2008-10-30
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, over the last couple of months, Alice Springs has come alive with the celebration of art and music. Alice Springs has become a place full of colour and vibrancy and the strength and diversity of the visual and performing arts in the Centre has been demonstrated to thousands of people.
The 12th Annual Beanie Festival kicked off in late June with over 10 000 visitors coming to Beanie Central to see the 5389 beanies sent in from across Australia and the world. More than 3700 of those beanies were sold over the weekend with a small commission retained from each beanie by the festival to hold workshops in textile dyeing, basket weaving and, of course, beanie-making and to prepare for future beanie festivals. Beanies not sold over the weekend or donated to the festival are given to the Cancer Council’s Look Good, Feel Good Program, the Leukaemia Foundation, and the Old People’s Home in Remote Aboriginal Communities - a great initiative. The Beanie Festival has continued to grow since its inception and brings people and beanies from across the globe to Alice Springs.
The Wearable Arts Acquisition Awards followed and was a magnificent display of creativity and imagination. The Wearable Arts Awards are a highlight in the arts calendar of Central Australia; and if you have the opportunity, I highly recommend people attend. The awards were, again, of the highest quality, something we have come to expect from Alice Springs and these events. Importantly, this year was the added highlight of the Youth Awards, an initiative that will guarantee the long term future of Wearable Arts in the Centre.
Wearable Arts is the unofficial start of the Alice Desert Festival, which was again a huge success. With the theme ‘Many Roads, One Voice’, the festival began in mid-September with the ever popular sunset street parade and continued through more than 100 diverse and exciting events, including the bush foods cooking competition and the very popular Asante Sana at Trephina Gorge. The Northern Territory government provides $160 000 for the Alice Desert Festival each year, an investment in Alice Springs that allows residents to celebrate their diverse culture, embrace their great lifestyle, and experience some of the best artistic talent that Australia has to offer.
Hot on the heels of the Desert Festival was the annual Desert Mob Exhibition, described as an explosion of colour, life and energy. The exhibition is an opportunity for Central Australian art centres to display their talents and, if the record sales of $315 000 is the measure, the quality of the art just gets better and better.
A highly anticipated feature of the Desert Mob Exhibition is the Desert Mob Marketplace. It is an opportunity for residents and visitors to Alice to invest in Aboriginal art at a cost of generally no more than $200 per painting - importantly, for the many artists themselves, a great opportunity to benefit financially with income going directly to the artists. Desert Mob is a magnificent national exhibition of contemporary Indigenous art, and emphasises the great talent which exists within the Indigenous art industry in Central Australia.
Wearable Arts, the Alice Desert Festival, and Desert Mob all occurred within the shadow of the largest conference held in Alice Springs - the Regional Arts Australia National Conference ‘Art at the Heart’. With over 900 delegates participating, it gave those involved in the arts industry from across Australia the chance to see art in the Northern Territory firsthand and discuss the issues facing the industry. The Northern Territory government was proud to be a major sponsor of the conference, contributing $160 000 to make the event a huge success. It is estimated the conference injected over $2m into the Alice economy - another glowing example of the benefit of a buoyant and dynamic art industry.
This government is proud to be a major supporter and fund provider of these events, and we are extremely proud of the ongoing support we give to the visual and performing arts in the Territory. We will continue to develop the industry which is a critical part of our regional economies.
Mr MILLS: (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from finding a Want of Confidence in the Speaker for her incapacity to protect this Assembly and its members from an overbearing and arrogant government ….
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr MILLS: I fully expected this morning …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please pause. Leader of Government Business?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the government will accept the Want of Confidence motion for debate.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That this Assembly express a Want of Confidence in the Speaker for her capacity to protect the Assembly and its members from an overbearing and arrogant government.
Madam Speaker, I held back because I fully expected that, this morning, there would be an explanation of the proceedings of this House and the judgments that were exercised in this House last night. It is like a family that comes back together. Something has occurred in this Chamber and no reference whatsoever is made to that which occurred in here last night. Madam Speaker, it bears directly upon the judgments that you make, and the confidence that we have placed in you by seconding your nomination, to fail to bring any reference to the issues of such concern to members of this Chamber.
I have an obligation, and so do all members, to reflect on the seriousness of the position that we hold in this Chamber. It is not a matter of protecting and defending pleasantries and the protocols, desires and needs of a government. It is the principles of democracy that require to be defended. I am deeply concerned - genuinely concerned - at what has occurred in this Chamber in this session and the session prior. I have seen honourable members’ reputations brought low. I have failed to see the efforts taken by the one in the Chair to protect the reputation of honourable members; that being a secondary issue to the primary issue of protecting this parliament from outside assault.
Further, last night, the embarrassment of being a member of this Chamber, and to see the appalling behaviour of the Leader of the Government Business. To allow that to occur, to run across there – run, as though it is some kind of hideous game - and for members of the opposition, on a General Business Day, to be ignored. I find no option but to raise this motion this morning.
I waited for the opportunity for an explanation to reflect on what has been occurring over preceding days. I know it is an important day, Madam Speaker; we have flowers on the table. That dresses us up nicely, doesn’t it? We have everything organised. We have our dinner suits ready for tonight. It is going to look very nice.
I am not interested in things looking really nice, we need to protect and defend that which is, in fact, good. This parliament needs to be defended, and we cannot allow it to be unpresented, unprotected. It would be remiss, as members who have made their pledge here, to allow this to continue, to have members of opposition be required to defend themselves.
There have been issues that have unfolded in this Chamber of recent times that have flowed out, and I am deeply concerned at the trend which is developing. I would like to see things change. What should we do? Remain silent? Write letters? Express concern? Try to intervene one way or another? That has been tried and we need to elevate this issue to a new level.
Madam Speaker, what occurred last night is of great concern. The background to this is to permit a Chief Minister to stand, hand on heart, and say that he is a great reformer of the Territory parliament. I cannot allow that to go, Madam Speaker. I do not know how you could. To describe a couple of little changes to the Territory’s parliament as a great reform of the Territory parliament without consulting any member of the parliament other than government! What opportunity did we have, as honourable members of this parliament, to speak to that which could truly be a reform rather than a public relations exercise?
Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity, surely, to strengthen this institution. We have an opportunity to do that, but that opportunity has been lost …
Mr Henderson: Stop pulling stunts all the time.
Mr MILLS: You can be quiet!
Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to do that and that opportunity has been lost. I call upon you, Madam Speaker, to request the member for Wanguri, on his honour, to allow the members of this parliament to speak to this, so it can truly be a reform.
We have a concern, as demonstrated last night. We carry almost half the Territory community. We are not, as the member for Wanguri likes to say: ‘Look, it is politics and we are just playing games’. I am not playing games, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You check any one of those motions, with your hand on your heart, and check the quality of those motions.
The issue is that the opposition, treated with contempt, Madam Speaker, with your consent, provides for only two opportunities, and that is of great concern. We raised those matters last night, it was the only opportunity we had, and then we had word of reform of the Territory parliament. I beg to differ, it is not a reform at all, and for us to remain silent would be negligent, Madam Speaker.
There was an opportunity, and that opportunity has been lost, and I request a call be made upon the Chief Minister, who rides roughshod over this parliament and is more interested in the media spin than a genuine attention to the institution of this Territory parliament. I call upon you, Madam Speaker, to attend to that critical matter.
I would be very interested to see what government has to say, Madam Speaker, in your defence. There seems to be a fair working together as strategy to extend and advance the interests of government, particularly the way that we have been left exposed by the unsubstantiated allegations that are run through the media. You only have to read them, and you know full well, Madam Speaker, the way these things work. If you are trying to at least manage some kind of operation, if you do not manage it well, you will end up reaping a terrible harvest.
Madam Speaker, to have allegations made from one side to the other, and then to be reported in the media without substantiation but, worst of all, without protection from the Chair, we are all exposed, not just my colleagues. We are all exposed. For those on the other side who think they will be exempt from this, it will visit all of us, not just now, but perhaps in 2030. What institutions we leave exposed and undefended today will compound into the future.
We have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, and you said it was an extraordinary measure that the opposition would second the nomination – in good faith that was done. Restore our faith, Madam Speaker. Restore our faith, so that we can defend the parliament so that there is an opportunity for the voice of the people of the Northern Territory to be expressed in this Chamber. We have members who mounted a defence against motions that were raised in this parliament yesterday bringing into disrepute the committee system - referring to the committees as a place of political self-interest.
That was the strength of the argument; saying things that need to be referred for the consideration of this parliament, an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner. A cynic will see anything in a cynical way and so any offering that is made by the opposition – and you check the substance of those motions, Madam Speaker, and give it a shot to see whether it is fair dinkum. We have members of this House saying that there is no point in going to committees, bringing to a low point any value we have in the committee system - which, I must say, needs to be reassessed in the way that government can say: ‘Let us pass off a reform, we are going to reform the parliament. Let us issue the press release and then we will issue those three point reforms to the Standing Orders Committee and therefore we have instant reform’.
That is not reform - that is dishonesty. That is allowing a member of this Chamber, a minister of the Crown, against whose interests you are to defend us, their rampant interests, Madam Speaker, you have allowed them to run roughshod. You know very well there are ways of dealing with these matters. It started in the first session of the 11th Assembly. You saw it play out. I know you found it personally embarrassing. I found it distressing and any member would have found that distressing, except for those who think that this is some kind of political game and they do not mind that kind of bullying because, in fact, it was a strategy hatched elsewhere. You can see the finger marks all over it, but we cannot allow this to continue.
I move this motion with a genuine restraint in the first instance on one count. I expected in order to bring some kind of order to this Chamber and get us back onto an even keel, there would be a reference to what occurred last night. I have never seen anything like it - to see the member for Karama running across the Chamber, to see other honourable members standing and we are completely ignored because the judgement had been passed, Madam Speaker, with your consent, that the business of the opposition was not worth considering.
If the Chief Minister, a minister of the Crown, is going to stand up before the Territory community and say, with hand on heart, that he is now listening and he is going to speak more from the heart than the head, this minister of the Crown needs to be put in his place. That is your position, Madam Speaker, to protect and defend the people of the Territory from the rampant interests of a government which seems to do or say whatever they want. They are so caught up in spin - I know you can see it - I hope you can see it. There is a requirement, an obligation, and I would not be able to rest if I did not allow this matter to be raised in this way this morning, particularly after last night and previous days.
We talk in this Chamber about matters of great concern - concerns to do with the vulnerable, with the silent people who put their hope in us to advance their interests. The very words we say at the beginning of a parliament - what do they mean? They need to be defended. That principle of what this parliament is about. Why do we say those words at the beginning - to advance the true interests of all Territorians? That needs to be defended, Madam Speaker, and I do not see that defence. What am I to do? I know a principle: if I remain silent I am guilty as well. I am guilty as well - therefore I must speak. I must speak for those who do not have voices out there and expect us to start to get back on a proper keel and deal with the business of this Territory and get it in the right direction.
If we are going to spin and if we are going to allow public relations to dominate this Chamber and the rampant interests of a defensive and shallow government to rule this operation, Madam Speaker, we are all sadly missing the point. We are leaving exposed not ourselves and our great honour, but those who expect more of us. It is those who expect more of us - that is the point of this. We need to cut through. Maybe this is an opportunity to cut through.
I have had enough of the business that has been going on in recent times, and you have seen it begin to develop. You have seen the anger beneath the surface. You have seen the way the community is starting to express its view. It is probably of great delight to the government because they are seeing their little game, their little tactic playing out: members on the other side have been caught up in some kind of snare. And that is the delight of the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Minister who take great delight in the acquisition and the holding of power to exercise some kind of political jolly. It is much more serious than that, and that needs to be brought back to focus.
I am deeply concerned, genuinely concerned, and I held back; I expected this morning; I was shocked to find there was no reference whatsoever. It is a bit like being a part of a family where something horrible happened the night before, and we all get up and say good morning to each other and continue on.
I do not mind that a President of a nearby nation is coming to town. He wants to come and draw sustenance from this shining example of democracy. He wants to be shown an example. Well, if I were to be silent and say: ‘Look, in the interest of it all appearing nice for the visiting dignitary, let us not say anything’, I was not raised in a family like that. I was not raised in a family that is just silent about things. As I have grown and taken responsibility for my own path in life, I am not a citizen, I am not a man, who will be silent on such matters. Why should I be? I have but one life and to be silent on these things and to be elected to this parliament and to be mute in matters like this in the interests of pleasantry, I would find that I have let myself down, let my colleagues down and not only colleagues on this side of the Chamber, whether they know it or not, whether they appreciate it or not, every member of this Chamber, and for the institution of this parliament.
I may not be the best speaker in the world, but I tell you what: I know what I feel at this moment. I know that there is something left exposed and it needs to be protected. It needs to be defended. I have to say I am deeply concerned that if we remain silent, that which we have seen undefended, unprotected, and exposed will be further ravaged, further deteriorate, and it is not the great honour of the member for Blain or any member here. It is the honour of those who are expecting more from us. We hear so much, with hand on heart, of those far from us in remote communities, those in the suburbs who are worried about their lives, their lifestyle and their future. It is their interests we need to protect. We need to protect them. If we do not do that, if I sit in the chair and feel this but not say it, then I have not fulfilled my duty.
Madam Speaker, with recognition of the personal cost this must be to you notwithstanding, I put that aside for now because we are talking about principle, the offices we hold, the positions and responsibilities we carry. I am required to draw attention to a great concern: of a want of confidence in your protecting this parliament, in protecting the institution of the parliament, in the members of this Chamber, and for failing to attend to matters of last night and allowing that to rise.
For members to stand here last night with this hideous outplaying of some kind of strategy and some shallow gain with the cheering - you would have heard the cheering as the members of government won their little game as they went in to the lobby and thought: ‘Is not that great fun?’ Well, I cannot allow that to go.
Madam Speaker, I ask you to take note of that which I have raised before you. I ask honourable members to consider what I have said. Let us just cut this through and recognise what this is actually about. Some of you might have some great difficulty; you are already cocked and ready to be loaded to weigh into it - those who are so deaf that they refuse to hear, I greatly fear.
Madam Speaker, I no longer have confidence.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I expected something to happen this morning, but I was not sure what would happen. I left here last night partly relieved, partly disappointed, and very empty. I came to parliament this morning thinking: ‘Why am I coming to parliament?’
I should say at the outset, so people are clear as to where I stand on this issue - sometimes people say I sit on the fence or do this or that. I do not support the motion, but not because I do not believe a lot of what the Opposition Leader was saying.
The government runs the show really, and it has the power to bring in reform, which the Chief Minister is talking about. If we really want reform, if there really is going to be reform, then what happened last night should never happen again.
If we, as adults in this place, think that the behaviour last night was not becoming of us as parliamentarians, then we should, as we would expect nations who are at loggerheads with one another, and communities at loggerheads with one another, sit down and talk in a peaceful manner and sort it out.
I imagine many of the issues last night related to a fairly large Notice Paper with many items from the opposition and me, and the government’s belief that that was going on too long and, therefore, as they have control, they will make the decisions. Madam Speaker, you end up being the person who decides but, when it comes to the crunch, the government has the power. They are the ones who run this; they have the numbers; and they will decide what happens.
The point is: did it have to get to this stage? I know there is argy-bargy and there is politics here. I have known it since the day this new sittings of parliament started. Obviously, the opposition is trying to show it is an effective opposition. Obviously, the government is also trying to show ‘We are the government, we have the numbers’. I can live with that sort of politics.
However, we only have one General Business Day every 12 sitting days, and there are important issues raised then. I personally think some of those issues raised were raised too close to the actual day. They were very in-depth issues and sometimes there may be some changes required so that members of parliament have a little more time to research those matters.
When it comes to how the day is run, surely, as mature people, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can sit down and say: ‘We have all of these matters that need to be discussed, why can we not work something through?’ I could see this happening the whole day; something was going to come to a big crunch somewhere along the line - and it did, at 1 am.
Here we are today with me feeling if my constituents had seen what happened last night, they would wonder whether …
Ms Purick: What is the point?
Mr WOOD: Yes. It has highlighted the fact that the government has the power. While I might not support the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward, if this motion said: ‘I condemn the government over this’, I would support it. I say that because we have a motion coming up later which the Leader of the Opposition spoke about in his comments, and I spoke about the other day in parliament when the minister made his announcement that he was going to bring in reform. If the government was serious about reform, it would include us all. It might even include the community, and the staff of the Legislative Assembly who are also affected.
The government has the power, and it shows it has the power by saying that we will only have three items in this reform motion. There is not a fourth item ‘and any matters which might be taken into consideration by members of this House’.
The government has to lead the way if it believes the behaviour of this House is inappropriate. The opposition has a fair point in saying we only have one General Business Day. I was expecting us to go until 3 am. It might have even gone longer than that; I could have lived with that. However, if the government thought that was too long, why did they not sit down with the Leader of the Opposition and ask: ‘Can we have some negotiations on this? Is not that what …
Mr Henderson: We tried.
Mr Mills: Oh, come on.
Mr WOOD: Well, I don’t know …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I could nearly rest my case after that. I believe we have to work harder to show the community how we solve problems when we do have differences of opinion. You do not have to solve all problems by shouting abuse at one another.
I was concerned last night when the issue of a letter from the mother of a member of parliament was raised. That was not good. That is like saying someone’s sins are passed from the father to the son, and I think it was inappropriate. If we are serious about reforms, some of the issues which have been raised, some of the concerns we have about personal abuse, some of the concerns we have about how this how parliament is operating, need to be part of this motion which is coming up later.
If we are serious about reform, if we are seriously taking up the issues the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about, and if we are serious as members of this parliament thinking we should be able to do better for our constituents in the Territory, then it is beholden on the leaders in this House to work towards that. That might mean people have to eat a bit of humble pie sometimes. However, if people get up here and say this is what they believe, and then 24 hours later we are all doing the opposite, you have to wonder how genuine it is.
Madam Speaker, I will not support the motion, not because I do not share the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns, I do. As I said, when I turned up this morning, I could not care two hoots. I felt empty. I sat down with a few bits of paper and thought: ‘What am I doing here? I have a couple of bills to listen to and, I think, a very weak motion on here’.
A solution might have been - I do not know how many items we had to go - perhaps we could have asked: ‘Can we continue that today and finish it off?’ Or, I do not have a problem with sitting on Friday morning if we wanted to finish it off. I am not saying that was the solution, but we could have found a solution by working through it; it would have saved all this angst we had last night.
The government has the power to do that if it wants to. I know you are the conduit for some of that, Madam Speaker, and you are in a difficult position, but the government has the power to do that. If it shows it really believes in reform, it should lead the way in reform. The only way it can prove that it does lead the way is to ensure that what happened last night does not happen again.
Madam Speaker, I am not sitting on the fence. My feeling is that the criticism needs to go back to the government. I am not saying that that excuses the opposition entirely. There are insults going back and forwards here. I know people here who hate all that. They hear insults going one way and the other and you have to wonder. You come here to debate issues, and there were some genuine debates last night. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, and sometimes you do wonder, why? I was very happy that the government passed one of my motions, and I do not know how long ago that last occurred - a long time. There were some motions which were not political and it would not have done any harm if the government had taken them on. It would have shown that we believe in reform and that we are inclusive of all people in this House.
Madam Speaker, I repeat: I will not support the motion. I support the feelings the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I ask the government to seriously sit down, as part of its reform process, to see if we can reduce this type of behaviour. It does us no good, and it does not show good example to the community. It is no good saying to people out there that we will send you to gaol for violent behaviour. We might not get the violent behaviour but we certainly get forms of verbal violence here, which is not the sort of behaviour you would expect other people to carry on in their businesses. We need to take stock of where we are going.
I believe it is a good point the Leader of the Opposition has raised. I am no holier than thou person, Madam Speaker. I interject occasionally and get a bit cranky at the way things are done. In the end, I believe we can express our concerns in a decent manner. We can be passionate. We do not need to get abusive. We need to show Territorians we are mature politicians and this is the way we should operate so it is reflected to the rest of society.
Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on this. It is not because I am sitting on the fence, but I believe that the blame should be laid elsewhere.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and what we have seen is another stunt. If the Leader of the Opposition was serious, if he was genuinely concerned, surely he would have picked up the phone and called you, Madam Speaker. He would have walked around to your office, as has been the practice in the past when he has had concerns about this House, and expressed his concerns. Has there been one approach between last night and this morning to you, Madam Speaker, before he brought his Want of Confidence motion? The answer to that is: no.
Anyone with genuine concern would have walked around and raised the concern. Look at any grievance or any resolution processes, in any workplace and there is always a process - if you have a grievance you go and raise it directly with the person you have the grievance with, in the first instance.
There are basic grievance resolution processes which the Leader of the Opposition did not even give you the courtesy of doing, Madam Speaker, before he brought his cowardly little motion into this Chamber this morning. Why is it cowardly? If he was sincere it would be brought against me, as Leader of Government Business, because it was me who closed down the House, Madam Speaker - not you. I used the standing orders. I put the adjournment motion; I put the motion to put the question. Madam Speaker, you simply did your role as Speaker - you followed the standing orders that I was moving.
If you were genuinely outraged - if this was not another stunt - you would be pulling this want of confidence on me, as the Leader of Government Business. The member for Nelson rightly pointed out, it is the government that determines what the government does in this House and as Leader of Government Business, I carry the responsibility; I am remunerated for carrying that out. Not the Speaker. Cowardly.
Madam Speaker, why should we be surprised? We have seen stunt after stunt - it is all they are doing. They are treating this as a mockery. They want to descend into farce. They treat our parliament with contempt, and therefore Territorians, because Territorians want to hear us debate the critical issues confronting them.
The members of the CLP are the most breathtakingly arrogant group of politicians to enter the floor of this parliament - breathtakingly arrogant. They sit there and we hear snipe after snipe after snipe: ‘We will be in government, we are nearly there, we will be in government soon’. Snipe after snipe after snipe - genuinely arrogant. They have done everything they can to be disorderly in this House, Madam Speaker, to test your patience to the extreme. It has been a place of theatre. The opposition has been more intent on the theatrics than the actual issues. They are treating it as a game and that is absolutely contemptible.
They believe that what happens in here is grist to the mill of their own self-importance. We see posturing after posturing, coming from members opposite, who are beating their chests and trying to out do each other because they want to take over the leadership.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who has no control over his opposition members. You can see it playing out in this Chamber every day.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You can see the rabble and, Madam Speaker, you go out of your way to ensure we are as orderly as this Chamber can be despite their best attempts to treat this Chamber with contempt and to, therefore, treat the Territory with contempt.
We are not here to pander to the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: We are not here to pander to the egos of people who believe they are better than everyone else because they have the letters MLA after their name.
Mr Mills: Is it the honourable speaking, is it? I know your story.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: Talk about the car park.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I look forward to hearing you tell it.
Mr Mills: And everyone else knows it.
Ms Carney: As soon as you became a minister you said: ‘I want the minister’s car park’.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, they reach new lows and new depths with this motion. You have never ignored unbecoming or disorderly comments in this House. The allegations that have been thrown in this House about drinking, I know …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order
Ms LAWRIE: … that when I made the allegation about the member for Araluen because her behaviour was extreme and erratic again …
Ms Carney: Read the Hansard. You are a liar.
Ms LAWRIE: … again …
Ms Carney: You are a liar. You are a dishonourable liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: And there she goes just proving the point.
Madam Speaker, you sought my withdrawal immediately, as you should as Speaker and as you did. When it was drawn to your attention that another member had made a drinking allegation about another member, you sought the withdrawal. You went out of your way to ensure that it was expunged from the record.
Ms Carney: And then you spun it and pitched it to the media. You grub.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: You grub.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the member for Araluen …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Here we go again. The florid language of the member for Araluen: she has called the Leader of Government Business …
Ms Carney: It cuts both ways, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … a grub which you have ruled repeatedly in this place is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I would ask you to withdraw under Standing Order 62(1).
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw grub, Madam Speaker, if she finds it clearly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, when those allegations, one of which you witnessed and ensured was withdrawn, and one of which you were advised about and ensured was withdrawn, you did your job with fairness and impartiality. The opposition likes to think that it was the government that went to the media and said, ‘Look at those allegations …’
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: … misled this parliament.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have not misled this parliament and I am not misleading this parliament.
Ms Carney: I said ‘don’t’.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: I say to the members, look to your own member for Port Darwin because it is he who has pursued with vigour this issue of the drinking allegations. It is he who has done that. It is he. It is not this government. It is he. Then look to your own further, because what do we get in debate last night from the member for Goyder? Have a look at the Hansard, Leader of the Opposition. Have a look at the allegations that the member for Goyder threw last night.
Look to your own and your own behaviour. Look to the behaviour of your own members. The Speaker has gone out of her way to try to bring order back to this House because the opposition has been nothing but a rabble. Why? Because they cannot accept in their arrogance that they are opposition and not government.
A member: You cannot accept that you will not answer the questions.
Ms LAWRIE: And they cannot even accept that ministers can answer questions how ministers choose to answer questions - a convention that has gone on in this Chamber forever. We have members here who would believe the folly and the fancy of the member for Port Darwin because they have not witnessed Question Time in this parliament before. They just believe what he says. They have not gone to check or ask. Talk to any of the Assembly staff. Ask the Assembly staff about how many times the former Speaker, Nick Dondas, shut this House down at night. Ask the Assembly staff before you believe the flights of fancy of the member for Port Darwin. Do your own research. Check around. Get a bit of balance and perspective.
Everyday in this place, we discuss matters which affect the lives of Territorians, and we do so with a impartiality shown by you, as Speaker. We introduce and pass legislation that affects all members of our community, and we do so with the impartiality of you, as Speaker. Madam Speaker, you go out of your way to give us due warning - every single one of us - about what is acceptable and what is not. You went to the extent, Madam Speaker, of writing to every member of this parliament …
Mr Mills: Oh, yes, and that was leaked to the media.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Oh yes, and that was leaked to media’. There are 25 members.
Leader of the Opposition, if the Speaker has to write to members because of disorderly behaviour and point out how to behave, it is certainly not any reflection on the Speaker if the media talk about it.
The government recognises that the member for Nelson does not participate in the theatrics and the game playing that the opposition does. Like government, he takes his role seriously; he wants to get on with debating real issues. Regarding his suggestion that, with the ridiculous amount of - and ridiculous is my word, not his - items on the GBD Notice Paper yesterday, seven of which were piled on at the last minute, and creating the stunt that we cannot get through our business …
A member: It is not our fault you do not want to work.
Ms LAWRIE: Listen to the juvenile interjection: ‘Not our fault you do not want to work’. Unbelievable, Madam Speaker.
Piling seven items on the day before and, as the member for Nelson quite rightly pointed out, how do you have time to properly research and give full consideration to that? When the Whip did the job that the Whip is paid to do, and contacted the Opposition Whip to talk about how that load would be managed, how they intended to run through that, what did she do? Did she have the discourse that needs to happen between Whips? No ...
