2015-06-04
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 2 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 27 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed in the April sittings of the Assembly.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, heart disease kills three times more women than breast cancer and is the single biggest killer of Australian women, taking a life every hour of every day. The national Go Red for Women Month is an annual health campaign commencing in June. The campaign seeks to raise the awareness of the risk factors contributing to heart disease. I have placed red ribbons on each member’s desk in support of Go Red for Women Month and I thank honourable members for supporting this cause with a little show of wearing red.
Continued from 28 April 2015.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage now be taken.
Motion agreed to.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 30 April 2015 the committee has before it the Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill 2015 (Serial 121) and the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the expenditure proposed in the Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill 2015 (Serial 121) be agreed to and reports noted. I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers, 20 minutes; any other members, 10 minutes. The maximum period of consideration is five hours. If the debate is not concluded after five hours, I will put the question. When consideration of the bill and report has been concluded, and the question put, the following question will be put without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
I call the Chair of the Estimates Committee, the member for Drysdale.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Mr Chair, I am pleased to table the report of the Estimates Committee on its consideration of the estimates and proposed expenditure contained in the schedule of the Appropriation Bill (2015-16) and the report of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation.
These reports outline the key areas of interest or concern in the questions asked at the hearings. The questions taken on notice will be tabled in the Assembly on 18 June. Answers to questions on notice must be with the committee secretariat by 17 June. I note these deadlines are those set by the Assembly. The answers will be uploaded to the database on the Assembly’s website as they are received.
There were a couple of questions taken on notice that the committee accepted could not be answered within that time. These answers will need to be given to the Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee for publication when they are received.
There were 118 questions taken on notice this year, an increase of 25 from last year. Today, at the close of the hearing, 17% of questions had been answered.
This is the Legislative Assembly’s 14th year of Estimates Committee hearings. The estimates hearings provide a valuable opportunity for members to ask ministers questions relating to agencies funded under the budget. Members had the opportunity to hear from all ministers across their portfolios. Overall the hearings worked very effectively, and provided the opposition and other members with ample opportunity to question any areas of government they chose.
I thank all members who participated in the 2015 estimates process for their constructive approach, and the ministers and Madam Speaker for their cooperation throughout the process. Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work to ensure the whole process ran smoothly.
I also place on the record my sincere appreciation to the staff of all agencies involved in the estimates process over the five days. The process would not have been effective without their hard work and dedication.
I commend the reports of the 2015 Estimates and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committees to the Assembly.
Ms MANISON: Mr Chair, I place on the record my thanks to my colleagues on the PAC. This year the estimates process was a long slog, as it always is, but it was chaired firmly and fairly. I appreciate the teamwork of the PAC to keep the estimates process going.
It was a reasonably efficient estimates. I still believe the implementation of the set times has made sure we can get to the point on some of the issues, but of course it can be difficult when some ministers have far bigger portfolio loads than others. It can mean you do not have enough time to get to some important areas. It was particularly noted this week with the member for Port Darwin and the member for Brennan, who have huge portfolio loads. Unfortunately we could not go to the depth of detail we would have liked to.
It is an important process. For most of it this year it was very constructive. We were able to get some very important information about the financial performance and operations of Territory government agencies, which is a very important part of the estimates process.
However, there was one section of the estimates process that stood out to me as not being forthcoming with information. We could not get the answers we were after. It ended up impacting on all ministers. This was, of course, the Chief Minister’s session. A very important question was asked of him with regard to ministerial travel. I have said a few times this week that this kind of query is never a surprise. Every year the opposition asks this question, whether it is us sitting in opposition or the CLP. It is a stock standard question for the estimates process, year in, year out. It is never a surprise for a Chief Minister to be asked about ministerial travel and reporting around that.
To have the Chief Minister not provide that information when asked, after being given prior notice the question was coming – as I said, it is not a surprise question; it is asked every year – and then blow out the time to respond to the inquiry by expanding it to cover two months was truly a disgrace. We will see how we go getting that information. It comes back to the heart of the issue of trust in the Chief Minister. It highlighted why many people around the Territory simply do not trust the Chief Minister and what he says.
Estimates is a process for getting details of expenditure within government. We had some debate last sittings about ministerial travel and we appreciate it is important that ministers travel to perform their very important duties to the Territory. However, we want to see some transparency and scrutiny around that travel, and estimates is a prime opportunity to provide that. The Chief Minister was not forthcoming and now we wait for the details of that travel.
It will come in time; it will be revealed and we will wait. There was, however, a good opportunity to provide that data at estimates. It was, therefore, difficult for other ministers to talk about some of their travel and expenditure because the Chief Minister had not provided it.
Another thing I noticed at estimates this year was some ministers were really open to answering the questions as fully as they could. Some ministers performed better than others. Some ministers seemed to want to rely on pushing hard questions onto other ministers, even though their agency had a large interest in the area. There could have been less of that.
Overall the process went well this year. Again I thank my colleagues on the PAC.
I turn to some of the areas in my shadow portfolio responsibilities and some of the issues raised during the estimates process. With Parks and Wildlife there were some big issues and questions about Casuarina Coastal Reserve. We are pleased to see investment in the development plan. I asked questions about the public consultation process around the management plan. The development plan consultation finished in early 2012. We are over three years down the track. Given the development plan and some infrastructure upgrades were announced barely a month before the management plan, will any of the matters that may come out of this consultation on the management plan feed into changes and amendments to the development plan? I was pleased to hear the minister and the department would look at that, particularly given erosion factors did come into the development plan. There is without doubt worrying erosion there.
I was also concerned to hear there was not a significant consideration around the future development of the Lee Point suburb next to Muirhead north to ensure biodiversity of the environment is protected.
We are looking forward to seeing what happens with the future of the Casuarina Coastal development plan after the feedback from the management plans comes in after 12 June.
One question I put to the minister about mining and exploration applications across parks was referred to the Mines minister. That is something I will follow up to get more details. We did not ask the Mines minister and I had hoped for an answer from the Parks minister. Being minister for Parks she should have a very high interest in what is happening in them.
Education was another interesting and important session and one where sadly we were able to confirm that since June 2012 there have been 516 jobs lost from the Education department. That is a huge number. Looking back over the annual reports and the latest employment data, seeing that many staff have been lost from the Territory’s education system should be sounding alarm bells in the Territory. Our middle and senior schools in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs have all been hit. They have all had huge job losses through the middle and senior years.
It is concerning that students going through their secondary education, which is a critical part of their education, have fewer staff to support them. I raised the issue that it has impacted on schools. With their reduced staffing levels, some schools have had to cut right back on, for example, elective subjects. We all know it is important that people take their core education curriculum through reading, writing, English, maths and science, but elective subjects are an opportunity for students to further their learning development and journey. They target their key interest areas to keep them really engaged in their education.
Schools need these subjects to show how they can help a student in their education journey and to market themselves. It is essential they have a range of subjects. When you have fewer staff in the system there is less opportunity for those schools to deliver those subjects. We have seen significant cuts in that area.
When we asked whole-of-agency questions about ministerial travel paid for by for agency, this was an agency where we found the minister had embarked on significant travel at the cost of the department, which is highly unusual. We put questions on notice about that travel and asked for further details and an explanation. We will wait for the responses to those questions.
