Mr ELFERINK - 1998-06-16
Recently, on ABC radio, the member for Stuart acknowledged increases in police resources. However, he said that they came at the expense of education and health. I understand that some of the 2000 questions to be presented by the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party also reflect this view. What is the true situation, and what is the likely cost of the government responding to these questions?
ANSWER
Ironically, Madam Speaker, in recent years the opposition has said that the government should spend more on law and order and, in particular, the police. The government’s response has been to do so, as shown in the budget papers. The budget books cost a fair amount of money to print and are available to provide opposition members with information which may assist them to tell Territorians precisely what the circumstances are. The member for Stuart is now saying, after some years of substantial increases to the police budget - and the figure he used was 61%, which is a substantial increase in anybody’s terms - that it is too much. He wants to take some of it away and give it to health and education because those areas are in a diabolical position.
Has he not read the budget papers? Has he failed to recognise, in years past and in the budget that we will be debating at length over the next few days, that health and education have gained increases? In this budget, those increases will come into effect on 1 July. The member for Stuart shakes his head and says it is not so. I urge him to read the budget papers.
As for Labor’s 2000 questions, if members opposite had focused on quality instead of quantity, they might have been able to gain a little respect in the community. They might have been able to save public servants an enormous amount of time and taxpayers an enormous amount of money. All their 2000 questions have done is to divert the efforts of hardworking public servants away from providing services and towards answering stupid questions asked by the likes of the member for Wanguri. If you doubt that they are stupid questions, Madam Speaker, I invite you to listen to a couple of them. ‘How many solar hot water systems are expected to be installed in Territory households?’ I will get my crystal ball.
Mr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is foreshadowing the debate we are to have this afternoon.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but it is in answer to a question. I ask the Treasurer to wind his answer up.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the question related to 2000 questions asked by the opposition. The time frame for nurses’ legislation is the subject of another. They also want percentile statistics showing water consumption for each category of customer by millilitre per month. It is not hard to imagine how much ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, they want to know how many employees in the Northern Territory public sector are of Aboriginal descent. The stupidity of these questions! That is not to mention the one relating to how many people took time off work to attend a funeral ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri!
Mr REED: The efforts of public servants are being diverted. Members will recall the theatrics of the news process that the opposition went through, with all of the folders containing the 2000 questions stacked up in front of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer. I think that was early in the morning of last Friday week. They gave an assurance that the questions would all be there and that we would have them that day. When did we get them, Madam Speaker? I think it was at 4.21 pm on that day. If that is not being cute, if that does not put more pressure on public servants ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr REED: You were happy to hold a media conference in the morning with all the questions in the folders, but not provide them to us until 4.21 that afternoon. There is something shonky about your operation. It might have been only 4 or 6 hours, but the public servants who had to work on these questions would have appreciated the extra time, given that the following Monday was a public holiday.
Consider the time committed by agencies. It took the Department of Transport and Works 75.5 person/days to assemble the answers to the questions from members opposite. It took Territory Health Services 54 person/days and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment 70 person/days.
Mr Stirling: Are Territorians not entitled to the information?
Mr REED: They are entitled to it. However, it is not the quantity, it is the quality that counts. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about 2000 questions because it sounds good. However, it has a hollow ring when one hears what some of the questions are. ‘How many people went to funerals over the last year?’. What a load of nonsense! The time taken by agencies ranged from 75.5 days, the highest commitment by an agency, to a few hours for some of the smaller agencies. The cost of preparing the answers to those questions exceeds $168 000. Do members opposite think that that is a useful form of expenditure of taxpayers’ money? I suggest they make the most of the budget debate process. It is too late for this year. They have messed it up again. They have followed their previous practice and have failed to ask for meaningful information that they might be able to use. They have focused again on quantity, not quality. Next year, I urge them to work on something that may be more productive for Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind ministers to keep their answers short. I remind members of the opposition that their interjections are becoming unruly.
ANSWER
Ironically, Madam Speaker, in recent years the opposition has said that the government should spend more on law and order and, in particular, the police. The government’s response has been to do so, as shown in the budget papers. The budget books cost a fair amount of money to print and are available to provide opposition members with information which may assist them to tell Territorians precisely what the circumstances are. The member for Stuart is now saying, after some years of substantial increases to the police budget - and the figure he used was 61%, which is a substantial increase in anybody’s terms - that it is too much. He wants to take some of it away and give it to health and education because those areas are in a diabolical position.
Has he not read the budget papers? Has he failed to recognise, in years past and in the budget that we will be debating at length over the next few days, that health and education have gained increases? In this budget, those increases will come into effect on 1 July. The member for Stuart shakes his head and says it is not so. I urge him to read the budget papers.
As for Labor’s 2000 questions, if members opposite had focused on quality instead of quantity, they might have been able to gain a little respect in the community. They might have been able to save public servants an enormous amount of time and taxpayers an enormous amount of money. All their 2000 questions have done is to divert the efforts of hardworking public servants away from providing services and towards answering stupid questions asked by the likes of the member for Wanguri. If you doubt that they are stupid questions, Madam Speaker, I invite you to listen to a couple of them. ‘How many solar hot water systems are expected to be installed in Territory households?’ I will get my crystal ball.
Mr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is foreshadowing the debate we are to have this afternoon.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but it is in answer to a question. I ask the Treasurer to wind his answer up.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the question related to 2000 questions asked by the opposition. The time frame for nurses’ legislation is the subject of another. They also want percentile statistics showing water consumption for each category of customer by millilitre per month. It is not hard to imagine how much ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, they want to know how many employees in the Northern Territory public sector are of Aboriginal descent. The stupidity of these questions! That is not to mention the one relating to how many people took time off work to attend a funeral ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri!
Mr REED: The efforts of public servants are being diverted. Members will recall the theatrics of the news process that the opposition went through, with all of the folders containing the 2000 questions stacked up in front of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer. I think that was early in the morning of last Friday week. They gave an assurance that the questions would all be there and that we would have them that day. When did we get them, Madam Speaker? I think it was at 4.21 pm on that day. If that is not being cute, if that does not put more pressure on public servants ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr REED: You were happy to hold a media conference in the morning with all the questions in the folders, but not provide them to us until 4.21 that afternoon. There is something shonky about your operation. It might have been only 4 or 6 hours, but the public servants who had to work on these questions would have appreciated the extra time, given that the following Monday was a public holiday.
Consider the time committed by agencies. It took the Department of Transport and Works 75.5 person/days to assemble the answers to the questions from members opposite. It took Territory Health Services 54 person/days and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment 70 person/days.
Mr Stirling: Are Territorians not entitled to the information?
Mr REED: They are entitled to it. However, it is not the quantity, it is the quality that counts. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about 2000 questions because it sounds good. However, it has a hollow ring when one hears what some of the questions are. ‘How many people went to funerals over the last year?’. What a load of nonsense! The time taken by agencies ranged from 75.5 days, the highest commitment by an agency, to a few hours for some of the smaller agencies. The cost of preparing the answers to those questions exceeds $168 000. Do members opposite think that that is a useful form of expenditure of taxpayers’ money? I suggest they make the most of the budget debate process. It is too late for this year. They have messed it up again. They have followed their previous practice and have failed to ask for meaningful information that they might be able to use. They have focused again on quantity, not quality. Next year, I urge them to work on something that may be more productive for Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind ministers to keep their answers short. I remind members of the opposition that their interjections are becoming unruly.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016