2004-06-16
Metis Consulting – Alleged Relationship with CEO of Health
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
At the last sittings in this House, your Minister for Health tried to distance himself from contracts issued by his CEO, Robert Griew, to Metis Consulting by saying that all bar one of the certificates of exemption were issued before his time. Since that time, it has been discovered that the CEO of Health and one of the two directors of Metis Consulting are close and personal friends as well as former colleagues, in spite of the fact that Mr Griew said that their relationship was strictly professional. In fact, Mr Gration attended Mr Griew’s wedding. The other director of Metis Consulting served on the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in New South Wales with Mr Griew. Chief Minister, do you stand by your CEO, and do you maintain that he has done nothing wrong?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the question is: do I stand by my CEO? Absolutely. My CEO is Paul Tyrrell by the way. That was the question you asked me, and I certainly stand by Paul Tyrrell. I say very clearly to this House that I am not quite sure where the opposition is trying to go …
Mr Henderson: Attacking public servants.
Ms MARTIN: Attacking public servants, No 1. We saw that yesterday when the member for Port Darwin stood in here and tried to get the minister to answer a question that implied that the CEO had lied to him. We said very clearly on the record here, when the Deputy Chief Minister stood up and said: ‘If you want to censure ministers, censure ministers, but do not attack public servants when they cannot defend themselves in here’. That is the ultimate coward’s castle, and that is what we have seen the opposition do again and again.
We have a procurement process, a certificate of exemption process, and we are following those. The attempt by the opposition to somehow muckrake - and it is only muckraking - about this issue is simply that. The procurement process has been followed. I certainly stand by my Minister for Health, the procurement process as followed by the Health Department, and also my CEO.
HomeNorth Scheme
Ms LAWRIE to MINISTER for HOUSING
The Martin government today released a very exciting new package of home loans that will support Territory families to get ahead. Could you please inform the House of the reaction that this new home loan package has received?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Karama for her question. The response to my announcement this morning to leading representatives of the real estate, housing and construction, retail and finance sectors has been extremely encouraging for Territorians. In fact, the Territory Real Estate Institute said this morning new incentives for low and middle income earners to buy homes will help boost the population of households currently caught in the rental trap. Households with an income of up to $1100 a week will now be eligible to buy properties valued at up to $240 000. The threshold has been lifted from $180 000.
The Real Estate Institute’s’, Sue Shearer has said it is what the Territory needs to stabilise the population:
- “wWe really do need incentives in the Northern Territory to encourage people to come here, not just for a visit, but to stay and live here”.
Madam Speaker, aA key to all this is our dropping of in ourthe deposit levels from 5% to 2%. Andrew Doyle, Principal of Frampton First National Real Estate, said,:
- iIt is a good, positive move by the government because $180 000 did not cover much of our market. Raising it to $240 000 will now provide first home buyers with access to a wider range of the market.
Any assistance we can provide people to become permanent residents of the town is good for the sustainability of the Territory. The Northern Territory Newshad summed it up quite well the other day when they said:
- aA house in the sun for less than $5000. Official affordability graphs suddenly go out the windowup Madam Speaker. For For first-timers,first owners property has never been so affordable.
- The revamped HomeNorth scheme is another reason current low scheme is another reason for southerners to resettle in the north.
And And Madam Speaker iit gives young Territorians the chance to leave home - or that shared unit - and buy a place of theire own.
Already, two weeks outup from the commencement of the scheme, Territorians are voting with their feet Madam Speaker. Fortyh phone calls have already been received by my department. In a day-and-a-half, this is two -and- a -half times the average number of loans granted under the old scheme in a whole month.
The new HomeNorth scheme home loans is something for old and new Territorians alike. It promotes the lifestyle we have, and encourages others to join us to make their homes in the best part of Australia.
Procurement Policy – Certificates of Exemption
Ms CARTER to MINISTER FORfor HEALTH
Thank you Madam Speaker. My question is to the minister for Health. The CEO of Hhealth issued a pressmedia release in April 2003 after an investigation into an employee of hHealth who may have had a conflict of interest, saying that it was important that not only did people need to be at arm’s length, but they must be seen to be at arm’s length from conflicts of interest. Do you believe that awarding contracts to personal friends by way of ccertificates of eexemption is keeping things at arm’s length.?
