336 Political Chronicles

On the other side of Territory politics, the News of 29 October reported the death of sometime FrogWatch coordinator and media guru, Paul Cowdy, who worked for every CLP chief minister and for the Liberal Party on ’s election campaign. Conclusion The past six months of Territory politics were dominated by the federal intervention into Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory. Everything else, including the lead-in to the federal election, felt subordinate. The federal intervention opened up old wounds and revealed the ongoing problems Labor has always had in balancing its representation of its Indigenous support base from the bush with the aspirations and values of Darwin northern suburbs residents.

Australian Capital Territory July to December 2007

JANINE O’FLYNN The Australian National University

Introduction With ongoing attention to planning, an acute housing crisis, contracting blunders, a failed attempt to save a local timber mill, money to rescue caged chickens, Chief Minister Jon Stanhope’s continued animosity towards Prime Minister John Howard, and then his (perhaps short-lived) jubilation at the election of Rudd, the political landscape in the nation’s capital was engaging. In these chronicles, however, two key issues have been selected for more thorough examination. The Skippy Saga Plans to cull thousands of kangaroos in grabbed national and international headlines. Early in 2007 the Commonwealth Department of Defence applied to the Territory government for permission to kill some 3200 kangaroos on sites in Belconnen and Majura because of their potential impact on “endangered ecological communities” and the impending threat of slow starvation due in large part to a population explosion (TAMS Media Release, 12 May 2007). The extent of overpopulation was made clear when it was announced that the density of kangaroo population was more than four times that recommend by expert ecologists, and that the population would be reduced by around three-quarters at the Belconnen site (TAMS Fact Sheet, 2007). Indeed the RSPCA argued that if Defence did not act to manage the roo population it would likely lay charges of animal cruelty as the animals looked likely to starve (Canberra Times, 29 May 2007). After canvassing a range of options it was argued that engaging professional shooters to kill the animals was most appropriate, a method endorsed by the RSPCA: A powerful rifle-shot to the cranium results in one of the most humane deaths administered by humans to any wild or farmed vertebrate animals in the world. Death is instantaneous while the kangaroo is going about its normal activities. No yards or transport are involved (TAMS Fact Sheet, 2007 p.2). Political Chronicles 337

