeps you sharp and makes you pay attention to what is happening. It keeps you on your toes. Terry, I have really appreciated the fact you have kept me on my toes for years in debates, in the policy development area, in so many things. I have really appreciated those conversations and, sometimes, the battles we have had because, at the end of every battle, we come together and have a drink. It has made me able to function as a member of parliament.
Terry entered parliament in the by-election of 1999. I remember the by-elections well. We had three members go – we had a couple and John Bailey went and Paul Henderson came in. They all came in in the 1999 by-election.
I would like to go to the period after the 2005 election when we had four members. It was a struggle, not only for members in the House, but also the party members and those in the real world. Terry was the only member in Darwin, Fay Miller was in Katherine, and there were a couple from Alice Springs. I would see Terry out everywhere. Some of us dedicated party members were out working, especially with the multicultural communities and various sporting groups. They needed to be heard and wanted to pass on their feelings about what was happening.
Terry was always there. We always ran into each other at multicultural functions, but Terry had to carry the load. It was an enormous job, not only to be working with only four members handling the portfolio loads, but to be working day in, day out, weekends and public holidays – he was working with the multicultural community to ensure their voice was heard, not only in our party but in parliament. I commend you, Terry for all the hard work done between 2005 and 2008. It was an enormous give.
It is behoves us all to acknowledge Terry’s family. Roz was always there and has been a rock for Terry. He has said that on a number of occasions. His son and daughter have come through very well in that family environment where politics is very much a part of it. They are both successful young people, and I am sure they will make a fantastic contribution to their community, as Terry has done.
I have come across Terry at various places around the world. I ran into him in Kupang, of all places, in the main street just down from the Flobamor II some years ago. One of the things Terry and I share, although he is probably much better at it than me, is Indonesian language. We used to say a couple of words in Bahasa Indonesia when we were in restaurants and it was great. I have seen him Bali and a number of other places.
It has been an interesting journey, Terry, and you have been very much a part of mentoring me as a politician. You have challenged me, given me advice, most of which I took, some I challenged, but you have been a rock for so many people in this House. You went through some of the darkest hours and were there as a light for us in the Top End. Fortunately, in those days Alice Springs had a few, but it is at the darkest time the stars shine brightest. We had some dark hours, and the shining light called Terry Mills kept the faithful going, kept the party members going and people slogging away. When we were thrashed you were there. I commend you for that and appreciate the fact that when I rang you, you would give our side of politics some hope. Everybody needs hope because without it, you do not bother getting up in the morning.
Lots of things have been said tonight. Had we known, we would have said a whole lot more, but you were always full or surprises, Terry and today is no different. You and I go back in the party more than just about anyone in this House. On behalf of the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory, I thank you very much for the efforts you put in, the policy development, the debates, the challenges and all the things which make a party strong. Without that type of leadership, you do not have the people who will follow through thick and thin and be there at the end. When it was our turn to come into government, those people were there strong and united because they had some leadership and we thank you for that.
There is not much more I can say in this short period of time, Terry except to wish you the very best of luck on your travels. Thank you, happy journey and in Bahasa Indonesia: terima kasih banyak dan selamat jalan.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am utterly unprepared, having just returned to the House after being at a function, only to hear the news a few moments ago. It will not be polished, but I hope what I lack in polish I make up for in sincerity.
I ask honourable members to remember a night, for some members probably before they were really politically aware, when a Prime Minister walked up to a microphone after an election – I think the year was 1996 – and said:
- This is a victory for the true believers ...
The place erupted because, to the surprise of everybody, Paul Keating had defeated John Hewson in …
Ms Fyles: It was1993, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Was it 1993? That message resonated across the country to a television set where a young chalkie – I am not sure he was a principal at the time – was struck by that comment and decided to commit himself to his beliefs in a way many people do not. He pursued those beliefs and, in 1999 if memory serves me, entered this parliament alongside Paul Henderson. I remember the arrival of both. I do not carry the title, ‘Father of the House’; that is Terry Mills’ to carry. My three year hiatus from the House means he has served this House one year longer than me.
In that time, the Country Liberal Party swung from government into opposition, into oblivion, back into opposition then finally, under Terry Mills’ leadership, back into government. It has been a torturous road. Politics is not a game for the faint-hearted; it is not kind or fair. It chews people up and spits them out, but there have been occasions where I have reflected upon Terry Mills’ quality of endurance. His endurance has been tested beyond the normal limits of what average politicians face. Throughout that whole process Terry Mills maintained, in his political career, his honesty, integrity and dignity, no matter how challenging that was. Over the years, like all politicians and all members of political parties, whether it is opposing parties or within our own party, there are challenges and points of difference we all face. I have had my share of points of difference with Terry, but I have never doubted his honesty, integrity or commitment to the people of the Northern Territory or the people of Blain.
Terry has brought a quality to this House and our political party which is not often found in any political party. It is measured, tempered, considered and, for that reason, valuable. There is a rarity of those qualities in politics, and I wish I had more of them. I fall down regularly, particularly in the area of a temperate attitude. That has never been the case with Terry Mills. I never pitch a person should be given a fair go in politics in the sense they should be mollycoddled or catered for, but for many years I watched Terry Mills struggle, particularly in the role of Opposition Leader of four, and that is a challenging place to be.
