2016-03-17
Crime Reduction
Mr GUNNER to CHIEF MINISTER
According to your crime statistics from when your government was elected to now, crime against the person, property crime and total crime in the Territory has increased. Since your government was elected you have scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, broken your promise of 120 extra police and have definitely broken your promise to cut crime by 10% a year every year.
When will you acknowledge that you have failed Territorians and not listened to the police? When will you accept their verdict that you have failed on crime, bring back the BDR and properly resource police?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition talks about crime when the crime stats have just been released. I am happy to go through different crime stats released today. Yesterday’s crime stats were the latest, but today more crime stats have been released.
Members opposite would remember this government decided to publish crime stats on a monthly basis on a public website. We did not want to hide them. They go up and down, and we are open and honest about that.
I will quickly go through a range of Territory-wide stats, and I am sure in subsequent questions on crime I can go through them region by region. Today, comparing the year 2016 with the year 2015 – January to January – total offences are down by 5%, total offences against the person are down by 3%, assault offences are down by 4%, sexual assault offences are down by 6%, total property offences are down by 5%, house break-ins are down by 7%, commercial break-ins are down by 6% …
Ms Fyles: Property damage is up.
Mr GILES: … motor vehicle theft is down by 14%, theft and related offences other than a motor vehicle theft are down by 4% and property damage offences are down by 3%.
The member for Nightcliff shouted something about property damage. In the Darwin area property damage offences are down by 7% and in Palmerston by 5%. Those figures have just been released today, member for Nightcliff. You come in here, huffing and puffing.
One of the important elements of crime in our community is that nobody likes it or antisocial behaviour. We need to make sure we continue to provide more resources to police. Our government decided to put an additional 120 police on the beat. We put 20 on the beat in Alice Springs almost immediately after coming to government. We continue to have new recruitment squads. I cannot remember the name of the current squad, but 34 recruits are in training and will graduate in May this year, which will further add to the complement of police on our streets.
You talked about our commitment to drive crime down by 10%. It is a bold commitment. The results have shown that crime levels continue to come down. The important point is we started government with 120 fewer police officers. You did not fund them and we did. We said we would start by achieving 10% less crime, and we have been reducing it. It is not zero – there is still crime and antisocial behaviour in our community – but we are making inroads. That is because we provide more resources to the police of the Northern Territory.
MUA and Blacktip – Opposition
Leader’s Knowledge
Leader’s Knowledge
Mrs FINOCCHIARO to CHIEF MINISTER
The Leader of the Opposition continues to claim he knew nothing about the Blacktip project and the payments by the subcontractors to the Maritime Union of Australia. Can the Chief Minister outline to the House the inconsistencies the Leader of the Opposition made on radio this morning, and point to any other statements which relate to this matter?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for the very interesting question. I saw him on the news the other night, as the member for Port Darwin said, with the Sergeant Schultz response, ‘I know nothing at all’.
On Katie Woolf’s program this morning on Mix 104.9 FM the Leader of the Opposition had a conversation about what he knew about those payments. He said, ‘I was not involved; I had no role. When you look into the details, which the CLP should have done, this was between the Western Australia MUA and a subcontractor of ENI, and at the time the negotiation was made around training I was a backbencher in the Henderson government.’
On Tuesday night, on Channel 9 News, the Leader of the Opposition said he knew nothing and that he was on leave when this was happening. Now he is saying he was a backbencher. According to the official records he was in fact the government Whip and parliamentary secretary for Business, hardly a backbencher or on leave.
What was it, Leader of the Opposition? Were you on the back bench? Were you a government Whip? Were you the parliamentary secretary for Business? Or do you still know nothing?
The second point is that when the Leader of the Opposition was asked on radio this morning, ‘Do you think it is appropriate that $1m went to a union to avoid industrial action?’ The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘Well, my understanding is that – and I am sure they’d know, be happy to talk about this. They have done some radio this week that money went to training – so that is my understanding – and I wasn’t involved in it so it is very hard for me to talk about something I wasn’t involved in. But my understanding is this money went towards training.’
Who did the Leader of the Opposition talk to in order to get this understanding? You would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have read the Royal Commission report. It was published on 28 December and named the project which he was fully aware of during those contract stages. You would have thought he would have asked some questions well before now.
The most telling point – when the Leader of the Opposition was either a backbencher, a government Whip, a parliamentary secretary for Business or did not know – was the following in the Royal Commission report:
- On 28 October 2008, Fabio Di Giorgi wrote to ENI and recommended that ENI make the $1,000,000 contribution.
The purpose was for training intended to stop …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Antisocial Behaviour in CBD
Mr GUNNER to CHIEF MINISTER
A Darwin CBD worker posted on Facebook last night about antisocial behaviour on the buy, sell and swap page. She was inundated with more than 100 comments in just a few hours. This morning on Mix 104.9 FM this employee talked about how unsafe she felt in her workplace. She stated, ‘Drunken violence has always been an issue, but in the last few months it has been a daily occurrence where the ambulance and police come by the CBD and we have all this drunken violence and antisocial behaviour that makes us feel unsafe. It is an unsafe environment to be in and work in. I just don’t think it is fair on the community.’
When will you start listening to Territorians and admit that your policies are hurting Territorians and local businesses? When will you adopt Labor’s policy and bring back the Banned Drinker Register? When will you properly resource police?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I go back to the original point. There are more police now and they are better resourced than they were under the previous government. I note the point in your question …
Mr Gunner: The Police Association has said that is not true.