Ms Carney: Has he been telling whoppers, has he?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Araluen to withdraw the allegation.
Mr Mills: What allegation?
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the comment about ‘whoppers’.
Ms CARNEY: No allegation, Madam Speaker. I said: ‘Has he been telling a whopper?’ I did not say assert that he had been.
Madam SPEAKER: If you have said that, I will allow it.
Ms LAWRIE: What does she do? She hangs up. Madam Speaker, I have been a Whip in the past, and I know that it does not matter how it is difficult, how tense, and how hostile things get between government and the opposition, Whips have to do their job and communicate. They have to discuss, as best they can, the running of the business, the items brought before the House on the Notice Paper.
What do we get from the Opposition Whip, who is the laziest Whip I have come across? What do we get? She never knows how many speakers they are going to have on any given item. Basics for a Whip: Whips always know how many speakers they have …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They might say one or two might jump, but she never knows …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: So, yes, the government went, with every intent, to negotiate how the day would be run so we could accommodate the 20 items. No, the Opposition Whip hung up on our Whip. In what other workplace would there be such despicable behaviour, you would have to ask yourself, Madam Speaker?
In genuine desire by the government to get through their ridiculous number of items, we set aside the standing orders to work through dinner break. If we wanted to ‘gag’ you, as you like to allege at every drop of the hat, we would have said: ‘No’. It was genuine, and treated with the normal contempt they treat everything in this Chamber, absolute contempt.
How do we know this has all been a stunt? Last Tuesday, the member for Port Darwin said: ‘We will keep you here until 4 am’, in reference to the GBD.
Mr Elferink: Yes, if we needed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, pre-designed stunts, just another stunt. After all the stunts we have seen from the opposition who have no intent to debate the real issues that affect Territorians but want to pull one stunt after the other.
We have seen 48 points of order during Question Time, since last Tuesday - 48 points of order. More stunts. They have moved five Censure or Want of Confidence motions. Stunts. We know they are using MPIs as stunts. They used to be seldom used unless they were real matters of public importance …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You roll one out every day. It is a stunt. They have attempted to refer a member of this House to the Privileges Committee, one of the most serious motions of this House. They disrupted their own Question Time with a dissent motion. You just wonder how many more stunts the opposition want to keep running until they actually understand what we are in here to do. We are in here to debate the real issues which affect the lives of Territorians. We are in here to deal with legislation.
Mr Mills: People do not believe you any more. I do not.
Ms LAWRIE: And I really do not care if the Leader of the Opposition believes me or not, quite frankly. I am elected by the constituents of Karama to do a job. I have the trust and confidence of my colleagues to do the job of Leader of Government Business in here. I know that irks, Leader of the Opposition, but I will come in and I will do my job, whether you believes me or not.
The issue is: let us get down to debating the issues that affect the lives of Territorians, let us deal with legislation. We have introduced the whistleblower’s legislation; we have introduced a code of conduct; we have introduced a register of members’ interests; we have debated a statement on the Ichthys project, and all the while the opposition just moves one stunt after the next. Have a look at yourselves. Look at how the media have responded to your behaviour, and what is the response?
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Attack the media. You want to bring the media before the Privileges Committee, you want to attack the media. Do not blame others. Look to yourselves, at your own behaviour. They want to attack everyone else; everyone else is bad. Let us attack the Speaker instead of the Leader of Government Business - that is cowardly – let us attack the media. They come in here, use the privilege of parliament to have a go at the reporters in the media, just simply reporting, doing their job.
The difference between the opposition and the government is that the government is fair dinkum about actually dealing with the issues that affect the lives of Territorians, not the theatre and theatrics the opposition want this Chamber to become. That is the key difference.
Madam Speaker, you do your job fairly and impartially. I do not just say that because you share the ideals of the same political party that I do, that you are a Labor member of parliament. I say that because, as I have said in this House before, and I will say it as often as I need to, I know, indeed …
A member: Look at her when you talk to her.
Ms LAWRIE: You are sometimes fools over there, aren’t you?
Unlike many others, I have witnessed the actions of many Speakers of this House. I can walk along the gallery that visitors to parliament see, and I am aware of how each of them treated this House and how they treated the opposition and the government. I can say, sincerely, Madam Speaker, you have been the fairest, you have been the most impartial and it is foolish for them to come in here today and attack you. By all means come in and attack the Leader of Government Business, because it was me.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I refer you to Standing Orders 78: Closure of Debate. There is no debate on the question be put. The question is that the question be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, following the invitation of the Leader of Government Business, I move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to censure the Leader of Government Business and the government for failing to respect the institutions of parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I listened …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the government will not be taking the censure. We have been through this debate. Let us just get on with the business of the House.
Mr Elferink: You have just said to do this. You have invited us to do this
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The government does not agree to the suspension of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
Members interjecting.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have a question for you.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, you cannot speak from there. You are not at your desk.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I call on Government Business.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I have a question for you.
Madam SPEAKER: You are not at your desk.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is being disorderly and he is not at his desk.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. A member may speak from the Dispatch Box at any time.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. Member for Fong Lim, I would like you to return to your seat, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I have a question for you. I seek your permission to …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under which standing order is the member for Fong Lim asking you a question?
Mr TOLLNER: I am asking a question of the Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr TOLLNER: No, Madam Speaker, it is not. I am asking you a question.
Ms LAWRIE: Then there is no point of order, Madam Speaker. He is not asking a point of order. He cannot just stand up in the Assembly and randomly ask you a question. We follow the rules of the Chamber.
Mr Tollner: You are opposed to me asking a question of the Speaker – is that what you are saying?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, I have asked you …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, if you wish to speak, you need to seek leave of the House. That is the rules.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I seek leave of the House to ask you a question.
Leave denied.
Mr Tollner: To ask a question?
Madam SPEAKER: The House has decided …
Mr Tollner: You people are really pathetic.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to consolidate the livestock legislation into a single bill enabling the reduction from five acts to one. There will be a consequential reduction from six regulations to one. The legislation will be halved. There will be improved consistency and simplicity for the public, livestock industries and regulatory staff.
The legislation is in place to support product integrity in the livestock industries for the benefit of consumers, and to facilitate disease surveillance and disease control. There are minimal restrictions related to endemic diseases, with any restrictions being nationally consistent.
There are extensive powers to respond to an emergency animal disease such as foot and mouth disease or avian influenza. A rapid effective response will minimise the cost of a response and the consequence of the disease outbreak on the livestock industry and the economy. Actions can be undertaken to control the disease and to prevent the spread of the disease.
The traditional methods of determining the ownership of cattle, buffalo and horses by brands and ear marks will be maintained. Property Identifier Codes, PICs, which have been in operation for cattle since the 1970s, will be extended for all livestock to provide a unique identifier for properties with livestock. The National Livestock Identification System for cattle and buffalo will be maintained.
Australia is a world leader in the traceability of livestock to enable a rapid tracing mechanism in the event of a disease or a chemical residue event. Consumer and market confidence is thus ensured. In order to protect the high health status of the Northern Territory livestock, health certificates for the importation of livestock will be maintained. An acceptable level of protection is provided while not impeding trade in livestock. Any restrictions are nationally consistent.
Powers are in place for the investigation and control of disease in livestock. The historical eradication of bovine pleuropneumonia by 1973, bovine brucellosis by 1989, and bovine tuberculosis by 1997 are examples of successful disease control programs within the Northern Territory, with major market access and production benefits. There is mandatory reporting of specified animal diseases based on the national notifiable diseases of terrestrial animals by veterinarians and owners. Laboratories are approved consistent with national standards to ensure quality testing results.
Compensation is provided for livestock and things that are destroyed for disease control purposes. Compensation is generally determined by a panel of three experienced valuers. There is an appeal process for the owner or the Chief Executive in the event of a disagreement.
Authorised officers under the legislation are the minister, Chief Executive, Chief Inspector, and Inspector. Each have distinct roles under the legislation. The Chief Inspector is appointed by the Chief Executive. Inspectors are appointed by the Chief Inspector following the necessary training.
While stock routes have not been used extensively for droving cattle since the 1960s, powers are retained to control the slow rate of travel, or to close stock routes in order to protect the stock routes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce new plant health legislation for the Northern Territory. It will replace the existing Plant Diseases Control Act 1979.
The value of field and fodder crops, hay, silage, pasture seeds, forestry and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory was estimated at $164m in 2006. In that year, this provided full-time employment for 612 people and 3526 part-time. Plants also contribute to the livestock industries by providing native and improved pastures, and, of course, native flora is in integral part of the Territory’s natural environment, contributing to biodiversity, recreation and tourism.
Incursions of exotic pests and diseases have impacts on plant-based industries in the Northern Territory, reducing yields, affecting the quality of products and interrupting trade. Horticultural crops, as well as grain, fodder, pastures, forestry and native plants can all be affected.
Effective legislation is an integral part of preventing the spread of pests and diseases by complementing surveillance and control activities, and by facilitating trade in healthy plants and their products. In recognition of this, all states, territories and the Commonwealth have enacted legislation related to plant health. In fact, the Northern Territory has had ordinances and acts relating to plant health going back to 1918.
Plant health legislation provides a basis upon which responsibilities for the management of pests and diseases can be delegated and legally enforced if necessary.
The need for a new act has become evident in recent years. Honourable members may recall publicity about outbreaks of the Philippines Fruit Fly, Panama Disease in bananas, Grapevine Leaf Rust and Spiralling White Fly in the Northern Territory in the past 10 years. These outbreaks disrupted local production, or required the implementation of quarantine measures to prevent spread to other parts of the Territory or Australia. During their management, deficiencies in the effectiveness of the current legislation became evident in terms of the efficiency of surveys and control activities. In addition, a Northern Territory Quarantine Review in 1999 recommended that the Plant Diseases Control Act be reviewed to bring it up-to-date.
Many plant pests and diseases that occur overseas or interstate pose major biosecurity threats to the Northern Territory. To mention just two, Black Sigatoka in bananas and the Red-banded Mango Caterpillar could enter the Territory from overseas or Queensland, affecting horticultural production, causing economic losses and requiring considerable expenditure for control.
Their management will require well planned programs, coupled with an effective legislative base to prevent spread and control infestations. As well as complementing on-ground plant management practices, plant health legislation can assist in facilitating trade in healthy plants by providing a legal basis for market accreditation. The Northern Territory is party to a memorandum of understanding on Interstate Certification Assurance which is a national system of plant health certification accepted by all states and territories.
The assurance scheme assists in pest management by reducing the risk of spread between jurisdictions. This is achieved through certification of products or plants by the producer that they meet certain pest management requirements. The NT Quarantine Review recommended that administration of the assurance scheme needed legislative backing, as required by the memorandum of understanding.
In developing this bill, my department considered deficiencies in the existing legislation, examined similar legislation elsewhere in Australia, studied documents relating to Australian plant pest response agreements, and undertook two public consultations.
The second consultation in 2006 included circulation of a discussion draft of the proposed act. It was mailed to 90 stakeholders inviting comments. It was the subject of extensive advertising in the Territory media and was made available on the Internet. Meetings were held at Humpty Doo, Katherine, Alice Springs, and Ti Tree.
I shall now summarise the main features of the bill. The objective is to ensure that appropriate actions may be taken to control plant pests and diseases, and to promote the production and trading of healthy plants and plant products. In line with modern practice, the word ‘pest’ is used throughout the legislation to refer to disease as well as to the common understanding of insect pests. Soil is a common vector of pests and is not mentioned in the present act. A definition has therefore been included for ‘plant-related material’ which covers soil, other growth media and packaging.
Operational aspects of the legislation fall into two parts: control of pests and certification of plant health. Provisions in the legislation place obligations on owners of plants or plant-related material, or may restrict the movement of plants. These provisions are necessary to protect the Territory’s agricultural industries and the environment from pests.
Under the section on control of pests, owners of plants and plant-related materials must take reasonable measures to prevent infestation of plants by declared pests and prevent the spread of pests. There is a requirement for reporting a notifiable pest within 24 hours. Other provisions to reduce spread of pests are that a person must not grow, sell or transport a plant or plant-related material that is affected by a declared pest. In addition, regulations may be made to restrict the introduction, export, transportation or possession of plants or materials in order to control a pest.
It is known that the presence of neglected or even healthy host plants for a pest may cause difficulties in pest management programs. The presence of such plants may result in the build up of a pest in an area and result in spread to unaffected crops. There is provision in the bill to require an owner to treat or dispose of plants if it is necessary to do so for control of a declared pest.
In controlling pests it may be necessary to quarantine an area to reduce its spread. This can be established by declaring a quarantine place to carry out inspections, for treatment or for disposal. Movements of persons, plants or any other things into or out of a quarantine place may be restricted and cultivation of plants may be regulated.
It is interesting to note that provision has been made for consideration of the management system being employed when a requirement is imposed under the act. For example, persons may be engaged in organic farming. If an inspector imposes a treatment regime for control of a pest, the inspector may take this into account. The inspector may also take account of the person’s preference as to how the treatment will be carried out.
I must emphasise that the successful management of plant pests requires a long-term cooperative effort between neighbouring properties, within and between districts, and across regions throughout the Territory. Community collaboration is encouraged in the legislation by providing for the development and implementation of plant health management plans. The bill explains that a plant health management plan is to ensure that long-term plans for control of pests are developed and implemented with community support and involvement. A plan specifies the plant and product, the location where it applies, the time over which it is in force and the obligations of persons under the plan. A notice of a draft plan must be published in a newspaper so that comments can be sought by stakeholders before it is formally made.
The section in the legislation on ‘certification’ allows for an inspector to give a certificate relating to the health of plants or produce. Importantly, this section also encourages producers to adopt measures that will allow them to promote healthy products. A property may be declared as an accredited production place that it is free of certain pests for plants or products produced there. This can be an advantage for marketing plants or produce. In addition, the legislation provides for persons to be accredited to issue plant health assurance certificates for their own produce, thus providing an alternative to certification by government inspectors. This has a benefit of improving market access for plants and products, especially to other jurisdictions which also have pest management restrictions through similar legislation.
Regarding administration of the legislation, the bill provides for the minister to appoint a public sector employee with appropriate qualifications as the Chief Inspector of Plant Health. In turn, the Chief Inspector can appoint any person to be an inspector if satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications or experience. This means that persons who are not in the public sector, but who are qualified, could be appointed as inspectors. The bill details the powers and obligations of inspectors including giving notice about entry to properties for control or monitoring purposes.
A benefit of the legislation is that it provides for persons to be reimbursed for damage or costs incurred by operation of the act. The Commonwealth, each state, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and various industry bodies are signatories to a ‘Government and Plant Industry Cost Sharing Deed in respect of Emergency Plant Pest Responses’. This establishes a mechanism to facilitate the management of emergency plant pests in Australia. The deed allows for the sharing of costs arising from the implementation of a response plan and a means for owner reimbursement costs. The bill accounts for this under its reimbursement provision.
The overall benefit to the Territory community of this new plant health legislation is through linkages of healthy plants and products to improved financial returns for producers and better quality plant products for consumers. Its implementation will result in enhanced management of plant pests in the Territory, this, in turn, benefiting the plant industries, the natural environment and the economy.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move – That, the Assembly refer the following matters to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and report to the Assembly during the November sitting of the Parliament:
1. that the Assembly sit three extra days each year;
3. that video and audio streaming of Parliamentary proceedings be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast.
On Tuesday, the Chief Minister announced plans to improve the accountability and transparency of this parliament. The plans include: four year fixed terms, three extra sitting days, video and audio streaming of parliament, and parliament starting at 9 am and finishing no later than 10 pm.
These changes will make the parliament more productive, accessible to the public, improve the quality of debate - we can but hope - and hopefully encourage more people to enter politics. The Leader of the Opposition put out a media release which whinged and whined as usual, but did not actually oppose any of these plans.
Quite appropriately, the government is referring these plans to the Standing Orders Committee to for inquiry and to report to the Assembly in the November sitting.
The extra sitting days every year will give the government more opportunities to implement policies. It would also provide the opposition and Independent member with more opportunities to scrutinise the work government is doing.
There will also be video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings. The Legislative Assembly will investigate what technology is needed to provide a quality service as quickly as possible, I am advised. This will provide the public and media with the best access to the NT parliament since self-government.
Set finishing times for parliament is not unusual. The Commonwealth parliament has set finishing times. Sitting into the early hours of the morning is both irresponsible and highly unproductive. The new proposed hours will make parliament more efficient and productive, and help to make a career in politics more attractive.
This motion proposes to refer the following issues to the Standing Orders Committee – that the Assembly sit three extra days each year; that the Assembly commence at 9 am, and adjourns no later than 10 pm; and that video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about this motion for the following reasons. First, government talks about openness and accountability, but does everything in its power to hinder openness and accountability. The shenanigans we have just seen from the government a minute ago were all about hindering debate, stopping debate, gagging debate. The Leader of Government Business is constantly standing up and gagging debate. The last thing this government wants is openness and accountability. That is shown very clearly by their actions.
The Leader of Government Business says set times for the parliament to close happens in federal parliaments. I can assure the Leader of Government Business that is not the case. There is an expectation that parliament will sit to a particular time but, more often than not, that parliament is very flexible with the hours they sit. I distinctly recall one sitting period when I was there where the parliament sat for 37 hours straight. The reason for that was the House of Representatives was waiting for legislation to be returned from the Senate, which it desperately wanted to pass before the winter break. Consequently, it meant parliament had to sit for a period of time longer than normally expected. However, to suggest it was legislated or regulated to finish at a particular time is complete and absolute nonsense.
We understand members have lives outside of the parliament but, as elected members of the parliament, we have an obligation, first, to the people of the Northern Territory. We have an obligation to debate those issues which they wish to see debated, and that their representatives in this place wish to see debated. We have seen, time and time again, that this government is not keen to debate issues; they constantly gag debate; they shut down debate.
They do not allow questioning of, you, for instance, Madam Speaker. It was not more than half an hour ago that I asked leave of the House to ask you a question - a simple question. It is not a difficult thing. The question - and I will note it now – is that I simply wanted, as a member of this place, access to the video footage of last night from the five cameras here. The government’s own motion talks about video and audio streaming and how they want that to occur. For the life of me, I cannot see a reason - given the fact the government says it supports openness and accountability - why anyone would find it distasteful for me to access the video footage from last night …
A member: And get the video from last week as well. That would be good.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, I would not mind access to the video from last week, or at any time, of debates in this parliament. As a member of this parliament, it should be a fundamental right that members of this parliament should be able to access video and audio footage of events which occur in this parliament.
I understand it is probably not television quality video footage we have here and, at times, it is very grainy and of poor quality. However, for my own personal needs, I would like to be able to access that footage.
Madam Speaker, I give you notice that I will be asking, in writing - as I cannot ask a question in this place; a harmless question like that. I will be writing to you to see if I can access video footage of events that occurred in this place.
This motion the government has put up is absolutely nothing but window dressing. We have seen time and time again from the government where they put motions in place that never actually go anywhere.
Before I was so rudely cut off in debate last night by the Leader of Government Business, I was going to raise the motion that I put to the House about a regulatory review advisory committee. This is not the first time that this has been raised in the House. In fact, it was raised in October last year during a debate where the member for Araluen raised a very similar motion. During the debate on that motion 12 months ago, the then minister who had carriage of that, Syd Stirling, amended the motion of the member for Araluen. Part of his amendment was that he requested that a reference be provided to the Public Accounts Committee to examine and report to the Assembly on business concerns about any unnecessary regulatory burdens while ensuring the cost of establishing a large, specialised sub-committee is not incurred by Territory taxpayers. That is what the government minister of the time altered the motion to read.
Now, 12 months down the track, I ask the question: was this put to the Public Accounts Committee? Has the Public Accounts Committee made any sort of reference to that motion? The answer, of course, is no. The Public Accounts Committee has not done anything at all about the regulatory burden on business - nothing. That is a motion which was put more than 12 months ago, to this parliament by the government.
Here we are now, expected to believe that this motion they are going to send to the Standing Orders Committee is going to be jumped on, debated quickly, worked out, and come back to the Assembly for some sort of debate.
I find it hard to take this government on their word. I find it incredibly hard to take this government on their word. They do not want openness, they do not want accountability. They talk about sitting an extra three days a year. We could sit an extra 50 days a year if it was in the government’s best interest. If that is what the government wanted, there would be no problems at all in convening parliament and having issues debated, but they put up some nonsense that we are going to sit for an extra three days a year. Well, give us an extra 30 days a year so that we can belt out all the issues, we can actually have a proper informed debate.
Every motion last night was shut off. We had 20 motions on the Notice Paper, we got eight of them dealt with, may be it was seven.
Ms Lawrie: Ten. And they were not shut off.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This government is afraid of work. The Leader of Government Business says the reason we have to stop at 10 o’clock is to encourage more people into politics. What a ridiculous statement! The reason people get involved in politics and the parliamentary process is that they want to make a difference. I would very much doubt there is a single member in this place who is not here because they want to make a difference. Parliamentarians will make extraordinary sacrifices in order to try to make that difference.
Goodness me, why could we not start parliament at 8 o’clock? Why cannot we work through the lunch break? You talked about the fact that you allowed us to work through a half an hour dinner break last night as some magnanimous gesture on behalf of government. Some magnanimous gesture! Oh, well, the opposition wanted to work an extra three quarters of an hour – and we let them! Come on.
The Leader of Government Business is a scandal, an absolute scandal. The way she railroads this parliament, the way she dictates and gets away with it in this parliament. We acknowledge we are in opposition, we acknowledge you are in government. I would hate to be the one Independent member in this place; it would very difficult to get up on any issue.
We understand the government has control, they have the numbers. They can get their way with practically anything. However, it is complete abrogation to constantly shut down debate, constantly oppose people for the most innocent things, like asking the Speaker a question. What could possibly be so offensive to the government that a member of this place cannot ask the Speaker a question?
Dr Burns: Read the standing orders, you goose.
Mr TOLLNER: What is so offensive about asking the Speaker a question?
Dr Burns: You should learn the rules.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The minister says learn the rules. I will point out to you, minister, that I asked leave to ask the Speaker a question. Who did not grant that leave, minister? The government did not grant that leave. The government did not allow a member to ask the Speaker a question. An innocent question!
Ms Carney: Timing was of great importance to you blokes last night, wasn’t it? And yet you are so hypocritical you seek an extension of time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This motion is a complete and utter joke. Of course we are all keen to see video streaming and audio streaming coming out of the parliament. The opposition has been pressing for this for goodness knows how long. I find it absolutely ridiculous that here we are in 2008 and there is no live feed going to media. I cannot understand how, after 30-odd years of self-government, we cannot get video footage out to major media outlets. That is not just a shame on this government. It is a shame on all previous governments. It is a shame on everyone who has been in this place because it should be an automatic thing.
It embarrasses the daylights out of me every time Question Time finishes, or a motion is put during Question Time, that the cameras are asked to pack up and leave – like we have something to hide! Like we should be embarrassed about the fact the cameras are here and we want to have a debate. I find that incredibly alarming! I cannot understand how a person who sits in the Speaker’s chair, or the government, or the opposition can allow that to happen every single Question Time – where the media are told to pack up and leave!
We are talking about openness and accountability. What a joke! Members on this side of the House have coined the Leader of Government Business as ‘Gag Girl’, for very good reason: she is the girl who constantly moves the gag motions. She stands up and moves the motions to gag the parliament.
Mr Bohlin: And then talks slowly when she wants to drag it out.
Mr TOLLNER: Exactly, member for Drysdale. She stands up in Question Time and talks for 25 minutes straight without taking a breath – and then shuts the place down because she suspects there could be a couple of nasty questions coming the government’s way.
This parliament is an abrogation of everything a parliament should stand for. Madam Speaker, I hope you listen to my pleas during this speech. I do want to access the video footage this parliament has in archives. I know it is there. I have talked to some officials here. That information is stored away. It is there. I cannot understand any reason why this parliament would stop me accessing that footage, unless, of course, it has something to hide, unless it is trying to be unaccountable. I cannot think of a more important debate than the censure of a Speaker, or motion about lack of confidence in the Speaker; and yet we are cut off.
The Leader of Government Business stands up at the start of debate and says: ‘We will allow the debate’, and then cuts it off before anyone has had a chance to speak. The Leader of Government Business gets a chance, the Independent member gets a chance, the Opposition Leader gets a chance, and that is it; like they are the only people who matter in this place. Well, it is not on. Members have a right to be heard. They have a right to make their point. They have a right to ask the Speaker a question.
Ms Lawrie: Is this your leadership challenge?
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go. This is the sort of nonsense that comes out of the mouth of the Leader of the Government Business, time and time again. Not only does she embarrass herself, but she embarrasses us all. We all come in here with goodwill, but it is very hard to maintain that goodwill when we see the constant trampling of rights, the constant trampling of the voice of Territorians. As the Opposition Leader said during the last motion that we debated, Territorians expect the right for their members to be heard. As much as it might gall members of the government, people on this side of the House represent almost half of the Territory electorates, and probably more than half of the Territory constituency, when you actually take into account the vote.
Mr Vatskalis: Not true. Count the votes again.
Mr TOLLNER: Look, minister, I stand to be corrected on that and I do not say that you are wrong. Maybe we do have a minority of the vote as well, and maybe you are spot on. I do not know. I have not analysed the Electoral Office figures. But there is a significant portion of the constituency of the Northern Territory which is represented on this side of the Chamber and they have a right for their voices to be heard.
This parliament sits for 33 days a year and the government thinks that is adequate. We are now going to have another three days, and we are going to shut down debate at 10 pm to compensate. That is ridiculous. There are 25 members here who want to have a say. There is absolutely no reason - talk to anyone out there in voter land and ask them what they think of a parliament that sits for 33 days a year. I understand in the early days there might not have been that much to debate, that many issues, and the like. Thirty three days may well have been adequate. However, I would have thought that the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Minister and the Speaker could get their heads together and work out that we have quite a large program to run, so let’s run a few extra days.
What is so atrocious about coming back on a Friday, or starting on a Monday? There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. Nine o’clock to 10 o’clock. It is not a big day if you are only working 33 days a year, or 36 days a year. To suggest we have to shut down at 10 pm in order to attract more candidates into the parliamentary arena flies in the face of reality. Even at the last Territory election, which was called in a snap and gave no one much time at all to get out there and register and nominate to be a candidate, we had far more candidates than we had seats in this place. In any normal election campaign when people have adequate notice and there is time to get your act together the minor parties – the Greens, the Democrats, One Nation, the Four Wheel Drivers Party, whoever they are - have time to get their acts together and they put forward candidates.