The whole way through it he remained measured, considered and sought judgment in the fairest possible terms. If there was ever a criticism to be made of Terry Mills, it is perhaps he was too fair a person in an unfair environment, but it is what it is. Terry announced tonight he is stepping away from his career as a politician, and that is a large chunk out of his life. What a lot of people forget is for people like Terry Mills, it is a large chunk of a most productive part of their lives. People forget that a young principal who steps away from being a principal for about 15 years has lost a large slice of a career path that could have taken him in a number of different directions. The sacrifice Terry Mills made was his teaching career for another career in pursuit of the service of the people of the Northern Territory. That has been the undeniable truth of Terry’s passion. I was much younger and a lot more stupid when I first met Terry, and I often thought …
A member: What has changed?
Mr ELFERINK: Thanks, guys. I like to think I am less young, but I have looked at Terry and thought how he has suffered, and suffered in silence so often?
I wish Terry the very best. I can imagine his disappointments along the way. I imagine they burned, and continue to burn in some respects, but, nevertheless, Terry has come to a decision and I respect that decision, as we all must. It is a big thing to give a large slice of your life to a belief. I wish more people in the community would do so, no matter what their beliefs are, and give of themselves in that way. Whilst politicians have a reputation somewhere around a second-hand car salesman and lawyers, they give a lot more than the general public every truly appreciates.
Roz has paid an enormous price for Terry’s belief in the people of the Northern Territory and I hope she gets a whole lot more of Terry back, as she so thoroughly deserves. Families pay and suffer in silence. Wives and spouses, in particular, rail with rage when they see some of the things that happen to their partners. Roz has suffered that as well, and has done so in silence. I think of Roz at this moment, and ask if Terry Mills could pass on my thanks to Roz for her sacrifice to the people of the Northern Territory.
Terry, you are a decent, upright block. On occasion, I have had points of difference with you but have never doubted your decency, and your departure from this House will leave a large gap. I, for what it is worth, will miss it. Whilst you have been the yin to my yang in so many instances, I believe a place like this should have balance. Terry, you brought that balance. Whomsoever should replace you will have an extraordinarily difficult job and extraordinarily big shoes to fill because of the character and qualities you have brought to the position of member for Blain, a minister of the Crown, and as Chief Minister.
I thank you for your service and I wish you the very best for the future. God bless you, and God bless your wife.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I too pay my respects to the departing member for Blain. Terry, I first met you in the early 1990s through the swimming club, hanging out with your daughter, Kristen. Although she swam for the wrong club, we were all mates; that is the Territory way.
In 1999, I campaigned against you, but you won that battle of the dogs, letterboxing and doorknocking. You went into parliament with somebody I look up to, Paul Henderson. You and Paul carried respect as members of parliament. In politics it is important to remember that attribute, and that is something you have. Fourteen years serving in this parliament is an amazing chunk of your life gone. We have heard from many of your colleagues you have given up something. Your family would have missed special times and it is always a juggling balance. However, you will take with you some amazing memories of being a member of parliament, a Chief Minister, and a minister.
I wish you all the best on your next journey. I thank you, on behalf of the members of my community and the Territory community, for that commitment and for leading the Territory.
Madam Speaker, tonight I also speak on an issue – I have apologised to Terry, but I need to make this speech. Yesterday, the minister for Education accused me of tarnishing the names of public servants with untruths as a way to deflect attention from his bungling of the Education portfolio, and the impact of the CLP’s cuts in education. I completely reject these allegations.
The minister also tabled an e-mail purported to be a response to my invitation to the Planning Commissioner to attend a community meeting I hosted last Monday evening at 5.30 pm, concerning the proposed Nightcliff island development. The minister said the e-mail he tabled was from Commissioner Garry Nairn, dated Monday 10 February at 8.57 am, and was copied to the Northern Territory Planning Commission and my electorate office. I never received such e-mail.
As you know Madam Speaker, I pride myself on running an efficient and effective electorate office serving the people of Rapid Creek, Coconut Grove and Nightcliff. My office staff and I have checked e-mails received. The only e-mail we have received – me and electorate.nightcliff – on this matter from the Planning Commissioner is dated Wednesday 19 February at 8.47 am. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that e-mail.
Leave granted.
Ms FYLES: On Wednesday morning when I received that e-mail, both my office staff and I commented it was two days late. I was very surprised later that afternoon, when the minister made his accusation and tabled an e-mail with the same content as the one I had received on Wednesday morning, to see it had a different date.
I am serious about understanding why there is a discrepancy between the two e-mails: the e-mail tabled by the minister dated Monday 10 February and the one I received on Wednesday 19 February. Minister for Education, perhaps your office may know where this e-mail came from. Does your Chief of Staff, Lawson Broad, know where this e-mail came from?
Madam Speaker, I have lodged a freedom of information request which may help us get to the bottom of this matter. I look forward to seeing what documents are discovered under FOI, and hope they may clarify this situation.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would also like to extend my best wishes to the member for Blain, Terry Mills, to Roz, his wife, and his family. The journey you take in political life and an elected position is one with many challenges and tests. The measure of any person is how they deal with the journey, challenges and the tests that confront them. Whatever you do from now on, member for Blain, Terry Mills, I am sure you will do it well. Your choice to retire is clearly yours, and made at a time right for you and your family.
I wish the very best to you and your family, and know whatever journeys and ventures you undertake from now on will be for the benefit of you, your family, and the people of the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016