Mr GILES: You asked the question; listen to the answer.
In your question you said the person who rang Mix 104.9 FM said it has always been a problem. So, this is not something that started yesterday.
I recognise that antisocial behaviour is an issue in the Northern Territory and we continue to crack down on it. That is why we put in place measures such as Alcohol Protection Orders, paperless arrests, alcohol mandatory treatment and point-of-sale intervention across the Territory. I could go on about the interventions we have made to improve law and order in the Northern Territory.
The interesting thing is, every time we try to make change in law and order or to antisocial behaviour, Labor opposes it. It opposes protective custody where people who may be drunk on the street are picked up and taken to the watch house to provide protection for them. It opposed alcohol mandatory treatment, a system that is giving people a second opportunity in life through rehabilitation. It opposed paperless arrests, giving police more powers and the ability to get on the beat. It opposed Alcohol Protection Orders.
What is it proposing now? An electronic system to stop people trying to get grog …
Ms Fyles: Why will you not bring back the BDR?
Mr GILES: It did not ban people getting grog. You are not recognising that wholesale alcohol supply in the Northern Territory has gone down. It is lower than when you had the BDR across the Northern Territory. When you had the Banned Drinker Register more alcohol was being sold in the Northern Territory. There were people on the BDR getting alcohol on 119 different occasions. Your system did not work.
You can keep talking about law and order; I will never say law and order has been fixed. We can all have a utopian goal of having no law and order problems in our community. We need to continue to put more resources in and get the levels of crime and antisocial behaviour down. We are making inroads and having success.
I thank the police very much. I say to the other providers of policing-type or patrol-type services, such as Larrakia Nation, Congress in Alice Springs and the many other Night Patrol services across the Territory, thank you very much; you contribute to making our community safer. It is important that we recognise the role these people are playing.
You can talk about one crime all the time; there will always be crime. We need to continue to make our community safer and this government is achieving that.
MUA and Blacktip – Opposition
Mr CONLAN to TREASURER
Is it just me or has Labor all of a sudden discovered law and order? It is amazing. No matter what the crime stats say today they are far lower than the 11 years of the tsunami of crime Labor presided over between 2001 and 2012. I am afraid they do not like the news. They are far lower …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What is the member’s question?
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down; it is not a point of order.
Mr CONLAN: Continuing on from the issue of the Blacktip contracts where …
Ms Lawrie: I thought it was a law and order question.
Mr CONLAN: No, this is another serious question if the plethora of questions going to the heart of the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition.
Can the minister outline the role and responsibility the Leader of the Opposition had when he was chief of staff to the minister for Power and Water, and whether important meetings might have taken place between the government and the contractors or subcontractors …
Madam SPEAKER: Member, your time has expired.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his damn good question, particularly the preamble.
Anyone who has worked in this place knows the role of a chief of staff or senior adviser. For those who have not worked here, let me explain. It is a one of the most important roles anyone can have with government. It is integral to good government. It is a role in which a person must understand a huge range of matters of government, the specific responsibilities of their minister, their fiduciary responsibilities of law, common law, governance and legislative requirements. The chief of staff has to understand the political landscape and a range of issues to do with government, practically more than the minister. Most importantly, senior advisers and chiefs of staff are confidants of the minister. They are the person the minister can talk freely and openly with and who completely understands all the issues.
It is interesting to note the Leader of the Opposition continues to claim he knew nothing about the Blacktip gas project. Between 2006 and 2007 the current Leader of the Opposition was chief of staff to minister Kon Vatskalis, the minister for Power and Water. During this period the following two main contracts were signed: on 16 May 2006 a heads of agreement was signed between PWC and the Australian Pipeline Trust; and on 30 June 2006 an agreement to supply 750 PJ of gas was signed by PWC and Eni.
The Opposition Leader said he knows nothing. He was being paid to provide political and practical advice to the minister, who must have taken the information on these contracts to Cabinet and, therefore, to the Chief Minister. The Opposition Leader also claimed that the training levy deal was undertaken between the MUA and Eni, and he knew nothing of it. The minister for Power and Water travelled to Western Australia to visit that subcontractor, Saipem, on 11 March 2008. At that stage the Opposition Leader was the deputy chief of staff to the then Chief Minister.
Opposition Leader, you were not on leave at that time, and you had even more access to knowledge than you did when working with minister Kon Vatskalis. These questions need answering. You should get up on your hind legs, front the media and answer ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Treasurer – Vehicle Benefits
Ms LAWRIE to TREASURER
As Treasurer, you are responsible for the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds. How do you explain that you are providing yourself an additional benefit to which you have no entitlement? It is my understanding that you drive a top-of-the-range four-wheel drive. It has long-range fuel tanks, spotlights, tow bar, roof rack, double batteries and all manner of other accessories.
The Remuneration Tribunal gives you the entitlement of an electorate vehicle, which you have, which is not the four-wheel drive. As a minister you have access to the fleet of white cars and ministerial drivers.
Through which entitlement do you claim the benefit of a top-of-the-range four-wheel drive while you are an urban-based member of parliament?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Karama for her question. For her information, I only have one electorate vehicle, which I share with all my staff. I make it available for them to drive. Similarly, my office, as Treasurer and Minister for Mines and Energy, has access to a pooled four-wheel drive vehicle. I asked for that specifically because I like to go to the regions and other locations in the NT where my portfolio responsibilities take me. It is part and parcel of the ministerial office I occupy.
I am proud to say that I am keen to get into the regions and remote areas, and I make no apologies whatsoever for my office having a pooled office vehicle in order to do that.
Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption – Issues Raised
Mr KURRUPUWU to MINISTER ASSISTING the TREASURER
We have heard this week that the Maritime Union of Australia bullied subcontractors of the Blacktip project into paying $1m for training. Can the minister point to any other issues that were raised by the Royal Commission into union governance?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This question, following on from what the Treasurer so eloquently said, is asking about the Royal Commission’s final report which found that at a meeting with the MUA and subcontractor Saipem on 3 September 2008, the crew on the Castoro Otto, a vessel, was claiming, amongst other things, that Saipem should pay a hard lying allowance because of the lack of air conditioning on the vessel.
Later in the final report, Saipem outlined the benefits of making the $1m payment. These included, amongst other things, ensuring the supply of the pipe for the Blacktip project and reducing the hard-lying claim from $200 to $30. We look at this and say, ‘Hang on a second. Why are the unions there?’ Unions are supposed to be looking after the people who are workers in that industry, particularly their safety.
If what has come out of this Royal Commission is true then it is pretty damning. I will look at what happened from two perspectives. The first was the Blacktip project, which is straight-up piracy. The second issue regarding the hard-lying claim reduced from $200 to $30 is interesting because in the maritime industry pirates are not seen in particularly good light. I picture where a union person was, for argument’s sake, at the Stella Maris building with a tape measure taking measurements and people asked, ‘What are you doing?’, and he said, ‘I am measuring up my new office’ – but that is a story for another day – ‘While I have you here, lads, have I got a deal for you! I got you a hard-lying claim. Instead of $200 per swing you will get $30.’ In the maritime industry when things like this happen that person would be walking the plank.
If what is coming out of this Royal Commission is true and the information accurate, then the members opposite need to have a hard look at their connections with unions. With the number of union delegates and representatives here, I have questions. This issue is a like a dog with fleas all over it.
Is this what they will do with the Northern Territory? Will they give us a bad deal? Heaven forbid the Labor Party should take control of the Northern Territory and install a great number of Labor delegates who will act like this. Where will the people of the Territory be? In a poor place ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Port Lease Agreement
Mr GUNNER to CHIEF MINISTER
You have refused to table all of paperwork to confirm the lease of the port resulting in $506m for the Territory. You have not released the port lease agreement. Will you now commit to tabling the paperwork that shows the exact amount the Northern Territory government received from the lease of the port? Will you commit to publicly releasing the full lease agreement for scrutiny by Territorians?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I am sure he is aware that $506m was received for the 99-year lease of the port ...
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: Well, you have been told that in this Chamber. Documents were tabled at the Senate hearing conducted in Canberra which have been the subject of much debate, Leader of the Opposition.
You are opposed to the port lease. I understand that; that is your position. A transaction has been conducted. You want to see every receipt.
We put a lot of faith in our officials, whether they are Defence, Border Force or Treasury officials, to provide us with guidance. There was $506m received, and that is as simple as that ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. Why will the Chief Minister not table the documents in this Chamber showing Territorians where $506m was received?
Madam SPEAKER: You have no point of order. The Chief Minister has time.
Mr GILES: You should appreciate commercial-in-confidence and intellectual property. There is a range of things that government does in agreements. Not everything is tabled. We provide confidence through the process of parliament and the estimates process, where you can ask questions of the officials who are duty bound to give you the right answers. That is how it works.
We could ask questions about commercial documents when you sold the gas pipeline between Central Australia and Darwin which would have cost more than $1.5bn to build. A few years before you lost government …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. We are talking about the port sale and why the Chief Minister will not show Territorians the documents.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a point of order. Please be seated.
Mr GILES: That pipeline would have cost $1.5bn. Is it true, Leader of the Opposition, that Labor sold it for $60m? Is it true that you sold the Amadeus Gas Pipeline for $60m – a pipeline that cost $1.5bn to build …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Karama likes to speak up. She was Treasurer at the time this happened.
When the Northern Territory needed this much gas from Eni, why did you buy this much, hundreds of millions of dollars more, when you were chief of staff for minister Kon Vatskalis at the time …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a point of order. The Chief Minister has time to answer the question. Sit down.
Mr GILES: Should we table those documents? Should we table the gas transfer agreement you signed off on which means we have to rent the gas pipeline that you sold at a fire sale for $60m? Should we talk about how many hundreds of millions of litres of diesel were burnt while the MUA blackmailed Saipem and …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. It was a straightforward question. Will he table the documents associated with the sale of the port, yes or no? He has 10 seconds.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr GILES: There are many transactions Labor conducted where you ripped off Territorians and sold the grass from under them, of which I would love to see details ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
MUA and Blacktip – Similar Union Activities
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE to MINISTER for BUSINESS
The web of lies and deceit concerning the Leader of the Opposition and the MUA is getting thicker and thicker. This week we have continued to better understand the leadership style of the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He needs to withdraw the word ‘lies’.
Madam SPEAKER: Do you find it offensive?
Members: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, could you reword your question, please.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The web of lies and deceit concerning the Labor Party and the MUA is getting thicker and thicker. This week we have continued to better understand the leadership style of the Leader of the Opposition by his refusal to take responsibility for the bullying activities of the MUA which extracted, bullied or extorted $1m from the main subcontractor of the Blacktip gas project. Does the minister know of any other similar union activities and close associations with the MUA?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for his very good question. What did Territorians expect from a Labor government led by the member for Fannie Bay, who does not seem to have a good memory?