Almost immediately after the proposed cull was announced, several animal rights groups condemned it; an Animal Liberation spokesperson claimed there was no basis for the starvation argument and that by forging ahead with the cull, the Territory would earn a worldwide reputation for cruelty to animals (Daily Telegraph, 14 May 2007). Wildcare, a local group that would gain considerable prominence as the debate continued, argued mayhem would follow the first shot fired and that a decision on how to handle the kangaroo challenge should be: Based on first-class knowledge and an enlightened world view of ethics and the environment, rather than on ignorance and spin […] the clinical spin of the ADF and the ACT Government will at that point be shown to be the complete lie that it is. By that time, however, it will be too late for these iconic Australian animals (Wildcare Media Release, 14 May 2007). The cull effectively split animal rights groups — the RSPCA supporting the cull, and others such as the Animal Liberation and Wildcare opposed. Prominent philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer also entered the debate, arguing that the cull was unethical because the animals were not starving, nor were they distressed: “Kangaroos are sentient beings who can enjoy their lives […] as long as they can do so, it is better to let them continue to live” (ABC News, 24 May 2007). The issue grabbed headlines across the world where, for example, it was reported that Australian were planning on killing their national symbol (Washington Post, 14 May 2007). Late May, Defence was taken aback when the Australian Federal Police intervened to stop the issuing of licences on the grounds of public safety. Indeed, several animal rights groups had publicly declared they would protest at the shoot sites. Further, the Federal Police noted the potential for members of the public to be injured if bullets ricocheted, or shooters misfired (Canberra Times, 26 May 2007). Despite a pro-cull stance, the Territory government refused to issue the licences and the application was put on hold. Following consultation between the Territory government, Defence and the Federal Police, licenses were finally issued in late June and it was announced that multiple methods would be used to kill the animals — shooting at Majura, but darting followed by euthanasia at Belconnen (TAMS Media Release, 20 June 2007). Following on from all this to-ing and fro-ing Defence spectacularly abandoned the cull plans in early July arguing it had run out of time to do the job during the March-July cull season. Whilst some animal rights groups who had lobbied hard for the kangaroos to be left alone were pleased, scientists warned that failure to eradicate the animals posed an ecological catastrophe, and the RSPCA again threatened to lay cruelty charges against the Department of Defence (Canberra Times, 6 July 2007). The Chief Minister announced that the Territory government was seeking advice on whether it could force Defence to go ahead with the cull, and the Minister for Defence Brendan Nelson was asked to formally set out how he would ensure that the Department’s obligations to protect endangered flora and fauna under the Nature Conservation Act would be fulfilled now the cull had been abandoned (Media Release, 16 July 2007). A more sinister explanation for the abandonment of the cull was proposed in an article in the Canberra Times (10 July 2007) where it was reported that the Secretary of the Commonwealth Treasury, Ken Henry, had co-authored a report from the animal protection group Wildcare which urged Defence to abandon the cull. Whilst pro-cull groups argued this amounted to undue influence, experts wondered how this “little- known volunteer group” had trumped their scientific evidence. Given that it had earlier been suggested a cull would take just three days many expressed suspicion at the rationale provided by Defence. Indeed, even the Chief Minister asked why Defence 338 Political Chronicles had listened to “a community group with experience in hand-raising joeys” rather than the reports it had commissioned from ecologists and other experts (Media Release, 16 July 2007). Later he stated that the problem was so dire he would consider extending the Territory cull period to allow Defence to deal with the issue. Wildcare posed its own questions — were the scientists advocating the cull financially supported by the Stanhope government? Did the RSPCA, also supporters of the cull, rely on donations from the Territory government? (Wildcare Media Release, 5 August 2007). The group suggested that rather than being concerned about precious grasslands the Territory government simply wanted to kill the kangaroos so it could release more land, make more money and ensure budget surpluses (Wildcare Media Release, 12 August 2007). In the fierce debate over the future of the roos, one suggestion from Wildcare got nation-wide press coverage. It was suggested that the animals could be relocated — this would involve tranquilising them and then transported them in a padded, air- conditioned truck to areas in at a reported cost of around $3,600 per animal, although these prices were dismissed as mischievous by the group (Canberra Times, 3 August 2007). Mayors in adjoining New South Wales were unimpressed with the suggestion that the kangaroo problem would be solved by pushing the animals into their jurisdictions because they had enough of their own. This despite claims by Wildcare that they had in-principle support from the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change for the relocations and that assistance had been offered in undertaking the move (Wildcare July 2007, The Kangaroo Population at Belconnen Naval Transmission Station – Summary). In September, Defence changed its mind again and announced it was going ahead with the cull. The decision was based on advice from the expert panel it convened in August to develop a plan for the Belconnen site. In the end a mixed approach combining euthanasia, relocation and fertility control was adopted. Chief Minister Stanhope argued against the relocation suggesting that this did little to solve the actual problem (Canberra Times, 29 September 2007). Animal protection advocates also seemed miffed, with a spokesman for the Wildlife Protection Association stating: “The Department of Defence gave us an assurance that they will not kill the animals and I hold out on the hope they have more integrity than to go back on their word” (Canberra Times, 29 September 2007). The group again threatened that they would protest on the site of the cull. In October, Defence announced a tender for control of kangaroos at the Majura and Belconnen sites. In a separate agreement they engaged contractors to build fences to protect important habitat at the sites. The fences, near completion at the end of the year, were expected to allow vegetation to recover following on from the effects of overpopulation. Liberals Implode — Again … The Territory Liberals have certainly had a hard time of it over the last few years with ongoing internal strife, backstabbing and instability. Bill Stefaniak took up leadership of the troubled lot in May 2006 after Brendan Smyth lost support. In December 2007 instability again rocked the party; the catalyst was the dumping of Richard Mulcahy from the front bench as allegations over the misuse of funds during his time in charge of the Australian Hotels Associations were investigated by a federal tribunal. This had been an ongoing issue for Mulcahy, a man considered a star recruit and potential leader when elected in 2004. Whilst he argued that he was the victim of a political witch-hunt, there had been rumours swirling, and it had been suggested that he came with a lot of “baggage” (Canberra Times, 10 December 2007). Political Chronicles 339