We have seen massive cuts to public education. In real terms, since 2012 we are talking about $80m less and 516 fewer staff in education. We know of over 150 fewer staff in middle and senior years. We are seeing subject selection being reduced, less support for students and bigger classrooms. While we see that huge cuts have been made to the department, we then see that the minister is travelling at the expense of the department. We have raised questions about that. It is highly unusual. We want to see every dollar that can go into education going in that direction. We have put questions on the public record and will eagerly await those responses about exactly how much was taken out of the education budget to fund the minister’s travel.
This morning we had an opportunity to sit down with the government owned corporations to explore what has happened since we last met in October and how things have gone post-structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation on 1 July last year. It was really clear that Power and Water Corporation was not ready for structural separation and that work is still ongoing with structural separation. It was an extremely rushed process last year, and we raised these concerns at that time. Today, through the government owned corporation scrutiny process, it seemed very clear the answer is no. Power and Water Corporation was not ready for structural separation.
Last year in October, during the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation were not able to provide full statements of corporate intent because they did not have full financial information about what they were as a government owned corporation. The government separated Power and Water knowing too well that the details of the assets of two of the new government owned corporations were not finalised and fully known, but they still proceeded. Last year we were told that process would be completed in January this year. Yet today we discovered that process is still ongoing and not anticipated to be completed until the end of the year.
We also heard that the Power and Water Corporation, as the monopoly GOC, had seen increases in how much their structural separation had cost. It had gone up to the vicinity, I believe, of about $3.1m. On top of that we heard of changes to delivering their finance system, and that project had hit the $10.5m mark. Much work also had to be done at Jacana and Territory Generation with changes to their financial management and asset management systems, as a direct result of structural separation. The costs keep going up.
I remind the parliament that last year during the Public Accounts Committee’s scrutiny of the government owned corporations there was a significant cost attributed to the Department of the Chief Minister for structural separation, as well as the burden of costs to the Department of Treasury. The costs keep going up day by day and it is not over.
Power and Water Corporation, minus Territory Generation and Jacana Energy, had anticipated a net profit this year after tax in the vicinity of $46m. Instead they are at a loss of about $63m. That is quite a change of position. One would have thought that would have been anticipated and, prior to separating the corporation, work would have been done to avoid such a loss.
We also heard, as a consequence of life after structural separation, about the emergence of stranded assets, staff, contracts and licences. That means as the changes occur with Territory Generation and Jacana Energy as they separate from the Power and Water Corporation, the Power and Water Corporation will be left with people who used to fill those jobs, licences they needed to do some of that work and systems that used to fill that space. We are yet to see the full details of that and what it will mean regarding jobs. How will it impact on people working within the corporation who thought they had a job? That is something we also will keep an eye on.
It was also interesting to hear Territory Generation people talking about the future of the Ron Goodin Power Station in Alice Springs which they are looking to decommission over the next few years. That is being looked at now. What will that mean to staff currently at the Ron Goodin Power Station, given that the Owen Springs Power Station does not require the resources the Ron Goodin Power Station does? What will happen to the Ron Goodin Power Station site at Sadadeen Valley, which is owned by the Power and Water Corporation? These are things to keep an eye on and that is what we intend to do. I have put many questions on notice and look forward to getting that data.
I also put on notice today a question to confirm exactly what the 5% tariff increase has cost people. That came into place on 1 January this year. Not only did I ask for that information for customers broadly across the Power and Water Corporation and urban centres, but also about the Indigenous Essential Services revenue collected due to the 30% increase in power, the 40% increase in water and the 25% increase in sewerage tariffs. That question is on the record to find out how much extra people in the bush are paying for their power and water following the decision by the government to ramp those prices up and to see how that is impacting on their lives.
It has been a very busy two weeks of scrutinising the budgets and operations of the departments. I thank the agencies I am shadow minister for, for all of their hard work. Preparing for estimates is a very long and hard slog, but it is a very important part of the process in ensuring we have an accountable and transparent government and allowing us to scrutinize the performance of agencies. It is a lot of work but ultimately government should look at it as a yearly health check of their departments and agencies.
You hope a minister is regularly briefed by their agency to make sure they are on top of all the issues, but preparing for estimates is a whole different ball game. They really have to be across the details. A good minister tries to be across all their details of their portfolios. It is a good opportunity for them to ask some hard questions of their agency on why things might not be heading in the directions they thought they would or should be. It also gives them an opportunity to pick up areas where they feel they might need to invest more or which they feel are doing pretty well and they can give people a pat on the back.
It is a good yearly process which gives the opposition an opportunity to unearth details, to do its job to hold government to account and monitor its performance. A government should look at it as a very positive process as well, because it ensures they can check, down to very fine detail, the performance of the agencies they are in charge of.
I thank my PAC colleagues again. I thank all the hard-working staff within the government agencies for their work to prepare for estimates and look forward to receiving answers to those questions on notice so we can further scrutinise information we were not able to obtain during the committee.
Ms FYLES: Mr Chair, I thank everyone involved in the estimates process – the ministers before us, and particularly the agency staff who spend many hours preparing information.
It is interesting to note that this year there were 118 questions taken on notice, which is significantly higher than previous years – 25 more. We saw some tactics to try to avoid answering questions. There were questions provided prior to the estimates sittings by the opposition – straightforward questions that had been asked in the past and we were expecting answers to be tabled. Ministers, however, really did sink to new depths by not answering those questions.
We saw the Chief Minister – and I am not sure if he understands what came over him, but reading slowly to try to avoid answering the question was unprecedented. In that section of estimates when I was with the Leader of the Opposition questioning matters relating to travel, the Chief Minister had documents provided to him that he could have simply tabled. There were 33 pages, in fact. He told us there were 33. He refused to table that document. He then started reading that document, but obviously saw something he did not want to read and literally shut down estimates. Estimates shut down for 15 minutes, which I have not experienced before in the three or so years I have been on the Public Accounts Committee.
We saw ministers this year putting up a smoke screen when answering questions and sinking to new levels to try to cover up. With travel, there are a lot of unanswered questions Territorians want to know the answers to. Exactly how much have government ministers spent on travel? It is not your money to fly around the world with, going to London, New York, or wherever you feel like going. It is the public’s money. Absolutely, there are trips that need to be taken, particularly to Asia, our close neighbour. It is very important to have relationships, and I understand some of those relationships are built on contact, visiting countries and learning. We have seen an extraordinary amount of travel that is not accounted for. We do not have the documents. When we were asking questions and you were prepared, you refused to answer them.
We have a government that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ministerial travel while Territorians are suffering. This government needs to take a long hard look at that because Territorians are sick and tired of it. They are sick of opening up the paper and reading about another trip a minister has taken without providing an explanation. Travel is important, but we need to have an explanation for it and the full costs disclosed. We need openness and transparency.
As a PAC member, I spent a lot of time listening to the questions. Some of the responses in Lands and Planning were quite bizarre. We have seen significant planning approvals go ahead without consultation, but the Lands and Planning minister has a newfound consultative nature. He has agreed to public meetings, and I note his commitment to consult with residents prior to signing off on planning. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
In today’s paper there is an advertisement to change minimum lot sizes from 800m2 to 450m2. This is a chance to show his newfound wish to consult with the community. We saw an advertisement in the paper today, but what will you really do? How will you genuinely consult with our community? In the rural area we have seen planning decisions made without proper consultation. We have seen it in the Palmerston area at Johnston Ridge and across the community.
It was good to see the Minister for Lands and Planning agree to consult more. I note the minister made a commitment that before handing over any portion of the old Darwin Hospital site he would consult. When I questioned him on handing over that land for a private medical facility, he could not answer if the government had considered the Palmerston hospital site for that.