Yesterday Labor members scoffed at this side of the House posing questions about the influence of unions on their party. I believe the member for Nightcliff yelled, ‘Is that all you have?’ It seems the member for Nightcliff does not think there is anything wrong with Labor’s union mates using blackmail and extortion to get $1m. She does not think that is a problem. I beg to differ.
Territorians have a right to know how closely linked unions are with NT Labor, and whether they can expect to see so much influence from unions in the Territory as we see in federal Labor. I remind the House that the NT Branch Secretary of the MUA, Thomas Mayor, admitted this week that $1m for training came to Darwin, which contradicts the Royal Commission and the Leader of the Opposition.
I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he has denied knowing anything about these issues when he held significant posts in the NT Labor government over many years. He claimed to be on leave. It looks like he was on leave for the last five years of the previous government, and he is still on leave when it comes to being a leader now.
This was the same action as in another Royal Commission case, where the current leader of the federal Labor opposition, Bill Shorten’s union, the AWU, did a deal with a mushroom company which dudded its workers out of millions of dollars in wages by paying that union a monthly fee. This is the same federal Opposition Leader who earlier this month, at an annual conference of the MUA on the Gold Coast, said:
- I’m here because of the bond we all share as members of Australia’s great trade union movement …
And no $80 million taxpayer-funded, politically polluted royal commission will ever change that.
The Leader of the Opposition has strong roots in and is directly linked to the unions that dominated the NT economy for 11 long years of Labor, which drove us into billions of dollars of debt. That includes 10% of Labor membership being MUA members.
The Leader of the Opposition in the NT and the federal Leader of the Opposition are from the same mould. What a disgraceful bunch of people, extorting $1m out of the people running the Blacktip project. They believe that by using the union movement to exploit the business sector and the taxpayer, but more importantly exploiting their own workers, is fair game.
Housing Upgrades
Mr McCARTHY to MINISTER for HOUSING
In 2013-14, 627 refurbishments were completed under Stronger Futures funding. Last financial year your department budgeted for 418 refurbished houses. You managed to deliver only 63. There has been a complete failure to deliver for remote communities and you, as minister, must take responsibility. Please explain to the House this massive shortfall to thousands of people who would have benefited from the delivery of housing refurbishments.
For your information, minister, at 30 June 2012, the previous Labor government had delivered 680 new houses and 2397 refurbishments and rebuilds.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly. That is ironic coming from the fellow who is supposed to be the member for Barkly …
Mr Gunner: He is.
Mrs PRICE: He is, but he forgot about Elliott. What about Elliott? What has he done for Elliott? What did Labor do for Elliott? Elliott was neglected for 11 years. For 11 years the member for Barkly drove up and down the highway, Tennant Creek to Darwin, ignoring Elliott and forgetting it existed. Elliott missed out on SIHIP. The member for Namatjira was disgusted with them and left because they did not do the job of looking after Indigenous housing. They forgot about Elliott, Kalkarindji and Borroloola, and now the member for Barkly asks me what we are doing with housing!
I say to the member for Barkly that the Country Liberals government is doing the right thing in housing. We got on with the job of delivering for remote Territorians. From August 2012, this Country Liberals government has delivered 460 new houses and more than 450 houses have been rebuilt or refurbished across the Territory.
We are employing Aboriginal people on the jobs. At Docker River they have employed local people and at Mount Liebig in the member for Namatjira’s electorate. She should be proud of that too. We are employing Aboriginal people on the job to fix their own houses.
What did the member for Barkly do for Elliott? Nothing. He just drove up and down the track waving to them.
More than 800 upgrades have been delivered under Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory. A further 30 houses are due to be completed in Milikapiti, Galiwinku and Umbakumba. The government has awarded contracts for over 100 additional upgrades in Ampilatwatja, Tara, Amanbidji, Bulla, Peppimenarti and Belyuen.
What has the member for Barkly been doing for the people of Barkly? Nothing! The Country Liberals government has a proven record of achievement. When Labor was in government it spent money but there were fewer bedrooms than when the housing program started.
We have given the voice back to the bush. We have started local authorities after Labor stole their voices. We have localised repairs and maintenance, and tenancy management. There is 59% Indigenous employment in repairs and maintenance and over 70% in tenancy management. The Country Liberals government has a proven record of local people in local jobs.
What has the member for Barkly been doing? The people of Elliot said, ‘I do not know; who is he? Where is our member?’
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Housing Upgrades
Housing Upgrades
Mr McCARTHY to MINISTER for HOUSING
Residents in Santa Teresa and Papunya are suing your government about delays in essential housing maintenance. Santa Teresa resident, Ernestine Williams, said, ‘Conditions have never been so bad’. Why does it take threats of legal action to get houses maintained?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is introducing material that was not presented with the original question. It is a new question.
Madam SPEAKER: It is supplementary to the original question. Please sit down. It is not a point of order. Madam Deputy Clerk, start the clock again. Member for Barkly, please repeat your question so I can hear it.
Mr McCARTHY: Residents in Santa Teresa and Papunya are suing your government about delays in essential housing maintenance. Santa Teresa resident, Ernestine Williams, said, ‘Conditions have never been so bad’. Why under you and the CLP does it take threats of legal action to get you motivated and houses repaired?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly. All of these questions should have been directed to the member for Namatjira. She has neglected her people. Santa Teresa is in the member for Namatjira’s electorate ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, address your comments to the Chair, please.
Mrs PRICE: The member for Namatjira neglected the people of Santa Teresa and Papunya. I have been to Santa Teresa. I am visiting next week to talk to the Santa Teresa people.