Upon being stood down, Mulcahy publicly vented his spleen, arguing Stefaniak’s actions were “indefensible and without precedent” and that they reflected “poorly on [his] judgement” (Canberra Times, 10 December 2007). Mulcahy argued that if he had to be stood down for what were unsubstantiated allegations then some of his colleagues should too. Whilst he would not divulge details, he suggested that he had some dirt on both Stefaniak and former leader Smyth. Smyth countered that if Mulcahy had such important information he should report it to police or shut up. In a party-room meeting on 10 December Mulcahy was expelled for disloyalty. He did not go to the crossbench quietly: he publicly stated that the Liberals were unfit to govern, that both Stefaniak and Smyth were failures as leaders, and that people within his own party had sought to derail him for years: I have reached the view over a period of time that it is not within the capacity of the ACT Liberals to form an effective government in the ACT, either with the current leader or any other […] [my expulsion] only confirms my belief that the ACT Liberal party is not and will not in the foreseeable future be fit to govern (Canberra Times, 11 December 2007). The prime catalyst for his expulsion was his very public musing on Stefaniak’s leadership. He claimed five of the seven Liberal MLAs did not support him — and the reason Stefaniak had pushed him aside was because he was threatened by him (Canberra Times, 10 December 2007). This, however, was not surprising given suggestions Mulcahy had long touted around town that he would challenge Stefaniak prior to the October 2008 election (Canberra Times, 15 November 2006). Following his expulsion, Mulcahy publicly commented that the Liberals would most likely “put the knife” into Stefaniak prior to Christmas, basing his claims on the fact that all but one MLA had privately told him they did not support the current leader (Canberra Times, 12 December 2007). With widespread agreement that Stefaniak had been a poor performer, discussions over who should lead the party were ongoing. The main problems for the party were personality-based fissures or “who hates Brendan or Richard, who has a grudge against who” (Canberra Times, 11 December). This becomes a real issue, of course, when your party has only seven, and later six, members in the Assembly. Mulcahy stated that Smyth was doing his numbers hoping to reclaim the leadership, but that Jacqui Burke and both fancied themselves as contenders. It didn’t take long for the knives to come out. On 13 December Bill Stefaniak stepped down as leader and his deputy Jacqui Burke followed — a seemingly bloodless coup. Zed Seselja was elected unopposed with Smyth taking the role of deputy. Whilst claiming not to have been pushed, Stefaniak did concede he no longer had the support of his party — a party he admitted had been racked by instability: “We have been somewhat dysfunctional for probably close to three years” (The Australian, 17 December 2007). Seselja, he argued, offered them a chance at a fresh start. At just thirty years of age, Seselja is one of the youngest leaders in Australian history. Elected to the Assembly in 2004, he admitted there were tough times ahead for his party but stated that he had a unified team behind him (Canberra Times, 14 December 2007). Others argued that it wouldn’t be long before Smyth sought to regain the leadership: there was much speculation that he wanted the top job after Stefaniak stepped aside. Either way, Cathy Alexander noted: “From here, it’s looking like Jon Stanhope will laugh all the way to the polls” (Canberra Times, 11 December 2007).

