2001-10-24
Stolen Generation - Motion
Mr BURKE to CHIEF MINISTER
Chief Minister, you owe it to the special people who will gather in the galleries today to explain what happened yesterday. Why were you adamant your original motion, without any mention of an apology or the word ‘sorry’, was good enough right up until 6pm? Why did you tell the media - and I seek leave to table the article from The Australian today - that an apology was not necessary, and I quote the article:
- Ms Martin said she didn’t have to apologise because there was not a Territory parliament during the time when the Aboriginals Ordinance allowed the removal of mixed raced children from their families.
Leave granted.
ANSWER
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Madam Speaker, I have made it very clear all along that we will be offering our apologies in this House, from this new government, and I am very hopeful that we will be joined in a bipartisan way by all members in this parliament.
My government is a government that listens. When we put the initial motion …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I think coming from a government that did not listen, that is most inappropriate.
My government is a government that listens. When we put the initial motion on notice yesterday, we provided an opportunity for Territorians to express their views on the motion. We drafted that motion in good faith, and with the advice of caucus members whose family members are members of the Stolen Generation.
We felt the initial form of the words captured the spirit and intent of an apology, and many members of the Stolen Generation concurred. What we did was, we listened through the day and we decided, towards the end of the day, that we needed to change eight words in that motion. We needed to make our intention more clear. It had to be clearly spelt out in that motion, and we clearly put the word apology in. I make no apologies about that, we clearly put the word apology in. We listened to the feedback and we responded. That is the reason why we were voted in as a government, because our style of government is inclusive, and this new Labor government’s style of government is responsive.
Our motion significantly calls on the Commonwealth government to make a specific and formal apology to the Stolen Generation. Our motion - the one we will have debated in here in one hour’s time - acknowledges the belief of Aboriginal people that removal of children represented the implementation of a government policy of assimilation, without regard to individual welfare circumstances. This motion is about acknowledging our shared humanity, it is about empathy and it is about sympathy. It is a motion designed - and I hope this House shares this view - to bring Territorians together.
The matter of the Stolen Generation is a complex and disturbing history of colonial intervention in indigenous family arrangements and practices. I very firmly believe it is a matter that the opposition in this House should not politicise, and that this opposition should find it in their collective or individual hearts, to join us in this motion and say they are also sorry about what happened.
This is an issue that calls for leadership, and my government is demonstrating not only our leadership on this issue, but our ability to listen and to learn. We believe that today is an historic day for the Territory and in this parliament. If the opposition does not support us in this motion, it will be a very sad day for the Territory.
Mr Burke: How can you support a sham?
Ms MARTIN: If the opposition does not support this motion, it will be a very sad day for the Territory, and it will expose the Leader of the Opposition’s question just now as very, very cynical.
The opposition should vote for this motion because it will help redress the wrongs that were perpetrated against many Territorians. They should vote for this motion because apologising for what happened to those children and their families is the right thing to do. They should vote for this motion because then, and only then, will they really demonstrate, along with this side of the House, true leadership for the Territory.
____________
VISITORS
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise you also of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Ms Gloria de Castro Hall, the former Clerk of the East Timor National Council. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to our visitor.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________
Community Benefit Fund
Ms LAWRIE to MINISTER for INDUSTRIES and BUSINESS
Can you please inform the House of how the Community Benefit Fund has been managed to date?
Mr Reed interjecting.
ANSWER
I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Karama, for her question. The former Treasurer just interjected the word ‘deceit’. This is another story about the deception of the previous government in terms of management and mismanagement of the Territory’s finances. Professor Allan’s report has passed judgement in terms of what incompetent financial managers the previous government was. The CLP’s cavalier attitude to financial management can best be outlined in terms of how they managed the Community Benefit Fund, for which I am now responsible.
The Community Benefit Fund is established under the Gaming Machine Act. Section 150 of the Gaming Machine Act provides that licensees must pay a community benefit levy to the Community Benefit Fund on a monthly basis. The proceeds of the fund were intended to be allocated on the basis of advice from a broadly-representative committee reporting to the Minister for Racing and Gaming. Applications to the fund were supposed to go to a broadly-representative committee to assess the applications in terms of their benefit towards the community, and then decisions and recommendations made to the Minister for Racing and Gaming. This was how the fund was set up initially.
For some reason, known only to those members opposite, shortly before the election the responsibility for the fund was taken over by the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine. In fact, the previous Minister for Racing and Gaming delegated his responsibility - hand-balled his responsibility - over to the former Treasurer, without any independent committee or a representative committee being put in place to actually look to applications for this fund. It is significant that this occurred just six months prior to the election. I am not sure what this says about the view taken about the former Minister for Racing and Gaming, but obviously the previous Treasurer decided that he was not happy with the way disbursements from the fund were occurring, and decided that he could do a better job of it himself.