Repairs and maintenance works are completed in Santa Teresa through a contract with Ingkerreke. Who is with Ingkerreke that Labor employed? Scott McConnell. Who is his friend? The member for Namatjira. What is happening there? There is a connection.
The government has recently finalised the lease at Santa Teresa that will enable substantial housing investment in that community. I was on the phone to Louise Cavanagh from Santa Teresa who said, ‘There is no problem here’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Labor and Territory Unions – Relationship
Mr CONLAN to CHIEF MINISTER
Can you please outline to the House details of the top-secret deal the Australian Capital Territory government and Unions ACT have cooked up? Members in this House are interested to know if there are any similar close relationships between Labor and unions in the Northern Territory.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about top-secret deals and the port. For three years I told people we wanted to invest in our port. We have told everyone how much money we got. Did you tell anybody that your mates in the MUA ripped $1m out of private business and were ripping off workers in the MUA? You are hiding now, saying you were on holidays when these deals were done.
Mr Gunner: I have all the paperwork, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: You were the chief of staff for the Essential Services minister and the deputy chief of staff for the Chief Minister. You did the dodgy deal and are hiding behind holidays. You were at work and we know it. Own up to it, front up to it and start answering some questions. That is what a coward does, not a leader, Leader of the Opposition …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Have you finished, Chief Minister?
Mr GILES: No, I am still going. I could barely hear with the Leader of the Opposition …
Madam SPEAKER: Neither could I. I ask members on both sides to keep the noise down.
Mr GILES: The question was about the dirty deal done with the ACT unions and government, where every tender has to go through the hands of a union member before they are allowed to be allocated. What a horrendous approach to government, but that is how Labor operates. That is the relationship between Labor and the unions –the stench and the dirty deals that are done. That happened with Eni, Saipem and the MUA and you sanctioned it. Your minister went to Perth and heard the issues and sanctioned it. What answers do you give to the tough questions? ‘I was on holidays, it is not my fault’.
How many of your candidates are backed by the unions? What was the involvement of the ETU, the Electrical Trades Union, with the contracts with Saipem, Blacktip and Power and Water? Were they working beside you in your office upstairs, Leader of the Opposition? What happened then?
Luke Gosling, the federal candidate, is backed by the Transport Workers Union. Damian Hale is backed by the unions. Phil is in charge of the corrections union. The member for Barkly is representing the education union. Can we get people who are not union controlled running the Labor Party?
My challenge to the Leader of the Opposition is this: stand up, answer questions and man up. If you want to be a leader stop being a coward. You are nothing but a coward hiding behind the veil of unionism ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw that comment, please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Housing – Procurement Code Products
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for HOUSING
I know I am backed by my mother.
Your department is in charge of NPARIH housing. You have a schedule which informs contractors of the type of materials they must use, based on a procurement code which must comply, in this case, with the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry.
Under section PO4.4 of your code, products should be defined in terms of outcomes or a particular standard, not a proprietary brand. Has your department been specifying proprietary brands in the past and is it now? Can you name those proprietary products? Is there an open and transparent assessment of valuation of proprietary products selected by your departments so competitors can see why proprietary products have been selected?
If you have not done that and you continue to use proprietary products, is your department not in breach of your code, the National Code and the Trade Practices Act?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for the question. Government is currently reviewing it drawings, specifications and schedule of items so as to look at more innovative approaches while returning good standards in remote communities, using a performance-based approach.
All requests for tender include design drawings, specifications, schedule of items and proprietary items as specified to assist the contractor to understand the expectation of a real product outcome.
These schedules are in accordance with the Northern Territory Procurement Act and its regulations. Standard conditions of contract specify the purpose of specifying such products and a process of applying to use an alternative. This is done in accordance with the procurement direction PO4.4, which allows the department to use a brand name if required.
The standard Conditions of Contract, NPWC NT Edition, Version No 5.0.00, fully explains the conditions that apply where a proprietary product is specified, and options for the approval of alternative products. For example, included in the Proprietary Items clause is:
- The specification of a proprietary item shall not necessarily imply exclusive preference for the item so identified, but shall be deemed to indicate the required properties of the item, such as type, quality, appearance, finish, method of construction, performance and the like.
A similar alternative item having the required properties may be offered for approval.
...
When offering an alternative for approval, provide all available technical information and any other relevant information requested by the Superintendent. If so requested obtain and submit reports on relevant tests by an independent testing authority.
The schedule as it currently exists has been developed from all our past contractors and programs and the Department of Housing’s experience of delivering new houses for the year 2008.
The performance expectations of the NPARIH program are clearly set out in the NPARIH design guidelines, which is available to anyone who requests it. The performance data of the product specified is available from the manufacturers and suppliers. Competitors and suppliers can access those from those sources.
We have offered to brief the member for Nelson. We have been e-mailing each other. I have mentioned to him we can give him a briefing. We are prepared to give a briefing. I am waiting …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
MUA and Blacktip – Opposition
Leader’s Knowledge
Leader’s Knowledge
Mrs FINOCCHIARO to TREASURER
The Leader of the Opposition continues to say he was on leave or a backbencher when the MUA was bullying the Blacktip contractor. Can you inform the House of the details of the final report which points to the payment and what the Leader of the Opposition was doing at the time?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for her good question. We know the Leader of the Opposition was elected into parliament, like many of us, in August 2008. The Royal Commission final report stated:
- On 24 October 2008, shortly after speaking with Chris Cain, Antoine Legrand urgently contacted the cost controller at Saipem. He immediately sought to arrange a request for $1,000,000 to be paid to the training fund – $500,000 immediately and $500,000 at the end of the project. This suggests a link, at least in his mind, between the dispute over the Training Levy and the threat to shut down the job. If there was a link of that kind in the mind of an executive so closely involved in the negotiations, it is probable that the link actually existed in reality.