There is no lack of people who wish to have a career in the parliament. We can sit around and say: ‘The axing of the parliamentary superannuation scheme will be a disincentive for people to get into a parliamentary career. Every now and again, you might have to sit until 2 am’. Well, goodness gracious me, every now and again, you might even have to do a 37-hour day. I have some sympathy for the view that people do not function particularly well after midnight. I have quite a bit of sympathy for that because I have been in that situation many times in the past. However, at times, you have to understand that the greater good is out there. We are working for the people of the Northern Territory. They deserve the right to have their members heard and debate heard.
To run this silly motion that the Assembly is going to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee is just ridiculous. As if the Standing Orders Committee will run out and do something and come back.
We have seen it in previous motions which have just been completely ignored by the government - government’s own motions. Government puts up these motions and says: ‘We are going to do this’, and it just conveniently forgets about it. As I say, 12 months ago they said they were going to make a reference to the Public Accounts Committee to have it investigate business regulations. I just happen to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I have talked to people who have been on the Public Accounts Committee for a lot longer than I have, and these people have absolutely no knowledge of that reference, or any debate or any interviewing of witnesses or anything of that nature, to do with the regulation of business and easing the regulatory burden on business. Yet, at the time, 12 months ago, I am sure Syd Stirling was the Deputy Leader. Am I right?
Members: Yes.
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, he was a senior member of the Labor Party and a senior member of the government. He was not just some little backbencher; he was a person with some authority. You would think if a person like that places a motion in front of the parliament, which is supported along party lines, and the motion gets up, that it actually would be acted on – the government’s own motion. But, no. I am sure there are countless other examples of that lack of attention, lack of desire that can be shown by the government.
This motion, Madam Speaker, is an absolute joke. There is no detail in it. It calls for something that everyone has been calling for - the video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings to be allowed to be broadcast and rebroadcast. Well, goodness me, how long has that been called for? How long? As long as I can remember people have been calling for access to parliamentary video and audio. Yet, for some reason, finally, now the government feels it is a bit under the pinch, a bit under pressure, they decide to throw this one out there and say: ‘We are open and accountable. From this motion, we are open and accountable’. Tell Territorians that you are open and accountable.
At the end of the day, what do you do? You shut down every opportunity when we wish to debate something. I stood up half an hour ago and asked the Speaker a question. I cannot see the problem in asking the Speaker a question. What is so offensive about that? What is so offensive about a member of this place asking the Speaker a question? For the life of me I cannot understand that. I cannot understand what is so offensive about asking the Speaker the question.
But, no, the Leader of Government Business jumps up and says: ‘No, no, no, standing orders say you cannot ask that question, you have to ask leave’. So then I ask leave, and what happens? The government does not approve it. The government will not allow a member of this place to ask a question. This is the same mob who walks straight out of here, after 12 o'clock, front the media and say: ‘We are open and accountable. Look, we have passed this motion that says that we are open and accountable’. All these measures that say ‘we are open and accountable’. It is not what you say, it is what you do.
I have often said, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. What an embarrassment. This place is an absolute joke the way it has turned out. Talk about open and accountable and transparent - they know nothing about that. Time and time again we ask the ministers’ answers to be relevant to questions - oh no, we talk about something else. The member for Nelson made a point the other day: the standing orders are particularly broad, you know, you can ask a question about cheese and the minister will stand up and talk about the moon because it looks like a lump of cheese, and that is deemed relevant.
There is stuff in the standing orders and the House of Representatives Practice, the whole idea of Question Time is for ministers to be accountable. You would think there would be some sort of obligation that they would at least make the barest minimum of effort to be accountable, and to try to answer the question.
All right, we all have a bit of fun from time to time, putting our own little political take on things. That is to be expected in a robust democracy. You want a bit of strong debate, you want a bit of loud debate. I often think part of the problem with this place is that we have this microphone system which is constantly on. I know in the House of Representatives, at times you cannot hear yourself think, the place is an absolute din, but the only microphone which is on is the one for the person who is speaking.
I imagine it is difficult for people out there in listener land, in radio land, listening to these things, for them to believe we are having a robust debate because, unlike federal parliament, where only one microphone is turned on at a time, here, all of them are alive; everything you whisper to your friend next to you, or you say across the parliament, can be heard. People have the misapprehension that this place is a rowdy rabble when clearly it is not; you are quite amazed at the level of quietness, the amount you can actually hear here. You sit in the gallery in the House of Representatives in the federal parliament and, more often than not, it is just a din; it is a complete din. But what is going out to the public via video and audio is clearly heard because only one microphone is on at a time.
People can run around and say that this place is falling into chaos because a couple of people make a couple of interjections here and there. Well goodness me, that is the idea of a robust debate. That is the idea when the Speaker has the right to pull people up and order silence when you get a bit carried away. We all understand how easy it is to get a bit carried away in the moment. The fact is that people have the right to have a say, and they should be afforded that right.
The way this place is going, it is turning into a complete circus. There is a complete lack of information and lack of debate, and opportunity to say what you want to say. For this government to talk about accountability, openness, and transparency is complete hypocrisy.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am concerned because I had forgotten that the Standing Orders Committee is waiting to get a response from parliament about this particular issue because it meets today. That, of course, tends to cut this debate off and it is a very important debate.
I am concerned that the Chief Minister put out a media release on Tuesday saying: ‘Henderson government reforms parliament’. That means the Henderson government reforms it and, from that, the rest of us do not appear to be part of that reform. I am disappointed that that is the approach which has been taken. Reforms of this parliament, as was highlighted to me the other night, not only affect us. It affects the staff of the Legislative Assembly and I hope they may have some input into some of these changes.
It would have been better for the government to have made a much broader referral. There are some issues here which, I believe, are window dressing. The Chief Minister spoke about transparency, productivity and accessibility. Productivity is about using the time you have the best way you can. I can say there are many times in this parliament when time is certainly filled up with unnecessary things. We do not go through a large amount of legislation. We have had some sittings where you might have had two amendments or three amendments to a bill. The rest of the time has been statements. Some of those statements I recall came out a couple of months ago and have come out again - they are repeats. Sometimes there will be five or six speeches from the government to fill in the time. Many of those speeches are very similar because the party is putting forward these statements and asking their members to put out a reflection of that statement. They are not going to let people vary too far from the policies that the government is putting out.
During debate people look at the clock and think, I have to talk a few more minutes because someone else is going to say something and this should fill it in. I believe if we really are interested in productivity we would not be so concerned and worried about the hours. I would not be so worried even about looking at extra days. Let us see if we can use the present system more productively and see if there are issues that need to be looked at. We have always had extra days as an option. I mentioned before, we could have had General Business Day on Friday. We could have continued on Friday; I was told standing orders allow for that. We do have those options to go extra hours if we need to.
There is a whole range of issues we should be looking at. The question the member for Fong Lim and I raised before about the issue of relevance. That is a matter that could be raised as part of reform. Question Time: maybe this side of parliament should have a right to ask more questions than that side, because the government is going to ask dorothy dixers but the people out there in the Territory would like to hear a range of questions which actually question the government. Not ask the government for an answer which is a repeat of their policy. They would like to hear the government being questioned. I believe Question Time is a very important part of parliament. Also, issues about answers being too long. I understand some answers have to be long if it is a complicated question. I know many of those answers are inflated far more than they need to be, and there is room to look at changes to the length of answers.
On the matter of reports: the government has a five minute report, the opposition has two minutes to reply, and I have two minutes to reply. Unless the Whip lets us know what those reports are going to be about, they are a complete surprise when we get here. That does not occur with statements, so why should it occur with reports? It would make the government more accountable and it would be more transparent if we were informed of the subject of the reports.
Regarding the dinner break: I must admit I did not realise the dinner break was coming in, in the sittings of parliament. I do not particularly want them; I would rather just keep going. You know dinner is there; we have some dinner and come back. I know the Speaker is using that dinner break as a way of bringing parliamentarians together and creating some peace and goodwill amongst parliamentarians, but I think that can occur and parliament can still operate. Sometimes we are doing statements at that time; people can hear it on the television, anyway, and perhaps we may go back to the old system.
General Business Days, as I said, reform may or may not be needed, just simply keep the option open that if we do go late at night there is an option to finish off what is on the GBD agenda on the next day or the day after. Allow flexibility into the way we run parliament.
I was going to move a motion, but instead of moving that motion I will just state what I believe the Standing Orders Committee should be looking at. If they are looking at reform, and reform means to make better by the removal of faults and errors, or if you use the noun, it means an improvement. So if we are to improve parliament, and that is what the Henderson government is saying, then we need to ask the Standing Orders Committee to look at all other matters that involve ourselves and involve the staff. We have to remember there are many staff here who work so we can turn up here at 10 am and operate. They should be allowed to be part of this. And you, Madam Speaker, should be part of this as well.
If we really believe in reform, it should not be the government driving it. It should be the government leading it and ensuring we all have equal opportunity to have input into the reform process. I do not think it should be rushed. We have to make sure this is not a case of window dressing, that the government has put up some views that might sound good – longer hours, extra days – that might sound good out in the public, but is it really going to make any difference or are we just going to fill in time? Does cost come into this? How much does it cost every time we come to parliament? If we go three more days, what sort of cost is that going to be on the Legislative Assembly budget?
I agree with the video and audio streaming. I have always believed that parliament should be broadcast all the time so Territorians can listen to it anywhere in the Territory. We have radio facilities in most parts, but not all parts. I know the member for Fong Lim did promise something on radio towers, was it? No, it was mobile phones. I have always reckoned the ABC should make sure …
Ms Scrymgour: He did not deliver much.
Mr WOOD: I tell you what he should do, he should make sure the ABC is heard right down the track; we have all those towers down there so I do not why there are still gaps in the system. We should be making sure as best we can that people can hear what happens in the Legislative Assembly, not just for Question Time and not just on computer. You cannot stick a computer on a tractor and you cannot use a computer when you are working, but you can always put on a Walkman or have the radio going in the shop.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Nelson. Do you have many more comments to make?
Mr WOOD: I am going to finish up now.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I had indicated to the member for Nelson that we would try to deal with this matter before lunch because of the meeting. As I have advised you, this will continue on so maybe the member for Nelson wants to continue his remarks when the debate continues. He will have more time, is what I am saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to continue your remarks after Question Time, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: I can finish now, and then if people want to speak …
Madam SPEAKER: Just bear in mind that there are a lot of things happening.
Mr WOOD: All right. I will.
Mr Conlan: And there are a lot of people who want to speak.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr 8HA. It sounds like the news coming up at 12 o’clock.
Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders Committee should have more things reported to it if it is going to be effective. There are many more issues than just these three issues here. If we really believe in reform, make the terms of reference much wider and make sure we include all those people who will be affected by these changes.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have some reservations and trepidation about what is occurring in relation to this particular motion. Before I speak on the motion, it is worthwhile making some more general observations about the proposed amendments to the standing orders.
We have heard much, from government benches particularly, about criticism of discipline. I hope that government members, in particular, would cast their minds to a particular discipline to which they seem not to want to subordinate themselves. In a unicameral parliament - which means a parliament with one Chamber - there is a very strong chance that the party of the day will form government by way of an absolute majority. There is a profound temptation in such circumstances to use that majority to abandon the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy. The principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy are a construct built on suffering, as much as anything else.
One of the major problems I have with this motion is that the government has unilaterally announced this by way of media release and a dorothy dixer in Question Time, without so much as tipping its hat in the direction of opposition or other members in this place, simply because the Chief Minister is now subordinating himself in every instance to a principle of: the spin is more important than the actuality of what is trying to be achieved.
On 24 October 2008, I quoted from Nicholas Rothwell’s speech. He also, in his speech, referred to spin. It is worth visiting this particular issue. I quote from Nicholas Rothwell:
If there was ever an example of how spin has come to dominate the mind of government over the importance of this House, then it is the motion that is before us now. It is betrayed not by the motion itself but, rather, by the mechanisms used to attempt to bring this motion into this House for consideration.
At the heart of the Westminster parliamentary democratic system, I said earlier that it is a construct of many years of growth and blood. Probably the starkest example of that was when England, in earlier centuries, suffered a profound and ugly, and devastating Civil War between the Crown and the parliament which existed uncomfortably beside each other. The parliament won that Civil War and Oliver Cromwell ruled not as King but as Lord Protector for several years, although his son was unable to maintain his rule and finally Charles II returned to the throne, reasserting the divine right of kings. Upon the passage of Charles II, the parliament became resurgent and has never looked back.
When I stand in this place, I am always mindful that it is in many ways built, metaphorically, if not literally, on the bones and the blood of people who died trying to establish this system. And, through the centuries since that time, the system by which we have governed ourselves within the Empire, and ultimately within the Commonwealth, has reflected what was bequeathed to us as a result of those dangers, and many, many more people have perished in defence of this particular system of government.
Consequently, when this system of government finds its expression in a unilateral Chamber, unlike the Palace of Westminster which still holds two Houses of Parliament, we find ourselves at a disadvantage when there is a government which has an absolute majority. It uses that majority ruthlessly and without forethought to the principles that brought us to this place.
It is a great discipline if it can be exercised by a Chief Minister and by a government that they take on the mantle of the history of this system, and still, in such an environment of a unicameral parliament, to choose to subordinate themselves to the place because they believe that it is worthwhile to protect a system which has served the English speaking world, and many other languages, I might add, so particularly and fundamentally well.
Let us now look at the methodology the Chief Minister has chosen to engage in to bring this particular issue to the House.
Madam Speaker, was there, as so often is required in the Westminster system, a notification given to members, other than government members, that this motion was being brought forward? No, there was not. One of the fundamental principles of our democratic system is that there is some sort of parlay or discussion prior to matters being brought into the House, or some sort of notice being given. And that, the government has chosen to abandon, essentially, for the process of adhering to the media cycle - that all important 24-hour media cycle.
I am glad, in some respects, the government has heeded the suggestion I made last week in this House that there should be more sitting days. However, to arbitrarily dictate that it shall be three sitting days before it is even given consideration by a committee already takes out of the committee the capacity to make a decision. Why does it necessarily have to be three sitting days? Why cannot it be six or 12? Why cannot the committee have a reference that says that the committee examines the number of sitting days required and report back? Surely, that would be a far more sensible approach than to merely dictate from the Chief Minister’s chair that this is the way it is going to be – three sitting days. But, no, that option will not be given the committee. The committee will have to consider three sitting days.
That is a shame because the government itself, through its business days, has kept us in this Chamber until one o’clock and two o’clock in the morning last week. The government is anxious to point out that we had a very busy schedule last night, and they were not inclined to keep the schedule going beyond one o’clock in the morning, an hour earlier than they were inclined to adjourn the House last week. However, that being an aside, the fact is this committee should be given greater latitude to examine the necessities of how many sitting days are required.
What, pray tell, makes the Chief Minister the better judge than other members of this parliament as to how many sitting days are required? I have heard no justification from the Chief Minister to say that three days is better than four, or two; it is simply an announcement. It reeks of the lack of discipline to which I referred earlier. He now seems to think that parliament is merely a vehicle upon which he can enforce his will, using his numbers, and the numbers of the Australian Labor Party, jam through anything they please.
The same applies to the Assembly commencing at 9 am and adjourning no later than 10 pm. Once again, what is the committee being asked to consider? The determination has already been made for them by a Chief Minister who implacably does not want to divest himself of any authority, no matter how minor. It is a simple issue, a suggestion to the committee that it should look at how many extra hours or fewer hours are appropriate. But, no, the will of the Chief Minister is imbedded in this as etchings are in the side of a monument. There is no opportunity for this committee to enjoy any flexibility.
Such a timetable raises more questions than it answers. What is the adjournment debate going to look like if there is a stopwatch running? Is the one debate which enables members of this House complete freedom to touch on any topic they see fit, by way of convention, going to be truncated? Is that going to be taken away, or in some way reduced, so the dead hand of the undisciplined Chief Minister falls across this parliament like a hand over the mouth of someone trying to breath? Is that really what the Chief Minister would …
Ms Lawrie: No it is not, and you know it. That is offensive.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, stand up and argue the case.
Ms Lawrie: Come on, you are alleging he is smothering, hand across the face …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The one part I am entirely comfortable with is that the video and audio streaming of the parliamentary proceedings be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast. The Leader of Government Business is fully aware that when we initially spoke, subsequent to the last general election, one of the very first orders of business which I raised with her was the suggestion that video and audio broadcast be made available for broadcast and rebroadcast.
The Leader of Government Business said there would have to be a delay to allow the new technology to come into place; I expressed to her that I would have been happy to see the current technology used should the current media choose to stoop so low as to actually use that for the purposes of broadcast quality recording. I am aware the current media is not up to a certain standard. In fact, as I understand it, it is an analog system in a world of digital technology. However, it is not impossible to transfer that medium to the broadcast environment - the quality would just be very poor. I was told that was not going to happen, fairly unilaterally. I accept that because it did come with a guarantee, which is going to be met by this motion - and that is video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings will be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast.
I return to the principle to which I was critical before: that determination has now been made, and made not in consultation with us or even by way of advice to us but by press release. It seems the 24-hour media cycle and the media organisations are of much more concern to the operation of this government than this House.
The government has become used to, in the last parliamentary term, a small opposition and running roughshod over this House. That environment is now changed. Whilst I appreciate the government, through its processes, still wants to maintain its death grip on the throat of this House and wants to continue operating in a way to which it has become accustomed, the fact is that the balance of power in this House has shifted. And it has shifted radically against the government which occupied this House immediately prior to the last general election.
The continual use of this House as a vehicle for the Chief Minister to make bold statements emblazoned in media releases with the single view of capturing the 24-hour media cycle is, to me, the true offence to this House.
The discipline to which I referred earlier, the discipline of a Chief Minister who is prepared to subordinate himself in a unicameral system to a parliament in which his supporters have the great majority, is a great discipline indeed. It would show humility and decency, and it would show a commitment to the philosophies espoused by the Chief Minister - those philosophies are the beliefs that government should be open, honest and transparent.
We do not have that in this motion. We have dictate and we have fait accompli presented as the absolute position of this House and of the committee prior to the committee even being able to review this particular reference.
Madam Speaker, it is a great shame the government has not taken the opportunity to show the discipline and fortitude that is required by a government which should be subordinating itself to this place, and not come in here and dictate terms as they are outlined in this statement, but to send a reference to a committee such as the Standing Orders Committee, three suggestions for consideration and for potential amendment. That is really what should be occurring. To see the first announcement, the first I ever heard of these changes, was not a communication or a letter from the Chief Minister or from the Leader of Government Business; it was a dorothy dixer as the Chief Minister stood up and answered a question that he took on notice.
Ms Lawrie: It is all about you, huh?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. It is about this place. It is about respecting this place. It about respecting the principles that drive this place. It is about respecting the history of this place and not using it as a plinth upon which you grandstand to push your own opinion without reference to other people, without reference to the people of the Northern Territory who put us here.
I have found the continual gag motions run by this government an offence to this very House. This House, by its very definition, is a place where we talk. A parliament, parlay from the French, to speak. That is what we are here to do. To find ourselves continually being gagged by motions of this House, having matters of great import adjourned simply because the government is not inclined to debate the matters, and to have motions put simply because the government is no longer inclined to listen to critical voices, is a great travesty. And it occurs in a unicameral system where you have a single party in power.
Madam Speaker, I urge the Chief Minister to show fortitude, to show discipline, and to show some humility, and when he comes into this place to treat it with the respect it demands. The parliament to this day remains the supreme law-making body of the Northern Territory to which the government should be subordinate. Their desire to not show any subordination is an ill discipline that ill behoves this government and ill behoves this Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we are speaking to a motion to refer reform of parliamentary hours to the Standing Orders Committee. I remind members that the Standing Orders Committee includes not only members of government, but it also includes members of the opposition. The Standing Orders Committee will meet out of session between the sittings in October and November because, as members would be aware, the reference does have the Standing Orders Committee reporting to this parliament, to which we are subordinate, as we have just been reminded, in November.
It is a process of referring the extra sitting days for the Assembly - that is the three extra days - to that Standing Orders Committee. The government has announced its intent to reform parliament; it is not unusual. Governments right around our nation have announced their intent to reform how parliament operates, and they have followed that process.
It is time we modernise our parliament, and we have seen very good reason why we should be doing that. We have seen every reason why we should be doing that. We have seen opposition members behave like a rabble, who have come in here and used one stunt after another and really tried to make a mockery of this parliament. We have found that disgraceful, and so the Chief Minister, quite appropriately, has announced reforms to provide sensible ways in which, as parliamentarians, we can go about the business of parliament.
The reference includes the Assembly commencing at 9 am instead of 10 am. I know that means the member for Port Darwin might have to get out of bed a little earlier, but it also means that we would adjourn no later than 10 pm. That is a fair working day. As we know, we would all be starting work a lot earlier than 9 am to be in this Chamber by 9 am, as government members meet beforehand. I know the member for Nelson does a lot of research in the morning on matters that arrive overnight for his consideration.
Importantly, the Chief Minister has been very clear that he wants to open the parliament to the people of the Territory. We were the first government to introduce cameras into the parliament of the Northern Territory. They come in here at Question Time. We were the first government of the Northern Territory to provide for the broadcast of Question Time to Territorians. We have live Internet streaming of the Assembly. We are going further in this reference to say we will provide for video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings.
The member for Port Darwin is pretty good at verballing and, yes, we did have a conversation. He indicated they quite like the idea of the audio and video streaming. I indicated, not that we would have to wait, but that we would have to consider the technical aspects of that because, whilst we could proceed with streaming on the current quality we have, it is not the perfect quality we would want for broadcast.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE
His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise the presence of His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste in the Chamber.
With the concurrence of honourable members I propose to invite His Excellency to take a seat on the floor of the Chamber.
The Serjeant-at-Arms escorted His Excellency to a chair on the Speaker’s dais.
Madam SPEAKER: I call on the Chief Minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly welcome His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, on the occasion of his historic visit to the Northern Territory, and that he be invited to address honourable members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the government to welcome His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on this historic occasion of his address to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, and to acknowledge the close relationship between Timor-Leste, the government, and the people of the Northern Territory.
Your Excellency, we are neighbours and we are friends. As neighbours, it is our great honour to welcome you again to Darwin. It is a place you know well and where you will always be amongst friends. You have served your country with distinction in the international community as Foreign Minister, Prime Minister, and President. You are known at home and abroad as a man of the people, a man of principle, and a man of peace.
In 1996, you shared the Nobel Peace Prize with your countryman, Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, in recognition of your tireless commitment to independence for the people of East Timor. In presenting the award, the Nobel Committee said of you and Bishop Belo, and I quote:
Your Excellency, it was my great honour to be present, with the former Chief Minister Clare Martin, on the historic occasion when the independence of Timor-Leste was proclaimed on 20 May 2002. The birth of your new nation was a powerful, moving, and inspirational occasion, and one that I will personally never forget. Your leadership and contribution to the struggle for independence are recognised and acknowledged worldwide.
The Northern Territory and Timor-Leste are very close in more ways than geography. We share long-standing people to people, intergovernmental, and business links. Above all, Mr President, they are links of people and of country.
Our vibrant Timorese communities here in the Northern Territory maintain strong ties with Timor-Leste - ties of family, culture, and shared history. It is wonderful today to see the galleries packed, Madam Speaker and Mr President, with the friends of East Timor and so many of our Timorese community here in Darwin.
Mr President, it is my honour to maintain a close personal contact with the local East Timorese community. I am privileged to be the patron of the Northern Territory Hakka Association, the Northern Territory Timor-Chinese Association, and the Casuarina Junior Football Club, a club with strong links to our local Timorese community. I also maintain close contact and friendship with the Portuguese-Timorese Social Club, where I am a frequent guest at functions and community events. Our local Australian Timorese community is known for its generosity and contribution to the social and economic developments of the Northern Territory.
There are also ties of great respect, Mr President, as we honour the sacrifices of those brave East Timorese who died alongside Australian troops some six decades ago. That respect has strengthened as we have witnessed the tenacity of your people in your struggle for independence and in the courage of your people as they face the task of building a new nation.
As Australia’s youngest jurisdiction, the Territory is committed to helping wherever we can in that task. The relationship between the Territory and Timor-Leste has grown further in recent years through cooperation between our public sectors. These arrangements involve practical projects in fields such as human resources planning, dengue fever eradication, museum management, coastal mapping, and fisheries data collection. There was a team from Timor-Leste here to study last weekend’s elections for the new shire arrangements, established under local governments in the Territory.
Your Excellency, work is under way on implementation of an understanding reached between Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao and myself during his visit to Darwin on 24 August for internship placements for Timorese officials in the Northern Territory Public Service. I am pleased to announce today that the government will offer 10 internships to Timor-Leste under this training scheme. When in place this program will make a tangible contribution to public administration in Timor-Leste. Our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Xanana Gusmao have launched a joint initiative to review ways in which Australia might contribute to Timor-Leste’s development by helping to meet its education, training and employment needs. This also provides opportunities for further cooperation between the Northern Territory and Timor-Leste.
Our views on the current and future role Charles Darwin University can play in this regard have been firmly registered with the Commonwealth. I understand there are 23 Timorese students currently studying at Charles Darwin University in both the vocational and higher educational sectors. Charles Darwin University has long-standing research and collaborative links with a number of institutions in Timor-Leste and has developed innovative partnerships with the Commonwealth, international and private sector organisations to deliver training and advisory services to East Timor.
We are clearly on the record in offering the Northern Territory as a place where we would be very happy to receive Timorese workers under any seasonal workers scheme the Commonwealth might establish for Timor-Leste. As neighbours it will always be a two-way learning and sharing process. Our cultural connections will grow and thrive. I was pleased to see a strong East Timorese presence at both this year’s WordStorm Writers Festival and the Darwin Festival. In three weeks time we will see a major collaboration between the National Museum of Timor-Leste and our Museum and Art Gallery here in Darwin in staging From the Hands of our Ancestors: the Art and Craft of Timor-Leste. It will be a tribute to the culture of your people as well as a demonstration of the ways in which we can work together for future generations.
I was also pleased to see the Timor-Leste Under-18 soccer team win the inaugural round of the Timor Sea Cup in Darwin a few weeks ago. They were truly fantastic; a wonderful team. The Northern Territory and the West Timor teams are looking forward to a chance to challenge the winners, hopefully in the Arafura Games in May next year. I am also delighted to inform Your Excellency that plans are under way for the Casuarina Football Club’s women’s team to play a friendly match against the Timor-Leste National Women’s Team in East Timor late in November. An exciting aspect of this match will be the possible appearance of our local Timorese women as guest players in your national team. In recognition of the important role of sport and culture in the relationship between Timor-Leste and the Territory, my government will provide assistance to the Casuarina Football Club to support the trip to East Timor. I was at that presentation night on Saturday at the Portuguese Timorese Club and they are very excited about the prospects of playing the new national women’s football team in Dili later in November.
We live in an uncertain world and there are many challenges for both old and new and emerging nations. The Northern Territory is a relatively small jurisdiction in terms of population but, like your country, we have a rich endowment of natural beauty and resources. I am confident we can work together for the mutual benefit of our people.