ANSWER
Thank you Madam Speaker,. I think I can best answer this question by justgiving the facts of the contracts that you are fishing around for. All three of these contracts occurred at a level where ministerial sign-offs was not necessary. It was at the level where the CEO can sign--off on a procurement arrangement.
The first contract, D03-0064, a ccertificate of eexemption was approved by the Pprocurement Rreview bBoard on the31 January 2003. In other words, the contract was initially decided on by the CEO, passed back to the Procurement Review Board onfor its monthly review of each of the contracts that are put out, and it was seen to be complying entirely with the proper procedures by the board itself on 31 January 2003. The contract was completed on the 21 February 2003. Total payment was $18 000 plus GST and expenses.
The second contract was for thehHealth and cCommunity sServices issues in Central Australia, which is D03-1105,. that was initially cleared or the mattersMetis was initially cleared by the NT Iindustry Capacity ...n Network as being offor work that was not available within the consultancy capacity of theNorthern Territory companies. The ccertificate of eexemption was approved by the Procurement Review Board on the 24 December 2003. The contract was completed on 30 January 2004. PThe price of the contract was, again, $18 000, plus GST and expenses.
The third contract was for strategising specific scenarios for mid-level executives and senior managers. The contract number was D03-1029,. aAgain, NTICN clearance was obtained for that contract to be awarded to an interstate firm. The ccertificate of eexemption was sought and approved by the Procurement Review Board for a select tender to Banscott Pty Ltd …
Mr Mills: Did they know about the personal contacts?
Dr TOYNE: Listen, or you will miss a detail here. … and Metis Consulting Pty Ltd. It is a panel contract between the two companies, which was awarded on 13 November 2003. The contract is current. It is valued at $30 000 and was awarded, as I have said, on a panel basis where one or the other of the two companies can be brought in to do particular parts of the work, depending on which of them have the relevant capacity.
All of the facts I have just shared with members were cleared directly with the Chair of the NT Procurement Review Board, Mr Gallaugher, and he is happy that these are a true reflection that, absolutely, the procurement protocols were followed. There was no impropriety in the appointment of Metis to any of those three jobs.
Metis Consulting – Criticism of Public Servants Involved in Awarding Contract
Ms LAWRIE to TREASURER
In recent weeks, and again today in the House, the opposition is fixated in its criticism of public servants, and those public servants involved in the awarding of government contracts to Metis Consulting. Can the minister advise what action has been taken to protect public servants from future criticism?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Karama for her question because, in view of the question earlier today, and some of the questions in the previous sittings, where we have seen the opposition quite quick to criticise public servants for issues relating to contracts and consultancies, it gives me an opportunity today to put on the record some of these issues, because public servants, quite clearly, do not have an opportunity to defend themselves. I will lay out the details of the contract, as opposed to these muckraking allegations that come from the other side.
The simple facts are contracts are awarded in a range of ways, in the first place by selected tender, via a certificate of exemption from public tendering …
Mr Burke: You have all the information there just in case. You are not concerned.
Mr STIRLING: It might help if the member for Brennan … I guess he would understand all of this as a previous Chief Minister. We certainly know he got pretty close to the action on occasions.
In the first place, by selected tender via a certificate of exemption from public tendering; second, by public tender; in the third place, simple quotations if the amount is expected to be less than $10 000; four, quotations from members in an established panel period contract. Every one of these are legitimate measures, and subject in themselves to various levels of scrutiny, depending on the amount of money involved. The scrutiny of all actions is quite direct and all processes are open and transparent. For those tenders over $10 000 and less than $50 000, a certificate of exemption can be signed by the chief executive. Those between $50 000 and $250 000 must be signed by the agency minister, and those over $250 000, the minister for procurement must sign the certificate of exemption, along with the agency minister. Anything over $250 000 is, in fact, approved by Cabinet.
In relation to Metis, their clients over the past year have included the Commonwealth government, the New South Wales and Northern Territory governments. I am advised they have worked right across Australia and have now established offices in Cullen Bay.