…
On 7 November 2008, Antoine Legrand had a further conversation with Chris Cain. He sent an email in which he recorded the relevant part of the conversation thus:
- During our phone conversation, he was of course upset by the fact ‘we were trying to fix things with [Paddy Crumlin]’ but I reassured him that the MUA contact of Saipem is the local branch and that the Sydney discussion was an AMMA-MUA one. I explained to him as well the consideration of the escrow fund to ‘show the good faith of ENI’ and that following legal meetings on Monday, we’ll have a clearer idea on how to sort this out quickly.
- He understood but his reaction was mainly that ‘I don’t give a f… …
And that is not what the transcript records:
- … what you do with [Paddy Crumlin], I am going to shut down this job; you’ll see what will happen on this rig’.
It is clear there was a lot going on. Many people knew what was going on but apparently not the Leader of the Opposition. The main point is this was the most important project for the Labor government at that time. It was worth hundreds of millions of dollars and the government must have been following it closely. At the same time the government must have known there were delays and PWC would be gearing up to fund extra diesel supplies, and there was trouble coming down the line.
According to the Leader of the Opposition, nobody bothered to ask the contractor what the cause of the delay was and what was going on. The Leader of the Opposition does not know anything about it. He said he knows nothing, he is a Sergeant Shultz.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Censure of Opposition Leader
Censure of Opposition Leader
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, for that reason I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would prevent this House from censuring the Leader of the Opposition for his reckless and indifferent support for the corrupt activities of the union movement in the Northern Territory.
Earlier in Question Time I gave an explanation of the role of the chief of staff and the senior adviser. The chief of staff and the senior adviser are arguably the most important positions we, as ministers, rely on. They have to be across all the issues concerned. They have to know all the detail concerned ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you pause. So all members understand, the minister is moving a motion to suspend standing orders and that is what you will debate now, not the motion. This is the motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the leader of opposition business wishes to accept this motion we can sidestep this debate and move straight to the censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we are still waiting to hear the motion from the minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I just read the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there is only procedure for government being censured. There is no procedure the other way so the opposition does not have to do anything. Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a motion being led by the Treasurer. Could he have the motion signed and distributed so we can participate?
Madam SPEAKER: It is on its way, member for Karama. Minister, you have the call to move your motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the explanation I gave in Question Time today about the role of the chief of staff and a senior adviser is that they are important roles, particularly for the executive officers of government and ministers.
Senior advisers are our eyes and ears and have to know a great deal more about what we are up to than we know ourselves. It is the role of senior advisers to take as much information in as possible, to know all the detail of all arrangements, be across law, to understand fiduciary obligations of ministers and to be a confidant of the minister. It is a person the minister can rely on to have private conversations with, bounce ideas off and be totally trusted in that position.
As I said, it is clear that many people knew what was going on with that MUA deal. A range of other things was happening following the MUA deal. For instance, the MUA deal was about dealing with the developer of the Blacktip gas reserve. A gas deal was then done between the Power and Water Corporation – the government – and the owner of the gas reserve. Second, a pipeline had to be built to get that gas to the Amadeus Gas Pipeline. Then, of course, there had to be gas transportation agreements before that gas could get to the PWC power station at Channel Island.
Several deals were done at the time. When I say this was the single biggest deal the government had on the books, I am right. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. Just to put it into perspective so people understand, the gas deal was for some 750 PJ of gas. To put that into context, gas is sold by the gigajoule ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I want to clarify – are we still on the …
Madam SPEAKER: Suspension of standing orders debate.
Ms FYLES: Okay, because it sounds like the Treasurer is getting into the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: No, in my view the Treasurer is justifying why he wants to suspend standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER: During the debate, it is my intention to explain what 740 PJ of gas could be worth; the excess gas we purchased; the deals around the pipeline; and about people who had been working with government and the Power and Water Corporation, all of whom would be well known to the Leader of the Opposition.
It beggars belief and is entirely incomprehensible that the Leader of the Opposition could have known nothing about this.
Madam Speaker, it is for those reasons that I ask standing orders to be suspended. This is an important censure motion; these facts need to come out and this is the ideal opportunity to do it. The Leader of the Opposition needs to explain to Territorians exactly what his role, the role of the Labor Party and the role of trade unions were in this. Anything less is beyond belief.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, what absolute nonsense! You are the government and meant to be leading Territorians. You are so desperate. You are afraid of Territorians. If you were not afraid of Territorians this week you would have shared with them what you are doing for them. Instead, you are an arrogant government. You are so desperate that you are carrying on with this nonsense.
You are a government which has not listened to Territorians. This week we have seen hundreds of Territorians on a Facebook page highlight how unsafe they feel and their concerns about antisocial behaviour, but you have ignored that. You do not care, the same way you laughed at emergency department nurses and ignored our firefighters. You are a government Territorians cannot wait to get rid of. People are counting down the days.
You are government, you are meant to govern for Territorians. We see the most appalling nonsense where you try to censure the opposition. Who thought this up? Lunchtime, hey? Final day of sittings, ‘Let us go down the street and have a beer. What will we do in Question Time? Oh, let us censure the Opposition Leader.’ It was the most ridiculous line of questioning. We had pirate stories and walking the plank from your new minister. You are clutching at straws.