Your Excellency, I am always struck by the ease of interaction between yourself and other members of the leadership of Timor-Leste with people at all levels in the Northern Territory. I know that only a couple of months ago you were kind enough to spend time with the staff and students of Jabiru Area School. Where else in Australia could the students at a remote bush school have the opportunity to meet and talk with a National President? Perhaps only here in the Northern Territory, Mr President, because you visited us as a neighbour.
It is an honour to have you with us once more, and it is wonderful to see you in such robust health. You are indeed most welcome. I, and my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, and members of the Timorese and wider community here today, look forward to your Address. Welcome again. You are truly amongst friends.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I extend a sincere welcome to Your Excellency. We recognise that our history, our place on this globe, has brought us together as family, as friends, and as neighbours. We cannot choose family, we cannot choose neighbours, and we have been blessed with family and neighbours.
Through our time together, we have a recognition of a common story which is beginning to weave together to form something new. We collectively face many challenges, Your Excellency, and I welcome and join and share the comments made by the Chief Minister. On the theme of family and neighbour and the forging of friendship, I wish to acknowledge that our common history has sent us some strong messages which we must respond to.
I acknowledge the journey we have all made. I acknowledge too that, in the Northern Territory we often speak of the bombing of Darwin and we recognise that many around this country do not know that story. There are even fewer who know the story of what happened in 1942 when there was the invasion, and there was a small presence of Australian troops in Sparrow Force. That story is largely untold, but it registers deeply within this country and in East Timor, and presents a challenge for us to respond.
Your Excellency, I acknowledge the debt that we owe to the friendship, the support and the protection of the East Timorese in 1942 and 1943 when the 2/2nd Commando Squadron, cut off from Australia, sheltered under the protection of East Timorese citizens. One of my own family who was involved in that protection, sadly, came to grief in New Guinea, but survived East Timor due to the hospitality, protection and the sacrifice of the East Timorese. There are many from the 2/2nd Commando Squadron who continue in their endeavours to repay that debt. They are at work today, many of them old men, and they pass on their message for all who may hear. There is something for us to respond to, something far deeper: the recognition that the cost of that protection resulted in a significant loss for the people of East Timor. People still calculate it may have been a loss of up to 40 000. That debt stands there for us to look at and respond to as true neighbours and true friends and family.
There is also the acknowledgement of how we do respond in developing the relationship. Here we are, an established parliament with parliamentary procedures, with our need to strengthen democracy. We do so for the people of the Northern Territory and present an example for others. We also have an obligation to our neighbours.
It is a curious twist of history that the common links between Mozambique and East Timor, through the Portuguese heritage and connection going back centuries, throws up another common link to the Northern Territory. Mozambique is the only non-British Commonwealth country which is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is the only non-British Commonwealth country that is a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I would see, therefore, that as close neighbours we have an opportunity, in some small way, to repay that great debt between us and you, sir, by offering the services of this parliament, this institution, to fulfil the objectives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which is to support good governance, democracy and human rights. That is a small service but a practical service where we could build strength between two regions. With that curious connection with Mozambique, the odd one out in the Commonwealth of Nations, but setting an example by choosing and being accepted as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is a small example, but an opportunity and a challenge for all of us to find a way, as parliamentarians, where this Chamber can offer practical support to East Timor.
Your Excellency, you are most welcome. I make my comments in acknowledging the great debt that lives in the memory of many older men in Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania who served in 1942. That should not be forgotten. You are welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I now invite Your Excellency, the President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste to address honourable members.
Dr RAMOS-HORTA (President of Timor-Leste): Madam Speaker, His Honour the Administrator of the Northern Territory, the Honourable Chief Minister, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, honourable ministers, honourable members of the Northern Territory parliament, and I acknowledge the presence of the Honorary Consul of Portugal in the Northern Territory, and ladies and gentlemen.
It is, indeed, an honour and a real pleasure to be back in Darwin. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your warm and generous hospitality, not only today, but when you offered me a glimpse of the famed Kakadu National Park back in June. I immensely enjoyed the visit and all those I met.
Before I proceed any further, allow me to bow in tribute and respect to the original owners of this vast land of Australia, one of the most ancient nations in the world, the Indigenous people of Australia. I know the many problems afflicting the Indigenous peoples of this country, and my heart bleeds with their pain, but my message to them is: do not despair, never lose hope of a better future.
As I return today to Darwin, I wish once again to acknowledge and thank the wonderful staff of the Royal Darwin Hospital. The Chief Surgeon, Dr Phil Carson, a warm, humble and compassionate human being, the Director of the hospital and all his many colleagues- the nurses and all other staff who cared for me and rescued me from the clutches of death.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr RAMOS-HORTA: I thank the Australian Defence Force soldiers in Timor-Leste who donated many litres of blood, as well as thank the ADF Medical Centre in Dili, whose excellent doctors and nurses from Aspen Medical first cared for me as I struggled between life and death.
As I stand here today, as I travel extensively in my country, as I continue my morning routine of power walking - yes, I am exercising, doctors - as I continue to live a very fast-paced life serving my people, I sometimes pause for brief seconds and think that only a few months ago I was near death.
I also thank Australia and New Zealand for maintaining a robust and credible security force in my country in assistance to, and close coordination with, our government and UNMIT, the United Nations Mission for Timor-Leste. As I mentioned recently in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the professionalism of the International Stabilisation Forces is visible to all and the behaviour of the soldiers is irreproachable.
I had an opportunity to visit a company of Australian soldiers last Saturday in the regional city of Baucau together with the ISF Commander Brigadier Mark Holmes. I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with those soldiers, who are mostly based here in Darwin. Appreciating the good sense of humour of Territorians and Australian soldiers alike, as I walked through their private accommodation, I noticed posters on the wall of poorly dressed women. I thought they were poor because they were not thoroughly dressed. I told the soldiers, if they were true patriots, they should have posters of John Howard or Kevin Rudd instead. They did not agree, and they laughed at my recommendation.
Seriously, it warms my heart to see these committed and compassionate soldiers proudly serving their nation and helping my people. Australian soldiers in Timor-Leste, or wherever they may be, as well as being soldiers, they are also goodwill ambassadors for your country. I sincerely appreciate the great sacrifice of their families and loved ones. I must relate to you all, that you can very proud of these soldiers - these fine ambassadors, these sons and daughters of Darwin and Australia.
I must once again thank all the great people of Australia – from the common people to the Prime Minister – people from all walks of life who prayed for me, who visited me even when I was in an induced coma and afterwards. If I was already closely connected to this country, today I feel even more part of it.
A special word of gratitude to my fellow East Timorese who live in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia, many hundreds of whom sent me messages of friendship and sorrow, prayers and flowers. I have numerous family ties in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria, altogether numbering more than 100. The oldest of the family, our great-aunt Luciana, a resident of Darwin since 1975, passed away at age 100, only three days after I was shot.
I am always touched by the demonstration of friendship and affection I have received from the Australian people, and yet I do not know what I have done to get such special treatment. Maybe it is my innocent, nave look? Maybe one day I should run for high office in Australia. My friend, Kevin Rudd, should not worry. This will not happen any time soon.
Madam Speaker, His Honour the Administrator, the honourable Chief Minister, the honourable Leader of the Opposition, honourable ministers, honourable members, geography has made our fates inextricably linked. Proximity has its advantages and disadvantages. A close but bad neighbour is a cause for concern. We can look at the various countries that border each other in the Middle East - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, or in Asia - Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India, etcetera. Each might say in reference to the other or to several others: with neighbours like this, who needs enemies?
Timor-Leste has two immediate neighbours, with whom we share land, and maritime borders - Indonesia and Australia. While the past of our relationship with our two neighbours was not one we would remember as exemplary, I have always opted for a more realistic and pragmatic approach to life and affairs of State, trying to forget and forgive the harm and sins of the past, live the fruits of freedom and opportunities of today, and show gratitude to those who are helping us today.
In this regard, we can say today that we are fortunate to have two great neighbours, who since 1999 have done everything possible, and still can do more, to assist us in the arduous and tortuous road in nation-building, peace-building and peace-consolidation, and economic recovery.
There are no two countries more important to Timor-Leste’s national wellbeing than Australia and Indonesia. I believe you all know how hard I and Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao have worked to normalise relations with our neighbours, both Australia and Indonesia being equally important to us.
Before I dwell further on our relations, let me update you on the situation in Timor-Leste. Since the fateful 11 February irrational act by Mr Alfredo Reinado and his henchmen, we have entered a new phase of peace and economic recovery.
I have travelled extensively in the country since my return home in April. Everywhere I have seen a renewed hope and faith in they eyes of our people. Any visitor to Dili today will see a much more peaceful city, with thousands of people going about doing what people normally do – adults going to work, teachers and children going to school, fishermen at sea, farmers tending their fields preparing the earth for the coming rains, hundreds of shops and restaurants busy with clients buying and eating, cleaners trying to clean up a city that its residents have not learned the civilised way to keep it clean.
Most Internally Displaced Persons have returned to their communities. They have been tensions in the receiving barrios but we have been able to resolve them through patient dialogue. The 700 or so former soldiers, the so-called petitioners, have accepted a generous package from the government and opted to resume civilian life rather than reapplying to join the army.
We have continued to address the root causes of the 2006 conflict with more attention and resources provided to our national police and defence force. In this we are generously assisted by a number of international partners, including the United Nations, Australia, Portugal and the United States. Let me assure you all, this is an issue that I follow and pay close attention to.
In December, my office and the Prime Minister will host a two day symposium to review the progress, or lack of, of the security sector reform. We will listen to inputs provided by speakers from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Portugal, Malaysia, and China, etcetera. These inputs will help us formulate the best policies and the strategies for our police and defence forces.
There has been much written about an east-west ethnic divide in Timor-Leste. This is an over simplification and exaggeration. I have spent countless hours since 2006 dealing with the conflict in the suburbs and villages, meeting with youth and gang leaders. I believe I have a good degree of understanding of the nature of the conflict, somewhat better than those who pay short visits and write up fancy academic papers or newspaper articles, mostly forecasting doomsday scenarios for our nascent and vibrant democracy.
In 2006 there was opportunistic violence and crimes committed by common criminals who in the absence of a strong law and order force, robbed, looted and killed. There was the well documented armed stand off and shooting involving elements of our police and defence forces and of Mr Reinado. There were also political leaders whose words and actions either have caused the flare up of tensions and violence or, at least, were not helpful in the tense situation.
However, much of the violence had a more elementary and important reason, and that was dispute over land and housing, market and job opportunities. With the neutralisation of trouble-makers by our special police units in partnership with our defence force as a deterrence force, and generous financial packages to the so called petitioners, IDPs, as well as to veterans and vulnerable groups, we have been able to make good progress in normalising the situation in the country.
Much remains to be done to discipline our police and defence forces, provide them with more training and education, as well as basic infrastructure and tools that are in desperate need. Let me add that I am not being overly optimistic. I have always warned my colleagues in the leadership and my countrymen about how fragile the overall situation has always been in our country. Anyone poring over my media remarks and speeches over the past eight years will easily find many references to the fragile peace in our country.
Peace has been, and is, fragile because fragile are all our state institutions and economy, and because there is still widespread extreme poverty, and because it takes time to undo the decades of violence and the humiliation that have entered each East Timorese family.
However, 11 February was a profound shock to our nation and everybody took a pause and stepped back from the edges. On 17 April, on my return, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to say no more to violence. I believe that the possibilities of consolidation of peace are there and the risks of renewed violence, as desired by the prophets of doom, are very much minimal.
As the Head of State, I will spare no effort in continuing to unify the nation, in healing the wounds, and in creating conditions for a better life for the people who have nothing or very little and, yet, deserve so much. In this noble endeavour, no man is island and no man can nor should expect to carry the burden alone. I know I can count on my compatriots and on our friends around the world.
You will be asking how long should the United Nations and the International Stabilisation Force remain in Timor-Leste. I have stated on a number of occasions that the East Timorese leadership, the UN and our friends should not make the same mistakes of the past. There should not be any hasty withdrawal. We need the current United Nations mission size to remain more or less intact up to 2012, with some minor adjustments as deemed advisable. As far as the presence of ISF in Timor-Leste is concerned, I hope that Australia will maintain a capable force on the ground to fulfil this critical function until 2012.
We have made modest progress in reactivating our police force, but I believe that it will take us at least another three years before we can declare that we have turned the corner in the redevelopment of our police force. The same can be said of our defence force. I very much favour closer defence cooperation with Australia and the United States that includes the development of maritime security capability. I welcome the offer of assistance made by Australia and the United States, and I wish to see this offer taken up by our government.
It is in our two countries’ interest to enhance the defence cooperation in all fields. Timor-Leste is vulnerable and wide open to a wide range of illicit predatory activities in our part of the Timor Sea, be it illegal fishing or people smuggling by unscrupulous elements. It is our determination to enforce our sovereign rights in our seas, but it is also our obligation not to allow our territory and seas to be used as a staging ground for Australia and New Zealand with people smuggling and other illicit criminal activities. There have been already several attempts by people-smuggling rings to smuggle individuals from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan into Australia and New Zealand. I would like to add that, on at least two occasions, it was our weak, small maritime police that intercepted boat loads of people attempting to come to Australia by using Timor-Leste as a staging ground. Timor-Leste, alone or with only modest assistance from Australia, will not be able to defend itself and to uphold its responsibilities towards its neighbours.
I wish to turn now to Timor-Leste and Northern Territory’s relationship. We are a one hour flight away from each other. A handful of East Timorese are studying in the Northern Territory. Australia provides a modest number of scholarships for East Timorese students to study in Australia - about 10 scholarships altogether. I understand that this number will increase to 20 next year. I would like to see not 10 but 100 East Timorese students enrolled in TAFEs in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. I mention these three territorial entities because of the climate, proximity and so on.
I would like to mention to you an interesting note. You all know about Cuba, and the difficulties of that small, remote country, and yet Cuba is hosting close to 700 East Timorese medical students, all expenses covered by Cuba. More than 30 countries have medical students studying in Cuba, including the United States. If we continue this program with Cuba, in the next five to 10 years, in addition to more than 100 medical students starting in Timor-Leste in the new medical school set up by the Cubans and managed by the Cubans, in 10 years, Timor-Leste will have one of the highest ratios in the world of doctors per one thousand population.
There are a handful of Australian English teachers in Timor-Leste, compared with the number of teachers from Portugal, Brazil and Cuba.
After several years of letter writing, including to former Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, and conversations with past and current Australian governments, no decision has been made in granting temporary work visas for East Timorese to work on Australian fruit farms in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. We are talking about East Timorese, particularly youth, coming to Australia for periods of six to nine months to help Australian farmers pick the fruit that is rotting in the fields, and return. This experience does not only have a monetary value for the East Timorese. It will provide an opportunity to learn more about work methods, work ethics, discipline, and then return home, hopefully better workers.
As an example, the Republic of Korea, that is South Korea, has agreed to welcome at least 1000 East Timorese workers. This number will increase to 6000. They will each earn $US1000 a month, plus food and accommodation. Again, while the monetary value is of enormous importance, the added value is they acquire new skills, new work habits, and will be a formidable skilled workforce in Timor-Leste.
I do not wish to sound ungrateful. Australia is by far Timor-Leste’s largest donor. In 2008-09, Australian aid to Timor-Leste will increase by almost $100m. This is enormous in view of the population of Timor-Leste, which is roughly one million. However, I would like to see a larger share of this aid money going to poverty alleviation schemes, to support agriculture and rural development, and technical and vocational training in Timor-Leste and in Australia. I know AusAID is sensitive to these priorities, and is in discussions with the government, and always with the government, to put more emphasis on rural development. I am confident that this will be the case in the future.
Darwin residents hardly visit Timor-Leste. Dili is much safer than most cities in the region, according to UN police studies. You people might think this is a joke, that Timor-Leste is safer, but if you actually read UN police statistics, compare all categories of crime, Timor-Leste, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore – the crime rate in Timor-Leste, from domestic violence to assault, to theft, to homicide, is far, far lower than any city in the region.
Compared with Darwin for instance, in Dili we do not have dangerous crocodiles. We hear that in Darwin crocodiles even enter people’s homes and hotels and eat them up. Whether that is true or not, that is what people say in Dili. I try to tell them that is not the case, that is not true, but no one believes me.
Timor-Leste boasts pristine coral reefs cited by experts as among the best diving in the world. Our mountains and forests are sanctuaries to pristine natural landscapes, unique cultural diversity and historical footprints which bind our two countries. At the end of this month, Monash University will hold in Timor-Leste several weeks of dinosaur exhibits which attest to the millions of years of our common archaeological heritage between Timor-Leste and Australia.
Of course, we know the price of travelling with Air North is one of the greatest obstacles to Australians visiting Timor-Leste. A return ticket between Darwin and Dili can cost around $AUS900; it is cheaper to fly from Bangkok to Paris than from Darwin to Dili. Dili, Darwin and Kupang should develop better air links and increase joint cultural and sporting activities. I thank you, Chief Minister, for your leadership in expanding these activities – cultural and sports - between Dili and Darwin, Timor-Leste and the Northern Territory.
To end my remarks, let me touch upon the issue of the Greater Sunrise LNG field. My views on these issues are known to all – we must develop Greater Sunrise as a priority. There has been much talk about where a pipeline should go, or maybe there will not be any pipeline at all as there could be an onsite FLNG. If it is going to be a pipeline, the following questions must be answered:
While Timor-Leste is eternally grateful to Australia for its steadfast support since 1999, our sincere sense of gratitude cannot be such that we surrender all to Darwin. The pipeline will go where it should go – the shortest route and the cheapest.
Timor-Leste cannot and will not bow to pressures from the Woodside CEO millionaires. Those who contributed to this world financial and economic collapse are high paid CEOs in Wall Street and across the United States, and with their irresponsibility and greed dragged down the economies of the rest of the world. Some of them, many of them, work for the oil companies.
We will not bow to unilateral decisions made by these infamous CEOs who mismanaged world multinationals. I, for one, prefer to forgo Greater Sunrise than surrender to the dictates of a bunch of oil executive millionaires.
We are ready to study and analyse all options, to talk and explore ideas and arrangements that are mutually beneficial. We are not saying the pipeline should go to Suai for the sake of it. The decision has to be made purely on technical and commercial basis. Woodside seemed to suggest that it should be based on a patriotic basis: because Woodside is Australian it should come to Darwin. We view it more as a technical and commercial enterprise. It goes where independent, credible studies recommend it should go. If an independent, credible study says it should go to Darwin because technically it is safer and commercially sound, then we will go along with it, and we will sit down with Woodside and other investors in Australia to find out what other arrangements would be made to compensate the East Timorese for the loss of the downstream benefits.
We are not dogmatic or political about the issue of the pipeline. However, Woodside Oil executives are the ones who seemed to be dogmatic and political about it, when it should be the other way. Timor-Leste will soon designate a senior negotiator for Greater Sunrise and we will be happy then to sit down, talk and find an amicable solution, the best of options.
I love Australia. I feel very much part of it. The blood within my body is Australian, donated by young Australian soldiers. But I love my country and people more, not only because it is my country, soaked with the blood of too many in the fight to attain freedom, but because my country is small and weak, my people are poor and have been victimised for too long. You are rich and powerful. So, I have to side with my country and people who are weaker and poorer. I hope you understand this.
Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I would like to reciprocate your warm hospitality by inviting you to visit my country anytime at your convenience. The invitation is also extended to His Honour the Northern Territory Administrator, the honourable Chief Minister, as well as the honourable ministers and members of parliament. Your visit would very much help to expand and cement the relations between our two countries, and would have you see the situation on the ground that is somewhat different from what you often hear or read.
May God, the Almighty and the Merciful, bless the Australian people. I thank you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I will call now on two members to express our thanks to His Excellency for his Address today. I call the Deputy Chief Minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, Your Excellency Mr Jose Ramos-Horta, ladies and gentlemen, visitors, fellow parliamentarians, I thank you very much for your speech, your passion, and for sharing your thoughts with us. It is an honour to be able to welcome you to the lands of the Larrakia people, and to listen to your very powerful speech. Our people, our cultures are one. The relationships will always be there, and they continue.
I have spoken with many of the artists-in-residence from Timor-Leste. I know that you are a very passionate supporter of the arts and the museums. The links between our museum and the arts of the Northern Territory with your people of Timor-Leste will build and continue. I am looking forward to making sure those links continue and that we assist your country to build your museum.
Madam Speaker, Your Excellency, it was a great honour to accompany you into my fantastic electorate of Arafura, particularly Kakadu National Park. I can tell you, Your Excellency, you have left a mark on a classroom of children that were present at Patonga Outstation that day, where the traditional owners hosted you for that afternoon. They are still talking about your visit. Your gift to those children takes pride of place at Jabiru Area School. They have not forgotten, and their history teacher tells me they have become conversant with the history of Timor-Leste. I thank you for coming out to Kakadu for those couple of days, sharing with the traditional owners, sitting down with Jacob Nayinggul and sharing those stories.
That weekend was a highlight for the people in my electorate and they have not forgotten your visit. Your Excellency, and Madam Speaker, it was certainly a privilege to be able to host you in my electorate.
Your Excellency, your speech spoke of hope, but it also told us of resilience. The resilience of your people, of my people, continues. Those struggles we will overcome. I thank you for sharing your words with us today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Deputy Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker and Your Excellency. It is an honour to thank the President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, His Excellency Mr Jose Ramos-Horta, for travelling to the Northern Territory of Australia and addressing this parliament. Thank you.
The people of Timor-Leste and the Northern Territory have much in common, and the bonds are stronger than many of us realise. The concept of statehood in Timor-Leste is relatively new. The Northern Territory is continuing to strive to move towards statehood. For over 500 years, Timor-Leste was under Portuguese rule. For over 100 years, the Northern Territory was under the rule of other states of Australia, namely, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia and then the Commonwealth. Despite self-government, we still do not control all our own affairs.
Your Excellency, Timor-Leste is east of the Wallace Line as is Darwin and the Northern Territory. This special line means that Darwin shares with Timor-Leste similar flora and fauna and natural landscape. Our natural environment has much in common and, perhaps in the future and as our relationship grows and prospers, we can share the knowledge and life experiences of our natural assets to mutual benefit.
Another item we have in common with Timor-Leste is the Timor pony. Timor-Leste is responsible for developing this now famous and popular horse. Timor ponies are strong, frugal and agile, lovely natured and intelligent. Many Timor ponies were brought into the Northern Territory and used in the cattle industry and in the small farm industry.
During my upbringing we had a Timor pony. He was called Prince and he was an ex-trick horse from a rodeo. Prince was a strong horse, ate well, was well covered and, if push came to shove, he could be agile. That is about where the similarity with the above description stopped, Your Excellency. He was sneaky and conniving, he opened bins and stole food, he only worked when he felt like it, he bit toes, he rode under low branches to try to knock us off, and he walked along the side of barbed wire fences. Generally, he was a cantankerous old man horse. He must have had good breeding, Your Excellency, in his lines or perhaps his life was easy on our farm but, whatever it was, he lived to a ripe old age of nearly 45 years. He was such a special part of my family that he got a proper animal funeral on the farm. Mr President, next time we have a Timor pony, I am going to make sure it is not one from the rodeo, but he was, indeed, very intelligent and a credit to the horse breeding of your country.
Mr President, a more serious part of our relationship was the relationship during World War II, when Timor-Leste fought alongside Australian and Dutch forces against enemy invasion during the period 1942 to 1945. Timor-Leste fighters and a small force of Australian commandos repulsed the invaders and greatly assisted in preventing the enemy taking a stronghold in Australia. We, the Northern Territory and Australia, are truly thankful for your country’s strength and determination despite losses, for allowing us to be a free land.
Your Excellency, thank you for your attendance here today and for addressing this parliament of the Northern Territory of Australia.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of honourable members, I thank Your Excellency for your Address.
Your Excellency, you will recall on an earlier visit to Parliament House you presented me with this shawl from the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. It takes pride of place in my office and many people admire it.
As Speaker of this parliament, I am honoured to present you with a shawl with the true flavour of the Territory. This shawl has been designed especially for you and, I am proud to say, locally made by Mrs Karen Brown. The designs and the fabric are from the Tiwi Island people and feature rich ochre, deep black, pink, orange, and purple hues. They are of particular significance to the people of the Tiwi Islands. The designs include the lizard, star and armband designs. Ochre, black, and white have been the official colours of the Northern Territory since 1964; and the ochre colour was originally made from clay tinted with iron oxide, commonly found in much of the Northern Territory. The warmth of the colours displayed in this shawl, I feel, is a true reflection of Territory culture.
Your Excellency, most significantly, this cloth represents the common threads of our countries - Australia and Timor-Leste - and it is a symbol of the friendship we share. I present it to you on behalf of the members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Serjeant-at-Arms, please escort His Excellency from the Chamber. Members, I ask you to stand.
His Excellency was escorted from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members and guests, the House is now adjourned. I thank guests for joining us today for this historic occasion. I invite you to join us in the Main Hall for refreshments.
The Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORT
Alice Springs Festivals
Alice Springs Festivals
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, over the last couple of months, Alice Springs has come alive with the celebration of art and music. Alice Springs has become a place full of colour and vibrancy and the strength and diversity of the visual and performing arts in the Centre has been demonstrated to thousands of people.
The 12th Annual Beanie Festival kicked off in late June with over 10 000 visitors coming to Beanie Central to see the 5389 beanies sent in from across Australia and the world. More than 3700 of those beanies were sold over the weekend with a small commission retained from each beanie by the festival to hold workshops in textile dyeing, basket weaving and, of course, beanie-making and to prepare for future beanie festivals. Beanies not sold over the weekend or donated to the festival are given to the Cancer Council’s Look Good, Feel Good Program, the Leukaemia Foundation, and the Old People’s Home in Remote Aboriginal Communities - a great initiative. The Beanie Festival has continued to grow since its inception and brings people and beanies from across the globe to Alice Springs.
The Wearable Arts Acquisition Awards followed and was a magnificent display of creativity and imagination. The Wearable Arts Awards are a highlight in the arts calendar of Central Australia; and if you have the opportunity, I highly recommend people attend. The awards were, again, of the highest quality, something we have come to expect from Alice Springs and these events. Importantly, this year was the added highlight of the Youth Awards, an initiative that will guarantee the long term future of Wearable Arts in the Centre.
Wearable Arts is the unofficial start of the Alice Desert Festival, which was again a huge success. With the theme ‘Many Roads, One Voice’, the festival began in mid-September with the ever popular sunset street parade and continued through more than 100 diverse and exciting events, including the bush foods cooking competition and the very popular Asante Sana at Trephina Gorge. The Northern Territory government provides $160 000 for the Alice Desert Festival each year, an investment in Alice Springs that allows residents to celebrate their diverse culture, embrace their great lifestyle, and experience some of the best artistic talent that Australia has to offer.