With Infrastructure, it was interesting that many questions that I thought could be answered on the floor, and have been asked in the past, around revoting and the percentage of federal government funding, were unable to be answered. I look forward to seeing that information come through the questions on notice process. It was unsettling that they were unable to provide details of the most basic funding agreements and amounts.
Sport and Recreation was very revealing. There was a positive announcement of $20m for sporting infrastructure. I welcome any investment in sport in the Territory. I am passionate about sport and opportunities for all Territorians, but a few basic questions that should have been answered on the consultation of that $20m spend were unable to be answered. We will not let that lie; there will be more questions. We asked many questions on notice and will continue to follow them up because Territorians expect to know how their money is spent. Some $20m for sporting infrastructure – there should be a lot of consultation. We need to make sure it is what the sporting community wants.
Last night we heard it is not just for rugby league, it is for touch football, soccer and other sports that use a rectangular field. That was interesting, and when I asked if those sports had been consulted I was unable to get answers.
I wrote to the Chief Minister prior to the budget being announced, raising the concerns of my community in Nightcliff, Rapid Creek and Coconut Grove about antisocial behaviour. We have experienced significant property crime; it is a hot spot. I asked if we could have our police station reopened, which this government shut down even though they promised to make it a 24/7 police station, and I asked for CCTV cameras because the community feels that measure would protect them. The Nightcliff police station, even though the CLP went to the election promising the community to make it 24/7, has been shut down. Since that was shut on 1 July last year we have had the mobile police station there regularly. Nearly every week that mobile police station is within the community.
I asked if in this year’s budget the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police would reopen our police station. I did not get a response until just this week in a formal letter. During questioning, my colleague was told that things might change, so there may be some hope for the people of Nightcliff that their police station will be opened so we do not need the mobile police station.
In this budget process I found out we are now going to get mobile CCTV cameras. Nightcliff is an agreed hotspot area. Our police station was shut and we have a mobile police station, and now we are getting mobile CCTV cameras. I am not sure why the community of Nightcliff is not good enough to get the police station you promised them and to have CCTV cameras permanently. Our community is really feeling the pressure of antisocial behaviour and property crime, and I will not, as the local member, let up on this.
I find little hope in the Chief Minister’s words that, ‘things might change’. Now is your chance to show our community you care. I know you have been receiving direct correspondence because I have been copied into it as the local member.
The shadow minister for Education, my colleague, the member for Wanguri, has spoken about the cuts we have seen there and how that has affected our community.
In questioning the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing it was very interesting to hear his comments around Sunday trading. I was reassured that the government has no plans to introduce Sunday trading, but bizarrely enough, following a meeting the minister had in February, three people applied for Sunday trading licences, as I understand from my questioning. Those people are now being compensated for the licences they have applied for. I find it bizarre that the minister has made it quite clear that there would be no changes to the Sunday trading, yet following a meeting he had, people have applied and will be compensated. I will review those notes.
We made it quite clear we are not comfortable with the amount being put into gambling support programs. This government will see a significant increase in revenue from gaming machines. We know it is a huge issue in our community and the Northern Territory has one of the highest rates of people using electronic gaming machines. People need support and those support services are crying out for extra funding. The government is receiving a significant increase in revenue, yet we are not seeing that flow on to those agencies that provide support.
I found it interesting that the ministers used every tactic to avoid answering questions, reading long opening statements, talking slowly and avoiding scrutiny of the government’s budget, which is the aim of the committee. There is a lot we will continue to follow up on. We will not let up because the community wants us to ask these questions. Sometimes ministers do not realise we are asking these questions on behalf of the community and when they see their responses the ministers lose even more respect.
There were some long hours involved in the estimates process, and I thank my colleagues on the PAC, the staff within the government agencies who prepare all the briefs and information, and the Legislative Assembly staff. I know it is a small team; they put in long hours so we appreciate all their time and effort, especially refilling those lolly bowls. That sugar was certainly appreciated late at night.
There will be many more questions and follow ups on issues raised through the community and parliamentary process.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Chair, estimates has proved again, for the third year, that the Chief Minister does not like answering questions and being held to account. The Chief Minister does not want to be transparent. The Chief Minister’s session was probably one of the low marks for estimates. It is clear there is something rotten with ministerial travel.
The CLP in opposition asked questions about ministerial travel; every opposition does. This is a question that every Chief Minister can expect, and which the Chief Minister can certainly expect when there has been significant public and media attention to the state of ministerial travel under the CLP. There is something rotten with ministerial travel and people want to know what the CLP is doing with taxpayers’ money and how they are travelling.
As an opposition, we support travel that benefits the Territory. But we do not know what the CLP is doing, where its members are going and how they are spending taxpayers’ money. There has been a significant number of trips that have caused concern.
We asked the Chief Minister about ministerial travel and his response initially was to read slower than the host of Play School when he went through the answers. He read so slowly. He did not want to table the the 30-plus pages he had in front of him. He insisted on reading it out. We had an hour debate about him tabling or reading, and it got to the point where the Chief Minister said, ‘I am not giving this at all’. He reached a point in his answer on travel he did not like and he stopped reading.
We asked him at that point, on the trip he was accounting for, who the travel agent was. He said, ‘I do not know. I cannot tell you.’
The next day the Business minister told us it was Latitude Travel, but the Chief Minister refused to give us the answer on that day. We now have to wait a couple of months for the information we asked for. The Chief Minister chose not to provide an answer he could be expected to rightfully give during estimates, in an open and transparent manner, to Territorians. He was not prepared to give that answer. He was not prepared for estimates. There are several options why that could be – negligence and incompetence or he wants to hide something. Or perhaps it is all of them.
We learnt from the Minister for Education yesterday that if you want to hide travel you take it through the Department of the Chief Minister. I found that an extraordinary thing to say.
We know the Chief Minister was not prepared to give Territorians answers about ministerial travel, despite the fact it has received significant public attention, that it is a question which comes up every estimates, and he was given a copy of the exact words we would use in asking that question a week earlier. Despite all of this, the Chief Minister was not prepared to give answers to Territorians. We now have to wait.
People do not trust this government and this Chief Minister. The approach taken through estimates reinforces and, in fact, significantly increases, the trust deficit that exists between Territorians and this government.
Territorians wanted answers and they did not get them. The public, the media and the opposition wanted answers but we did not get them. The Chief Minister was not prepared for estimates or to be open and transparent with Territorians. There is a trust deficit that exists between Territorians and this government, and it grows every day. The process of estimates for this budget has not helped with that trust deficit.
You have to repair the damage done between this government and Territorians. You cannot repair it if you refuse to be open and transparent. Something looks and smells rotten and you are not prepared to let the sunlight in and give answers to Territorians. People want to know the truth about how taxpayers’ money is being spent. This government is doing nothing to help the trust deficit that exists between Territorians and this government by not being prepared to give answers about ministerial travel in estimates.
At a point in time when those answers should have been prepared and given, they were not. This will drag on again and again; it is an anchor around this government’s neck. They are not being honest with Territorians. During this fortnight of estimates they refused to be honest with Territorians about how they are spending taxpayers’ money on ministerial travel.
Every week or two there is a new story about how taxpayers’ money is being spent on overseas trips. We want more information. We will keep digging and asking, and we will keep doing FOIs, as will the media. We will chase this government down on ministerial travel. That was not a good barometer for this government. It was not a good test for it; it failed the test on openness and transparency.
I thank members of the Public Accounts Committee for the work they did in estimates. They were required, between the two of them, the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri, to be present for the entirety of estimates. They did a very professional job, as did all our shadows, in how they interrogated government ministers.