The opposition will not be accepting this censure. We have legislation we need to debate this afternoon that affects Territorians and the ownership of their homes. I have heard 1000 times from the Attorney-General that we have better things to do. Instead, you are clutching at straws, proving once and for all you are not fit to govern for Territorians.
Look at you! You are a bunch of rabble! You have more ex-ministers on the back bench than anyone else. It is appalling that we have …
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: We should be focused on Territorians and making sure we represent their views in the parliament. Instead, we have had a government over three-and-a-half years that has raised power prices 30%. You seem to think Territorians will forget about that. Well, they will not because they are all receiving their power and water bills at the moment. As well as questioning some of the amounts, they still do not forget that you raised their power and water costs by 30%, after promising Territorians that you would reduce the cost of living. More Territorians are leaving than coming here.
Territorians will not forget that you promised to reduce crime by 10%, instead in a week …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are debating the suspension of standing orders. The debate is somewhat wide ranging at the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, this is a suspension of standing orders. Everything is fair game. You are out of order.
Ms FYLES: Instead you should be focused on Territorians. You have not spoken once about your stimulus package. We have the most confused Chief Minister in the history of the Territory; we know that. He is unelected. We are still trying to work out how five votes beats nine. A few weeks ago he said, ‘No, everything was on track; nothing to see here.’ All of a sudden, two weeks ago, he could not go to Germany. He had to cancel his plans and give his mate a holiday handshake and announce a stimulus package. You have not spoken about that in Question Time this week. I would have thought that would be important to share with Territorians.
There are everyday mums and dads and businesses struggling, not only with antisocial behaviour but with the downturn in the economy. Many have been predicting it for over a year. You have had your heads in the sand and been focused on yourselves and your 15 – I have given up counting how many reshuffles you had. We have had two-and-a-half Chief Ministers and more reshuffles than we have seen over the rest of the parliaments in the Northern Territory.
You should be sharing these plans on the final day of sittings. The Minister for Education is proud about the stimulus package money going into schools. We welcome investment in our schools. It is a little late. Why are you not talking about that? Instead the Treasurer – nobody is sure how he is still the Treasurer; his own side will not preselect him to stand again – has come up with this nonsense of censuring an opposition. You are already acting like you are back on this side of the House.
Territorians expect more. They want to hear what you are doing for them and how you are investing in our communities. What are your plans to reopen a police station you promised to make 24/7 but shut down? What are your plans for flood mitigation? ‘Thank goodness it has been a dry Wet Season’, is what the residents of Rapid Creek and Millner would be thinking. What are your plans for investments out bush? What are your plans for regional areas across the Territory? No, you want to censure the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Speaker, we will not be accepting this censure. We believe the government should be governing for Territorians. They are so keen to get over to this side of the House they are practising already.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I found it fascinating that the member opposite would talk about everything but the suspension of standing orders, which is what we are discussing. We want to discuss it because there are some grave and serious questions orbiting very close to the Leader of the Opposition in relation to what he knew, when he knew it and how, as a former staffer on the fifth floor – chief of staff to a Chief Minister and an Essential Services minister – he can seriously suggest he knew nothing about a $1m payment to the MUA from a company contracted to the Northern Territory government.
I have not heard a single word from the leader of opposition business in defence of that position. She talked about everything else. As government, we do not want to ask questions of the opposition. Unfortunately, from time to time we have to because these questions need to be asked. Territorians have a right to know about the dodgy deals made between businesses trying to do business on behalf of government in the Northern Territory and money extorted from those businesses to go straight into MUA coffers.
We found out today from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer that it was done probably at the expense of workers who were being paid $200 a day in allowances, which were cut to $30. Was that the way Saipem was forced to pay the $1m into the MUA’s coffers? If that is the case then the MUA has betrayed its own union workers and the rationale of being in a union. What do I hear from the member opposite in relation to this? Nothing. She does not want to discuss the issue. She said, ‘Talk about things that are important to the people of the Northern Territory’. The stench that is surrounding the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the arrangements between Saipem and the MUA might be important to them. Territorians need to know about that because we know of the union affiliations with members opposite – their tentacles are reaching into the Labor Party and other places.
It has already been established in quite an obvious way that the tentacles of United Voice and the Prison Officers Association’s membership have found their way into the trust account established under the NT Prison Officers Association’s management. That trust account is for bereavement payments, legal representation for prison officers who need it and money for sick prison officers who have run out of leave. Yet there were, without placing it on any agenda, motions off the floor to channel that money from the trust account. Where? Into the Labor candidate for Spillett’s election campaign fund.
They do not want to talk about that. ‘It is not important to Territorians.’ It is very important to people in the NT Prison Officers Association who are, by that very definition, Territorians and have a right to know. I am astonished that the opposition is resisting that. Surely if they uphold the standards they said they would in regard to cleanliness and integrity in government, they can start by showing that example in opposition. But rather than take this motion on and allow the examination to occur, ‘We will not accept this motion or allow any form of examination in relation to how money is extorted from businesses and channelled out of trust accounts into the Labor Party’s coffers’.
This motion is about examination and an attempt to tell the members opposite to stand by what they said yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition said he would run a clean but boring government because it would be so pedestrian, it would do nothing unusual. Leader of the Opposition, put it to the test now. Explain the matters that surround you.