Under the then Treasurer, the fund was reinvented as the $1m Small Grants Program. The actual real reason for the fund in terms of community benefit all of a sudden became a Small Grants Program. A couple of ads were put in the paper asking for applications to the fund. What happened then? What was the process in terms of identifying payments from the fund? The process became so manic and fragmented the financial accountability was thrown out of the window; paperwork was sloppy, inconsistent or non-existent; the tax implications of the grants were not taken into account; and there were significant processing errors. For instance, five different grants totalling $62 210 were paid twice, such was this wonderful process that occurred inside the Treasurer’s office. We can also understand how the $107m black hole came into place. Five different grants totaling $62 000 were paid twice under this process. Not only did the process become fragmented, the process became corrupt.
Where did we go from here? Prior to the 18 August election, the former CLP administration approved 272 grants to community organisations. These grants were worth $1.562m. Yet the CLP - and we have heard the story before in the capital works program - had only allocated $159 000 from the Community Benefit Fund to fund these promises. Here we have commitments of $1.5m but an allocation of only $159 000 from the fund. This is another example of the sloppy and incompetent financial management that Professor Percy Allan has highlighted.
It is also interesting to note the timing of these payments under the fund. Of the Small Grants Program approved by the government, around $357 000 was paid prior to 30 June 2001. But in July 2001, the following month, a whopping $1.205m in payments were made. $305 000 in the 11 months preceding, and in the one month of July, $1.205m in payments. Members would be entitled to ask what was happening in this month. What was happening? What was happening soon after July this year - 18 August? What was happening - oh, an election! So, here we have the great pork-barrel, $1.205m in payments, out a fund that only had $159 000 allocated to it. This is just a further example of the irresponsible way the previous government mismanaged the public purse. Their economic formula, highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition since the election, was to spend, spend, spend in order to buy, buy, buy votes prior to the election. This was the formula: spend, spend, spend, to buy, buy, buy votes just prior to the election. We stand on this side of the House because that particular master plan failed on behalf of the former government. This government will continue to clean up the CLP’s mess to ensure that ordinary Territorians are not punished for their incompetence.
It is also worth noting that the Auditor-General is conducting a comprehensive audit of the previous government’s administration of the Community Benefit Fund. I look forward to reporting back to the House once the Auditor-General completes his report.
Stolen Generation - Motion
Mr BURKE to the CHIEF MINISTER
I ask the Chief Minister, how can she look the members of the Stolen Generation and their families in the eye and say this new motion is her sincere belief, when it is so different from her original motion, and when, as Senator Aden Ridgeway and members of the Stolen Generation, including local participants have noted, it now makes no mention of ‘sorry,’ ‘sorrow’ or ‘condolence’?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under Standing Order 114, repeating questions - I believe this question is similar in nature to the previous question.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a different question.
ANSWER
I thank the Opposition Leader for his question. We do note that the opposition is having difficulty in providing a whole range of questions in Question Time, and we are getting repeated questions.
Mr Burke: We’ve got plenty. We’ll look after our side. We’ll be right.
Ms MARTIN: On Kyoto, you asked nine questions!
Mr Burke: Just answer the question.
Madam SPEAKER: Might I make the comment to the opposition that you need to take due care that you are not asking questions in anticipation of the debate. I acknowledge that your questions to date have not.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the real point in here this afternoon is this very important motion for this Territory parliament. Is it going to be supported by the opposition? That is the real key. This side, the government side of the House, is absolutely committed. We are going to - as we attempted to do a number of years ago and were not supported by the then government - be saying an apology, expressing our sorrow, saying sorry to what happened to hundreds of Territorians. We will be expressing it very clearly. The real issue this afternoon is whether the opposition will be supporting that motion. I think this is a true test of the capacity of this new opposition. It is a true test of whether you have a heart and whether you are going to join in leadership of this Territory. You are the Opposition Leader, you should be leading the nine who sit with you, and you should be joining in this motion this afternoon. That is the real issue we have in front of us this afternoon.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition: join with us, join in this motion, and let us have this motion a truly bipartisan one from the Territory parliament.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order Madam Speaker. While the questions are different, the answers are remarkably the same. I think it should be pointed out to the Chief Minister that she refused to answer the question.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Sale of Government Land – Revenue Raised
Dr BURNS to MINISTER for LANDS, PLANNING and ENVIRONMENT
In the 2001-02 budget brought down by the CLP government in May this year, $9m was tagged as revenue that the government would receive from the sale of government land. Will this be achieved and how is this figure arrived at?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for his question. Yes, it is true $9m was tagged as the revenue the government would receive from the sale of land. Unfortunately, this figure will not be achieved this year. I have been advised by my department that they provided the more realistic figure of $3m. That leaves a shortfall of $6m. This did not happen only this financial year, it happened last financial year. In 2000-01, a figure of $10m was tagged. In effect, it was $4.2m, another $5m shortfall …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, I cannot hear your minister because of the interjections you are making. A little silence, and allow the minister to have a go.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, this is something that is repeated year after year, this year and last year. Now, that could be unintentional. If it was unintentional, that indicates the lack of any fiscal knowledge by the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine. If it was intentional, it is clear dishonesty.