Hot on the heels of the Desert Festival was the annual Desert Mob Exhibition, described as an explosion of colour, life and energy. The exhibition is an opportunity for Central Australian art centres to display their talents and, if the record sales of $315 000 is the measure, the quality of the art just gets better and better.
A highly anticipated feature of the Desert Mob Exhibition is the Desert Mob Marketplace. It is an opportunity for residents and visitors to Alice to invest in Aboriginal art at a cost of generally no more than $200 per painting - importantly, for the many artists themselves, a great opportunity to benefit financially with income going directly to the artists. Desert Mob is a magnificent national exhibition of contemporary Indigenous art, and emphasises the great talent which exists within the Indigenous art industry in Central Australia.
Wearable Arts, the Alice Desert Festival, and Desert Mob all occurred within the shadow of the largest conference held in Alice Springs - the Regional Arts Australia National Conference ‘Art at the Heart’. With over 900 delegates participating, it gave those involved in the arts industry from across Australia the chance to see art in the Northern Territory firsthand and discuss the issues facing the industry. The Northern Territory government was proud to be a major sponsor of the conference, contributing $160 000 to make the event a huge success. It is estimated the conference injected over $2m into the Alice economy - another glowing example of the benefit of a buoyant and dynamic art industry.
This government is proud to be a major supporter and fund provider of these events, and we are extremely proud of the ongoing support we give to the visual and performing arts in the Territory. We will continue to develop the industry which is a critical part of our regional economies.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Want of Confidence in the Speaker
Proposed Want of Confidence in the Speaker
Mr MILLS: (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from finding a Want of Confidence in the Speaker for her incapacity to protect this Assembly and its members from an overbearing and arrogant government ….
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr MILLS: I fully expected this morning …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please pause. Leader of Government Business?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the government will accept the Want of Confidence motion for debate.
MOTION
Proposed Want of Confidence in the Speaker
Proposed Want of Confidence in the Speaker
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That this Assembly express a Want of Confidence in the Speaker for her capacity to protect the Assembly and its members from an overbearing and arrogant government.
Madam Speaker, I held back because I fully expected that, this morning, there would be an explanation of the proceedings of this House and the judgments that were exercised in this House last night. It is like a family that comes back together. Something has occurred in this Chamber and no reference whatsoever is made to that which occurred in here last night. Madam Speaker, it bears directly upon the judgments that you make, and the confidence that we have placed in you by seconding your nomination, to fail to bring any reference to the issues of such concern to members of this Chamber.
I have an obligation, and so do all members, to reflect on the seriousness of the position that we hold in this Chamber. It is not a matter of protecting and defending pleasantries and the protocols, desires and needs of a government. It is the principles of democracy that require to be defended. I am deeply concerned - genuinely concerned - at what has occurred in this Chamber in this session and the session prior. I have seen honourable members’ reputations brought low. I have failed to see the efforts taken by the one in the Chair to protect the reputation of honourable members; that being a secondary issue to the primary issue of protecting this parliament from outside assault.
Further, last night, the embarrassment of being a member of this Chamber, and to see the appalling behaviour of the Leader of the Government Business. To allow that to occur, to run across there – run, as though it is some kind of hideous game - and for members of the opposition, on a General Business Day, to be ignored. I find no option but to raise this motion this morning.
I waited for the opportunity for an explanation to reflect on what has been occurring over preceding days. I know it is an important day, Madam Speaker; we have flowers on the table. That dresses us up nicely, doesn’t it? We have everything organised. We have our dinner suits ready for tonight. It is going to look very nice.
I am not interested in things looking really nice, we need to protect and defend that which is, in fact, good. This parliament needs to be defended, and we cannot allow it to be unpresented, unprotected. It would be remiss, as members who have made their pledge here, to allow this to continue, to have members of opposition be required to defend themselves.
There have been issues that have unfolded in this Chamber of recent times that have flowed out, and I am deeply concerned at the trend which is developing. I would like to see things change. What should we do? Remain silent? Write letters? Express concern? Try to intervene one way or another? That has been tried and we need to elevate this issue to a new level.
Madam Speaker, what occurred last night is of great concern. The background to this is to permit a Chief Minister to stand, hand on heart, and say that he is a great reformer of the Territory parliament. I cannot allow that to go, Madam Speaker. I do not know how you could. To describe a couple of little changes to the Territory’s parliament as a great reform of the Territory parliament without consulting any member of the parliament other than government! What opportunity did we have, as honourable members of this parliament, to speak to that which could truly be a reform rather than a public relations exercise?
Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity, surely, to strengthen this institution. We have an opportunity to do that, but that opportunity has been lost …
Mr Henderson: Stop pulling stunts all the time.
Mr MILLS: You can be quiet!
Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity to do that and that opportunity has been lost. I call upon you, Madam Speaker, to request the member for Wanguri, on his honour, to allow the members of this parliament to speak to this, so it can truly be a reform.
We have a concern, as demonstrated last night. We carry almost half the Territory community. We are not, as the member for Wanguri likes to say: ‘Look, it is politics and we are just playing games’. I am not playing games, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You check any one of those motions, with your hand on your heart, and check the quality of those motions.
The issue is that the opposition, treated with contempt, Madam Speaker, with your consent, provides for only two opportunities, and that is of great concern. We raised those matters last night, it was the only opportunity we had, and then we had word of reform of the Territory parliament. I beg to differ, it is not a reform at all, and for us to remain silent would be negligent, Madam Speaker.
There was an opportunity, and that opportunity has been lost, and I request a call be made upon the Chief Minister, who rides roughshod over this parliament and is more interested in the media spin than a genuine attention to the institution of this Territory parliament. I call upon you, Madam Speaker, to attend to that critical matter.
I would be very interested to see what government has to say, Madam Speaker, in your defence. There seems to be a fair working together as strategy to extend and advance the interests of government, particularly the way that we have been left exposed by the unsubstantiated allegations that are run through the media. You only have to read them, and you know full well, Madam Speaker, the way these things work. If you are trying to at least manage some kind of operation, if you do not manage it well, you will end up reaping a terrible harvest.
Madam Speaker, to have allegations made from one side to the other, and then to be reported in the media without substantiation but, worst of all, without protection from the Chair, we are all exposed, not just my colleagues. We are all exposed. For those on the other side who think they will be exempt from this, it will visit all of us, not just now, but perhaps in 2030. What institutions we leave exposed and undefended today will compound into the future.
We have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, and you said it was an extraordinary measure that the opposition would second the nomination – in good faith that was done. Restore our faith, Madam Speaker. Restore our faith, so that we can defend the parliament so that there is an opportunity for the voice of the people of the Northern Territory to be expressed in this Chamber. We have members who mounted a defence against motions that were raised in this parliament yesterday bringing into disrepute the committee system - referring to the committees as a place of political self-interest.
That was the strength of the argument; saying things that need to be referred for the consideration of this parliament, an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner. A cynic will see anything in a cynical way and so any offering that is made by the opposition – and you check the substance of those motions, Madam Speaker, and give it a shot to see whether it is fair dinkum. We have members of this House saying that there is no point in going to committees, bringing to a low point any value we have in the committee system - which, I must say, needs to be reassessed in the way that government can say: ‘Let us pass off a reform, we are going to reform the parliament. Let us issue the press release and then we will issue those three point reforms to the Standing Orders Committee and therefore we have instant reform’.
That is not reform - that is dishonesty. That is allowing a member of this Chamber, a minister of the Crown, against whose interests you are to defend us, their rampant interests, Madam Speaker, you have allowed them to run roughshod. You know very well there are ways of dealing with these matters. It started in the first session of the 11th Assembly. You saw it play out. I know you found it personally embarrassing. I found it distressing and any member would have found that distressing, except for those who think that this is some kind of political game and they do not mind that kind of bullying because, in fact, it was a strategy hatched elsewhere. You can see the finger marks all over it, but we cannot allow this to continue.
I move this motion with a genuine restraint in the first instance on one count. I expected in order to bring some kind of order to this Chamber and get us back onto an even keel, there would be a reference to what occurred last night. I have never seen anything like it - to see the member for Karama running across the Chamber, to see other honourable members standing and we are completely ignored because the judgement had been passed, Madam Speaker, with your consent, that the business of the opposition was not worth considering.
If the Chief Minister, a minister of the Crown, is going to stand up before the Territory community and say, with hand on heart, that he is now listening and he is going to speak more from the heart than the head, this minister of the Crown needs to be put in his place. That is your position, Madam Speaker, to protect and defend the people of the Territory from the rampant interests of a government which seems to do or say whatever they want. They are so caught up in spin - I know you can see it - I hope you can see it. There is a requirement, an obligation, and I would not be able to rest if I did not allow this matter to be raised in this way this morning, particularly after last night and previous days.
We talk in this Chamber about matters of great concern - concerns to do with the vulnerable, with the silent people who put their hope in us to advance their interests. The very words we say at the beginning of a parliament - what do they mean? They need to be defended. That principle of what this parliament is about. Why do we say those words at the beginning - to advance the true interests of all Territorians? That needs to be defended, Madam Speaker, and I do not see that defence. What am I to do? I know a principle: if I remain silent I am guilty as well. I am guilty as well - therefore I must speak. I must speak for those who do not have voices out there and expect us to start to get back on a proper keel and deal with the business of this Territory and get it in the right direction.
If we are going to spin and if we are going to allow public relations to dominate this Chamber and the rampant interests of a defensive and shallow government to rule this operation, Madam Speaker, we are all sadly missing the point. We are leaving exposed not ourselves and our great honour, but those who expect more of us. It is those who expect more of us - that is the point of this. We need to cut through. Maybe this is an opportunity to cut through.
I have had enough of the business that has been going on in recent times, and you have seen it begin to develop. You have seen the anger beneath the surface. You have seen the way the community is starting to express its view. It is probably of great delight to the government because they are seeing their little game, their little tactic playing out: members on the other side have been caught up in some kind of snare. And that is the delight of the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Minister who take great delight in the acquisition and the holding of power to exercise some kind of political jolly. It is much more serious than that, and that needs to be brought back to focus.
I am deeply concerned, genuinely concerned, and I held back; I expected this morning; I was shocked to find there was no reference whatsoever. It is a bit like being a part of a family where something horrible happened the night before, and we all get up and say good morning to each other and continue on.
I do not mind that a President of a nearby nation is coming to town. He wants to come and draw sustenance from this shining example of democracy. He wants to be shown an example. Well, if I were to be silent and say: ‘Look, in the interest of it all appearing nice for the visiting dignitary, let us not say anything’, I was not raised in a family like that. I was not raised in a family that is just silent about things. As I have grown and taken responsibility for my own path in life, I am not a citizen, I am not a man, who will be silent on such matters. Why should I be? I have but one life and to be silent on these things and to be elected to this parliament and to be mute in matters like this in the interests of pleasantry, I would find that I have let myself down, let my colleagues down and not only colleagues on this side of the Chamber, whether they know it or not, whether they appreciate it or not, every member of this Chamber, and for the institution of this parliament.
I may not be the best speaker in the world, but I tell you what: I know what I feel at this moment. I know that there is something left exposed and it needs to be protected. It needs to be defended. I have to say I am deeply concerned that if we remain silent, that which we have seen undefended, unprotected, and exposed will be further ravaged, further deteriorate, and it is not the great honour of the member for Blain or any member here. It is the honour of those who are expecting more from us. We hear so much, with hand on heart, of those far from us in remote communities, those in the suburbs who are worried about their lives, their lifestyle and their future. It is their interests we need to protect. We need to protect them. If we do not do that, if I sit in the chair and feel this but not say it, then I have not fulfilled my duty.
Madam Speaker, with recognition of the personal cost this must be to you notwithstanding, I put that aside for now because we are talking about principle, the offices we hold, the positions and responsibilities we carry. I am required to draw attention to a great concern: of a want of confidence in your protecting this parliament, in protecting the institution of the parliament, in the members of this Chamber, and for failing to attend to matters of last night and allowing that to rise.
For members to stand here last night with this hideous outplaying of some kind of strategy and some shallow gain with the cheering - you would have heard the cheering as the members of government won their little game as they went in to the lobby and thought: ‘Is not that great fun?’ Well, I cannot allow that to go.
Madam Speaker, I ask you to take note of that which I have raised before you. I ask honourable members to consider what I have said. Let us just cut this through and recognise what this is actually about. Some of you might have some great difficulty; you are already cocked and ready to be loaded to weigh into it - those who are so deaf that they refuse to hear, I greatly fear.
Madam Speaker, I no longer have confidence.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I expected something to happen this morning, but I was not sure what would happen. I left here last night partly relieved, partly disappointed, and very empty. I came to parliament this morning thinking: ‘Why am I coming to parliament?’
I should say at the outset, so people are clear as to where I stand on this issue - sometimes people say I sit on the fence or do this or that. I do not support the motion, but not because I do not believe a lot of what the Opposition Leader was saying.
The government runs the show really, and it has the power to bring in reform, which the Chief Minister is talking about. If we really want reform, if there really is going to be reform, then what happened last night should never happen again.
If we, as adults in this place, think that the behaviour last night was not becoming of us as parliamentarians, then we should, as we would expect nations who are at loggerheads with one another, and communities at loggerheads with one another, sit down and talk in a peaceful manner and sort it out.
I imagine many of the issues last night related to a fairly large Notice Paper with many items from the opposition and me, and the government’s belief that that was going on too long and, therefore, as they have control, they will make the decisions. Madam Speaker, you end up being the person who decides but, when it comes to the crunch, the government has the power. They are the ones who run this; they have the numbers; and they will decide what happens.
The point is: did it have to get to this stage? I know there is argy-bargy and there is politics here. I have known it since the day this new sittings of parliament started. Obviously, the opposition is trying to show it is an effective opposition. Obviously, the government is also trying to show ‘We are the government, we have the numbers’. I can live with that sort of politics.
However, we only have one General Business Day every 12 sitting days, and there are important issues raised then. I personally think some of those issues raised were raised too close to the actual day. They were very in-depth issues and sometimes there may be some changes required so that members of parliament have a little more time to research those matters.
When it comes to how the day is run, surely, as mature people, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can sit down and say: ‘We have all of these matters that need to be discussed, why can we not work something through?’ I could see this happening the whole day; something was going to come to a big crunch somewhere along the line - and it did, at 1 am.
Here we are today with me feeling if my constituents had seen what happened last night, they would wonder whether …
Ms Purick: What is the point?
Mr WOOD: Yes. It has highlighted the fact that the government has the power. While I might not support the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward, if this motion said: ‘I condemn the government over this’, I would support it. I say that because we have a motion coming up later which the Leader of the Opposition spoke about in his comments, and I spoke about the other day in parliament when the minister made his announcement that he was going to bring in reform. If the government was serious about reform, it would include us all. It might even include the community, and the staff of the Legislative Assembly who are also affected.
The government has the power, and it shows it has the power by saying that we will only have three items in this reform motion. There is not a fourth item ‘and any matters which might be taken into consideration by members of this House’.
The government has to lead the way if it believes the behaviour of this House is inappropriate. The opposition has a fair point in saying we only have one General Business Day. I was expecting us to go until 3 am. It might have even gone longer than that; I could have lived with that. However, if the government thought that was too long, why did they not sit down with the Leader of the Opposition and ask: ‘Can we have some negotiations on this? Is not that what …
Mr Henderson: We tried.
Mr Mills: Oh, come on.
Mr WOOD: Well, I don’t know …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I could nearly rest my case after that. I believe we have to work harder to show the community how we solve problems when we do have differences of opinion. You do not have to solve all problems by shouting abuse at one another.
I was concerned last night when the issue of a letter from the mother of a member of parliament was raised. That was not good. That is like saying someone’s sins are passed from the father to the son, and I think it was inappropriate. If we are serious about reforms, some of the issues which have been raised, some of the concerns we have about personal abuse, some of the concerns we have about how this how parliament is operating, need to be part of this motion which is coming up later.
If we are serious about reform, if we are seriously taking up the issues the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about, and if we are serious as members of this parliament thinking we should be able to do better for our constituents in the Territory, then it is beholden on the leaders in this House to work towards that. That might mean people have to eat a bit of humble pie sometimes. However, if people get up here and say this is what they believe, and then 24 hours later we are all doing the opposite, you have to wonder how genuine it is.
Madam Speaker, I will not support the motion, not because I do not share the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns, I do. As I said, when I turned up this morning, I could not care two hoots. I felt empty. I sat down with a few bits of paper and thought: ‘What am I doing here? I have a couple of bills to listen to and, I think, a very weak motion on here’.
A solution might have been - I do not know how many items we had to go - perhaps we could have asked: ‘Can we continue that today and finish it off?’ Or, I do not have a problem with sitting on Friday morning if we wanted to finish it off. I am not saying that was the solution, but we could have found a solution by working through it; it would have saved all this angst we had last night.
The government has the power to do that if it wants to. I know you are the conduit for some of that, Madam Speaker, and you are in a difficult position, but the government has the power to do that. If it shows it really believes in reform, it should lead the way in reform. The only way it can prove that it does lead the way is to ensure that what happened last night does not happen again.
Madam Speaker, I am not sitting on the fence. My feeling is that the criticism needs to go back to the government. I am not saying that that excuses the opposition entirely. There are insults going back and forwards here. I know people here who hate all that. They hear insults going one way and the other and you have to wonder. You come here to debate issues, and there were some genuine debates last night. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, and sometimes you do wonder, why? I was very happy that the government passed one of my motions, and I do not know how long ago that last occurred - a long time. There were some motions which were not political and it would not have done any harm if the government had taken them on. It would have shown that we believe in reform and that we are inclusive of all people in this House.
Madam Speaker, I repeat: I will not support the motion. I support the feelings the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I ask the government to seriously sit down, as part of its reform process, to see if we can reduce this type of behaviour. It does us no good, and it does not show good example to the community. It is no good saying to people out there that we will send you to gaol for violent behaviour. We might not get the violent behaviour but we certainly get forms of verbal violence here, which is not the sort of behaviour you would expect other people to carry on in their businesses. We need to take stock of where we are going.
I believe it is a good point the Leader of the Opposition has raised. I am no holier than thou person, Madam Speaker. I interject occasionally and get a bit cranky at the way things are done. In the end, I believe we can express our concerns in a decent manner. We can be passionate. We do not need to get abusive. We need to show Territorians we are mature politicians and this is the way we should operate so it is reflected to the rest of society.
Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on this. It is not because I am sitting on the fence, but I believe that the blame should be laid elsewhere.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and what we have seen is another stunt. If the Leader of the Opposition was serious, if he was genuinely concerned, surely he would have picked up the phone and called you, Madam Speaker. He would have walked around to your office, as has been the practice in the past when he has had concerns about this House, and expressed his concerns. Has there been one approach between last night and this morning to you, Madam Speaker, before he brought his Want of Confidence motion? The answer to that is: no.
Anyone with genuine concern would have walked around and raised the concern. Look at any grievance or any resolution processes, in any workplace and there is always a process - if you have a grievance you go and raise it directly with the person you have the grievance with, in the first instance.
There are basic grievance resolution processes which the Leader of the Opposition did not even give you the courtesy of doing, Madam Speaker, before he brought his cowardly little motion into this Chamber this morning. Why is it cowardly? If he was sincere it would be brought against me, as Leader of Government Business, because it was me who closed down the House, Madam Speaker - not you. I used the standing orders. I put the adjournment motion; I put the motion to put the question. Madam Speaker, you simply did your role as Speaker - you followed the standing orders that I was moving.
If you were genuinely outraged - if this was not another stunt - you would be pulling this want of confidence on me, as the Leader of Government Business. The member for Nelson rightly pointed out, it is the government that determines what the government does in this House and as Leader of Government Business, I carry the responsibility; I am remunerated for carrying that out. Not the Speaker. Cowardly.
Madam Speaker, why should we be surprised? We have seen stunt after stunt - it is all they are doing. They are treating this as a mockery. They want to descend into farce. They treat our parliament with contempt, and therefore Territorians, because Territorians want to hear us debate the critical issues confronting them.
The members of the CLP are the most breathtakingly arrogant group of politicians to enter the floor of this parliament - breathtakingly arrogant. They sit there and we hear snipe after snipe after snipe: ‘We will be in government, we are nearly there, we will be in government soon’. Snipe after snipe after snipe - genuinely arrogant. They have done everything they can to be disorderly in this House, Madam Speaker, to test your patience to the extreme. It has been a place of theatre. The opposition has been more intent on the theatrics than the actual issues. They are treating it as a game and that is absolutely contemptible.
They believe that what happens in here is grist to the mill of their own self-importance. We see posturing after posturing, coming from members opposite, who are beating their chests and trying to out do each other because they want to take over the leadership.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who has no control over his opposition members. You can see it playing out in this Chamber every day.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You can see the rabble and, Madam Speaker, you go out of your way to ensure we are as orderly as this Chamber can be despite their best attempts to treat this Chamber with contempt and to, therefore, treat the Territory with contempt.
We are not here to pander to the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: We are not here to pander to the egos of people who believe they are better than everyone else because they have the letters MLA after their name.
Mr Mills: Is it the honourable speaking, is it? I know your story.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: Talk about the car park.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I look forward to hearing you tell it.
Mr Mills: And everyone else knows it.
Ms Carney: As soon as you became a minister you said: ‘I want the minister’s car park’.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, they reach new lows and new depths with this motion. You have never ignored unbecoming or disorderly comments in this House. The allegations that have been thrown in this House about drinking, I know …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order
Ms LAWRIE: … that when I made the allegation about the member for Araluen because her behaviour was extreme and erratic again …
Ms Carney: Read the Hansard. You are a liar.
Ms LAWRIE: … again …
Ms Carney: You are a liar. You are a dishonourable liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: And there she goes just proving the point.
Madam Speaker, you sought my withdrawal immediately, as you should as Speaker and as you did. When it was drawn to your attention that another member had made a drinking allegation about another member, you sought the withdrawal. You went out of your way to ensure that it was expunged from the record.
Ms Carney: And then you spun it and pitched it to the media. You grub.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: You grub.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the member for Araluen …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Here we go again. The florid language of the member for Araluen: she has called the Leader of Government Business …
Ms Carney: It cuts both ways, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … a grub which you have ruled repeatedly in this place is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I would ask you to withdraw under Standing Order 62(1).
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw grub, Madam Speaker, if she finds it clearly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, when those allegations, one of which you witnessed and ensured was withdrawn, and one of which you were advised about and ensured was withdrawn, you did your job with fairness and impartiality. The opposition likes to think that it was the government that went to the media and said, ‘Look at those allegations …’
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: … misled this parliament.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have not misled this parliament and I am not misleading this parliament.
Ms Carney: I said ‘don’t’.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: I say to the members, look to your own member for Port Darwin because it is he who has pursued with vigour this issue of the drinking allegations. It is he who has done that. It is he. It is not this government. It is he. Then look to your own further, because what do we get in debate last night from the member for Goyder? Have a look at the Hansard, Leader of the Opposition. Have a look at the allegations that the member for Goyder threw last night.
Look to your own and your own behaviour. Look to the behaviour of your own members. The Speaker has gone out of her way to try to bring order back to this House because the opposition has been nothing but a rabble. Why? Because they cannot accept in their arrogance that they are opposition and not government.
A member: You cannot accept that you will not answer the questions.
Ms LAWRIE: And they cannot even accept that ministers can answer questions how ministers choose to answer questions - a convention that has gone on in this Chamber forever. We have members here who would believe the folly and the fancy of the member for Port Darwin because they have not witnessed Question Time in this parliament before. They just believe what he says. They have not gone to check or ask. Talk to any of the Assembly staff. Ask the Assembly staff about how many times the former Speaker, Nick Dondas, shut this House down at night. Ask the Assembly staff before you believe the flights of fancy of the member for Port Darwin. Do your own research. Check around. Get a bit of balance and perspective.
Everyday in this place, we discuss matters which affect the lives of Territorians, and we do so with a impartiality shown by you, as Speaker. We introduce and pass legislation that affects all members of our community, and we do so with the impartiality of you, as Speaker. Madam Speaker, you go out of your way to give us due warning - every single one of us - about what is acceptable and what is not. You went to the extent, Madam Speaker, of writing to every member of this parliament …
Mr Mills: Oh, yes, and that was leaked to the media.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Oh yes, and that was leaked to media’. There are 25 members.
Leader of the Opposition, if the Speaker has to write to members because of disorderly behaviour and point out how to behave, it is certainly not any reflection on the Speaker if the media talk about it.
The government recognises that the member for Nelson does not participate in the theatrics and the game playing that the opposition does. Like government, he takes his role seriously; he wants to get on with debating real issues. Regarding his suggestion that, with the ridiculous amount of - and ridiculous is my word, not his - items on the GBD Notice Paper yesterday, seven of which were piled on at the last minute, and creating the stunt that we cannot get through our business …
A member: It is not our fault you do not want to work.
Ms LAWRIE: Listen to the juvenile interjection: ‘Not our fault you do not want to work’. Unbelievable, Madam Speaker.
Piling seven items on the day before and, as the member for Nelson quite rightly pointed out, how do you have time to properly research and give full consideration to that? When the Whip did the job that the Whip is paid to do, and contacted the Opposition Whip to talk about how that load would be managed, how they intended to run through that, what did she do? Did she have the discourse that needs to happen between Whips? No ...
Ms Carney: Has he been telling whoppers, has he?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Araluen to withdraw the allegation.
Mr Mills: What allegation?
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the comment about ‘whoppers’.
Ms CARNEY: No allegation, Madam Speaker. I said: ‘Has he been telling a whopper?’ I did not say assert that he had been.
Madam SPEAKER: If you have said that, I will allow it.
Ms LAWRIE: What does she do? She hangs up. Madam Speaker, I have been a Whip in the past, and I know that it does not matter how it is difficult, how tense, and how hostile things get between government and the opposition, Whips have to do their job and communicate. They have to discuss, as best they can, the running of the business, the items brought before the House on the Notice Paper.
What do we get from the Opposition Whip, who is the laziest Whip I have come across? What do we get? She never knows how many speakers they are going to have on any given item. Basics for a Whip: Whips always know how many speakers they have …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They might say one or two might jump, but she never knows …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: So, yes, the government went, with every intent, to negotiate how the day would be run so we could accommodate the 20 items. No, the Opposition Whip hung up on our Whip. In what other workplace would there be such despicable behaviour, you would have to ask yourself, Madam Speaker?
In genuine desire by the government to get through their ridiculous number of items, we set aside the standing orders to work through dinner break. If we wanted to ‘gag’ you, as you like to allege at every drop of the hat, we would have said: ‘No’. It was genuine, and treated with the normal contempt they treat everything in this Chamber, absolute contempt.