The Leader of the Opposition said he was on leave when all this was happening. It turns out, no, he was not on leave. ‘I was on the back bench of government at the time.’ No, you were not on the ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, your time has expired. It is only five minutes in a suspension.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not accept unions using their powers to extort money from companies. I believe it is their job to look after the welfare of the workers, their pay, conditions and safety. But be that as it may, those matters should be discussed in this House.
This is about why we have stopped the normal procedures of parliament. The government owns the Notice Paper. The member for Sanderson raised a motion this week which condemned the opposition. There have been questions asked repeatedly in relation to this.
Why have we suspended our debate on the building amendments for something that does not need the suspension of standing orders to bring in this process to change the Notice Paper? That is what you are doing. When you have the power to set the Notice Paper every day, you could have put a motion today or yesterday. You run the show; you did not need to do this.
It seems to me that we are dealing with matters that have more to do with the next election. That is what we will see for the next three Assemblies. I have been here long enough to know how the system works.
We also have – pardon me, Madam Speaker – bugger-all work to do here. We had two pieces of legislation, one was technical and one important for many people in the Northern Territory. Because we only have little work here and no ministerial statements, we have to fill up time at 3 pm …
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Mr WOOD: All right, sorry, it is 3.10 pm. My apologies, I got the time wrong. The point is you people have the power to set the Notice Paper and place an item that you wish to condemn the Opposition Leader for whatever. That is fine and I would know what was coming.
But we are in the middle of debate about something that only some here do not think is important. It is important because we mentioned before there were 1000 permits that had not been given occupancy certificates. This legislation is important.
All of a sudden, after three days of hammering the opposition – and they obviously try to hammer you too because this is the political game we play here – plus a motion you have already brought against the opposition, you bring this in in the middle of legislation.
I believe you are abusing the system to some extent for political gain. There is always politics in this place, but this now is all about ‘look at me’, ‘vote for me at the next election’. We still have some important legislation to go through …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I do not mind. You can bring a motion on under the normal processes to debate this. No matter what you say today condemning the Opposition Leader, if he does not say anything and you do not get any more answers out of him, you do not gain anything by this …
Mr Elferink: His silence might speak volumes.
Mr WOOD: It may, but you can still do it with a motion. My argument is you are unnecessarily suspending standing orders. We are in the middle of a debate about changes to the Building Act which are important for people. We have stopped debate because it was a bright idea at 3.10 pm. I have been around here long enough to know there are times when we knock off after we have filled the afternoon with fluff. The member for Greatorex had another word for it …
Mr Conlan: Puff piece.
Mr WOOD: Yes, we have some puff pieces. From a procedural point of view, this is a bad way to do this. I do not have a problem with the government asking the opposition about some of those matters; they are important.
We are debating whether there should be a suspension of standing orders. I say there should not be; it should have been done through the normal process. I would be happy for that; I would have known if it was on the Notice Paper today ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired. There is 10 minutes for the first two speakers, five minutes after that. There is no reply from the person who moved the motion.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support this and cannot disagree more with the member for Nelson on a few points.
A motion and a censure motion are different in that a censure motion carries a lot more weight than a normal motion in this parliament. That is the point of this; it is one of the most serious of vehicles you can use in parliament. Hence, we are using this process to censure the Opposition Leader for his abject failure as an Opposition Leader, particularly in light of the Blacktip revelations – the bullying, blackmail and lies by the unions – which have emerged.
You say it is about elections, and of course some of it is. That is when Territorians will decide who will lead the Northern Territory. The Territory’s future is in the hands of the electors on 26 August 2016. It is very important that both sides – in this case the government – make their cases to the people of the Northern Territory and we outline, highlight and articulate how incompetent the Leader of the Opposition is and what he did or did not do while he was the chief of staff for the then Mines and Energy minister, Kon Vatskalis, and more to the point, what he did not do or know, which speaks volumes.
The member for Nightcliff claimed this is arrant nonsense. I could not disagree more. It is highly and totally appropriate to bring forward a censure motion on the opposition. It may be uncommon, nevertheless it is still a vehicle the government can use to highlight the incompetence of the Opposition Leader, and in this case the entire opposition.
The member for Nightcliff talked about Facebook versus crime stats. Sure, there might be some anecdotal evidence of crime on Facebook. It might be a certain barometer, but you cannot convince me or anyone else that Facebook will carry more weight than the crime stats. These are police crime stats. As the Deputy Chief Minister said today, are you asserting police are fudging the figures? These are the official crime statistics of the Northern Territory. While they may be higher in some areas this year compared to last year or the one before, they are overwhelmingly down compared to the 11 years of the tsunami of crime we put up with and lived through under the Labor government from 2001 to 2012.
The member for Nightcliff said there are better things to do and we look like an opposition. I do not know what that means. That we are looking like an opposition is an interesting observation. What does that say about you then? Are you the role model for an opposition? Everyone else is an abject failure except you. You are the pinnacle of what an opposition should be. I do not think so. That we are looking like an opposition is complete nonsense.
We are acting like a government that is very concerned about the potential change of government led by a Leader of the Opposition who did not know, or perhaps knew, something very serious with regard to $1m of bullying, lying and putting at risk a serious gas project at Blacktip.
Madam Speaker, highlighting the risks of a Michael Gunner-led Northern Territory government is appropriate and needs to be done. I support the suspension of standing orders moved by the Treasurer, and I look forward to hearing the debate as it progresses.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr McCarthy
Mr Elferink Ms Manison
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Moss
Mr Giles Mr Vowles
Mr Higgins Ms Walker
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Wood
Ms Lee
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion agreed to.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016