Procedural Aspects of Proposed Mini-budget
Mr REED to CHIEF MINISTER
Yesterday, the Chief Minister advised that the mini-budget would merely be an amendment to the 2001-02 budget. As a consequence, it would not have a large consequence on subsequent years, or did not require a high level of debate. Indeed, she advised that it would be passed by urgency in the next sittings. How does she reconcile that comment with her remarks on the Channel 8 News on 12 October where she said her mini-budget process would have an impact over the next four years and beyond for the Northern Territory. I seek leave to table a transcript of other comments that the honourable Chief Minister made.
Leave granted.
Mr REED: Does the Chief Minister believe that a financial statement that will shape the Territory economy over the next four years is a significant budgetary practice; will have a long-standing impact on the Northern Territory; is worthy of a full appropriation debate; and is not worthy of passing through urgency in this House without this House considering it in detail?
ANSWER
I thank the Deputy Opposition Leader for his question. It is interesting, and I said this yesterday. When we announced we were having a mini-budget we had pressure from the opposition: ‘Don’t allow it to be at the end of November, you have to bring it down more quickly’. Now we are getting towards discussion of the November mini-budget and what you are saying is that we ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: It is a very significant event, this mini-budget, and I think we only have to refer to the report from Professor Percy Allan to realise how significant an event this mini-budget is. It really galls me that the member for Katherine even asks these questions when you look at his track record as Treasurer - the man who bodgied up budget figures and has been exposed for bodgying up budget figures in his last budget. He is absolutely the man who was the Treasurer for rubbery figures, the absolute Treasurer for rubbery figures ...
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am flattered that the Chief Minister should be focussing all this attention on me. It is only a matter of time before I am blamed for the 11 September incident in New York ...
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr REED: ... I am being blamed for everything else. The leader of government should, in fact, answer the question as to whether she will afford this House a full debate on the appropriation changes that are going to take place that are going to have an impact for four years ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, answer the question. Keep your answer relevant to the question.
Ms MARTIN: The question becomes more of a statement, and it really is, and the question is ...
Mr Reed: Right, and the answer is?
Ms MARTIN: Let us make it very clear, this man who really is the Treasurer for rubbery figures - was the Treasurer for rubbery figures - the man who sat in his office and made up the bottom line ...
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker. You directed the Chief Minister to answer the question and she is now going on rambling with other details quite contrary to your direction.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, keep your answer relevant to the question. You all know that ministers tend to wander around the question, but it would be nice to think that ministers would address the question.
Ms MARTIN: I am addressing the question, and it makes me feel very sad on behalf of Territorians that we have a man here who would ask questions about management of budgets. Yet we have seen what he has done to Territory budgets, and the misrepresentation we saw in the bottom line, particularly as exposed by Professor Percy Allan. It is very serious, it is not something to be taken lightly. I really question whether this man should actually be allowed to sit in here and ask questions. The man who sat in his office in the far corner of Parliament House and made up the bottom line figures ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I have asked you to answer the question. Keep your points relevant to the question.
Ms MARTIN: This is relevant, Madam Speaker, this is relevant. What I say to the member for Katherine is, we will have a full debate in this parliament. The opposition will be put on notice that we expect a proper and honest response from them when we do discuss the mini-budget. It is a mini-budget, along with our Economic Development Summit at the beginning of next month, that will set the future directions because we will have the figures right for the first time in a number of years. We will have the figures right in this budget, and we will be honestly spelling out to Territorians how we are going to move forward. I expect a very full response from the opposition when we have that mini-budget at the end of November.
Proposed Fiscal Legislation
Mr BONSON to TREASURER
Chief Minister, this morning you gave notice of the introduction of the fiscal integrity bill. Can you advise this parliament of the reasons behind your decision to introduce this bill?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Millner for this very important question. The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill was one that was recommended by Professor Percy Allan when his report showed that our deficit, rather than being the forward estimate that the former Treasurer said ...
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This question relates to a matter on the Notice Paper. It does preempt debate and, if it does not preempt debate, it certainly gets into the arena of tedious repetition. There is more important business that we can attend to. Indeed, this particular bill which the minister has been asked to comment on, will be debated in full at a future time.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, just speaking to the point of order. If there is a question of tedious repetition in here it is the points of order being raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There is no point of order. I have sat in this House for ten years in opposition and they were never upheld and I ask the precedent be supported.
Madam SPEAKER: I think I will make that ruling, thank you. Leader of Government Business, resume your seat. Would you all settle down. You are very twitchy this afternoon and I do not want members raising points of order all the time, so, just relax. Chief Minister, you need to understand when you are preparing questions that you cannot anticipate debate. You must take due care not to anticipate debate of things on the Notice Paper, so when you are answering this question keep that in mind. I will allow the question but keep that in mind for future questions.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is important in answering a question about this Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill to explain some of the background of why we have it, which is why I refer to the report done by Professor Percy Allan into the Territory’s budget. I refer to the fact that the previous government told us, told Territorians, $12m was going to be the deficit for the current financial year. It was only when this government came in to power that we found the Under Treasurer and Treasury suddenly telling us, within moments of that May budget, that the deficit was more likely going to be over $100m.