Mr Mills: Very recently, indeed.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I am very patient, Madam Speaker, but I would not want to be told that the answer is too long in view of those sorts of interjections.
The fire review contract was awarded to Metis by the Commissioner for Police following procurement guidelines - widely hailed by one and all as a fantastic piece of work on a very intractable situation within the Fire Service. You only have to talk to the fire officers.
Other contracts awarded by the Department of Health also followed procurement guidelines. In the Department of the Chief Minister, Metis are contracted to review the Office of Central Australia to assist in improving the services it provides to Alice Springs and across Central Australia.
Mr Burke: Was that a CofE?
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps we could have some silence to hear the answer. Member for Macdonnell, be quiet.
Mr STIRLING: I am advised that the contract, valued at $40 000, was authorised in accordance with procurement processes.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Elferink: You grubs.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I want that remark withdrawn.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, order!
Mr STIRLING: If they listened closely, they would understand, Madam Speaker. I have stepped this out quite clearly.
Contracts have also been awarded by two agencies for which I am responsible. The Commissioner for Public Employment has had work done by Metis for a contract of about $26 000, which related to human relations issues arising out of the Fire Service review in itself, both in terms of the broader public sector and within the Office of the Commissioner.
A contract equalling around $24 700 worth of work was also completed by Metis for the Department of Employment, Education and Training. This contract was to scope issues involved in and around indigenous education as we neared the end of quite key long-term funding arrangements and strategies …
Members interjecting.
Mr Elferink: You grubs.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Macdonnell is persistent in unparliamentary language and would I urge him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw it. Member for Macdonnell, please restrain.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: This contract was arranged on a quote for less than $10 000, but the nature and the scope of the task changed during the job itself and during the course of the consultancy, so the outcome cost overall was considerably higher than expected in the first instance. I have been advised by the chief executive that the awarding of this contract did not adequately follow procurement guidelines. However, I do not believe any intentional wrongdoing occurred within the department in this matter ...
Mr Baldwin: It is rife throughout everywhere - every agency.
Dr Lim: What is the total amount by the way? What is it all together?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, allow the minister to finish.
Mr STIRLING: I am satisfied by the chief executive officer’s explanation that he himself failed to properly monitor expenditure on this particular contract. I have expressed my displeasure with the chief executive officer in this situation, and have asked him to ensure that proper monitoring procedures are put in place and followed so that a situation such as this cannot occur again. It is important to continually examine the way government goes about its procurement and whether the procurement system is properly managed and where it can be improved.
One requirement that does make sense on issues of strategic human relations and organisation change - and many of these consultancies we are talking about go to the heart of these types of matters – one way forward would be to establish a panel contract of potential consultants who could be called on to perform these tasks. I have asked the Commissioner of Public Employment to establish and oversee, through a public tender process, a panel system to provide the specialised strategic HR-type services in organisational design to government when and as required. It is not unusual in this field. DCIS already has a panel for human relations work, and the Department of Chief Minister has a panel for strategic services work. This is a panel that would complement those panels already in place.
The establishment of a panel following a public tender process will provide chief executives with ready access to this type of specialised strategic HR advice, which is often required in a very urgent time frame. It is important to be able to act quickly in these matters.
The tender process would be open to all businesses in the field to apply. The improvement means, for example, that where the Police Commissioner was faced with similar circumstances as he was in relation to the Fire Service last year, where he required quite urgent and specialised human relations advice, he would be able to quickly and easily secure the services needed from a business appointed to the specialist HR panel. So that is a quite urgent body of work, from where I sit, that I have asked the Commissioner for Public Employment to do, and we expect to have it in place as quickly as we can.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on, member for Port Darwin, I remind members again to not refer to members in the House by their Christian and surnames, but by their electorate. I reminded you yesterday and I would prefer that you remember.
Metis Consulting – Investigation of Contract
Ms CARTER to MINISTER for HEALTH
In spite of your past protestations that the CEO of Health had done nothing improper with regard to Metis Consulting, you still announced in the NT News that you were seeking a report into the issue. When did you receive the report; who conducted the investigation; and will you table a copy of the report so that Territorians can be assured that you looked into the matter, and that you and the CEO have been honest with Territorians?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I just read out the report and I now table it.