It is possible the member for Greatorex answered more questions than some of the ministers, and certainly more expansively. I thank our members of the PAC and our shadow ministers for the work that they did. The member for Greatorex actually showed some of the ministers up. The only time I got upset with the member for Greatorex was when he asked a question I thought had already been asked and the minister chose to answer it again. We saw duplication, but otherwise I thought the member for Greatorex had more answers during the estimates than some of the ministers.
With the Treasurer on the very first day we had a conversation in depth about the budget, its framing and what is driving the Northern Territory economy. We are optimistic about the future of the Territory, certainly in the medium and the long term. Most Territorians are, too, and have been for quite some time. The things that drive their optimism and the Territory economy have been a growing population, a strong infrastructure spend – primarily driven by the private sector but strategically supported by government – and a strongly growing employment rate. What is very clear from reading these budget papers is that there are some short-term challenges that need to be addressed about whether or not the CLP has a plan. They do not have a plan to address the short-term problems we are identifying. These problems are very clear in these budget books, which show the population growth rate stalling. We are seeing a slowing of population growth and massive interstate migration.
More Territorians are leaving the Territory than are moving to it – 3500 in the last year. That is extremely concerning. We asked the Treasurer about the population rates, what they are and how we can address them with this budget. There is another budget to come from the Territory government. These are the short-term challenges the government has to deal with now.
As opposition we will be working on this between now and the next Territory election, but at the moment the responsibility sits with the Treasury benches over there. These things are not being addressed by this government. We are seeing a slowing population growth, massive net interstate migration, and you can see it in the Territory’s budget books.
It is presented in a couple of places but the one I am holding up is the Northern Territory Economy budget book, page 40. This graph shows net interstate migration. It is a concern; you can see the very sharp decline over the last year which has brought the total growth rate for the Territory down to below the natural increase. It is something we need to be concerned about. We have a strong natural increase – babies being born in the Territory – but net interstate migration is a serious concern. These are our workers. The majority of them are able-bodied adults.
Another concern is the loss of senior Territorians. We do not want to lose our grandparents. We want to keep our grandkids in the Territory; we want to make sure we keep the family tree. That is something of significant concern in these books.
I will give you one example, as a local member, of my electorate in terms of keeping grandparents. There was an opportunity for this government to expand Pearl Aged Care and the residential seniors village onto the Sports House site. They did not take that opportunity to provide extra aged-care beds or increased options for senior Territorians to stay in the Territory. It is something we have to work on. We are losing Territorians and it is a concern.
We have slowing population growth, stalling employment growth and a government that says it will not be spending on infrastructure after this budget. It is cutting the infrastructure budget after this budget; it is in the budget books. It is a significant concern that after the INPEX construction stage this government plans to cut infrastructure spending in the Territory. It is an extraordinary decision, and one way they reach a paper thin surplus in 2017-18.
The budget books clearly say the surplus reflects lower levels of infrastructure spending. We have three short-term concerns about how we are dealing with what drives the Territory economy and gives us our optimism: the population growth; the employment rate; and a government which says it will not spend on infrastructure after this budget. We have serious concerns about this government’s ability to recognise the challenges we have with what underpins this budget, what underpins the optimism Territorians have in the economy, how they will deal with that and how they will deal with the post-INPEX construction phase. The answer is not to cut infrastructure spending.
There is a structural concern with this budget that needs to be addressed by the next budget. We have to trust the CLP government to start tackling these issues or they will create a massive problem for the next government in the next term, which we hope to be us. How will we deal with these issues, particularly with a government that will cut back on infrastructure spending post-INPEX construction? Those are significant concerns.
It is concerning that net interstate migration, even at the height of the INPEX construction phase, is falling through the floor. It was 3500 people last year; more people left the Territory than arrived. This is a major problem and, as the people who know about the budget on the other side recognise, population is a big driver of GST receipts. We have concerns around the GST, GST receipts for the Territory and how we are going with our population. Population is more of a concern than just people working or spending here, or how they are contributing to the Territory economy. It is more than the social changes that occur. They are all important things and we do not want to lose people from our community. Additionally, those heads count for money in GST receipts.
We have concerns about what is happening to the Territory economy and our population under the CLP government. Population drives demand for goods, services and products, and drives demand in the private sector. It puts pressure on the government sector to deliver, and significantly affects our GST receipts. We cannot afford to lose significant numbers of skilled Territorians. We have a small population base. We need to keep our skilled and trained Territorians, and keep their incomes and their spending here.
We have, as I acknowledged, a slight natural increase in births, which is good. However, newborns demand money and services from government. We want babies here, but we have to recognise a baby being born is not the same as a fully skilled and trained Territorian working and contributing to the economy. They are fantastic, but there is a difference in how newborns affect the budget.
We need to look at our overseas migration, which is tracking okay, but we need to keep an eye on it. The net interstate migration is a huge concern. The implications for that around spending on goods and services, having fewer taxpayers, fewer heads to be counted for GST and perhaps a greater reliance on the feds are all concerns about the Territory economy. Yet for all this we do not see a CLP population strategy.
At the same time our unemployment rate has crept up from 3.9% to 4.7%. It is concerning that increase is happening now with INPEX and its current state. We have growing pressures on the Territory economy, growing pressures on the budget, and we do not think this CLP has the answers for issues linked to population, labour force figures or infrastructure spending. These things are of significant concern.
Page 11 of Budget Paper No 2 says the surplus in 2017-18 reflects lower levels of infrastructure spending.
This government is planning to spend less on infrastructure after this budget and the INPEX construction phase. We do not think that is a realistic plan from this government. I do not believe that is the government’s plan. From talking with the Business minister – I will not put words in his mouth, but I do not think the Business minister agrees that slashing infrastructure spending post this budget is the answer for the Territory.
A fragile budget surplus is predicted for 2017-18. It is based around a vulnerable GST figure not just from population, but radically different estimates for the GST between the Territory and the Commonwealth Treasuries and GST receipts, particularly in the 2017-18 year. It is a fragile surplus because it is based on the CLP government cutting infrastructure spending and a difference in projections for the …
Mr CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, as interesting as this speech is for those people at home, as I am sure it is to those who are listening, you are coming very close to breaching two standing orders. One is Standing Order 70, tedious repetition, and the other is Standing Order 67, digression from subject. I ask that you remain within the bounds of the committee report; this is a response to the committee report. In regard to Standing Order 70, you have established, on a number of occasions, a number of facts. I ask that you move on or you sit down and discontinue your speech.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Talking about the conversation I had with the Treasurer in the Estimates Committee process, and the Commonwealth budget books, which I am touching on for the first time, which have a completely different projection around the GST to the Territory government’s books, we are very concerned about the fragile nature of the CLP surplus. We also saw, during estimates, a difference of opinion about when the Palmerston hospital will come online.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer both said it would be the third quarter of 2018. That is the financial year of 2018-19. The Health minister is convinced he will be delivering it in May 2017-18, which is obviously a different financial year. If the Palmerston hospital comes online in May of 2017-18, with the doctors, nurses and other staff being employed for that hospital prior to May, you would believe – they are not going to start on day one of that – they will have to be paid.
In the forward estimates the Treasurer has made it clear that money for the Palmerston hospital, whether it is new or taken from Royal Darwin, is happening in 2018-19. So we have this incredibly fragile surplus built based on cuts to infrastructure spending, fragile GST receipts, and a Palmerston hospital that will not come online until the third quarter of 2018, in the 2018-19 financial year. This government will have to find money for the Palmerston hospital if the Health minister is true to his word and brings it on board in May. There is a significant concern that the surplus in these budget books cannot be met.