Of course, we got an independent arbiter in - the second opinion - to determine what, in fact, was the underlying deficit. We now know it is $107m and, very sadly, rising. It is very important that we do not have, ever, a repetition of Treasurers sitting in their offices writing the bottom line of budgets, because that was clearly said by Professor Allan. The former Treasurer sat in his office and determined the bottom-line figures of the budget and ignored the reality of what, in fact, the deficit was - ignored the reality of what the actuals were in the budget - and simply made them up.
We have looked very carefully at the report from Percy Allan, when he recommended that we needed a bill like this to stop that deception, to stop that misrepresentation. We have to establish, in our budgets, trust and integrity for Territorians, and there has not been. The revelations we have seen have certainly undermined the trust of Territorians in the budget process.
The previous government had simply come to see the budget as a press release for their election purposes – simply a press release for their election purposes rather than the real bottom line to spell out for Territorians where we were financially and how we would move to the future. We saw that the Treasurer, and the government, ignored advice from their departments. A couple of examples - the police, $4.5m underfunded. A critical agency, $4.5m underfunded. And, as we have heard, land sales: ‘I think we will get $9m’. What was the real figure? $3m. They old an utter deception about what the deficit was going to be.
The Treasurer for rubbery figures told us that for last financial year he had a surplus of $1m. What did we see yesterday with the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report - $140m. No wonder we need a bill to establish integrity and transparency in our fiscal processes. The worst thing is that it was done year after year. If you look at the Allan report, it says that we were headed for - in four years time if this mob had been allowed to continue - a liability of $3.3bn, and that includes debt and unfunded employer liabilities. By June 2005, you would have bequeathed Territorians $3.3bn worth of debt, and this would have been 146% of our revenue.
This Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill is very important so that the business community and our community, generally, can rely on the budget to make plans, and can judge the fiscal management of government. The previous government was so scared of that judgment of the community - particularly the business community - that it deceived parliament and Territorians to cover up its ineptitude. This bill will ensure that, in future, we will know that the budget presented to this parliament is a true and credible document. It will not be full of rubbery figures, and it will give back to Territorians the trust they should have in their parliament.
Public Service Job Losses
Mr REED to MINISTER for EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION and TRAINING
Madam Speaker, given the government’s unswerving support of Percy Allan’s report, I ask the minister if he supports, and will adopt, Professor Percy Allan’s statement that public service administration should be restructured into fewer departments, that mega departments should be formed. The loss of jobs across government by attrition would then accrue in savings to government. Can he give Territorians, particularly those hard-working public servants, an assurance that there will not be a reduction in the overall number of public servants by attrition, by job losses or otherwise, and that the government will reject this component of Percy Allan’s report?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. We well know the credentials, the experience, the expertise, that one Professor Percy Allan brought to the Northern Territory when he had about a week to go over the budgetary position with Treasury officials. The budgetary position – which was explained to us very shortly after we came to government - was in an unsustainable position.
Mr Reed interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: An unsustainable position, just weeks after this clown, as the Treasurer in this House, told us that we were headed for a bottom line for this financial year of a $12m deficit. Tragically, the truth will probably come out closer to around $130m to $140m. Professor Allan is a highly-respected former Under Treasurer of New South Wales, under governments of both persuasions. There are many aspects to his report, and every one of those aspects will be considered by government over time.
Can I say this in respect of attrition: it is a practice that our predecessors used, much to the detriment of the public sector, Planning for Growth and those sorts of initiatives. The former Treasurer is one to talk. He was going to save $15m on DCIS, and instead he finished up spending $41m. It was at that point we asked him to keep his hands in his pocket and not try to go saving any more money because, every time he did, he cost us an arm and a leg. He cost us more jobs and more dollars every time he sought to save money.
In respect of attrition, it is acknowledged, by private sector and governments alike, that attrition does not get you where you want to be, because you do not necessarily lose the positions that you can afford to let go. In fact, if you were to go encouraging that way, you would lose the people, generally speaking, that you very much want to keep in terms of the aims and objectives of the organisation, and where you are trying to go.
This government is not sold on attrition as necessarily the way that you want to retain costs or get costs down, because it is simply often the case that it is the front-end service delivery people who are in this process of attrition. They are the very people with the skills and public relations that you need there. If you go on allowing the process of attrition, and those people are to leave and not be replaced, you are simply left with a public service unable to deliver the services overall on behalf of government, that it is required to.
In terms of any other decisions, Cabinet is working its way through those proposals, and it will make its decisions in the weeks to come …
Mr Reed: No comfort there for the public service.
Mr STIRLING: … and you will be among the first to know, Deputy Opposition Leader, let me tell you.
Northern Territory Debt Levels
Mr KIELY to TREASURER
Given the result of the $140m deficit released yesterday in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, what was the impact on the Territory’s debt levels?