Mr Mills: That is it. You were satisfied with that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Australia’s Energy Future - Impact on the Northern Territory
Mr KIELY to CHIEF MINISTER
Yesterday, the Prime Minister released a major policy statement on Australia’s energy future. Can you please inform the House of the impact this policy will have in assisting the development of major new energy projects and infrastructure here in the Territory and throughout Australia?
ANSWER
I thank the member for his question, Madam Speaker, as it is a very important one. However, my answer is a very simple one: very little. There is very little in the Prime Minister’s statement to assist in the development of major new energy projects and infrastructure in the Territory and, very sadly, throughout Australia.
Members in the House would be well aware of the fundamental role energy plays in sustaining our economy, our jobs and our lifestyle. Quite simply, it is where our economic activity starts.
The Prime Minister acknowledges this when he noted in his policy statement that Australian demand for energy is worth $50bn each year. Our exports are worth an additional $25bn, and demand will grow by 50% by 2020. He also noted that Australia will require at least $37bn of new investment just to meet that projected energy demand.
Throughout the developed world, governments understand that there is a role for them in ensuring that their country’s long-term energy future is not just left to the boardrooms of the global energy players. Last year, I called on the federal government to develop a national energy policy, and I congratulate the Prime Minister for taking that step with the release yesterday of that paper, Securing Australia’s Energy Future. As you would expect, it is a very substantial document, and we will be working through it in the coming days and weeks.
There are elements that give some comfort that Australia is looking more seriously at all forms of energy. Initiatives aimed at emission reductions and technology trials are most welcome. Similarly, the reforms to fuel excise will assist mining and pastoral businesses, which are two key sectors of our economy.
However, what I was most keen - and I am sure everyone in this House was most keen - to know, was what effort and energy would the federal government direct towards getting both new energy projects off the ground, and the construction of new pipelines and other infrastructure that would provide the widest possible diversity in the Australian marketplace. Disappointingly, the opportunity has been lost once again. The federal government will just not step up to its responsibilities in these crucial areas. The Prime Minister says that …
Mr Dunham: You want the borders changed.
Ms MARTIN: Put your partisanship aside and look at what the statement says, and what he has not delivered. The Prime Minister says, ‘jump’ and that side of the House goes, ‘How high, Prime Minister?’ That is what we are hearing now.
The Prime Minister says that commercial decisions alone will determine the nature and timing of resource projects. Our projects in the Territory and in other parts of Australia must compete for opportunity and capital against projects in other countries, where their governments are nowhere near as shy about pressuring for development. This is a hands-off approach to one of the most crucial issues for Australia - our energy and economic security.
When I wrote to the Prime Minister in May 2002, I made the point that Australia must make greater use of our abundant natural gas resources. Our policy settings must encourage that. The Territory’s National Energy Policy Paper of June 2003 suggested that the federal government should encourage new investment and exploration; recognise the requirements of major gas projects; improve the regulatory environment; support strategic investment to enhance Australia’s energy supply security and support self-sufficiency; enhance environmental outcomes; take the national interest implications into account in considering major projects; and establish the right to influence the nature and timing of projects.
It was interesting for me to attend our own SEAAOC Conference last week and hear the Indonesian Director General for Electricity Energy Utilization, Dr Sumiarso, speak about how his country establishes a right to reserves of up to 25% of a field’s gas production for the domestic market. I am not advocating this approach for Australia, but it does provide a stark contrast .with Australia’s current approach.
Greenhouse is also a major issue throughout the Prime Minister’s paper. However, fuel switching to gas, which would deliver an immediate environmental benefit, did not figure in the strategy. While I applaud all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, I struggle to understand why Australia would invest in trying to make inherently dirty fuels less dirty when we have so much clean gas under our feet and our oceans.
Overall, the Prime Minister’s paper deals with many issues, but the focus is on tinkering with the existing framework - modifications here and adjustments there. What Australia deserves is leadership in the hard areas and a focus on nation building. There must be a vision based around exploiting our gas reserves - Sunrise, Evans Shoals, Blacktip, Petrel and Tern. North-south and east-west pipelines are all great projects that should be elevated in the national debate.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s paper simply does not do that. As such, the impact of this policy, which could have been a real opportunity to make a substantial difference, is much less than we would have hoped and Australia deserves.