How do we know this has all been a stunt? Last Tuesday, the member for Port Darwin said: ‘We will keep you here until 4 am’, in reference to the GBD.
Mr Elferink: Yes, if we needed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, pre-designed stunts, just another stunt. After all the stunts we have seen from the opposition who have no intent to debate the real issues that affect Territorians but want to pull one stunt after the other.
We have seen 48 points of order during Question Time, since last Tuesday - 48 points of order. More stunts. They have moved five Censure or Want of Confidence motions. Stunts. We know they are using MPIs as stunts. They used to be seldom used unless they were real matters of public importance …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You roll one out every day. It is a stunt. They have attempted to refer a member of this House to the Privileges Committee, one of the most serious motions of this House. They disrupted their own Question Time with a dissent motion. You just wonder how many more stunts the opposition want to keep running until they actually understand what we are in here to do. We are in here to debate the real issues which affect the lives of Territorians. We are in here to deal with legislation.
Mr Mills: People do not believe you any more. I do not.
Ms LAWRIE: And I really do not care if the Leader of the Opposition believes me or not, quite frankly. I am elected by the constituents of Karama to do a job. I have the trust and confidence of my colleagues to do the job of Leader of Government Business in here. I know that irks, Leader of the Opposition, but I will come in and I will do my job, whether you believes me or not.
The issue is: let us get down to debating the issues that affect the lives of Territorians, let us deal with legislation. We have introduced the whistleblower’s legislation; we have introduced a code of conduct; we have introduced a register of members’ interests; we have debated a statement on the Ichthys project, and all the while the opposition just moves one stunt after the next. Have a look at yourselves. Look at how the media have responded to your behaviour, and what is the response?
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Attack the media. You want to bring the media before the Privileges Committee, you want to attack the media. Do not blame others. Look to yourselves, at your own behaviour. They want to attack everyone else; everyone else is bad. Let us attack the Speaker instead of the Leader of Government Business - that is cowardly – let us attack the media. They come in here, use the privilege of parliament to have a go at the reporters in the media, just simply reporting, doing their job.
The difference between the opposition and the government is that the government is fair dinkum about actually dealing with the issues that affect the lives of Territorians, not the theatre and theatrics the opposition want this Chamber to become. That is the key difference.
Madam Speaker, you do your job fairly and impartially. I do not just say that because you share the ideals of the same political party that I do, that you are a Labor member of parliament. I say that because, as I have said in this House before, and I will say it as often as I need to, I know, indeed …
A member: Look at her when you talk to her.
Ms LAWRIE: You are sometimes fools over there, aren’t you?
Unlike many others, I have witnessed the actions of many Speakers of this House. I can walk along the gallery that visitors to parliament see, and I am aware of how each of them treated this House and how they treated the opposition and the government. I can say, sincerely, Madam Speaker, you have been the fairest, you have been the most impartial and it is foolish for them to come in here today and attack you. By all means come in and attack the Leader of Government Business, because it was me.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I refer you to Standing Orders 78: Closure of Debate. There is no debate on the question be put. The question is that the question be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Leader of Government Business and the Government
Proposed Censure of Leader of Government Business and the Government
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, following the invitation of the Leader of Government Business, I move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to censure the Leader of Government Business and the government for failing to respect the institutions of parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I listened …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the government will not be taking the censure. We have been through this debate. Let us just get on with the business of the House.
Mr Elferink: You have just said to do this. You have invited us to do this
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The government does not agree to the suspension of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
Members interjecting.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
LEAVE DENIED
Member for Fong Lim – Request to ask Question of Speaker
Member for Fong Lim – Request to ask Question of Speaker
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have a question for you.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, you cannot speak from there. You are not at your desk.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I call on Government Business.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I have a question for you.
Madam SPEAKER: You are not at your desk.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is being disorderly and he is not at his desk.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. A member may speak from the Dispatch Box at any time.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. Member for Fong Lim, I would like you to return to your seat, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I have a question for you. I seek your permission to …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under which standing order is the member for Fong Lim asking you a question?
Mr TOLLNER: I am asking a question of the Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr TOLLNER: No, Madam Speaker, it is not. I am asking you a question.
Ms LAWRIE: Then there is no point of order, Madam Speaker. He is not asking a point of order. He cannot just stand up in the Assembly and randomly ask you a question. We follow the rules of the Chamber.
Mr Tollner: You are opposed to me asking a question of the Speaker – is that what you are saying?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, I have asked you …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, if you wish to speak, you need to seek leave of the House. That is the rules.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I seek leave of the House to ask you a question.
Leave denied.
Mr Tollner: To ask a question?
Madam SPEAKER: The House has decided …
Mr Tollner: You people are really pathetic.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat.
LIVESTOCK BILL
(Serial 13)
(Serial 13)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to consolidate the livestock legislation into a single bill enabling the reduction from five acts to one. There will be a consequential reduction from six regulations to one. The legislation will be halved. There will be improved consistency and simplicity for the public, livestock industries and regulatory staff.
The legislation is in place to support product integrity in the livestock industries for the benefit of consumers, and to facilitate disease surveillance and disease control. There are minimal restrictions related to endemic diseases, with any restrictions being nationally consistent.
There are extensive powers to respond to an emergency animal disease such as foot and mouth disease or avian influenza. A rapid effective response will minimise the cost of a response and the consequence of the disease outbreak on the livestock industry and the economy. Actions can be undertaken to control the disease and to prevent the spread of the disease.
The traditional methods of determining the ownership of cattle, buffalo and horses by brands and ear marks will be maintained. Property Identifier Codes, PICs, which have been in operation for cattle since the 1970s, will be extended for all livestock to provide a unique identifier for properties with livestock. The National Livestock Identification System for cattle and buffalo will be maintained.
Australia is a world leader in the traceability of livestock to enable a rapid tracing mechanism in the event of a disease or a chemical residue event. Consumer and market confidence is thus ensured. In order to protect the high health status of the Northern Territory livestock, health certificates for the importation of livestock will be maintained. An acceptable level of protection is provided while not impeding trade in livestock. Any restrictions are nationally consistent.
Powers are in place for the investigation and control of disease in livestock. The historical eradication of bovine pleuropneumonia by 1973, bovine brucellosis by 1989, and bovine tuberculosis by 1997 are examples of successful disease control programs within the Northern Territory, with major market access and production benefits. There is mandatory reporting of specified animal diseases based on the national notifiable diseases of terrestrial animals by veterinarians and owners. Laboratories are approved consistent with national standards to ensure quality testing results.
Compensation is provided for livestock and things that are destroyed for disease control purposes. Compensation is generally determined by a panel of three experienced valuers. There is an appeal process for the owner or the Chief Executive in the event of a disagreement.
Authorised officers under the legislation are the minister, Chief Executive, Chief Inspector, and Inspector. Each have distinct roles under the legislation. The Chief Inspector is appointed by the Chief Executive. Inspectors are appointed by the Chief Inspector following the necessary training.
While stock routes have not been used extensively for droving cattle since the 1960s, powers are retained to control the slow rate of travel, or to close stock routes in order to protect the stock routes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
PLANT HEALTH BILL
(Serial 15)
(Serial 15)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce new plant health legislation for the Northern Territory. It will replace the existing Plant Diseases Control Act 1979.
The value of field and fodder crops, hay, silage, pasture seeds, forestry and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory was estimated at $164m in 2006. In that year, this provided full-time employment for 612 people and 3526 part-time. Plants also contribute to the livestock industries by providing native and improved pastures, and, of course, native flora is in integral part of the Territory’s natural environment, contributing to biodiversity, recreation and tourism.
Incursions of exotic pests and diseases have impacts on plant-based industries in the Northern Territory, reducing yields, affecting the quality of products and interrupting trade. Horticultural crops, as well as grain, fodder, pastures, forestry and native plants can all be affected.
Effective legislation is an integral part of preventing the spread of pests and diseases by complementing surveillance and control activities, and by facilitating trade in healthy plants and their products. In recognition of this, all states, territories and the Commonwealth have enacted legislation related to plant health. In fact, the Northern Territory has had ordinances and acts relating to plant health going back to 1918.
Plant health legislation provides a basis upon which responsibilities for the management of pests and diseases can be delegated and legally enforced if necessary.
The need for a new act has become evident in recent years. Honourable members may recall publicity about outbreaks of the Philippines Fruit Fly, Panama Disease in bananas, Grapevine Leaf Rust and Spiralling White Fly in the Northern Territory in the past 10 years. These outbreaks disrupted local production, or required the implementation of quarantine measures to prevent spread to other parts of the Territory or Australia. During their management, deficiencies in the effectiveness of the current legislation became evident in terms of the efficiency of surveys and control activities. In addition, a Northern Territory Quarantine Review in 1999 recommended that the Plant Diseases Control Act be reviewed to bring it up-to-date.
Many plant pests and diseases that occur overseas or interstate pose major biosecurity threats to the Northern Territory. To mention just two, Black Sigatoka in bananas and the Red-banded Mango Caterpillar could enter the Territory from overseas or Queensland, affecting horticultural production, causing economic losses and requiring considerable expenditure for control.
Their management will require well planned programs, coupled with an effective legislative base to prevent spread and control infestations. As well as complementing on-ground plant management practices, plant health legislation can assist in facilitating trade in healthy plants by providing a legal basis for market accreditation. The Northern Territory is party to a memorandum of understanding on Interstate Certification Assurance which is a national system of plant health certification accepted by all states and territories.
The assurance scheme assists in pest management by reducing the risk of spread between jurisdictions. This is achieved through certification of products or plants by the producer that they meet certain pest management requirements. The NT Quarantine Review recommended that administration of the assurance scheme needed legislative backing, as required by the memorandum of understanding.
In developing this bill, my department considered deficiencies in the existing legislation, examined similar legislation elsewhere in Australia, studied documents relating to Australian plant pest response agreements, and undertook two public consultations.
The second consultation in 2006 included circulation of a discussion draft of the proposed act. It was mailed to 90 stakeholders inviting comments. It was the subject of extensive advertising in the Territory media and was made available on the Internet. Meetings were held at Humpty Doo, Katherine, Alice Springs, and Ti Tree.
I shall now summarise the main features of the bill. The objective is to ensure that appropriate actions may be taken to control plant pests and diseases, and to promote the production and trading of healthy plants and plant products. In line with modern practice, the word ‘pest’ is used throughout the legislation to refer to disease as well as to the common understanding of insect pests. Soil is a common vector of pests and is not mentioned in the present act. A definition has therefore been included for ‘plant-related material’ which covers soil, other growth media and packaging.
Operational aspects of the legislation fall into two parts: control of pests and certification of plant health. Provisions in the legislation place obligations on owners of plants or plant-related material, or may restrict the movement of plants. These provisions are necessary to protect the Territory’s agricultural industries and the environment from pests.
Under the section on control of pests, owners of plants and plant-related materials must take reasonable measures to prevent infestation of plants by declared pests and prevent the spread of pests. There is a requirement for reporting a notifiable pest within 24 hours. Other provisions to reduce spread of pests are that a person must not grow, sell or transport a plant or plant-related material that is affected by a declared pest. In addition, regulations may be made to restrict the introduction, export, transportation or possession of plants or materials in order to control a pest.
It is known that the presence of neglected or even healthy host plants for a pest may cause difficulties in pest management programs. The presence of such plants may result in the build up of a pest in an area and result in spread to unaffected crops. There is provision in the bill to require an owner to treat or dispose of plants if it is necessary to do so for control of a declared pest.
In controlling pests it may be necessary to quarantine an area to reduce its spread. This can be established by declaring a quarantine place to carry out inspections, for treatment or for disposal. Movements of persons, plants or any other things into or out of a quarantine place may be restricted and cultivation of plants may be regulated.
It is interesting to note that provision has been made for consideration of the management system being employed when a requirement is imposed under the act. For example, persons may be engaged in organic farming. If an inspector imposes a treatment regime for control of a pest, the inspector may take this into account. The inspector may also take account of the person’s preference as to how the treatment will be carried out.
I must emphasise that the successful management of plant pests requires a long-term cooperative effort between neighbouring properties, within and between districts, and across regions throughout the Territory. Community collaboration is encouraged in the legislation by providing for the development and implementation of plant health management plans. The bill explains that a plant health management plan is to ensure that long-term plans for control of pests are developed and implemented with community support and involvement. A plan specifies the plant and product, the location where it applies, the time over which it is in force and the obligations of persons under the plan. A notice of a draft plan must be published in a newspaper so that comments can be sought by stakeholders before it is formally made.
The section in the legislation on ‘certification’ allows for an inspector to give a certificate relating to the health of plants or produce. Importantly, this section also encourages producers to adopt measures that will allow them to promote healthy products. A property may be declared as an accredited production place that it is free of certain pests for plants or products produced there. This can be an advantage for marketing plants or produce. In addition, the legislation provides for persons to be accredited to issue plant health assurance certificates for their own produce, thus providing an alternative to certification by government inspectors. This has a benefit of improving market access for plants and products, especially to other jurisdictions which also have pest management restrictions through similar legislation.
Regarding administration of the legislation, the bill provides for the minister to appoint a public sector employee with appropriate qualifications as the Chief Inspector of Plant Health. In turn, the Chief Inspector can appoint any person to be an inspector if satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications or experience. This means that persons who are not in the public sector, but who are qualified, could be appointed as inspectors. The bill details the powers and obligations of inspectors including giving notice about entry to properties for control or monitoring purposes.
A benefit of the legislation is that it provides for persons to be reimbursed for damage or costs incurred by operation of the act. The Commonwealth, each state, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and various industry bodies are signatories to a ‘Government and Plant Industry Cost Sharing Deed in respect of Emergency Plant Pest Responses’. This establishes a mechanism to facilitate the management of emergency plant pests in Australia. The deed allows for the sharing of costs arising from the implementation of a response plan and a means for owner reimbursement costs. The bill accounts for this under its reimbursement provision.
The overall benefit to the Territory community of this new plant health legislation is through linkages of healthy plants and products to improved financial returns for producers and better quality plant products for consumers. Its implementation will result in enhanced management of plant pests in the Territory, this, in turn, benefiting the plant industries, the natural environment and the economy.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee – Referral of
Assembly Sitting Hours and Procedures
Standing Orders Committee – Referral of
Assembly Sitting Hours and Procedures
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move – That, the Assembly refer the following matters to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and report to the Assembly during the November sitting of the Parliament:
1. that the Assembly sit three extra days each year;
3. that video and audio streaming of Parliamentary proceedings be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast.
On Tuesday, the Chief Minister announced plans to improve the accountability and transparency of this parliament. The plans include: four year fixed terms, three extra sitting days, video and audio streaming of parliament, and parliament starting at 9 am and finishing no later than 10 pm.
These changes will make the parliament more productive, accessible to the public, improve the quality of debate - we can but hope - and hopefully encourage more people to enter politics. The Leader of the Opposition put out a media release which whinged and whined as usual, but did not actually oppose any of these plans.
Quite appropriately, the government is referring these plans to the Standing Orders Committee to for inquiry and to report to the Assembly in the November sitting.
The extra sitting days every year will give the government more opportunities to implement policies. It would also provide the opposition and Independent member with more opportunities to scrutinise the work government is doing.
There will also be video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings. The Legislative Assembly will investigate what technology is needed to provide a quality service as quickly as possible, I am advised. This will provide the public and media with the best access to the NT parliament since self-government.
Set finishing times for parliament is not unusual. The Commonwealth parliament has set finishing times. Sitting into the early hours of the morning is both irresponsible and highly unproductive. The new proposed hours will make parliament more efficient and productive, and help to make a career in politics more attractive.
This motion proposes to refer the following issues to the Standing Orders Committee – that the Assembly sit three extra days each year; that the Assembly commence at 9 am, and adjourns no later than 10 pm; and that video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about this motion for the following reasons. First, government talks about openness and accountability, but does everything in its power to hinder openness and accountability. The shenanigans we have just seen from the government a minute ago were all about hindering debate, stopping debate, gagging debate. The Leader of Government Business is constantly standing up and gagging debate. The last thing this government wants is openness and accountability. That is shown very clearly by their actions.
The Leader of Government Business says set times for the parliament to close happens in federal parliaments. I can assure the Leader of Government Business that is not the case. There is an expectation that parliament will sit to a particular time but, more often than not, that parliament is very flexible with the hours they sit. I distinctly recall one sitting period when I was there where the parliament sat for 37 hours straight. The reason for that was the House of Representatives was waiting for legislation to be returned from the Senate, which it desperately wanted to pass before the winter break. Consequently, it meant parliament had to sit for a period of time longer than normally expected. However, to suggest it was legislated or regulated to finish at a particular time is complete and absolute nonsense.
We understand members have lives outside of the parliament but, as elected members of the parliament, we have an obligation, first, to the people of the Northern Territory. We have an obligation to debate those issues which they wish to see debated, and that their representatives in this place wish to see debated. We have seen, time and time again, that this government is not keen to debate issues; they constantly gag debate; they shut down debate.
They do not allow questioning of, you, for instance, Madam Speaker. It was not more than half an hour ago that I asked leave of the House to ask you a question - a simple question. It is not a difficult thing. The question - and I will note it now – is that I simply wanted, as a member of this place, access to the video footage of last night from the five cameras here. The government’s own motion talks about video and audio streaming and how they want that to occur. For the life of me, I cannot see a reason - given the fact the government says it supports openness and accountability - why anyone would find it distasteful for me to access the video footage from last night …
A member: And get the video from last week as well. That would be good.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, I would not mind access to the video from last week, or at any time, of debates in this parliament. As a member of this parliament, it should be a fundamental right that members of this parliament should be able to access video and audio footage of events which occur in this parliament.
I understand it is probably not television quality video footage we have here and, at times, it is very grainy and of poor quality. However, for my own personal needs, I would like to be able to access that footage.
Madam Speaker, I give you notice that I will be asking, in writing - as I cannot ask a question in this place; a harmless question like that. I will be writing to you to see if I can access video footage of events that occurred in this place.
This motion the government has put up is absolutely nothing but window dressing. We have seen time and time again from the government where they put motions in place that never actually go anywhere.
Before I was so rudely cut off in debate last night by the Leader of Government Business, I was going to raise the motion that I put to the House about a regulatory review advisory committee. This is not the first time that this has been raised in the House. In fact, it was raised in October last year during a debate where the member for Araluen raised a very similar motion. During the debate on that motion 12 months ago, the then minister who had carriage of that, Syd Stirling, amended the motion of the member for Araluen. Part of his amendment was that he requested that a reference be provided to the Public Accounts Committee to examine and report to the Assembly on business concerns about any unnecessary regulatory burdens while ensuring the cost of establishing a large, specialised sub-committee is not incurred by Territory taxpayers. That is what the government minister of the time altered the motion to read.
Now, 12 months down the track, I ask the question: was this put to the Public Accounts Committee? Has the Public Accounts Committee made any sort of reference to that motion? The answer, of course, is no. The Public Accounts Committee has not done anything at all about the regulatory burden on business - nothing. That is a motion which was put more than 12 months ago, to this parliament by the government.
Here we are now, expected to believe that this motion they are going to send to the Standing Orders Committee is going to be jumped on, debated quickly, worked out, and come back to the Assembly for some sort of debate.
I find it hard to take this government on their word. I find it incredibly hard to take this government on their word. They do not want openness, they do not want accountability. They talk about sitting an extra three days a year. We could sit an extra 50 days a year if it was in the government’s best interest. If that is what the government wanted, there would be no problems at all in convening parliament and having issues debated, but they put up some nonsense that we are going to sit for an extra three days a year. Well, give us an extra 30 days a year so that we can belt out all the issues, we can actually have a proper informed debate.
Every motion last night was shut off. We had 20 motions on the Notice Paper, we got eight of them dealt with, may be it was seven.
Ms Lawrie: Ten. And they were not shut off.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This government is afraid of work. The Leader of Government Business says the reason we have to stop at 10 o’clock is to encourage more people into politics. What a ridiculous statement! The reason people get involved in politics and the parliamentary process is that they want to make a difference. I would very much doubt there is a single member in this place who is not here because they want to make a difference. Parliamentarians will make extraordinary sacrifices in order to try to make that difference.
Goodness me, why could we not start parliament at 8 o’clock? Why cannot we work through the lunch break? You talked about the fact that you allowed us to work through a half an hour dinner break last night as some magnanimous gesture on behalf of government. Some magnanimous gesture! Oh, well, the opposition wanted to work an extra three quarters of an hour – and we let them! Come on.
The Leader of Government Business is a scandal, an absolute scandal. The way she railroads this parliament, the way she dictates and gets away with it in this parliament. We acknowledge we are in opposition, we acknowledge you are in government. I would hate to be the one Independent member in this place; it would very difficult to get up on any issue.
We understand the government has control, they have the numbers. They can get their way with practically anything. However, it is complete abrogation to constantly shut down debate, constantly oppose people for the most innocent things, like asking the Speaker a question. What could possibly be so offensive to the government that a member of this place cannot ask the Speaker a question?
Dr Burns: Read the standing orders, you goose.
Mr TOLLNER: What is so offensive about asking the Speaker a question?
Dr Burns: You should learn the rules.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The minister says learn the rules. I will point out to you, minister, that I asked leave to ask the Speaker a question. Who did not grant that leave, minister? The government did not grant that leave. The government did not allow a member to ask the Speaker a question. An innocent question!
Ms Carney: Timing was of great importance to you blokes last night, wasn’t it? And yet you are so hypocritical you seek an extension of time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This motion is a complete and utter joke. Of course we are all keen to see video streaming and audio streaming coming out of the parliament. The opposition has been pressing for this for goodness knows how long. I find it absolutely ridiculous that here we are in 2008 and there is no live feed going to media. I cannot understand how, after 30-odd years of self-government, we cannot get video footage out to major media outlets. That is not just a shame on this government. It is a shame on all previous governments. It is a shame on everyone who has been in this place because it should be an automatic thing.
It embarrasses the daylights out of me every time Question Time finishes, or a motion is put during Question Time, that the cameras are asked to pack up and leave – like we have something to hide! Like we should be embarrassed about the fact the cameras are here and we want to have a debate. I find that incredibly alarming! I cannot understand how a person who sits in the Speaker’s chair, or the government, or the opposition can allow that to happen every single Question Time – where the media are told to pack up and leave!
We are talking about openness and accountability. What a joke! Members on this side of the House have coined the Leader of Government Business as ‘Gag Girl’, for very good reason: she is the girl who constantly moves the gag motions. She stands up and moves the motions to gag the parliament.
Mr Bohlin: And then talks slowly when she wants to drag it out.
Mr TOLLNER: Exactly, member for Drysdale. She stands up in Question Time and talks for 25 minutes straight without taking a breath – and then shuts the place down because she suspects there could be a couple of nasty questions coming the government’s way.
This parliament is an abrogation of everything a parliament should stand for. Madam Speaker, I hope you listen to my pleas during this speech. I do want to access the video footage this parliament has in archives. I know it is there. I have talked to some officials here. That information is stored away. It is there. I cannot understand any reason why this parliament would stop me accessing that footage, unless, of course, it has something to hide, unless it is trying to be unaccountable. I cannot think of a more important debate than the censure of a Speaker, or motion about lack of confidence in the Speaker; and yet we are cut off.
The Leader of Government Business stands up at the start of debate and says: ‘We will allow the debate’, and then cuts it off before anyone has had a chance to speak. The Leader of Government Business gets a chance, the Independent member gets a chance, the Opposition Leader gets a chance, and that is it; like they are the only people who matter in this place. Well, it is not on. Members have a right to be heard. They have a right to make their point. They have a right to ask the Speaker a question.
Ms Lawrie: Is this your leadership challenge?
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go. This is the sort of nonsense that comes out of the mouth of the Leader of the Government Business, time and time again. Not only does she embarrass herself, but she embarrasses us all. We all come in here with goodwill, but it is very hard to maintain that goodwill when we see the constant trampling of rights, the constant trampling of the voice of Territorians. As the Opposition Leader said during the last motion that we debated, Territorians expect the right for their members to be heard. As much as it might gall members of the government, people on this side of the House represent almost half of the Territory electorates, and probably more than half of the Territory constituency, when you actually take into account the vote.
Mr Vatskalis: Not true. Count the votes again.
Mr TOLLNER: Look, minister, I stand to be corrected on that and I do not say that you are wrong. Maybe we do have a minority of the vote as well, and maybe you are spot on. I do not know. I have not analysed the Electoral Office figures. But there is a significant portion of the constituency of the Northern Territory which is represented on this side of the Chamber and they have a right for their voices to be heard.
This parliament sits for 33 days a year and the government thinks that is adequate. We are now going to have another three days, and we are going to shut down debate at 10 pm to compensate. That is ridiculous. There are 25 members here who want to have a say. There is absolutely no reason - talk to anyone out there in voter land and ask them what they think of a parliament that sits for 33 days a year. I understand in the early days there might not have been that much to debate, that many issues, and the like. Thirty three days may well have been adequate. However, I would have thought that the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Minister and the Speaker could get their heads together and work out that we have quite a large program to run, so let’s run a few extra days.
What is so atrocious about coming back on a Friday, or starting on a Monday? There is nothing that prevents us from doing that. Nine o’clock to 10 o’clock. It is not a big day if you are only working 33 days a year, or 36 days a year. To suggest we have to shut down at 10 pm in order to attract more candidates into the parliamentary arena flies in the face of reality. Even at the last Territory election, which was called in a snap and gave no one much time at all to get out there and register and nominate to be a candidate, we had far more candidates than we had seats in this place. In any normal election campaign when people have adequate notice and there is time to get your act together the minor parties – the Greens, the Democrats, One Nation, the Four Wheel Drivers Party, whoever they are - have time to get their acts together and they put forward candidates.
There is no lack of people who wish to have a career in the parliament. We can sit around and say: ‘The axing of the parliamentary superannuation scheme will be a disincentive for people to get into a parliamentary career. Every now and again, you might have to sit until 2 am’. Well, goodness gracious me, every now and again, you might even have to do a 37-hour day. I have some sympathy for the view that people do not function particularly well after midnight. I have quite a bit of sympathy for that because I have been in that situation many times in the past. However, at times, you have to understand that the greater good is out there. We are working for the people of the Northern Territory. They deserve the right to have their members heard and debate heard.
To run this silly motion that the Assembly is going to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee is just ridiculous. As if the Standing Orders Committee will run out and do something and come back.
We have seen it in previous motions which have just been completely ignored by the government - government’s own motions. Government puts up these motions and says: ‘We are going to do this’, and it just conveniently forgets about it. As I say, 12 months ago they said they were going to make a reference to the Public Accounts Committee to have it investigate business regulations. I just happen to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I have talked to people who have been on the Public Accounts Committee for a lot longer than I have, and these people have absolutely no knowledge of that reference, or any debate or any interviewing of witnesses or anything of that nature, to do with the regulation of business and easing the regulatory burden on business. Yet, at the time, 12 months ago, I am sure Syd Stirling was the Deputy Leader. Am I right?