ANSWER
I thank the member for Sanderson for his question. Yes, net debt, an issue that our previous Treasurer, the man for the rubbery figures, never liked to really come to terms with …
Mr Reed: I am flattered that you talk more about me than what you are going to do with the government.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the Treasurer, the former Treasurer protests: ‘Don’t talk about the past’. There is an analogy here that leaps out. This new government is like someone buying a house. You buy a house and the person selling it to you, or giving it to you, or handing it over says: ‘Look, it’s a great house. Don’t worry about the big hole in the back wall; don’t worry about the fact that the white ants have eaten up a few of the structural beams; don’t worry about that. Just look forward, look forward.’ That is how ridiculous it is because we have inherited a budget situation that demands attention and the weasel words we are getting from the opposition now are: ‘Don’t look back, don’t look back’.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that you should hear those comments because this mob should really be terribly proud of the budget. Nearly 27 years in government, you should be able to say proudly: ‘We did it well. We were great fiscal managers’.
The real tragedy is you were anything but good fiscal managers. You perpetrated deception on Territorians in your budget papers, which really is the bottom line of any government. Yet the Country Liberal Party, in government for nearly 27 years, ended up perpetrating a misrepresentation and a deception on Territorians through the bottom line of what we are about, and that is our budget papers.
Unfortunately, the net debt of the NT public sector was $1.416bn at 30 June 2001, and that was up from $1.294bn in 2000. So, a substantial increase from a government that said: ‘We are great fiscal managers’. This works out at the highest per capita debt in any jurisdiction in Australia - $7523 for every Territorian. This is over four times what the average is of the other states. That average is $1718. What are we in the Territory? We are $7523. This is the inheritance of the good fiscal managers. It really is very sad to say that it is clear from these figures that the previous government simply lost control of the finances of the Territory.
Over some of the 1990s, there was an adherence to a debt reduction strategy. Over the last two budgets, do you know where that debt reduction strategy was? Out the big hole of the wall in the house - it was out the big hole in the wall of the house we have inherited. When every other jurisdiction was stabilising or reducing debt, the Territory, under the Country Liberal Party, was simply hell bent on going the other way. We had a government that was using increased borrowings to pay for the blowouts in current expenditure. Recurrent expenditure, as we said time and time in this House, is on the Bankcard. It is on the never. The day-to-day running of the Territory, the paying of wages, the servicing of programs, it was on the Bankcard.
The thing about it is that we listened in here time and time again to the banging of the chest, the proud statements of what great fiscal managers the Country Liberal Party were. Well, every page of every document we opened shows just how misguided and wrong that statement was.
Nutrient Discharges into Darwin Harbour
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for LANDS, PLANNING and ENVIRONMENT
And now for something a little different. Minister, there are two drainage outlets that run under Wishart Road between Palmerston and Berrimah into mangrove estuaries along Wishart Road. The first one comes from Fairway Waters and the second from what appears to be the sewage ponds near the prison. Noting the colour of one and an effluent sign at the other, what is the nutrient discharge from these drains? Does the government support nutrient discharge into the harbour, and what measures will the government introduce to reduce or prevent such discharges into the harbour?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. It is amazing how things that were done in the past come back to haunt you now. I have to admit that I was involved in inquiring about the very same drains when I was a public servant, particularly the one near Tivendale that comes out of the Berrimah Prison.
That is a sewage treatment pond, and it is licensed by Power and Water, and discharges into the harbour. We found out, during an investigation, that most of the nutrients are actually converted or contained into fresh water algae that are used as nutrients by the mangroves when it is discharged into the harbour.
The other one, from Fairway Waters, is a storm water drain - it is not licensed by Power and Water. Nobody in Australia licenses storm water drains for the simple reason they drain storm waters that come from avenues. The water that contains some nutrients because we tend to fertilise our grass in the suburbs.
My department is monitoring the water quality in the harbour and we have found no significant level of nutrients in the harbour. In addition, we found out there is a fluctuation of nutrient levels in the harbour, depending on the season and also the tidal movements. I want to assure the member that we monitor the situation and will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that the harbour remains the same, as healthy as it is today.
Recycled Water Use in Alice Springs
Mr McADAM to MINISTER for ESSENTIAL SERVICES
Minister, earlier today the Minister for Central Australia gave a ministerial report on options for recycled water use in Alice Springs. Can the minister advise the House of the Power and Water Authority’s approach to this matter?
ANSWER
I thank the member for Barkly for his question. Madam Speaker, as the Minister for Central Australia reported earlier this morning, this is a problem that the previous government failed to address over many years.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry to be repetitious myself but there is no alternative. As the honourable minister has himself admitted, as he reported to this House this morning, he is in fact repeating the advice that he gave to this House this morning in ministerial reports. That is repetition and I would ask you to consider ruling against it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a repetitious question. This question has not been asked today.
Mr AH KIT: In regards to the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there are people watching the television recordings, and also people listening throughout the Northern Territory, who may wish to know the answer to this, especially in the Central Australian region.
This government’s key objective is first and foremost to prevent overflows of treated effluent into what has become the Ilparpa swamp. To address the immediate concern of draining the swamp, the Power and Water Authority has been pumping the water out of the existing swamp into drainage channels that discharge into St Mary’s Creek. This pumping removes the swamp water at the rate of 130 litres per second. This is faster than the rate of inflow of treated effluent, but overall progress has been relatively slow in draining the swamp.
