Mr REED - 2001-11-28
In relation to his remarks in relation to the honourable member for Daly’s question, he told us that the funding that the government has provided will take the HIH levy through the covering of it, until the end of this financial year. Yet, on 20 November, he told the NT News, which reports that:
That -
That is, the amount of money that the government has put in,
… would absorb the ongoing costs associated with the debt until some time before 30 June 2002.
That is, not until the end of this financial year. Will it take us through until the end of this financial year, as you have just told the House? Or, as you told the NT News, will it not take us through to the end of this financial year? Further, the Treasurer told us yesterday that this was a four-year mini-budget. How come then, in years 2002-03 out to 2004-05, the amounts for the HIH liabilities are zero, notwithstanding that you know the government’s exposure, and notwithstanding that you have given a different answer to the NT News and a different answer to this House? Get it right!
ANSWER
The former Treasurer - no wonder the books are in such bad shape, when he does not understand some very basic principles. What we have here is the fact that people are receiving payment as a result of a workplace injury and, people, in terms of assessment of the amount of time those people are going to need rehabilitation, need specific therapy or whatever, that moves from a day-to-day basis and there is an assessment made on a monthly basis as to the liability that we are exposed to.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The question had nothing to do with what the liabilities were or who is going to approve them in terms of pay-outs. It had everything to do with did he mislead the House? Did he tell the House that their funding would last until the end of the financial year, or did he, as was told to the NT News, say that it would not last to the end of this financial year?
Madam SPEAKER: I think we need to give the minister a chance to answer his question.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the best assessment at this time is that the allocation of $6m will take us to the end of the financial year ...
Mr Reed: Well, why did you tell the NT News a fibber?
Mr HENDERSON: I would appreciate if the member for Katherine would button his lip and listen to the answer - if he was really interested in the answer instead of making mischief. We are looking at all the options to spread the liability as fairly as possible. You, the friend of business, a supposed friend of business, were going to slug the entire $50m cost, with interest of $3m, on the business community. This was the plan of the previous government.
We have said we will put in a maximum of $9m. That is why, in the budget papers, there is no allocation for the next three years out. Once we have considered all of the options I will be returning to this House and advising the House how we are going to recover this liability and pay this liability, given the fact that the previous government was going to tax the business community in the Northern Territory, at the time that they could least afford it. These guys, who are supposed to be the mates of the business community, were going to tax the business community the entire $50m, with interest of $3m.
That -
That is, the amount of money that the government has put in,
… would absorb the ongoing costs associated with the debt until some time before 30 June 2002.
That is, not until the end of this financial year. Will it take us through until the end of this financial year, as you have just told the House? Or, as you told the NT News, will it not take us through to the end of this financial year? Further, the Treasurer told us yesterday that this was a four-year mini-budget. How come then, in years 2002-03 out to 2004-05, the amounts for the HIH liabilities are zero, notwithstanding that you know the government’s exposure, and notwithstanding that you have given a different answer to the NT News and a different answer to this House? Get it right!
ANSWER
The former Treasurer - no wonder the books are in such bad shape, when he does not understand some very basic principles. What we have here is the fact that people are receiving payment as a result of a workplace injury and, people, in terms of assessment of the amount of time those people are going to need rehabilitation, need specific therapy or whatever, that moves from a day-to-day basis and there is an assessment made on a monthly basis as to the liability that we are exposed to.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The question had nothing to do with what the liabilities were or who is going to approve them in terms of pay-outs. It had everything to do with did he mislead the House? Did he tell the House that their funding would last until the end of the financial year, or did he, as was told to the NT News, say that it would not last to the end of this financial year?
Madam SPEAKER: I think we need to give the minister a chance to answer his question.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the best assessment at this time is that the allocation of $6m will take us to the end of the financial year ...
Mr Reed: Well, why did you tell the NT News a fibber?
Mr HENDERSON: I would appreciate if the member for Katherine would button his lip and listen to the answer - if he was really interested in the answer instead of making mischief. We are looking at all the options to spread the liability as fairly as possible. You, the friend of business, a supposed friend of business, were going to slug the entire $50m cost, with interest of $3m, on the business community. This was the plan of the previous government.
We have said we will put in a maximum of $9m. That is why, in the budget papers, there is no allocation for the next three years out. Once we have considered all of the options I will be returning to this House and advising the House how we are going to recover this liability and pay this liability, given the fact that the previous government was going to tax the business community in the Northern Territory, at the time that they could least afford it. These guys, who are supposed to be the mates of the business community, were going to tax the business community the entire $50m, with interest of $3m.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016