Liquor Licence Applications - Objections
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for RACING, GAMING and LICENSING
Recently, a hairdressing salon in Alice Springs was given a licence to sell alcohol. Regardless of whether you agree with that decision or not, is it not true that a member of the public, under your new Liquor Act, could not have objected to that licence because they did not live in the neighbourhood? Is it not true that a member of the public who believed that allowing a broadening of the categories of premises that can sell alcohol could send out the wrong message to the wider community - especially in light of the Alcohol Framework Review interim findings - and could not have presented those concerns to the Liquor Commission as an objection? When will you reinstate the rights of ordinary citizens, no matter where they live in the Territory, to object to liquor licence applications, as was allowed before?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is an important question, and he probably agrees with my views. My views were public, as were yours, Madam Speaker, in relation to that decision. I stand by what I said at the time: I thought it was a stupid decision, a poor decision. It is true that we have had a couple of examples now where amendments we did pass have had unintended consequences and went further than we envisaged. I do not want to go into the history of that.
The fact is that you are right. We have created a problem there in terms of access to what most people would say is a legitimate right to object to a licence application of that nature. The most important question is: what are we going to do about it and when? The answer, in the foreseeable future, lies in the responses in the Alcohol Framework Review, which I expect to have at the end of this month. Therefore, within the month, it will come to me and then there is a process of working through what is in that.
I have heard from the member for Braitling on this issue, and along similar lines in another case. I have heard from you, and I am sure there will be, embodied in the Alcohol Framework Review report itself on recommendations coming to me, a need to address this very question. I thank you for the question. You certainly have concerns in relation to this matter. We will be looking at it in terms of the recommendations.
Procurement Policy – Certificates of Exemption
Mr ELFERINK to TREASURER
Last sittings, the minister for Police tabled a document for the issue of a certificate of exemption for Metis Consulting, a company with established Labor Party links. This document had no value filled in, which effectively made it a blank cheque. It also breached procurement policy guidelines as it had not been signed off by the Procurement Review Board. Are you finally going to take control of this, fix this situation and assure Territorians that this system is going to work for them?
ANSWER
I thank the member for his question, Madam Speaker, and I would ask him to table that document so that …
Mr Elferink: It has been tabled! It has a table stamp on it from your minister.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, give me a copy now. I do not have it in front of me and I do not trust what you are saying. I am assured that it was ticked off by the Procurement Review Board, and for that to occur, it would have to have had a number in it. If he wants to send that across, I will have a look at it.
Budget 2004-05 – Payroll Tax Thresholds
Mrs AAGAARD to TREASURER
In Budget 2004, the government lifted thresholds for payroll tax to $1m over the next 13 months. Can you please advise the House on what a locally-based Territory company paying more than $1m in payroll will save from these initiatives.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her question, because she is a local member who is close to business - small and medium - and well knows what we are trying to do here.
It is assumed that each of the businesses employ only in the Territory. If they employ in the Territory and elsewhere, the benefit is reduced in proportion to the company’s interstate wages. From 1 July 2004, each of the companies would pay $12 400 less in payroll tax than before the changes. For example, a $1.1m payroll company would have paid $31 000; it will now only pay $18 600. A $1.8m payroll company would have paid $74 000; it will now pay $62 000. A $2.5m payroll company would have paid $117 800, but will now pay $105 400.
From 1 July 2005, each of those companies will pay $24 800 less in payroll tax than before the 18 May budget. The $1.1m payroll company would have paid $31 000, but will then pay $6200. The $1.8m payroll company would have paid $74 400, but will then pay $49 600. The $2.5m payroll company would have paid $117 800, but will then pay $93 000.
They are considerable benefits for Territory companies, because it frees them up to invest that money in other ways. Members would recall that I previously advised the House that a company with 40 employees and a $1.1m payroll will, on 1 July 2005, pay recurrent taxation in the Territory of $48 320, down from $77 348 today. The nearest state to us in these terms is the ACT, where the taxation take would be $53 945. In Victoria, the taxation take on a similar sized company would be $110 835 – ours, $48 320. That is a huge, significant difference.