Parallel to the immediate issue of draining the swamp, the Power and Water Authority has been investigating options to totally eliminate any overflows to the Ilparpa clay pan. This is the government’s base line - overflows to Ilpapa swamp will not be permitted under any future management arrangements. As a benchmark, the Power and Water Authority currently considers that the least cost option to address this requirement is through extension to the existing evaporation ponding system. This might possibly be supplemented by irrigation of trees in the Ilparpa area. This is the benchmark against which the pros and cons of alternatives can be considered.
The Power and Water Authority Board will continue to examine alternative schemes such as the use of treated effluent in horticultural or other irrigation purposes. Options are being assessed in conjunction with other agencies, including the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. At this stage, the Power and Water Authority Board have made no decision as to its final preferred option. None of the options have been presented to government, nor have they been considered by government at this stage. The options will come forward to government in the near future for consideration. The community can be assured that their views will be listened to in consideration of the options for future management of effluent and recycled water in Alice Springs.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on, I think the Leader of Government Business should be aware that we are getting ministerial reports repeated at Question Time, and we need to clarify that. I think that there is no need to repeat the same topic in both forums. Please remember what I said earlier about getting together and discussing this. I think we need to thrash it out.
Public Service Job Losses
Mr ELFERINK to MINISTER for PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
My question comes on the tail end of his last answer. Professor Percy Allan recommended that your government implement cost-cutting measures by cutting middle and backroom administration. How, on one hand, can you continue to pursue this, and then continue to demonstrate your faith in the public service? In short, how safe, under you, are public service jobs?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I went through a little of the detail of Professor Allan’s credentials before. That does not mean to say that this government necessarily goes along with everything he puts down in the report. The answer I gave before never alluded to anything different other than that. Government and Cabinet will consider each of the proposals in the report and we will make our decisions accordingly.
I always had respect for the public sector and the roles they play - the public service, the quality, the talent, the diligence, the conscientiousness out there. I was never, never, never more impressed than in the first couple of weeks of becoming a minister of the Northern Territory government, when I saw the lengths that our public servants go to, to deliver Cabinet submissions, requests from my office for further information, and explanation of material. It is a great public sector and one that I know our predecessors were proud of. I am ever more proud of it on a daily basis, when I see the work that they perform for us as a government, and for us as individual ministers.
In relation to a middle room or backroom, it is not necessarily my view that there is that fat, within the scope of public sector agencies, to cut. Some of the changes that our predecessors made over time did go to refinements and gaining efficiencies overall in the public sector. Were I of the view that there was, I would be telling you now, it is not my view at the moment. It would take a lot to convince me otherwise. But, can I say, we believe and thoroughly endorse Professor Percy Allan’s expertise and his credentials in this matter. It does not mean that we sign off on every recommendation that he put forward in his report. We never said we would. Those matters will continue to be considered over time.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Mr ELFERINK to MINISTER for PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
A supplementary, Madam Speaker. The question was, are their jobs safe?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you like to address that part of the question?
ANSWER
Absolutely!
PAWA – Compensation for Fire Damage
Mr MALEY to MINISTER for ESSENTIAL SERVICES
Before the election, Labor’s shadow minister for essential services, the member for Nhulunbuy, made much of a rural area fire in July last year that was thought to have been started by a power line. The member for Nhulunbuy claimed that 120 rural residents were affected by the fire and should be compensated by the Power and Water Authority. I have a copy of the transcript of what he said, I can make it available. Will the minister now come good on his colleague’s promise and direct the Power and Water Authority to compensate these land holders?
ANSWER
I welcome the question from the member for Goyder.
Mr Reed: I bet you do.
Mr AH KIT: I do, and I remember vaguely the discussion and the debate and what was raised by my colleague at the time. I will get a message across to the CEO to bring that file forward and to discuss what the current state of the situation is, as a responsible minister, and I will report back to the member who posed the question. That is about the best I can do, and as soon as I do that we can get together and have a talk about it.
Tennant Creek – Renal Unit
Mr McADAM to MINISTER for HEALTH, FAMILY and CHILDREN’S SERVICES
During the election campaign, the Labor opposition made a commitment to establish a renal unit at Tennant Creek to meet the needs of the Barkly residents. Can the minister tell the House what steps are being taken to meet this election commitment?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his question. It is certainly well known that Aboriginal Territorians suffer considerably more than non-indigenous people in the area of renal disease. Currently, there are 13 patients from Tennant Creek in Alice Springs Hospital who are receiving dialysis services. There are another eight patients from the Barkly region who could receive haemodialysis treatment in Tennant Creek, rather than having to travel to Alice Springs.
Members on this side of the House would be aware that the establishment of renal dialysis facilities is an issue that has been pursued very energetically by both the member for Stuart and the member for Barkly. Our commitment is to establish a renal dialysis service in the year 2002-03, and we have already started the work on this project. There is currently a Territory Health Services project officer …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister has a quiet voice. Please, quiet while she is answering the question.