Members: Yes.
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, he was a senior member of the Labor Party and a senior member of the government. He was not just some little backbencher; he was a person with some authority. You would think if a person like that places a motion in front of the parliament, which is supported along party lines, and the motion gets up, that it actually would be acted on – the government’s own motion. But, no. I am sure there are countless other examples of that lack of attention, lack of desire that can be shown by the government.
This motion, Madam Speaker, is an absolute joke. There is no detail in it. It calls for something that everyone has been calling for - the video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings to be allowed to be broadcast and rebroadcast. Well, goodness me, how long has that been called for? How long? As long as I can remember people have been calling for access to parliamentary video and audio. Yet, for some reason, finally, now the government feels it is a bit under the pinch, a bit under pressure, they decide to throw this one out there and say: ‘We are open and accountable. From this motion, we are open and accountable’. Tell Territorians that you are open and accountable.
At the end of the day, what do you do? You shut down every opportunity when we wish to debate something. I stood up half an hour ago and asked the Speaker a question. I cannot see the problem in asking the Speaker a question. What is so offensive about that? What is so offensive about a member of this place asking the Speaker a question? For the life of me I cannot understand that. I cannot understand what is so offensive about asking the Speaker the question.
But, no, the Leader of Government Business jumps up and says: ‘No, no, no, standing orders say you cannot ask that question, you have to ask leave’. So then I ask leave, and what happens? The government does not approve it. The government will not allow a member of this place to ask a question. This is the same mob who walks straight out of here, after 12 o'clock, front the media and say: ‘We are open and accountable. Look, we have passed this motion that says that we are open and accountable’. All these measures that say ‘we are open and accountable’. It is not what you say, it is what you do.
I have often said, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. What an embarrassment. This place is an absolute joke the way it has turned out. Talk about open and accountable and transparent - they know nothing about that. Time and time again we ask the ministers’ answers to be relevant to questions - oh no, we talk about something else. The member for Nelson made a point the other day: the standing orders are particularly broad, you know, you can ask a question about cheese and the minister will stand up and talk about the moon because it looks like a lump of cheese, and that is deemed relevant.
There is stuff in the standing orders and the House of Representatives Practice, the whole idea of Question Time is for ministers to be accountable. You would think there would be some sort of obligation that they would at least make the barest minimum of effort to be accountable, and to try to answer the question.
All right, we all have a bit of fun from time to time, putting our own little political take on things. That is to be expected in a robust democracy. You want a bit of strong debate, you want a bit of loud debate. I often think part of the problem with this place is that we have this microphone system which is constantly on. I know in the House of Representatives, at times you cannot hear yourself think, the place is an absolute din, but the only microphone which is on is the one for the person who is speaking.
I imagine it is difficult for people out there in listener land, in radio land, listening to these things, for them to believe we are having a robust debate because, unlike federal parliament, where only one microphone is turned on at a time, here, all of them are alive; everything you whisper to your friend next to you, or you say across the parliament, can be heard. People have the misapprehension that this place is a rowdy rabble when clearly it is not; you are quite amazed at the level of quietness, the amount you can actually hear here. You sit in the gallery in the House of Representatives in the federal parliament and, more often than not, it is just a din; it is a complete din. But what is going out to the public via video and audio is clearly heard because only one microphone is on at a time.
People can run around and say that this place is falling into chaos because a couple of people make a couple of interjections here and there. Well goodness me, that is the idea of a robust debate. That is the idea when the Speaker has the right to pull people up and order silence when you get a bit carried away. We all understand how easy it is to get a bit carried away in the moment. The fact is that people have the right to have a say, and they should be afforded that right.
The way this place is going, it is turning into a complete circus. There is a complete lack of information and lack of debate, and opportunity to say what you want to say. For this government to talk about accountability, openness, and transparency is complete hypocrisy.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am concerned because I had forgotten that the Standing Orders Committee is waiting to get a response from parliament about this particular issue because it meets today. That, of course, tends to cut this debate off and it is a very important debate.
I am concerned that the Chief Minister put out a media release on Tuesday saying: ‘Henderson government reforms parliament’. That means the Henderson government reforms it and, from that, the rest of us do not appear to be part of that reform. I am disappointed that that is the approach which has been taken. Reforms of this parliament, as was highlighted to me the other night, not only affect us. It affects the staff of the Legislative Assembly and I hope they may have some input into some of these changes.
It would have been better for the government to have made a much broader referral. There are some issues here which, I believe, are window dressing. The Chief Minister spoke about transparency, productivity and accessibility. Productivity is about using the time you have the best way you can. I can say there are many times in this parliament when time is certainly filled up with unnecessary things. We do not go through a large amount of legislation. We have had some sittings where you might have had two amendments or three amendments to a bill. The rest of the time has been statements. Some of those statements I recall came out a couple of months ago and have come out again - they are repeats. Sometimes there will be five or six speeches from the government to fill in the time. Many of those speeches are very similar because the party is putting forward these statements and asking their members to put out a reflection of that statement. They are not going to let people vary too far from the policies that the government is putting out.
During debate people look at the clock and think, I have to talk a few more minutes because someone else is going to say something and this should fill it in. I believe if we really are interested in productivity we would not be so concerned and worried about the hours. I would not be so worried even about looking at extra days. Let us see if we can use the present system more productively and see if there are issues that need to be looked at. We have always had extra days as an option. I mentioned before, we could have had General Business Day on Friday. We could have continued on Friday; I was told standing orders allow for that. We do have those options to go extra hours if we need to.
There is a whole range of issues we should be looking at. The question the member for Fong Lim and I raised before about the issue of relevance. That is a matter that could be raised as part of reform. Question Time: maybe this side of parliament should have a right to ask more questions than that side, because the government is going to ask dorothy dixers but the people out there in the Territory would like to hear a range of questions which actually question the government. Not ask the government for an answer which is a repeat of their policy. They would like to hear the government being questioned. I believe Question Time is a very important part of parliament. Also, issues about answers being too long. I understand some answers have to be long if it is a complicated question. I know many of those answers are inflated far more than they need to be, and there is room to look at changes to the length of answers.
On the matter of reports: the government has a five minute report, the opposition has two minutes to reply, and I have two minutes to reply. Unless the Whip lets us know what those reports are going to be about, they are a complete surprise when we get here. That does not occur with statements, so why should it occur with reports? It would make the government more accountable and it would be more transparent if we were informed of the subject of the reports.
Regarding the dinner break: I must admit I did not realise the dinner break was coming in, in the sittings of parliament. I do not particularly want them; I would rather just keep going. You know dinner is there; we have some dinner and come back. I know the Speaker is using that dinner break as a way of bringing parliamentarians together and creating some peace and goodwill amongst parliamentarians, but I think that can occur and parliament can still operate. Sometimes we are doing statements at that time; people can hear it on the television, anyway, and perhaps we may go back to the old system.
General Business Days, as I said, reform may or may not be needed, just simply keep the option open that if we do go late at night there is an option to finish off what is on the GBD agenda on the next day or the day after. Allow flexibility into the way we run parliament.
I was going to move a motion, but instead of moving that motion I will just state what I believe the Standing Orders Committee should be looking at. If they are looking at reform, and reform means to make better by the removal of faults and errors, or if you use the noun, it means an improvement. So if we are to improve parliament, and that is what the Henderson government is saying, then we need to ask the Standing Orders Committee to look at all other matters that involve ourselves and involve the staff. We have to remember there are many staff here who work so we can turn up here at 10 am and operate. They should be allowed to be part of this. And you, Madam Speaker, should be part of this as well.
If we really believe in reform, it should not be the government driving it. It should be the government leading it and ensuring we all have equal opportunity to have input into the reform process. I do not think it should be rushed. We have to make sure this is not a case of window dressing, that the government has put up some views that might sound good – longer hours, extra days – that might sound good out in the public, but is it really going to make any difference or are we just going to fill in time? Does cost come into this? How much does it cost every time we come to parliament? If we go three more days, what sort of cost is that going to be on the Legislative Assembly budget?
I agree with the video and audio streaming. I have always believed that parliament should be broadcast all the time so Territorians can listen to it anywhere in the Territory. We have radio facilities in most parts, but not all parts. I know the member for Fong Lim did promise something on radio towers, was it? No, it was mobile phones. I have always reckoned the ABC should make sure …
Ms Scrymgour: He did not deliver much.
Mr WOOD: I tell you what he should do, he should make sure the ABC is heard right down the track; we have all those towers down there so I do not why there are still gaps in the system. We should be making sure as best we can that people can hear what happens in the Legislative Assembly, not just for Question Time and not just on computer. You cannot stick a computer on a tractor and you cannot use a computer when you are working, but you can always put on a Walkman or have the radio going in the shop.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Nelson. Do you have many more comments to make?
Mr WOOD: I am going to finish up now.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I had indicated to the member for Nelson that we would try to deal with this matter before lunch because of the meeting. As I have advised you, this will continue on so maybe the member for Nelson wants to continue his remarks when the debate continues. He will have more time, is what I am saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to continue your remarks after Question Time, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: I can finish now, and then if people want to speak …
Madam SPEAKER: Just bear in mind that there are a lot of things happening.
Mr WOOD: All right. I will.
Mr Conlan: And there are a lot of people who want to speak.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr 8HA. It sounds like the news coming up at 12 o’clock.
Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders Committee should have more things reported to it if it is going to be effective. There are many more issues than just these three issues here. If we really believe in reform, make the terms of reference much wider and make sure we include all those people who will be affected by these changes.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee – Referral of Assembly Sitting Hours and Procedures
Standing Orders Committee – Referral of Assembly Sitting Hours and Procedures
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have some reservations and trepidation about what is occurring in relation to this particular motion. Before I speak on the motion, it is worthwhile making some more general observations about the proposed amendments to the standing orders.
We have heard much, from government benches particularly, about criticism of discipline. I hope that government members, in particular, would cast their minds to a particular discipline to which they seem not to want to subordinate themselves. In a unicameral parliament - which means a parliament with one Chamber - there is a very strong chance that the party of the day will form government by way of an absolute majority. There is a profound temptation in such circumstances to use that majority to abandon the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy. The principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy are a construct built on suffering, as much as anything else.
One of the major problems I have with this motion is that the government has unilaterally announced this by way of media release and a dorothy dixer in Question Time, without so much as tipping its hat in the direction of opposition or other members in this place, simply because the Chief Minister is now subordinating himself in every instance to a principle of: the spin is more important than the actuality of what is trying to be achieved.
On 24 October 2008, I quoted from Nicholas Rothwell’s speech. He also, in his speech, referred to spin. It is worth visiting this particular issue. I quote from Nicholas Rothwell:
- Spin, now so familiar to us as to make the most sophisticated consumers distrust their media and discount the words of all their politicians, is, in its current form, a new phenomenon.
It dates from the Vietnam era, when the need for a countervailing weapon to control the press became plain. It seeks not just to control the news and limit freedom of information, but
precisely to imitate it, to provide details that lead to pre-set conclusions, to manage the 24-hours cycle - and in this way give readers, listeners and viewers not the froth and flow of real
events, but false for true coin. Hence, it is of course and always the enemy of journalists, and of truth.
It is a key part of the new media domain, a domain that offers multiple diversions and delights: infotainment, the shimmer and immediacy of live voyeuristic, incontrovertible-seeming
images instead of reflection and analysis - sentiment and outrage instead of emotion and understanding. Above all else, this new media realm breeds and depends on an uninformed,
incurious public content with the feed of novelty it now receives. It is in this environment that spin can thrive: it brings the promise of information control - but at a cost. For great effort is
required to counter the standard news media: to influence it, to direct it, to lead it.
This is what political and corporate planning has become: a constant battle for the media and through the media for hearts and minds. There are probably more people in western
society trying to manipulate the media than there are people working in the mainstream media. The consequences, for the contemporary political and business class, are profound. To
succeed by this new set of measures, you are inclined to follow and pander to public opinion, rather than seeking fair and square to win popular backing. You foreground certain facts
and shadow others. You suppress, you classify, you silence, you experience, at every turn, the deep temptation to reach for the convenient, truth-glancing lie. The form, the look of things,
increasingly, is what matters. The message, the impression, and not the substance.
If there was ever an example of how spin has come to dominate the mind of government over the importance of this House, then it is the motion that is before us now. It is betrayed not by the motion itself but, rather, by the mechanisms used to attempt to bring this motion into this House for consideration.
At the heart of the Westminster parliamentary democratic system, I said earlier that it is a construct of many years of growth and blood. Probably the starkest example of that was when England, in earlier centuries, suffered a profound and ugly, and devastating Civil War between the Crown and the parliament which existed uncomfortably beside each other. The parliament won that Civil War and Oliver Cromwell ruled not as King but as Lord Protector for several years, although his son was unable to maintain his rule and finally Charles II returned to the throne, reasserting the divine right of kings. Upon the passage of Charles II, the parliament became resurgent and has never looked back.
When I stand in this place, I am always mindful that it is in many ways built, metaphorically, if not literally, on the bones and the blood of people who died trying to establish this system. And, through the centuries since that time, the system by which we have governed ourselves within the Empire, and ultimately within the Commonwealth, has reflected what was bequeathed to us as a result of those dangers, and many, many more people have perished in defence of this particular system of government.
Consequently, when this system of government finds its expression in a unilateral Chamber, unlike the Palace of Westminster which still holds two Houses of Parliament, we find ourselves at a disadvantage when there is a government which has an absolute majority. It uses that majority ruthlessly and without forethought to the principles that brought us to this place.
It is a great discipline if it can be exercised by a Chief Minister and by a government that they take on the mantle of the history of this system, and still, in such an environment of a unicameral parliament, to choose to subordinate themselves to the place because they believe that it is worthwhile to protect a system which has served the English speaking world, and many other languages, I might add, so particularly and fundamentally well.
Let us now look at the methodology the Chief Minister has chosen to engage in to bring this particular issue to the House.
Madam Speaker, was there, as so often is required in the Westminster system, a notification given to members, other than government members, that this motion was being brought forward? No, there was not. One of the fundamental principles of our democratic system is that there is some sort of parlay or discussion prior to matters being brought into the House, or some sort of notice being given. And that, the government has chosen to abandon, essentially, for the process of adhering to the media cycle - that all important 24-hour media cycle.
I am glad, in some respects, the government has heeded the suggestion I made last week in this House that there should be more sitting days. However, to arbitrarily dictate that it shall be three sitting days before it is even given consideration by a committee already takes out of the committee the capacity to make a decision. Why does it necessarily have to be three sitting days? Why cannot it be six or 12? Why cannot the committee have a reference that says that the committee examines the number of sitting days required and report back? Surely, that would be a far more sensible approach than to merely dictate from the Chief Minister’s chair that this is the way it is going to be – three sitting days. But, no, that option will not be given the committee. The committee will have to consider three sitting days.
That is a shame because the government itself, through its business days, has kept us in this Chamber until one o’clock and two o’clock in the morning last week. The government is anxious to point out that we had a very busy schedule last night, and they were not inclined to keep the schedule going beyond one o’clock in the morning, an hour earlier than they were inclined to adjourn the House last week. However, that being an aside, the fact is this committee should be given greater latitude to examine the necessities of how many sitting days are required.
What, pray tell, makes the Chief Minister the better judge than other members of this parliament as to how many sitting days are required? I have heard no justification from the Chief Minister to say that three days is better than four, or two; it is simply an announcement. It reeks of the lack of discipline to which I referred earlier. He now seems to think that parliament is merely a vehicle upon which he can enforce his will, using his numbers, and the numbers of the Australian Labor Party, jam through anything they please.
The same applies to the Assembly commencing at 9 am and adjourning no later than 10 pm. Once again, what is the committee being asked to consider? The determination has already been made for them by a Chief Minister who implacably does not want to divest himself of any authority, no matter how minor. It is a simple issue, a suggestion to the committee that it should look at how many extra hours or fewer hours are appropriate. But, no, the will of the Chief Minister is imbedded in this as etchings are in the side of a monument. There is no opportunity for this committee to enjoy any flexibility.
Such a timetable raises more questions than it answers. What is the adjournment debate going to look like if there is a stopwatch running? Is the one debate which enables members of this House complete freedom to touch on any topic they see fit, by way of convention, going to be truncated? Is that going to be taken away, or in some way reduced, so the dead hand of the undisciplined Chief Minister falls across this parliament like a hand over the mouth of someone trying to breath? Is that really what the Chief Minister would …
Ms Lawrie: No it is not, and you know it. That is offensive.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, stand up and argue the case.
Ms Lawrie: Come on, you are alleging he is smothering, hand across the face …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The one part I am entirely comfortable with is that the video and audio streaming of the parliamentary proceedings be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast. The Leader of Government Business is fully aware that when we initially spoke, subsequent to the last general election, one of the very first orders of business which I raised with her was the suggestion that video and audio broadcast be made available for broadcast and rebroadcast.
The Leader of Government Business said there would have to be a delay to allow the new technology to come into place; I expressed to her that I would have been happy to see the current technology used should the current media choose to stoop so low as to actually use that for the purposes of broadcast quality recording. I am aware the current media is not up to a certain standard. In fact, as I understand it, it is an analog system in a world of digital technology. However, it is not impossible to transfer that medium to the broadcast environment - the quality would just be very poor. I was told that was not going to happen, fairly unilaterally. I accept that because it did come with a guarantee, which is going to be met by this motion - and that is video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings will be allowed for broadcast and rebroadcast.
I return to the principle to which I was critical before: that determination has now been made, and made not in consultation with us or even by way of advice to us but by press release. It seems the 24-hour media cycle and the media organisations are of much more concern to the operation of this government than this House.
The government has become used to, in the last parliamentary term, a small opposition and running roughshod over this House. That environment is now changed. Whilst I appreciate the government, through its processes, still wants to maintain its death grip on the throat of this House and wants to continue operating in a way to which it has become accustomed, the fact is that the balance of power in this House has shifted. And it has shifted radically against the government which occupied this House immediately prior to the last general election.
The continual use of this House as a vehicle for the Chief Minister to make bold statements emblazoned in media releases with the single view of capturing the 24-hour media cycle is, to me, the true offence to this House.
The discipline to which I referred earlier, the discipline of a Chief Minister who is prepared to subordinate himself in a unicameral system to a parliament in which his supporters have the great majority, is a great discipline indeed. It would show humility and decency, and it would show a commitment to the philosophies espoused by the Chief Minister - those philosophies are the beliefs that government should be open, honest and transparent.
We do not have that in this motion. We have dictate and we have fait accompli presented as the absolute position of this House and of the committee prior to the committee even being able to review this particular reference.
Madam Speaker, it is a great shame the government has not taken the opportunity to show the discipline and fortitude that is required by a government which should be subordinating itself to this place, and not come in here and dictate terms as they are outlined in this statement, but to send a reference to a committee such as the Standing Orders Committee, three suggestions for consideration and for potential amendment. That is really what should be occurring. To see the first announcement, the first I ever heard of these changes, was not a communication or a letter from the Chief Minister or from the Leader of Government Business; it was a dorothy dixer as the Chief Minister stood up and answered a question that he took on notice.
Ms Lawrie: It is all about you, huh?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. It is about this place. It is about respecting this place. It about respecting the principles that drive this place. It is about respecting the history of this place and not using it as a plinth upon which you grandstand to push your own opinion without reference to other people, without reference to the people of the Northern Territory who put us here.
I have found the continual gag motions run by this government an offence to this very House. This House, by its very definition, is a place where we talk. A parliament, parlay from the French, to speak. That is what we are here to do. To find ourselves continually being gagged by motions of this House, having matters of great import adjourned simply because the government is not inclined to debate the matters, and to have motions put simply because the government is no longer inclined to listen to critical voices, is a great travesty. And it occurs in a unicameral system where you have a single party in power.
Madam Speaker, I urge the Chief Minister to show fortitude, to show discipline, and to show some humility, and when he comes into this place to treat it with the respect it demands. The parliament to this day remains the supreme law-making body of the Northern Territory to which the government should be subordinate. Their desire to not show any subordination is an ill discipline that ill behoves this government and ill behoves this Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we are speaking to a motion to refer reform of parliamentary hours to the Standing Orders Committee. I remind members that the Standing Orders Committee includes not only members of government, but it also includes members of the opposition. The Standing Orders Committee will meet out of session between the sittings in October and November because, as members would be aware, the reference does have the Standing Orders Committee reporting to this parliament, to which we are subordinate, as we have just been reminded, in November.
It is a process of referring the extra sitting days for the Assembly - that is the three extra days - to that Standing Orders Committee. The government has announced its intent to reform parliament; it is not unusual. Governments right around our nation have announced their intent to reform how parliament operates, and they have followed that process.
It is time we modernise our parliament, and we have seen very good reason why we should be doing that. We have seen every reason why we should be doing that. We have seen opposition members behave like a rabble, who have come in here and used one stunt after another and really tried to make a mockery of this parliament. We have found that disgraceful, and so the Chief Minister, quite appropriately, has announced reforms to provide sensible ways in which, as parliamentarians, we can go about the business of parliament.
The reference includes the Assembly commencing at 9 am instead of 10 am. I know that means the member for Port Darwin might have to get out of bed a little earlier, but it also means that we would adjourn no later than 10 pm. That is a fair working day. As we know, we would all be starting work a lot earlier than 9 am to be in this Chamber by 9 am, as government members meet beforehand. I know the member for Nelson does a lot of research in the morning on matters that arrive overnight for his consideration.
Importantly, the Chief Minister has been very clear that he wants to open the parliament to the people of the Territory. We were the first government to introduce cameras into the parliament of the Northern Territory. They come in here at Question Time. We were the first government of the Northern Territory to provide for the broadcast of Question Time to Territorians. We have live Internet streaming of the Assembly. We are going further in this reference to say we will provide for video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings.
The member for Port Darwin is pretty good at verballing and, yes, we did have a conversation. He indicated they quite like the idea of the audio and video streaming. I indicated, not that we would have to wait, but that we would have to consider the technical aspects of that because, whilst we could proceed with streaming on the current quality we have, it is not the perfect quality we would want for broadcast.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
_______________________
The Assembly suspended.
_______________________
The Assembly convened at 4 pm.The Assembly suspended.
_______________________
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE
His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise the presence of His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste in the Chamber.
With the concurrence of honourable members I propose to invite His Excellency to take a seat on the floor of the Chamber.
The Serjeant-at-Arms escorted His Excellency to a chair on the Speaker’s dais.
Madam SPEAKER: I call on the Chief Minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly welcome His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, on the occasion of his historic visit to the Northern Territory, and that he be invited to address honourable members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the government to welcome His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on this historic occasion of his address to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, and to acknowledge the close relationship between Timor-Leste, the government, and the people of the Northern Territory.
Your Excellency, we are neighbours and we are friends. As neighbours, it is our great honour to welcome you again to Darwin. It is a place you know well and where you will always be amongst friends. You have served your country with distinction in the international community as Foreign Minister, Prime Minister, and President. You are known at home and abroad as a man of the people, a man of principle, and a man of peace.
In 1996, you shared the Nobel Peace Prize with your countryman, Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, in recognition of your tireless commitment to independence for the people of East Timor. In presenting the award, the Nobel Committee said of you and Bishop Belo, and I quote:
- (They)… have laboured tirelessly, and with great personal sacrifice, for their oppressed people. Under extremely difficult conditions, they have preserved their humanity
and faith in the future. It is in admiration of their work, and in the hope of a better future for East Timor that the Committee honours them with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Your Excellency, it was my great honour to be present, with the former Chief Minister Clare Martin, on the historic occasion when the independence of Timor-Leste was proclaimed on 20 May 2002. The birth of your new nation was a powerful, moving, and inspirational occasion, and one that I will personally never forget. Your leadership and contribution to the struggle for independence are recognised and acknowledged worldwide.
The Northern Territory and Timor-Leste are very close in more ways than geography. We share long-standing people to people, intergovernmental, and business links. Above all, Mr President, they are links of people and of country.
Our vibrant Timorese communities here in the Northern Territory maintain strong ties with Timor-Leste - ties of family, culture, and shared history. It is wonderful today to see the galleries packed, Madam Speaker and Mr President, with the friends of East Timor and so many of our Timorese community here in Darwin.
Mr President, it is my honour to maintain a close personal contact with the local East Timorese community. I am privileged to be the patron of the Northern Territory Hakka Association, the Northern Territory Timor-Chinese Association, and the Casuarina Junior Football Club, a club with strong links to our local Timorese community. I also maintain close contact and friendship with the Portuguese-Timorese Social Club, where I am a frequent guest at functions and community events. Our local Australian Timorese community is known for its generosity and contribution to the social and economic developments of the Northern Territory.
There are also ties of great respect, Mr President, as we honour the sacrifices of those brave East Timorese who died alongside Australian troops some six decades ago. That respect has strengthened as we have witnessed the tenacity of your people in your struggle for independence and in the courage of your people as they face the task of building a new nation.
As Australia’s youngest jurisdiction, the Territory is committed to helping wherever we can in that task. The relationship between the Territory and Timor-Leste has grown further in recent years through cooperation between our public sectors. These arrangements involve practical projects in fields such as human resources planning, dengue fever eradication, museum management, coastal mapping, and fisheries data collection. There was a team from Timor-Leste here to study last weekend’s elections for the new shire arrangements, established under local governments in the Territory.
Your Excellency, work is under way on implementation of an understanding reached between Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao and myself during his visit to Darwin on 24 August for internship placements for Timorese officials in the Northern Territory Public Service. I am pleased to announce today that the government will offer 10 internships to Timor-Leste under this training scheme. When in place this program will make a tangible contribution to public administration in Timor-Leste. Our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Xanana Gusmao have launched a joint initiative to review ways in which Australia might contribute to Timor-Leste’s development by helping to meet its education, training and employment needs. This also provides opportunities for further cooperation between the Northern Territory and Timor-Leste.
Our views on the current and future role Charles Darwin University can play in this regard have been firmly registered with the Commonwealth. I understand there are 23 Timorese students currently studying at Charles Darwin University in both the vocational and higher educational sectors. Charles Darwin University has long-standing research and collaborative links with a number of institutions in Timor-Leste and has developed innovative partnerships with the Commonwealth, international and private sector organisations to deliver training and advisory services to East Timor.
We are clearly on the record in offering the Northern Territory as a place where we would be very happy to receive Timorese workers under any seasonal workers scheme the Commonwealth might establish for Timor-Leste. As neighbours it will always be a two-way learning and sharing process. Our cultural connections will grow and thrive. I was pleased to see a strong East Timorese presence at both this year’s WordStorm Writers Festival and the Darwin Festival. In three weeks time we will see a major collaboration between the National Museum of Timor-Leste and our Museum and Art Gallery here in Darwin in staging From the Hands of our Ancestors: the Art and Craft of Timor-Leste. It will be a tribute to the culture of your people as well as a demonstration of the ways in which we can work together for future generations.