The Territory is better placed than any other state in Australia to develop a small and medium size business. We are championing small business, and backing them to grow as part of our work to keep the Territory moving ahead, because the Territory is full of businesses of that size and nature, and we want to help them.
Procurement Policy – Certificates of Exemption
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
You have a CEO, who you have appointed, issue contracts to a mate and former colleague from New South Wales. Your minister for Police has issued two certificates of exemption to the same company with strong Labor Party links. Your minister in charge of procurement seems to think this is all okay. Will you step in and stop this decay of integrity among your colleagues, and save this government from allegations of corrupt activity, or will you now become a part of the problem?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, we have a procurement process; it is followed. The only one who is talking about ‘corrupt’ here is the opposition, who seems to be fixated on relationships that they are determined to say skewed a process.
The first time I met the principals of Metis Consulting was when they came to talk to Cabinet about a review they were doing of our Fire Service, which was a review that they won following proper procurement processes and a certificate of exemption – absolutely by the book.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell is making up things in here. The document that he has his hands on is one …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Like the Deputy Chief Minister, I am patient.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the document that was given by the member for Macdonnell to the Deputy Chief Minister is the one that was tabled by the Police minister that left his office to go to the procurement office. Therefore, it is not the one that had the proper endorsement that came …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Everyone who has been a minister here knows the process - you sign from your office and then it goes to the Procurement Board. It was properly done. This is a …
Mr Elferink: It was faxed by the Police Department to your minister. It is the official record. It is not his office record.
Ms MARTIN: You are wrong! I am telling the member for Macdonnell, he is wrong.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Let me just go back to where I was …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we perhaps have a little silence?
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I met the principals of Metis when they came to Cabinet to talk about the review of the Fire Service. We knew the Fire Service was in trouble; it had been for a long time. It was ignored by the previous government. It was a very important service with dedicated officers, but there were serious problems.
I was enormously impressed with the capacity of the principals of Metis Consulting. Certainly, the nature of the review they had to do was best done by a company outside the Territory and, in some circumstances, that is a fact of the matter. We are a small community and, often, if you are looking at a situation like that, then you have to go outside the Territory to get the review capacity …
Mr Henderson: Objectivity.
Ms MARTIN: … and the objectivity that is needed in this case. I was very impressed with the way they went about the work they had to do, and the way they consulted and brought those involved in the review along with them in the process. That is difficult, particularly the situation being faced in the Fire Service at that time. I am not going to back off the fact that I was very impressed when I first saw Metis Consulting at work.
In a community like ours, contracts go to businesses that I would know personally, who might have Labor associations - I do not know, I am not involved in this. However, every minister - because we take a hands-off approach, unlike the approach that you are now reflecting from the past - takes a hands-off approach, and it is done according to procurement. We have the opposition trying to create, out of nothing, this insinuation of corruption. It is simply wrong and I reject it thoroughly.
We followed the procurement process. I have great confidence in our CEOs. They are the best people for the job; that is, the one that is needed to be dealt with at any time. It is the same kind of procurement process that is followed around the country and, we hope, followed by you mob when you were in government. We are not sure about that, I cannot stand here and say that was the case. What we are hearing is muckraking!
Dr Toyne: Innuendo.
Ms MARTIN: As the Health Minister says, it is innuendo. It is rubbish, and we reject it entirely on this side of the House.
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! I did say earlier, member for Drysdale, do not refer to people by their Christian name or even their nickname.
Budget 2004-05 - Stamp Duty
Mr BONSON to TREASURER
Since coming to office, the Martin Labor government has implemented a number of policy changes to reduce the stamp duty payable by Territorians on conveyances. Can the Treasurer detail the number of Territorians who have benefited from the decision?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Millner for his question, because this is an area we are dead set serious about: ensuring that the maximum number of Territorians possible have an opportunity to own their own homes - notwithstanding the fact that we have the lowest home ownership rates in the country. Laster today, my colleague, the Minister for Housing, will detail new moves to even further stronger support home ownership.