If the Palmerston hospital comes online, the Commonwealth is accurate with its GST projections and the CLP has a different response to the post-INPEX construction phase than slashing infrastructure spending, that surplus will be gone. That surplus will not be met at all. We have examined, through the estimates committee and the budget books, the clear fragility of the CLP projections.
We do not think the CLP has a plan when it comes to fixing the problems in the short-term for the Territory economy because we have seen five Treasurers since 2012. We have seen two Chief Ministers and a brief minister; we have seen three different people, technically, in that chair, and we have had ten reshuffles under Chief Minister Giles alone. We have seen a significant changing of the seats.
We have massive concerns about what this government is planning for the things that underpin the Territory’s economy and budget. We have significant concerns about the honesty of the government and its refusal to answer questions to provide information they should be prepared for during the Estimates Committee process.
The latest Sensis business confidence index reflects the worry that business has with this government. This government has slipped into negative territory when it comes to the confidence of small- and medium-sized businesses in their ability to handle the Territory economy in their policies. Worry is creeping in because they can see this government has no plan. They can see this government is not addressing the post-INPEX construction phase. These are significant concerns.
Moving on from the budget, I need to talk briefly about the Police minister and the concerns we had about police numbers. The CLP made a clear election promise of 120 extra police. We have had 15 in three years. I cannot see how they can meet 100 extra cops over and above attrition in the time available to them. They are breaking their promise when it comes to police numbers …
Mr CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I draw to your attention that you cannot move on from the budget. This is a budget debate. I bring you back to the budget and the Appropriation Bill. As fascinating as you and members on your side might find this, it better serves another day and debate. This is about the Appropriation Bill, and the Estimates Committee, so please, bring it back to the budget, or sit down.
Mr GUNNER: This was obviously discussed during the Estimates Committee process, Mr Chair, and while I said I was moving on from the budget, I meant moving on from my conversation with the Treasurer. We obviously have concerns around the CLP’s ability to deliver on its election promise about police numbers and its ability with the budget.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I listened to that contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. Even the lights are too bored to stay on. Moreover, it demonstrated the lack of preparation he put in to what should have been an important speech. He meandered around, which is essentially how the process was followed by most of the shadow ministers, with the possible exception of the members for Wanguri and Nhulunbuy, who both impressed me with their preparation for the questions they asked, particularly the member for Nhulunbuy who took the time to match annual reports to budget papers. To that end, she has demonstrated a clear understanding of how the budget process works. I lay my congratulations on the table.
However, I am less impressed with the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly has struggled with the idea of how the budget process works. I want to put to bed now, once and for all, the matter he raised in relation to the issue they are focusing on, which is when the Palmerston hospital will open. I am quite confident of my May 2018 date. I have a $100 bet going with the Chief Minister that I will meet that deadline. I will be more than happy to collect my $100 from the Chief Minister in May 2018.
The assertion that somehow that magically upsets the budget and the surplus is so much hokum. It was texted to the member for Nhulunbuy when she was trying to make that assertion. It should be texted again to the Leader of the Opposition because there are a number of vehicles available to government to deal with those issues, which will not threaten the surplus. I am more than confident that the surplus in several years’ time will not be threatened by the hospital being completed in May 2018.
I was, however, disappointed that while the member for Nhulunbuy had taken the time out to read some annual reports and budget papers, she had not read the agreement between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth in relation to the rolling out of the hospital site. It was clear when she did not admit, but did not deny, that she had not read the agreement that she started to fall apart. If we applied ourselves to the agreement in the way the member for Nhulunbuy and other members opposite suggest we should, then we would commit ourselves to a 60-bed hospital. We are providing 116 beds.
We have from the members opposite this assertion that we should have a 60-bed hospital because we should laboriously adhere to an agreement. They select some elements of the agreement and talk about them without addressing other elements and at least acknowledging that we are building a hospital of near twice the bed capacity as the one they proposed some time ago. There is, of course, flexibility built into the agreement to enable us to do so. It is in the terms of the agreement.
The site was chosen to enable sufficient growth for future development of the hospital. Their former site, which was slightly closer to the Palmerston town centre, would have consumed, with the building of a 60-bed hospital, half the site. As a consequence, if you allow then for car parks and a few other things, even if that had doubled at some point in the future, the pressure within a few years on a growing area – one of the fastest-growing cities in Australia as I understand it – would mean the hospital site would be full within, I imagine, a decade or so.
Identifying a 45 ha site enables not only the hospital to have room for future growth, but may enable some other investor or future organisation to seek space on the same site, or in a similar area. There is a capacity to offer to the people of Palmerston a raft of services in the future. That is an important thing to contemplate when you are looking at a hospital site.
The comparison is the Royal Darwin site, which was operational in 1980. At that time it looked like a very tall building in the middle of a paddock. There is not much room left now on the Royal Darwin Hospital grounds for future development and expansion. Consequently, we know full well that if you have a growth rate such as the one in Palmerston and the rural area, we have to allow for future growth.
It is for that reason we chose not to build the hospital on the site the former Labor government chose, but to build a hospital on a site which is substantially larger and will provide a larger range of services to the people of the Northern Territory, particularly, to those of Palmerston and its surrounds. I also point out that for all the noise they made about the hospital, there was no doubt, even from their own paperwork prior to the change of government, that they had made all sorts of promises they either could not keep or had never intended to keep.
The other thing I point out about the process of estimates is that preparation is most of your work. I was surprised to hear the member for Wanguri say, ‘Oh, we do not get enough time with certain ministers’. I express my dismay at that assertion. The year before last when we delivered our first budget on coming to government, we gave members opposite unlimited time with any minister they chose. Because of their lack of discipline, they suddenly found they had consumed nearly 40 of the 55 or 60 hours available on the Chief Minister and Treasurer alone, which left them with almost no time for other ministers. They screamed from the rafters asserting it was an outrageous thing to give them this flexibility so we should put time frames in place. Last year we did and this year we put the same time frames in place, only to hear now the member for Wanguri complaining they do not have enough time with certain ministers.
You either get it or you do not get it. If you want time with certain ministers, then ask for a system which is the one we originally introduced upon coming to government. You cannot stand here with a straight face and assert you need more time with certain ministers when you demanded that time limits be imposed. That is precisely the call that was made and is what we introduced last year. Now one year later on we hear calls for time limits to be opened up so you can inquire of ministers about their portfolio areas because some ministers carry a slightly larger portfolio burden than others. I find the approach of the members opposite both inconsistent and baffling because of this ever-changing expectation that it is never good enough no matter how we try to accommodate them and give them as much latitude as we can.
I was also surprised about a number of detailed questions I heard that would have been better served if notice had been given prior to being asked during the estimates process. If you are interested in how many paper clips the health clinic at Papunya or the police station at Lajamanu consumes, then write us a quick letter and we will find that information so when the question comes up, we can answer it. There were a number of generic questions written, but as you listened to the estimates process, what you started to see was an absence of discipline in how matters are pursued. That absence of discipline decays into a conversational environment.
I draw members’ attention particularly to the exchange between the member for Barkly and Bill Freeland from the EPA. At one stage the member for Barkly said he enjoyed conversations with scientists. That may be true and is fine, but if you are trying to test the directions of government, then asking how to drive a car and where to put the petrol is not what you should be doing. What should be occurring in your mind’s eye is, ‘How would I drive the car better than the people in government?’ All you were doing then was wasting time in the estimates process having a conversation.