Mrs AAGAARD: There is currently a Territory Health Services project officer visiting Tennant Creek to consult with key stakeholders, and to develop an implementation plan for the establishment of the haemodialysis service. This means that the plans will be in place when funding becomes available next year. This government is serious about Aboriginal health, and is serious about providing accessible health services.
Cawood Court Complex
Mr KIELY to MINISTER for HOUSING
Will the minister advise the Assembly on what decision the government has taken with Cawood Court Territory Housing complex in Alice Springs?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Sanderson for his question. I am sure you are interested in the answer as well. I found the question of Cawood Court on my desk, and I also found a brief about its colourful history. So, last time I was in Alice Springs, one of the first things I did was to drive to Cawood Court to have a look at the complex. Yes, it was a colourful history, I must admit, and I was not very impressed. I also found out that there were several proposals put in place - one was to be completely demolished, the other was to convert it, or to be given to aged people to live there.
I asked the department to provide me with the options and we considered all options, one of which was to demolish it. The estimate for demolition will be $700 000. That will come out of the Housing budget. Another option was to demolish it or to convert it to a mixture of public and private housing. There are three public housing complexes in the area, and the last thing the people in Alice Springs want in that area is another public housing complex. What we decided to do was to put it out to a private developer, and we can sell it for $1m to $1.3m. That will come into the Housing budget.
It is going to be put to a developer through an open and public tender - not a mates deal - and the money will come to Housing. I have discussed with my department what the housing needs are in Alice Springs, and the money to be spent in Alice Springs.
Ansett Collapse
Ms CARNEY to MINISTER for TOURISM
On 16 October, a union representing Ansett workers appealed on radio for the Territory government’s help in the current crisis. They want your government to offer a financial inducement to the Ansett administrator, along the same lines that you offered to one of the world’s richest men, Sir Richard Branson. Will you listen to the appeals of these Territorians and their families and agree to a financial inducement to allow an A320 Airbus to travel to the Territory daily?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the proposals get more bizarre on a daily basis. If I can go to what the member had to say last night in Hansard: ‘The Queensland government recognises the importance of tourism and has offered to indemnify Flight West’. In a phone call to the Minister for State Development in Queensland today, 24 October - no support from the Queensland government other than to …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … not giving any further support, no money, no rupiah, no dollars for Flight West out of the Queensland government. Where do you get this information? I remind you of the importance of misleading information in this Chamber. There is a little committee called Privilege Committee, it is quite a serious affair.
The Queensland government, we have dealt with that one. Now again – ‘the federal government has agreed to indemnify $380 000, again to assist Flight West’. Advice from the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services, as of today, 24 October, there is no firm proposal, there is uncertainty about how things might develop, there is no money, there is no rupiah, there is certainly, under the Rapid Route Recovery Scheme, no way of indemnification being offered. They will give a grant to get up and running, but they are saying no indemnification. So, again, information from the member is inaccurate, misleading which I again remind the member is of importance in this Chamber.
In relation to Flight West and the information from them last week, on 2 October I wrote:
- The liquidation of Flight West has had a significant impact on the Territory, particularly on our tourism industry, in both the Top End and Central Australia.
The situation has been exacerbated by the subsequent demise of Ansett Australia.
The Northern Territory government is interested in exploring what opportunities may exist for the utilisation of Flight West aircraft and their crews in the immediate to medium term future.
- I believe that an approach has been made by a consortium of Northern Territory and Queensland based businessmen to purchase the Flight West operation. I understand that inherent in this offer is a requirement of government financial involvement. Details of the offer are unclear at this stage, hence my contact with you.
In order for the Northern Territory government to consider this option, I would appreciate your urgent advice as to the status of the Flight West liquidation, and that of the offer which I believe has been forwarded by a Mr Don Miller as the representative of the consortium.
I look forward to your advice.
Dated 1 October, left my office 2 October. I table that letter.
On 19 October, a whole 17 days later, some eight days after we had worked through with Air North – what, the world’s richest man, the universe’s richest man? It is a great Territory company, Air North and we stand by …
A member: No, you were talking about Mr Branson.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, you were talking about Virgin before.
This is the answer we got from Flight West on 19 October, as I said, some 10 days after we struck a deal with Air North:
- I refer to your letter dated 2 October and the subsequent contact made with your office seeking support for operations to continue to the Territory.
In response to requests, and provided it is feasible, I am looking to commence within a few weeks, a regular Brisbane/Cairns/
Gove/Darwin route using F100 aircraft. I intend the operation would operate up until the end of December 2001…
So we were not talking about a sustainable long-term thing here.
- … at which time it could be reviewed, depending on the circumstances of my administration.
As liquidator, I am concerned that such an operation is not undertaken at the risk of the creditors in my administration. However, were the operation not to be cash flow positive, then I would need to bring the operation to an end earlier and hence the need for government support.
Therefore I wish to ascertain, please, whether the Northern Territory government would financially support such an operation, say either by offering a grant or pre-purchasing tickets. I have sought federal and Queensland government support.