I was also pleased to see the Timor-Leste Under-18 soccer team win the inaugural round of the Timor Sea Cup in Darwin a few weeks ago. They were truly fantastic; a wonderful team. The Northern Territory and the West Timor teams are looking forward to a chance to challenge the winners, hopefully in the Arafura Games in May next year. I am also delighted to inform Your Excellency that plans are under way for the Casuarina Football Club’s women’s team to play a friendly match against the Timor-Leste National Women’s Team in East Timor late in November. An exciting aspect of this match will be the possible appearance of our local Timorese women as guest players in your national team. In recognition of the important role of sport and culture in the relationship between Timor-Leste and the Territory, my government will provide assistance to the Casuarina Football Club to support the trip to East Timor. I was at that presentation night on Saturday at the Portuguese Timorese Club and they are very excited about the prospects of playing the new national women’s football team in Dili later in November.
We live in an uncertain world and there are many challenges for both old and new and emerging nations. The Northern Territory is a relatively small jurisdiction in terms of population but, like your country, we have a rich endowment of natural beauty and resources. I am confident we can work together for the mutual benefit of our people.
Your Excellency, I am always struck by the ease of interaction between yourself and other members of the leadership of Timor-Leste with people at all levels in the Northern Territory. I know that only a couple of months ago you were kind enough to spend time with the staff and students of Jabiru Area School. Where else in Australia could the students at a remote bush school have the opportunity to meet and talk with a National President? Perhaps only here in the Northern Territory, Mr President, because you visited us as a neighbour.
It is an honour to have you with us once more, and it is wonderful to see you in such robust health. You are indeed most welcome. I, and my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, and members of the Timorese and wider community here today, look forward to your Address. Welcome again. You are truly amongst friends.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I extend a sincere welcome to Your Excellency. We recognise that our history, our place on this globe, has brought us together as family, as friends, and as neighbours. We cannot choose family, we cannot choose neighbours, and we have been blessed with family and neighbours.
Through our time together, we have a recognition of a common story which is beginning to weave together to form something new. We collectively face many challenges, Your Excellency, and I welcome and join and share the comments made by the Chief Minister. On the theme of family and neighbour and the forging of friendship, I wish to acknowledge that our common history has sent us some strong messages which we must respond to.
I acknowledge the journey we have all made. I acknowledge too that, in the Northern Territory we often speak of the bombing of Darwin and we recognise that many around this country do not know that story. There are even fewer who know the story of what happened in 1942 when there was the invasion, and there was a small presence of Australian troops in Sparrow Force. That story is largely untold, but it registers deeply within this country and in East Timor, and presents a challenge for us to respond.
Your Excellency, I acknowledge the debt that we owe to the friendship, the support and the protection of the East Timorese in 1942 and 1943 when the 2/2nd Commando Squadron, cut off from Australia, sheltered under the protection of East Timorese citizens. One of my own family who was involved in that protection, sadly, came to grief in New Guinea, but survived East Timor due to the hospitality, protection and the sacrifice of the East Timorese. There are many from the 2/2nd Commando Squadron who continue in their endeavours to repay that debt. They are at work today, many of them old men, and they pass on their message for all who may hear. There is something for us to respond to, something far deeper: the recognition that the cost of that protection resulted in a significant loss for the people of East Timor. People still calculate it may have been a loss of up to 40 000. That debt stands there for us to look at and respond to as true neighbours and true friends and family.
There is also the acknowledgement of how we do respond in developing the relationship. Here we are, an established parliament with parliamentary procedures, with our need to strengthen democracy. We do so for the people of the Northern Territory and present an example for others. We also have an obligation to our neighbours.
It is a curious twist of history that the common links between Mozambique and East Timor, through the Portuguese heritage and connection going back centuries, throws up another common link to the Northern Territory. Mozambique is the only non-British Commonwealth country which is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is the only non-British Commonwealth country that is a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I would see, therefore, that as close neighbours we have an opportunity, in some small way, to repay that great debt between us and you, sir, by offering the services of this parliament, this institution, to fulfil the objectives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which is to support good governance, democracy and human rights. That is a small service but a practical service where we could build strength between two regions. With that curious connection with Mozambique, the odd one out in the Commonwealth of Nations, but setting an example by choosing and being accepted as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is a small example, but an opportunity and a challenge for all of us to find a way, as parliamentarians, where this Chamber can offer practical support to East Timor.
Your Excellency, you are most welcome. I make my comments in acknowledging the great debt that lives in the memory of many older men in Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania who served in 1942. That should not be forgotten. You are welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I now invite Your Excellency, the President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste to address honourable members.
Dr RAMOS-HORTA (President of Timor-Leste): Madam Speaker, His Honour the Administrator of the Northern Territory, the Honourable Chief Minister, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, honourable ministers, honourable members of the Northern Territory parliament, and I acknowledge the presence of the Honorary Consul of Portugal in the Northern Territory, and ladies and gentlemen.
It is, indeed, an honour and a real pleasure to be back in Darwin. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your warm and generous hospitality, not only today, but when you offered me a glimpse of the famed Kakadu National Park back in June. I immensely enjoyed the visit and all those I met.
Before I proceed any further, allow me to bow in tribute and respect to the original owners of this vast land of Australia, one of the most ancient nations in the world, the Indigenous people of Australia. I know the many problems afflicting the Indigenous peoples of this country, and my heart bleeds with their pain, but my message to them is: do not despair, never lose hope of a better future.
As I return today to Darwin, I wish once again to acknowledge and thank the wonderful staff of the Royal Darwin Hospital. The Chief Surgeon, Dr Phil Carson, a warm, humble and compassionate human being, the Director of the hospital and all his many colleagues- the nurses and all other staff who cared for me and rescued me from the clutches of death.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr RAMOS-HORTA: I thank the Australian Defence Force soldiers in Timor-Leste who donated many litres of blood, as well as thank the ADF Medical Centre in Dili, whose excellent doctors and nurses from Aspen Medical first cared for me as I struggled between life and death.
As I stand here today, as I travel extensively in my country, as I continue my morning routine of power walking - yes, I am exercising, doctors - as I continue to live a very fast-paced life serving my people, I sometimes pause for brief seconds and think that only a few months ago I was near death.
I also thank Australia and New Zealand for maintaining a robust and credible security force in my country in assistance to, and close coordination with, our government and UNMIT, the United Nations Mission for Timor-Leste. As I mentioned recently in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the professionalism of the International Stabilisation Forces is visible to all and the behaviour of the soldiers is irreproachable.
I had an opportunity to visit a company of Australian soldiers last Saturday in the regional city of Baucau together with the ISF Commander Brigadier Mark Holmes. I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with those soldiers, who are mostly based here in Darwin. Appreciating the good sense of humour of Territorians and Australian soldiers alike, as I walked through their private accommodation, I noticed posters on the wall of poorly dressed women. I thought they were poor because they were not thoroughly dressed. I told the soldiers, if they were true patriots, they should have posters of John Howard or Kevin Rudd instead. They did not agree, and they laughed at my recommendation.
Seriously, it warms my heart to see these committed and compassionate soldiers proudly serving their nation and helping my people. Australian soldiers in Timor-Leste, or wherever they may be, as well as being soldiers, they are also goodwill ambassadors for your country. I sincerely appreciate the great sacrifice of their families and loved ones. I must relate to you all, that you can very proud of these soldiers - these fine ambassadors, these sons and daughters of Darwin and Australia.
I must once again thank all the great people of Australia – from the common people to the Prime Minister – people from all walks of life who prayed for me, who visited me even when I was in an induced coma and afterwards. If I was already closely connected to this country, today I feel even more part of it.
A special word of gratitude to my fellow East Timorese who live in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia, many hundreds of whom sent me messages of friendship and sorrow, prayers and flowers. I have numerous family ties in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria, altogether numbering more than 100. The oldest of the family, our great-aunt Luciana, a resident of Darwin since 1975, passed away at age 100, only three days after I was shot.
I am always touched by the demonstration of friendship and affection I have received from the Australian people, and yet I do not know what I have done to get such special treatment. Maybe it is my innocent, nave look? Maybe one day I should run for high office in Australia. My friend, Kevin Rudd, should not worry. This will not happen any time soon.
Madam Speaker, His Honour the Administrator, the honourable Chief Minister, the honourable Leader of the Opposition, honourable ministers, honourable members, geography has made our fates inextricably linked. Proximity has its advantages and disadvantages. A close but bad neighbour is a cause for concern. We can look at the various countries that border each other in the Middle East - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, or in Asia - Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India, etcetera. Each might say in reference to the other or to several others: with neighbours like this, who needs enemies?
Timor-Leste has two immediate neighbours, with whom we share land, and maritime borders - Indonesia and Australia. While the past of our relationship with our two neighbours was not one we would remember as exemplary, I have always opted for a more realistic and pragmatic approach to life and affairs of State, trying to forget and forgive the harm and sins of the past, live the fruits of freedom and opportunities of today, and show gratitude to those who are helping us today.
In this regard, we can say today that we are fortunate to have two great neighbours, who since 1999 have done everything possible, and still can do more, to assist us in the arduous and tortuous road in nation-building, peace-building and peace-consolidation, and economic recovery.
There are no two countries more important to Timor-Leste’s national wellbeing than Australia and Indonesia. I believe you all know how hard I and Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao have worked to normalise relations with our neighbours, both Australia and Indonesia being equally important to us.
Before I dwell further on our relations, let me update you on the situation in Timor-Leste. Since the fateful 11 February irrational act by Mr Alfredo Reinado and his henchmen, we have entered a new phase of peace and economic recovery.
I have travelled extensively in the country since my return home in April. Everywhere I have seen a renewed hope and faith in they eyes of our people. Any visitor to Dili today will see a much more peaceful city, with thousands of people going about doing what people normally do – adults going to work, teachers and children going to school, fishermen at sea, farmers tending their fields preparing the earth for the coming rains, hundreds of shops and restaurants busy with clients buying and eating, cleaners trying to clean up a city that its residents have not learned the civilised way to keep it clean.
Most Internally Displaced Persons have returned to their communities. They have been tensions in the receiving barrios but we have been able to resolve them through patient dialogue. The 700 or so former soldiers, the so-called petitioners, have accepted a generous package from the government and opted to resume civilian life rather than reapplying to join the army.
We have continued to address the root causes of the 2006 conflict with more attention and resources provided to our national police and defence force. In this we are generously assisted by a number of international partners, including the United Nations, Australia, Portugal and the United States. Let me assure you all, this is an issue that I follow and pay close attention to.
In December, my office and the Prime Minister will host a two day symposium to review the progress, or lack of, of the security sector reform. We will listen to inputs provided by speakers from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Portugal, Malaysia, and China, etcetera. These inputs will help us formulate the best policies and the strategies for our police and defence forces.
There has been much written about an east-west ethnic divide in Timor-Leste. This is an over simplification and exaggeration. I have spent countless hours since 2006 dealing with the conflict in the suburbs and villages, meeting with youth and gang leaders. I believe I have a good degree of understanding of the nature of the conflict, somewhat better than those who pay short visits and write up fancy academic papers or newspaper articles, mostly forecasting doomsday scenarios for our nascent and vibrant democracy.
In 2006 there was opportunistic violence and crimes committed by common criminals who in the absence of a strong law and order force, robbed, looted and killed. There was the well documented armed stand off and shooting involving elements of our police and defence forces and of Mr Reinado. There were also political leaders whose words and actions either have caused the flare up of tensions and violence or, at least, were not helpful in the tense situation.
However, much of the violence had a more elementary and important reason, and that was dispute over land and housing, market and job opportunities. With the neutralisation of trouble-makers by our special police units in partnership with our defence force as a deterrence force, and generous financial packages to the so called petitioners, IDPs, as well as to veterans and vulnerable groups, we have been able to make good progress in normalising the situation in the country.
Much remains to be done to discipline our police and defence forces, provide them with more training and education, as well as basic infrastructure and tools that are in desperate need. Let me add that I am not being overly optimistic. I have always warned my colleagues in the leadership and my countrymen about how fragile the overall situation has always been in our country. Anyone poring over my media remarks and speeches over the past eight years will easily find many references to the fragile peace in our country.
Peace has been, and is, fragile because fragile are all our state institutions and economy, and because there is still widespread extreme poverty, and because it takes time to undo the decades of violence and the humiliation that have entered each East Timorese family.
However, 11 February was a profound shock to our nation and everybody took a pause and stepped back from the edges. On 17 April, on my return, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to say no more to violence. I believe that the possibilities of consolidation of peace are there and the risks of renewed violence, as desired by the prophets of doom, are very much minimal.
As the Head of State, I will spare no effort in continuing to unify the nation, in healing the wounds, and in creating conditions for a better life for the people who have nothing or very little and, yet, deserve so much. In this noble endeavour, no man is island and no man can nor should expect to carry the burden alone. I know I can count on my compatriots and on our friends around the world.
You will be asking how long should the United Nations and the International Stabilisation Force remain in Timor-Leste. I have stated on a number of occasions that the East Timorese leadership, the UN and our friends should not make the same mistakes of the past. There should not be any hasty withdrawal. We need the current United Nations mission size to remain more or less intact up to 2012, with some minor adjustments as deemed advisable. As far as the presence of ISF in Timor-Leste is concerned, I hope that Australia will maintain a capable force on the ground to fulfil this critical function until 2012.
We have made modest progress in reactivating our police force, but I believe that it will take us at least another three years before we can declare that we have turned the corner in the redevelopment of our police force. The same can be said of our defence force. I very much favour closer defence cooperation with Australia and the United States that includes the development of maritime security capability. I welcome the offer of assistance made by Australia and the United States, and I wish to see this offer taken up by our government.
It is in our two countries’ interest to enhance the defence cooperation in all fields. Timor-Leste is vulnerable and wide open to a wide range of illicit predatory activities in our part of the Timor Sea, be it illegal fishing or people smuggling by unscrupulous elements. It is our determination to enforce our sovereign rights in our seas, but it is also our obligation not to allow our territory and seas to be used as a staging ground for Australia and New Zealand with people smuggling and other illicit criminal activities. There have been already several attempts by people-smuggling rings to smuggle individuals from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan into Australia and New Zealand. I would like to add that, on at least two occasions, it was our weak, small maritime police that intercepted boat loads of people attempting to come to Australia by using Timor-Leste as a staging ground. Timor-Leste, alone or with only modest assistance from Australia, will not be able to defend itself and to uphold its responsibilities towards its neighbours.
I wish to turn now to Timor-Leste and Northern Territory’s relationship. We are a one hour flight away from each other. A handful of East Timorese are studying in the Northern Territory. Australia provides a modest number of scholarships for East Timorese students to study in Australia - about 10 scholarships altogether. I understand that this number will increase to 20 next year. I would like to see not 10 but 100 East Timorese students enrolled in TAFEs in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. I mention these three territorial entities because of the climate, proximity and so on.
I would like to mention to you an interesting note. You all know about Cuba, and the difficulties of that small, remote country, and yet Cuba is hosting close to 700 East Timorese medical students, all expenses covered by Cuba. More than 30 countries have medical students studying in Cuba, including the United States. If we continue this program with Cuba, in the next five to 10 years, in addition to more than 100 medical students starting in Timor-Leste in the new medical school set up by the Cubans and managed by the Cubans, in 10 years, Timor-Leste will have one of the highest ratios in the world of doctors per one thousand population.
There are a handful of Australian English teachers in Timor-Leste, compared with the number of teachers from Portugal, Brazil and Cuba.
After several years of letter writing, including to former Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, and conversations with past and current Australian governments, no decision has been made in granting temporary work visas for East Timorese to work on Australian fruit farms in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. We are talking about East Timorese, particularly youth, coming to Australia for periods of six to nine months to help Australian farmers pick the fruit that is rotting in the fields, and return. This experience does not only have a monetary value for the East Timorese. It will provide an opportunity to learn more about work methods, work ethics, discipline, and then return home, hopefully better workers.
As an example, the Republic of Korea, that is South Korea, has agreed to welcome at least 1000 East Timorese workers. This number will increase to 6000. They will each earn $US1000 a month, plus food and accommodation. Again, while the monetary value is of enormous importance, the added value is they acquire new skills, new work habits, and will be a formidable skilled workforce in Timor-Leste.
I do not wish to sound ungrateful. Australia is by far Timor-Leste’s largest donor. In 2008-09, Australian aid to Timor-Leste will increase by almost $100m. This is enormous in view of the population of Timor-Leste, which is roughly one million. However, I would like to see a larger share of this aid money going to poverty alleviation schemes, to support agriculture and rural development, and technical and vocational training in Timor-Leste and in Australia. I know AusAID is sensitive to these priorities, and is in discussions with the government, and always with the government, to put more emphasis on rural development. I am confident that this will be the case in the future.
Darwin residents hardly visit Timor-Leste. Dili is much safer than most cities in the region, according to UN police studies. You people might think this is a joke, that Timor-Leste is safer, but if you actually read UN police statistics, compare all categories of crime, Timor-Leste, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore – the crime rate in Timor-Leste, from domestic violence to assault, to theft, to homicide, is far, far lower than any city in the region.
Compared with Darwin for instance, in Dili we do not have dangerous crocodiles. We hear that in Darwin crocodiles even enter people’s homes and hotels and eat them up. Whether that is true or not, that is what people say in Dili. I try to tell them that is not the case, that is not true, but no one believes me.
Timor-Leste boasts pristine coral reefs cited by experts as among the best diving in the world. Our mountains and forests are sanctuaries to pristine natural landscapes, unique cultural diversity and historical footprints which bind our two countries. At the end of this month, Monash University will hold in Timor-Leste several weeks of dinosaur exhibits which attest to the millions of years of our common archaeological heritage between Timor-Leste and Australia.
Of course, we know the price of travelling with Air North is one of the greatest obstacles to Australians visiting Timor-Leste. A return ticket between Darwin and Dili can cost around $AUS900; it is cheaper to fly from Bangkok to Paris than from Darwin to Dili. Dili, Darwin and Kupang should develop better air links and increase joint cultural and sporting activities. I thank you, Chief Minister, for your leadership in expanding these activities – cultural and sports - between Dili and Darwin, Timor-Leste and the Northern Territory.
To end my remarks, let me touch upon the issue of the Greater Sunrise LNG field. My views on these issues are known to all – we must develop Greater Sunrise as a priority. There has been much talk about where a pipeline should go, or maybe there will not be any pipeline at all as there could be an onsite FLNG. If it is going to be a pipeline, the following questions must be answered:
- (a) what is the distance from Greater Sunrise to Darwin and Suai?
- (b) are there insurmountable technical difficulties in bringing the pipeline to Suai, which is less than half the distance from Greater Sunrise to Darwin?
- (c) what are the costs for either option – Suai or Darwin?
- (d) which side offers better fiscal incentives? Timor-Leste’s new tax law is far simpler and more generous that Australia’s.
- (e) what are the security conditions in Suai? We feel there is as much possible security threat in Suai as there is a possible terrorist threat in Greater Sunrise
or Bayu-Undan or Darwin.
While Timor-Leste is eternally grateful to Australia for its steadfast support since 1999, our sincere sense of gratitude cannot be such that we surrender all to Darwin. The pipeline will go where it should go – the shortest route and the cheapest.
Timor-Leste cannot and will not bow to pressures from the Woodside CEO millionaires. Those who contributed to this world financial and economic collapse are high paid CEOs in Wall Street and across the United States, and with their irresponsibility and greed dragged down the economies of the rest of the world. Some of them, many of them, work for the oil companies.
We will not bow to unilateral decisions made by these infamous CEOs who mismanaged world multinationals. I, for one, prefer to forgo Greater Sunrise than surrender to the dictates of a bunch of oil executive millionaires.
We are ready to study and analyse all options, to talk and explore ideas and arrangements that are mutually beneficial. We are not saying the pipeline should go to Suai for the sake of it. The decision has to be made purely on technical and commercial basis. Woodside seemed to suggest that it should be based on a patriotic basis: because Woodside is Australian it should come to Darwin. We view it more as a technical and commercial enterprise. It goes where independent, credible studies recommend it should go. If an independent, credible study says it should go to Darwin because technically it is safer and commercially sound, then we will go along with it, and we will sit down with Woodside and other investors in Australia to find out what other arrangements would be made to compensate the East Timorese for the loss of the downstream benefits.
We are not dogmatic or political about the issue of the pipeline. However, Woodside Oil executives are the ones who seemed to be dogmatic and political about it, when it should be the other way. Timor-Leste will soon designate a senior negotiator for Greater Sunrise and we will be happy then to sit down, talk and find an amicable solution, the best of options.
I love Australia. I feel very much part of it. The blood within my body is Australian, donated by young Australian soldiers. But I love my country and people more, not only because it is my country, soaked with the blood of too many in the fight to attain freedom, but because my country is small and weak, my people are poor and have been victimised for too long. You are rich and powerful. So, I have to side with my country and people who are weaker and poorer. I hope you understand this.
Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I would like to reciprocate your warm hospitality by inviting you to visit my country anytime at your convenience. The invitation is also extended to His Honour the Northern Territory Administrator, the honourable Chief Minister, as well as the honourable ministers and members of parliament. Your visit would very much help to expand and cement the relations between our two countries, and would have you see the situation on the ground that is somewhat different from what you often hear or read.
May God, the Almighty and the Merciful, bless the Australian people. I thank you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I will call now on two members to express our thanks to His Excellency for his Address today. I call the Deputy Chief Minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, Your Excellency Mr Jose Ramos-Horta, ladies and gentlemen, visitors, fellow parliamentarians, I thank you very much for your speech, your passion, and for sharing your thoughts with us. It is an honour to be able to welcome you to the lands of the Larrakia people, and to listen to your very powerful speech. Our people, our cultures are one. The relationships will always be there, and they continue.
I have spoken with many of the artists-in-residence from Timor-Leste. I know that you are a very passionate supporter of the arts and the museums. The links between our museum and the arts of the Northern Territory with your people of Timor-Leste will build and continue. I am looking forward to making sure those links continue and that we assist your country to build your museum.
Madam Speaker, Your Excellency, it was a great honour to accompany you into my fantastic electorate of Arafura, particularly Kakadu National Park. I can tell you, Your Excellency, you have left a mark on a classroom of children that were present at Patonga Outstation that day, where the traditional owners hosted you for that afternoon. They are still talking about your visit. Your gift to those children takes pride of place at Jabiru Area School. They have not forgotten, and their history teacher tells me they have become conversant with the history of Timor-Leste. I thank you for coming out to Kakadu for those couple of days, sharing with the traditional owners, sitting down with Jacob Nayinggul and sharing those stories.
That weekend was a highlight for the people in my electorate and they have not forgotten your visit. Your Excellency, and Madam Speaker, it was certainly a privilege to be able to host you in my electorate.
Your Excellency, your speech spoke of hope, but it also told us of resilience. The resilience of your people, of my people, continues. Those struggles we will overcome. I thank you for sharing your words with us today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Deputy Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker and Your Excellency. It is an honour to thank the President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, His Excellency Mr Jose Ramos-Horta, for travelling to the Northern Territory of Australia and addressing this parliament. Thank you.
The people of Timor-Leste and the Northern Territory have much in common, and the bonds are stronger than many of us realise. The concept of statehood in Timor-Leste is relatively new. The Northern Territory is continuing to strive to move towards statehood. For over 500 years, Timor-Leste was under Portuguese rule. For over 100 years, the Northern Territory was under the rule of other states of Australia, namely, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia and then the Commonwealth. Despite self-government, we still do not control all our own affairs.
Your Excellency, Timor-Leste is east of the Wallace Line as is Darwin and the Northern Territory. This special line means that Darwin shares with Timor-Leste similar flora and fauna and natural landscape. Our natural environment has much in common and, perhaps in the future and as our relationship grows and prospers, we can share the knowledge and life experiences of our natural assets to mutual benefit.
Another item we have in common with Timor-Leste is the Timor pony. Timor-Leste is responsible for developing this now famous and popular horse. Timor ponies are strong, frugal and agile, lovely natured and intelligent. Many Timor ponies were brought into the Northern Territory and used in the cattle industry and in the small farm industry.
During my upbringing we had a Timor pony. He was called Prince and he was an ex-trick horse from a rodeo. Prince was a strong horse, ate well, was well covered and, if push came to shove, he could be agile. That is about where the similarity with the above description stopped, Your Excellency. He was sneaky and conniving, he opened bins and stole food, he only worked when he felt like it, he bit toes, he rode under low branches to try to knock us off, and he walked along the side of barbed wire fences. Generally, he was a cantankerous old man horse. He must have had good breeding, Your Excellency, in his lines or perhaps his life was easy on our farm but, whatever it was, he lived to a ripe old age of nearly 45 years. He was such a special part of my family that he got a proper animal funeral on the farm. Mr President, next time we have a Timor pony, I am going to make sure it is not one from the rodeo, but he was, indeed, very intelligent and a credit to the horse breeding of your country.
Mr President, a more serious part of our relationship was the relationship during World War II, when Timor-Leste fought alongside Australian and Dutch forces against enemy invasion during the period 1942 to 1945. Timor-Leste fighters and a small force of Australian commandos repulsed the invaders and greatly assisted in preventing the enemy taking a stronghold in Australia. We, the Northern Territory and Australia, are truly thankful for your country’s strength and determination despite losses, for allowing us to be a free land.
Your Excellency, thank you for your attendance here today and for addressing this parliament of the Northern Territory of Australia.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of honourable members, I thank Your Excellency for your Address.
Your Excellency, you will recall on an earlier visit to Parliament House you presented me with this shawl from the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. It takes pride of place in my office and many people admire it.
As Speaker of this parliament, I am honoured to present you with a shawl with the true flavour of the Territory. This shawl has been designed especially for you and, I am proud to say, locally made by Mrs Karen Brown. The designs and the fabric are from the Tiwi Island people and feature rich ochre, deep black, pink, orange, and purple hues. They are of particular significance to the people of the Tiwi Islands. The designs include the lizard, star and armband designs. Ochre, black, and white have been the official colours of the Northern Territory since 1964; and the ochre colour was originally made from clay tinted with iron oxide, commonly found in much of the Northern Territory. The warmth of the colours displayed in this shawl, I feel, is a true reflection of Territory culture.
Your Excellency, most significantly, this cloth represents the common threads of our countries - Australia and Timor-Leste - and it is a symbol of the friendship we share. I present it to you on behalf of the members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Serjeant-at-Arms, please escort His Excellency from the Chamber. Members, I ask you to stand.
______________________
His Excellency was escorted from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms.
______________________
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members and guests, the House is now adjourned. I thank guests for joining us today for this historic occasion. I invite you to join us in the Main Hall for refreshments.
The Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016