I did not hear from members opposite at any point during the estimates process how they would drive the car of government. We spent 55 hours speaking about how we drive the car of government. I will hear all sorts of opinions as to how well people describe their role in the driver’s seat. What I heard from the members opposite was they have no plan to even get a licence, and if they have a licence, they have no plan for how or where that car is to be driven.
An absence of policy and the ability to articulate a contrary position to the government demonstrated by the repeated phrase, ‘We are asking the questions and you have to answer them’, when challenged on this issue demonstrates they are more than happy to criticise the driver of the car but not to get a licence themselves.
I was also surprised at the trivialities engaged in. When you think we have a $6.5bn budget or thereabouts over the next year, much of which can be found in the appropriation – some money comes from other sources – you can understand you would be asking questions about some of the big picture stuff we are doing.
The fact we did not even discuss Top End Health Services in my portfolio area surprised me a little because it is a spend of hundreds of millions of dollars. What attracted extended questioning was the purchase of lanyards in the department of child protection. Out of all the issues I could find to ask questions about in the Department of Children and Families, what surprises me the most is you would focus on the purchase of some lanyards. Seriously? That is the most important thing you could ask about from opposition in relation to what we are doing in the Department of Children and Families? Lanyards?
If I was an average Territorian sitting in my lounge room being a foster parent or a person who had lost my child to the child protection system, trying to find out what government was doing, where it was failing, where it was succeeding, and listening to the questioning from the members of the alternative government, and heard the best they could hint at was they have a lanyard policy – you have lost focus if that is where you want to go.
I suspect the signal was meant to be, ‘We have a source inside the department’. Bully for you. There are 20 000 public servants and I imagine some of them will have sympathies in certain directions. That is up to them. Realistically speaking, if you try to show off that you have a source in a department you will have to do better than lanyards because it does not impress anybody. It certainly does not impress me. Good, well-considered questions should be treated with respect. Bad, ill-considered questions are irritating because they do not serve the people we serve.
Another example of the introspection of the members opposite is the business about me going to departments. I have done that from day dot. It is no surprise. I presume union members working in the department have fed this back through to the CPSU, which then made an issue of it in a newspaper article. In other jurisdictions quite often the department and the minister occupy the same building. We have something quite unique in the Northern Territory in that the executive arm of government occupies space in Parliament House.
That is not always the case. I cannot immediately think of too many instances where it is the case. Perhaps the Australian parliament is a good example, where the ministers occupy an office inside Parliament House. They will have their member’s office, but their ministerial office will be in an office building somewhere in the CBD or around the city. Often those departments are in the same building. I can tell you from personal experience that the Attorney-General’s department and the Attorney-General’s office are in the Sydney CBD, and neither of those things is in Parliament House.
It is quite possible for the Attorney-General to walk through his department on a regular basis. It happens all the time. There is nothing unusual in this. Frankly it concerns me deeply that I am hearing from members opposite that they will not visit their departments because they might upset a union member or some other person with their presence.
You are effectively saying the only conduit of information in government you will accept is one person, your own CEO. I have great faith and trust in all my CEOs. Nevertheless, it is always useful to get more than one opinion when you are hearing about an issue. I am not suggesting for one second that people should be coming up to me telling me everything that is happening in the department; I am not interested in that, but it is nice to see what actually happens inside departments.
Do I go into operational areas of the department of child protection? Hell, no. I would not do that. If somebody is dealing with a child they have just taken away from their family or an angry parent, the last thing they need is the minister traipsing through the joint. I will always give good warning of my impending arrival into an operational area, but an administrative section like Health House I will walk through regularly. An administrative section like DCF here in town where there are never any clients, I walk through all the time.
Do I go through the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice? At least once a week; it is probably not that much now that I have Health, but very regularly. With Corrections it is the same deal; I do it all the time and talk to people on the floor. I am starting to know these people. I am starting to be able to ask them about their kids and dogs. Those people can tell me things they are doing in their world. The vast majority of them, I suspect, are happy to see me and proud to tell me about the work they do, unabashed and unworried that I happen to have the title of ‘minister’.
Nevertheless, for some reason the members opposite have signalled they will never visit any of the public servants who work for them and it is inappropriate to talk to them at any time.
Ms Fyles: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: Why do you object to me visiting my departments if the answer to that is rubbish?
Mr Tollner: Because they walk both sides of the street. The word ‘hypocrisy’ comes up. It is not appropriate for you to visit but they should.
Mr CHAIR: Order! Attorney-General, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the Treasurer because he is exactly right. They see the public service, for whatever reason, as their domain. Woe betide that anybody from another political stripe should condescend to visiting a department, or alternatively, and much more likely, the CPSU decides to have a whinge about me because I do not agree with their world view. In lockstep with the CPSU the members opposite say, ‘The CPSU is right and the minister is wrong, as we will always say’. Who will be the new government of the Northern Territory should the Labor party be elected, the members opposite or the CPSU?
Mr Tollner: It will be the CPSU.
Mr ELFERINK: It will be the CPSU. The CPSU does not like me because from time to time I say a word the Labor Party hates to say to the union movement, which is ‘no’.
I will continue to do what is necessary to govern for the people of the Northern Territory. As a consequence, my rating of most of what I heard during the estimates process is not a high one in relation to the members opposite. The work which should have been done in advance was not done. The execution of the work done was not really that strident, but much more importantly, they focused on peripheral matters rather than the core ones that are important to the people of the Northern Territory. Focusing on the purchase of lanyards and ministers visiting departments, and not reading important documents before you come into the estimates process, shows a level of ill-preparedness that reflects an ill-preparedness for government.
Ms MOSS: Mr Chair, I start by acknowledging the hard work of the public servants, not only on a daily basis, but in preparing for and participating in the estimates process, often into the night. It is an important process to ensure the scrutiny of this bill and provide further information to Territorians about the government’s priorities, challenges and achievements. It was interesting to hear the member for Port Darwin talk about some of the questions we asked about child protection, because there was an incredible number of questions which were very important to a range of stakeholders, including foster carers. Many of those questions were taken on notice as they could not be answered in that session. I will talk a little more about that in a minute.
Thank you to the public servants for all the work they have done to provide detail about agency activities. There is a lot of good work being done around government by public servants, and we acknowledge that. I also acknowledge, as my colleagues have done, that there will be a plethora of questions provided to the government in writing on a range of issues about government. It has been a very full-on two weeks. There were further questions raised as a result of estimates.
I too will comment on what I saw in the sessions last Tuesday with the Chief Minister. I was watching that session. This is my first estimates process so I watched as many sessions as I could throughout the two weeks to get a grasp of what conversations were taking place. I recall the comment from the Chief Minister about hoping that the estimates process would be more tasteful than the previous one. He then proceeded to talk extremely slowly through a range of documents that had been asked for in advance. He used props, and basically make a spectacle of the process from the outset.
Territorians were watching that. Territorians have spoken to us about what they saw. That is what they see from the leader of the Northern Territory, that when you guys are asked really important questions it is okay to make a mockery of the process. They are disgusted with what they saw on Tuesday, as we are.
The questions about ministerial travel are important. We have further questions. We have heard a lot of new information this week. We also asked a number of questions on ministerial travel which were not answered, so I am sure there is more information to come. Taxpayers want to know they are getting good outcomes for the money they spend. They recognise there is a role for travel, research, study and meeting people who are running initiatives in other states and territories, or even across the world. They want to see the outcomes. They want to know we are being up front about the travel we take as members of parliament. They are important questions. When a mockery is made by the Chief Minister of those questions and that process, quite frankly it is embarrassing.