It has always been my preference that a charterer be found to operate this run, but provided there was government support from the Northern Territory as well as the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, I am minded to sell tickets as an alternative to keep the aircraft in the air to service the needs of the community. It would also assist my sale of the business, which hopefully, would lead to a long term operation being continued.
Please let me know if you see any way that your government could assist in the operation of this route.
- Thank you for consideration of my request.
Somewhere between $65 000 and $85 000 per flight is the ask there to underwrite that flight. How on earth government could be expected to keep up that sort of cash flow, I know not. As we see here, seeking federal government support, Queensland government support. The member comes in here, the opposition spokesperson on tourism, and says: ‘Yes, they have $380 000 from the federal government. The Queensland government has offered to indemnify Flight West’. Not true, Madam Speaker. We would be the only government, at this stage, putting into that.
Unless the member has information which she can put on the table and convince me that my contact with the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services, as of lunch time, is incorrect, if she can convince me that our contact with the Minister for State Development in the Queensland government, as of today, is incorrect, I will be very reluctant to listen very closely to the information she brings to the Chamber in the future.
Rapid Creek Land Use Objectives
Dr BURNS to MINISTER for LANDS, PLANNING and ENVIRONMENT
Prior to the election, I joined with many members of the community to express concern about changes to the land use objectives affecting Rapid Creek. Can you please advise me if you are taking any action on this matter?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for his question. We are talking here about an icon of Darwin, the Rapid Creek. In the past few days, I heard some of the honourable members telling about the early times when they used to swim down the creek or catch a barramundi. I also heard stories about crocodiles finding their way up the creek. Rapid Creek is an important part of our community. It is a unique ecosystem. You do not find anything like that in any other Australian capital city. It must be properly preserved and protected.
I was equally surprised, like the member for Johnston and other residents in the area, when the land use objectives were changed and the 100 m-wide corridor of Rapid Creek was changed to 50 m. I have asked the department now to prepare options for me to return the area back to what was envisaged in the land use objectives. I will advise all members as soon as all options are presented and we have selected our path on how to return the corridor back to 100 m wide.
Di Mella Constructions – Subcontractors Losses
Mr MALEY to MINISTER for INDUSTRIES and BUSINESS
Labor made numerous calls on the former government to pay subcontractors affected by the demise of Di Mella Constructions. Now in government, will Labor come good and reimburse the Di Mella subcontractors for their losses as detailed and particularised to the company’s administrator?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for his question, and bringing that particular commitment back to my notice. Certainly, that was the position that we had in opposition. I will take this issue back to my department today. As the minister previously said, we will bring the issue forward and get back to the House tomorrow with an answer.
Coastal Plains Banana Quarantine Station
Mr KIELY to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRY and FISHERIES
Minister, can you please inform the House of the developments of the new Coastal Plains Banana Quarantine Station? How will they assist the Northern Territory banana industry?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Sanderson for his question. Indeed, the banana industry, in its fledging stages in the Northern Territory, has already reached the status of being our third largest horticultural industry, with $13m turnover a year. As members would probably be aware, the banana Panama disease, race 4, has been prevalent in plantations around the Northern Territory. It is certainly holding back the further development of banana production in the Northern Territory.
I am very pleased to inform the House today that the Northern Territory’s new Coastal Plains Banana Quarantine Station was opened in July and is now fully operational. We need a facility such as this to properly prove out plants before they are put into the ground here. Panama disease is a soil-borne disease specific to bananas. It can last in the soil for over 20 years once it infects the soil area. The fungus enters the roots of the plant and causes it to eventually wilt and die. It is spread by moving infected plant material, soil and water from the infected areas to uninfected areas. It is a disease that is devastating Cavendish plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, and it is currently restricted to parts of five properties in the Darwin region. Strict quarantines are in place around those properties, but we need further action to prevent the spread.
The Northern Territory government spent $390 000 building this special high-security quarantine facility, and it is to be known as the Coastal Plains Banana Quarantine Station. It is a specifically constructed facility, and it is the first of the type in the world. It has been built to withstand a cyclone, it is surrounded by a 2 m high earth bund wall. The security of the site is further established by a 2 m high Cyclone chainmesh fence. The whole area is surrounded by a stockproof fence as well. We have very strict quarantine protocols in place.
I believe that this new infrastructure will guarantee that we can get over our present problems in banana growing and move that industry on into the future.
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
PAWA – Compensation for Fire Damage
PAWA – Compensation for Fire Damage
Mr AH KIT (Transport and Infrastructure Development): Madam Speaker, I seek your permission to provide a short response to the question from the member for Goyder.
Madam SPEAKER: You have time to respond to the question, yes.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you very much. The matter is in court. My department was notified on 17 July that there was a bushfire in the McHenry Road vicinity.. There is a legal argument happening on how that fire started. My department feels that it was not the power lines that caused that. There are some residents in that area - one in particular I have written to - who are taking court action as of 16 August. The matter is before the courts and I suppose residents out there will await the outcome of that particular court case.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016