340 Political Chronicles

Other Notable Happenings As was the case in other jurisdictions, debate about the state of the health system in the Territory raged. An exposé on “Four Corners” in August featuring a doctor who blew the whistle on patient treatment by a neurologist at the Canberra Hospital sparked considerable attention. , the Minister for Health, announced she would hold an inquiry into patient treatment if new evidence emerged. During September and October several horror stories were reported which ensured that the health debate continued. One featured a man sent home following x-rays when he was told there was nothing wrong with him; he was found to have a fractured skull and a brain haemorrhage. Another featured a thirty-year old man who died of cardiac arrest in the emergency room whilst staff apparently believed he was asleep. Despite claims by the government that patients were overwhelmingly satisfied, it was clear that the Territory system was under stress. A key contributing factor, according to Medical Director Peter Collignon, was the heavy use of Territory hospitals by people from New South Wales. It was suggested that around one-quarter of patients at Canberra hospitals came from New South Wales and that their government should contribute at least $100 million, rather than the current $55-65 million, toward the operation of Canberra hospitals to offset this (Canberra Times, 12 August 2007). Following independent arbitration between the two jurisdictions, it was announced that the Territory would receive $10million in back pay and an additional $2million per annum. Whilst the government trumpeted this as a windfall, the increased funds were still a long way short of the true cost of provision claimed by Collignon (Canberra Times, 28 December 2007). In the context of this debate, Liberal MLA Jacqui Burke became involved in a stoush with the Labor Party after suggesting that Health Minister Gallagher was a poor performer. Gallagher had recently given birth to her third child and taken six weeks maternity leave; she returned to work with her young baby in tow. Burke argued in the Assembly that Gallagher was a […] part-time health minister. She is not fully committed to the job; she is unable to be fully committed to the job. I make that quite clear. It is very important that we have a health minister who is on the ball 100 per cent of the time. She is not across this portfolio. She is unaware of the many issues that are bubbling under the surface. She knows nothing about them, and that concerns me (Hansard, 14 November 2007, p. 3335). Gallagher, along with many women, was livid that Burke was questioning her ability to perform because she had a small child: “Many mothers carry out dual roles of parenting and employment and this is something we need to encourage, not attack” (Media Release, 15 November 2007). Indeed, in 2007, the Legislative Assembly was accredited as a breastfeeding friendly space by the national breastfeeding association. Gallagher regularly took her child to meetings and briefings but stated that until Burke made her comments she had never been made to feel ashamed to bring her babies to work (Canberra Times, 15 November 2007). Burke claimed to have been misrepresented arguing she had not directly mentioned the maternity leave. Labor, she suggested, were simply protecting Gallagher’s poor performance by playing the gender card. Prior to the federal election concern was bubbling over the potential impact that Rudd’s “razor gang” might have on Canberra in Labor won. Prior to the election Lindsay Tanner announced “the days of big government are over” and that a Labor government would, amongst other things, slash minsters’ staff, reduce allowances, seek efficiency gains and slash funds from the National Capital Authority (Canberra Times, Political Chronicles 341

9 August 2007). In November, Opposition Leader talked up his plan to attack the ever-expanding public service. The Liberal Senator stated that many of Canberra’s 52,000 public servants were fearful: “Nervous Canberra public servants will take little comfort from Mr Rudd’s words […] there may not be a single night of long knives looming, but there would be days of pain or uncertainty ahead for the public service under a Rudd Labor Government” (Canberra Times, 10 November 2007). Addressing some of the more wasteful aspects of government practice which had resulted from poor planning and mismanagement was however seen as positive; a case in point was the restoration of a building for the Federal Police which was deemed to small to accommodate the service which had doubled in size. This meant that the AFP would pay $5million per annum to lease a building it did not occupy (Canberra Times, 28 August 2007). Of course, Labor did win the election and its cuts were beginning to emerge in 2008 and, after much praise from Stanhope, it looks at though Rudd’s razor gang may have a big effect on Canberra.