I thank my colleagues for their support in helping me to prepare for my first estimates process. I will turn to my shadow portfolio areas in a moment, but I want to mention that we have not seen any serious investment in any of the recommendations from the Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Select Committee. Over 20 recommendations were made. This is an incredibly important issue in the Territory. It was important enough for parliament to create a select committee, yet it is hard to put your finger on any resources that have been allocated to any agency for implementing those recommendations.
I sit on the select committee for the government’s response to the ice issue we are seeing across the Territory. It is hard to find any kind of allocation of resources to recommendations that might come out of that committee. When we see national media focusing on the NT and stating we have the third-highest rate of incarcerating people of any region in the world, that makes me really sad. It made me feel incredibly ashamed to watch that last night, and to think that currently we have a government that does not take investment in prevention and early intervention particularly seriously. We have seen cuts to youth and community services, and services that deal with substance abuse.
Let us get serious about having a better vision for the Territory’s future. If we can keep finding the money to keep people locked up in the justice system, then surely we can find money to invest in our community and get people engaged in the positive areas of our community like education, jobs and meaningful activities.
On to my shadow portfolios of mental health and Disability services, it is clear that the NDIS, as it should be, is an important focus of the Office of Disability and the sector. There have been a number of media reports relating to issues around the Barkly trial. It is just that, it is a trial, and I hope to hear more about the lessons we learn from it as it continues. I feel we have the opportunity to really shape the future of how this scheme is rolled out across the country and in remote areas.
I hope to see further investment in the area of mental health. I have made no secret of that. More importantly, how we can identify issues early and make that connection to appropriate services. In the last six months a national review into mental health services has been released, and I look forward to hearing more information about how this might be considered going forward. There is a lot to be done, particularly in remote service delivery areas, across both of those portfolio areas.
I was quite excited to hear about the potential advocacy roles in mental health in Alice Springs and Darwin. I hope it is an initiative that works and is rolled out more broadly. I look forward to some more information about that.
I really appreciate the time spent with the Corporate and Information Services department. Quite often we take Corporate and Information Services for granted, but let us be honest, we really could not operate many things without the work of our ICT workforce. I look forward to asking more questions of the minister on how we are up-skilling and growing our ICT workforce in the Northern Territory. That is something the ICT workforce is quite interested in hearing about as well.
Across my portfolios of Youth, Seniors and Multicultural Affairs, I have a number of questions I will be providing in writing, particularly in relation to seniors. We have an ageing population. The cost of living is a huge issue and a major reason why we lose many of our older Territorians.
I had a keen interest in continuing the discussion around neighbourhood activity centres. It is an initiative in the member for Sanderson’s electorate which has attracted a $1.2m investment. The minister sees it as a way to address issues such as suicide amongst older Territorians and school attendance amongst youth at risk. It is a huge undertaking. There are considerable outcomes the minister is expecting from this initiative, but there is still very little detail around the evidence upon which it is based. It seems, at this point, to be based a lot on the minister’s personal experiences. I do not want to belittle that; he has had very important experiences, but I want to see more of the evidence base behind something that has attracted such a massive investment.
I hope it is the start of an ongoing and open discussion around the initiative, particularly given the struggles of the youth and community sectors, which have really struggled under the important cuts over the last three years from the CLP government. I hope to see more detail from the government around the formal consultation that has happened on that concept.
For the Department of Children and Families, I thank the minister for his openness during the estimates process. It is an enormous area, a very concerning area, and a complex and difficult one for any government. However, it is still a huge concern that the number of notifications in the child protection system continues to rise significantly. They have almost doubled in the last five years yet there was a drop in staffing levels of 28.
The minister has acknowledged the many difficulties of the portfolio area, which we appreciate; however, it is a concern that the budget for investigations in the child protection system does not seem to reflect the significant increases in current and future workloads. These were important questions we asked, and that stakeholders expect us to ask, because it is on top of caseloads that continue to rise across the Territory. We heard about those rising caseloads during estimates.
We now know the regional executive director position for the Katherine region has been vacant for three months. We are waiting for the second round of recruitment action to commence. It is critical that this is a priority because those child protection workers need leadership and support in Katherine and the surrounding regions to deal with this increasing workload.
We acknowledge quite an important incident occurred during that session, which the minister had to attend to. It is unclear what stage we are at with the recruitment of the new permanent Children’s Commissioner. I stress it is important the role is filled as soon as possible and there is a fair, transparent and open process for that position, particularly given the challenges we see in the child protection system. It is so important that we have that independent watchdog able to provide a balanced view and scrutiny of the activities of the department, particularly as we have a backlog within the child protection system. We do not have the additional resources to deal with that backlog. They are sometimes automatically allocated to child protection workers. It depends on the speed in which child protection workers get to those cases. I still hold huge concerns about what will happen to children whose cases are in that backlog.
Housing was a very interesting session. There are other important areas I look forward to presenting to the minister, particularly in relation to visitor parks in Alice Springs and housing in the Cyclone Lam and Nathan affected areas. It would seem at present there is no real vision or certainty around the future of visitor parks in Alice Springs, regardless of how important they are. I was hopeful I would have the opportunity to ask those questions; however, as raised by my colleagues, a number of documents that would previously have been tabled, the minister insisted on reading out during that session.
Staffing – year on year since the CLP government came into office we have seen significant job losses. There has been a loss of 71 FTEs in what is a vital service delivery area for Territorians. There was a lot of confusion around the cause of that, so I look forward to clarifying it. The minister tried to shut down that conversation by insinuating staffing was not a question related to the budget, which I was glad we were able to work through. There are a number of workload reviews happening in housing so I would like to ask more questions about that as well.
Wait times have grown approximately 37% across the Territory since 2012 on a one-bedroom non-pensioner dwelling. This is pretty much the same across all dwelling types, and the repairs and maintenance budget for 2015-16 is less than it was in 2012-13. The length of vacancy is increasing. We also hope to get an answer in relation to the impact on wait lists from the relocation of 80 tenants from Kurringal, particularly when other areas of social housing delivery seem to be significantly slowing.
I want to provide some of those figures. In Alice Springs it is now 87 months that people have to wait for one of those houses. That is an enormous amount of time and it is growing. We did not get a succinct answer about what is being done to try to decrease those wait lists for some of our most disadvantaged Territorians. We saw 95 new social houses budgeted for in 2014-15 with only 18 delivered. It will take the CLP government more than two years to deliver what was promised in one year, and even that depends on the CLP meeting the targets for this year.
I have acknowledged there will be a range of written questions provided to the government, but I would like to remind the members opposite that there were some incredibly important questions asked yesterday on behalf of Territorians and stakeholders which were not answered. We look forward to more detail on those matters.
I really appreciated the opportunity to ask those questions on my shadow portfolio areas, and again I thank the public servants who helped that process along.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, I also add my thanks, as other colleagues have, to the many people involved in the running of the annual estimates process. I thank the staff from the Legislative Assembly for their efficiency and patience over what were some very late nights, although not as late as they were a couple of years ago, thank goodness. I thank the many public servants who work hard behind the scenes in the lead-up to estimates and on the day they appear with their minister. I observed that when there was a changeover of public servants as we change from an output, those public servants going out the door looked a little happier and a bit relieved compared to the public servants I saw arriving in the lift ready to take up their seats where they know they have some hard work in front of them supporting their minister.