We have acted already to reduce stamp duties payable by first home owners and for those buying their principal place of residence in the Territory as well. We were delivering there on election promises. We introduced a new increased threshold for first home owners’ stamp duty relief. We increased that figure from $80 000 that we inherited at government up to $125 000. Making these changes in the August 2002 budget when we did, has assisted, to this point, 1881 Territorians to a total value of $6.38m, an average saving of $3392. That is almost $3500.
Mr Dunham: Stamp duty is up $16m. $16m extra money.
Mr Henderson: It is a growing economy.
Mr Dunham: Growing economy - growing tax.
Dr Burns: You do not understand.
Mr Dunham: Yes, I understand. It is up to $59.78m, up from $43m. That is a lot of extra cash.
Mr STIRLING: I wonder if the Assembly could look at counselling for the member for Drysdale. He is seriously aggrieved by the events of 18 August 2001. He shows no signs of coming to grips with the reality today and I really think counselling would be a serious option for him. It is something that the Clerk might look at.
Madam Speaker, that is almost $3500 in the pockets of 1880 Territorians for them to spend in the community. For those buying a principal place of residence, there is a $1500 rebate from stamp duty payable so that they pay less in that stamp duty. Two thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two Territorians have taken advantage of that rebate to a total value of $4.27m. In total, 4733 Territorians were assisted by the government’s improved home owner schemes, and more will benefit from the proposals announced today by my colleague, the Minister for Housing.
The total value kept in the community equals $10.65m - a hefty saving. These two concessions introduced by the Labor government, of course, put Territorians first because it helps us to keep the Territory moving ahead as a community as more and more Territorians take advantage of lower home affordability here to purchase their own home.
We will always continue to keep this under review to look at ways in which we can further assist first home owners and others buying their principal place of residence. I will be listening closely to my colleague when he goes through the detail.
Procurement Policy – Certificates of Exemption
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
I will ask you again: you have had a CEO who you have appointed issue contracts to a mate and a former colleague from New South Wales.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, is this repetition of the previous question?
Mr MILLS: There is more, Madam Speaker. You have learnt that your minister for Police has issued two certificates of exemption to the same company with Labor Party links. We have learnt today that this same company has assessed the operation of your own office in Central Australia at a cost of $40 000 with a staff of six. Will you step in and stop this decay of integrity amongst your colleagues?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker the question is repetitious.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: The answer was very full last time and I was very clear. This allegation from the Opposition Leader is simply muckraking. Procurement has been properly followed, and those certificates of exemption were properly issued in those departments. All the opposition can do is create smears on good people doing a very good job for this Northern Territory. What we hear from the opposition is smears. I reject what the opposition is saying, on behalf of those hard-working public servants who follow procurement guidelines, who do the right thing, and are now being smeared by the opposition in this House.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move a Motion of Censure
Move a Motion of Censure
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister and her government for failing to respond to clear existence ...
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government accepts the censure motion that is coming. I would ask that the broadcast cease.
___________________________
Supplementary Answer
Censure Motion - Brought on by Government
Censure Motion - Brought on by Government
Madam SPEAKER: While the cameramen are putting down their cameras, I take the opportunity to respond to a question that I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition on a similar matter yesterday.
Honourable members, I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether:
(1) never in the history of parliament in the Northern Territory has a censure of government been brought on by a motion sponsored by the government; and further
(2) that a censure motion has never been brought on prior to Question Time.
The other question you asked me was if a censure motion has ever been brought on prior to Question Time. In regard to that second question, the answer is yes. During the Ninth Assembly, this one, there have been two occasions when a censure motion has been brought on before Question Time. The first one was on 18 June 2002, when the previous Leader of the Opposition moved a censure motion on the Minister for Parks and Wildlife in response to a ministerial report by the minister. The second occurred on 17 February 2004, moved by the current Leader of the Opposition on the Chief Minister in response to the Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004 being presented without notice.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I remind all members that Question Time during the Eighth Assembly commenced immediately after prayers and, therefore, there was not an opportunity for this to happen prior to Question Time.
__________________________
[Editor’s Note: Question Time ceased due to motion of censure being moved.]
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016