I thank the members of the PAC. I commend the member for Drysdale for her chairing of the PAC for the third year. She is clearly quite comfortable in the role as she makes good, sensible decisions. I know, because I have been in that chair as the deputy, that sometimes you have your work cut out for you in trying to get things back on track. Congratulations to the member for Drysdale. I also thank the member for Blain for his efforts, and I congratulate you, Mr Chair, as a PAC member, for your work in answering questions for ministers and trying to get conversations and lines of questioning back on track. It was most interesting to observe how you worked this year. I am sure your colleagues are eternally grateful to you.
I commend the members for Wanguri and Nightcliff for their efforts. There are very long hours if you are on the PAC committee, and if you are a PAC committee member in opposition you have, in addition to your PAC duties, those of a shadow minister; to my two colleagues, well done. They are also the two colleagues on this side of the House who have very young children, one an infant, and juggling those responsibilities with family is no small feat. The member for Drysdale might be taking some tips from the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri as to how to manage those things because she may well find herself in that boat next year. Unless, of course, she finds herself elevated into Cabinet, in which case it is a whole new kettle of fish.
I thank the ministers who came before the Estimates Committee. We saw varying degrees of preparation and preparedness to answer questions. This is a process that is about openness, transparency and accountability. We should never lose sight of that and the knowledge that whilst we might just have a microphone in front of us, those microphones transmit a stream out to the whole world, as do the cameras within the Litchfield Room. It is not just media watching; Territorians and the public service are watching. It is not just about those who are in the room; it is about the messages that get taken outside. People will make their own judgements on the basis of what they hear and see.
I am not sure I am feeling entirely satisfied that the estimates process has really delivered what it is supposed to, which is an opportunity to provide openness and transparency about the government’s appropriation, the budget. With ministers answering questions with a mixture of written queries provided in advance and those asked in the course of going through each budget output, disappointingly – not just for those of us who were asking questions from opposition but for hard-working public servants and members of the public – too often ministers simply chose not to cooperate, not to participate in estimates in the spirit of how it should operate, and not table answers to written questions. I commend the Speaker, the member for Goyder, who happily, as the first member of the government appearing before the PAC, was happy to table answers to her questions. There were ministers, not the least of whom was the Chief Minister, who did their utmost to avoid the very scrutiny estimates is designed to provide. How shameful it was to watch some of those performances.
The most shameful of all performances was, without a doubt, the Chief Minister’s. How he magically remains in his role as Chief Minister, even though nine of his colleagues do not support him and only five do, I do not know. I cannot help but wonder whether after this week those numbers might shift, given his very ordinary performance on what he knew he would be asked. Questions were provided in advance about ministerial travel, which is a very hot topic in the Territory right now. His behaviour was schoolboy-like, with the use of props and deliberately reading on to the record pages and pages of information that could so easily have been tabled.
‘Schoolboy-like’ reminds me how, during the Education session, the member for Brennan, the Education minister, made the observation that it is Year 9 boys who are the most difficult to deal with as they can be the naughtiest. There were a few nods in the room. As an ex-school teacher I remember Year 9 boys. That is what I thought of as I watched the Chief Minister – a naughty Year 9 boy who was not prepared to cooperate. I have seen a picture of him online recently with his mullet haircut from his school days. I pictured him with his mullet haircut, sitting in the back of the English classroom, rocking on a chair, which is what Year 9 boys do. That is the image I have of the Chief Minister following his performance in estimates.
I daresay, the whole ministerial travel saga, the shameful and extraordinary sums of taxpayers’ dollars to send ministers, their advisers and their mates on overseas junkets, will unravel and come to light of day even though the Chief Minister and his colleagues have done their very best to cover things up and avoid the truth. Such monumental failings are not sustainable. I sincerely hope the truth about this dreadful episode in the CLP’s term with a complete lack of transparency on big travel budgets will come to light. It simply has to.
We are not anti-travel; travel is an important part of the job. The member for Katherine, in his role as Primary Industry minister, has done good things as a result of his travels. No one is saying do not travel but when we do not get transparency about the purpose of the trip, who was part of it and why the bills were so substantial – it is basic stuff around being accountable.
I will not be able to address in detail all the portfolios I went through, given the time I have, but I will start with Attorney-General and Justice. I welcomed the opportunity to hear from the Attorney-General about plans afoot to build up, within his agency, the Domestic Violence Directorate. I see this as a step in the right direction towards addressing and reducing unacceptably high levels of family and domestic violence in the Northern Territory which continue to grow. Overall, our statistics are unacceptable and it is a critical issue that needs to be dealt with.
In my discussion with the Attorney-General during estimates I noted that while domestic violence assaults have dropped in places like Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, which is obviously very reassuring, at the same time, for women and children escaping domestic violence – and I refer specifically to Alice Springs – places like the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter continue to see an increase in demand for their service. While crime statistics will tell a certain story, there are other statistics that come from the providers of crisis accommodation like the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter that show the demand is such that they continue to turn away, in increasing numbers, those who come to their door.
The Attorney-General agreed with me about that. He asked me whether that meant we would be funding more beds for women and children escaping domestic violence. I put to him the answer that I had heard from Dale Wakefield, who runs that centre in Alice Springs, because it is an incredibly sensible approach. You really need to invest that money at the front end, in prevention and education programs, real stuff to try to prevent these things from happening rather than dealing with the crisis end all the time. This is where government spends too much time. There is a huge body of work around the Domestic Violence Directorate. It is across 11 agencies and is a whole-of-government approach.
I chose to ask these questions of the Attorney-General because I know he is a hard-working minister, and he really considers what the issues and challenges are across his portfolio areas. For that reason I did not follow with continued questioning into the area of women’s policy. When minister Price came before the Estimates Committee she had a lot of important questions she needed to answer. As a bush member I know of matters around failings in housing and local government, where budgets have been cut and services are not being delivered. So we made a decision as to where we directed our energy. I was pleased the member for Barkly was able to use that time.
Mrs Price interjecting.
To be honest with you I had very little faith in the member for Stuart’s ability to answer questions. That realisation came to fruition later in the night around statehood. Given the questions I might have asked the member for Stuart around Women’s Policy, one of the most important things being domestic violence, I was satisfied, having had the discussion with the Attorney-General around this important issue, that I did not need to pursue that with the member for Stuart. To be honest with you if I had asked questions of the member for Stuart as the Women’s Policy minister, I doubt she could have answered them. I heard her appear before the Senate hearings into domestic and family violence a couple of months ago ...
Mrs Price: I am the Minister for Women’s Policy. You never asked me questions.
Ms WALKER: You will get your turn in a moment, minister. For someone who normally does not like talking or answering questions, you are rather vocal over there at the moment. Mr Chair, you might ask the white noise over there if she could cease interrupting for a moment.
Mrs Price: I will tell the Yolgnu women you are being racist.
Mr CHAIR: Order, minister! Member for Nhulunbuy, you have the call.
Ms WALKER: I would ask the member to withdraw that. It is highly offensive.
Mr CHAIR: I did not hear it.
Ms WALKER: She accused me of being racist. I would ask her to withdraw, please.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, it is a serious allegation. You can make it by substantive motion but in the spirit of this debate, I ask that you withdraw.
Mrs PRICE: She comes in with an angry face every time she confronts me.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, please.
Mrs PRICE: I will refrain from saying it next time but I do get offended as well.
Ms WALKER: She has been asked to withdraw, Mr Chair.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, I do ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mrs PRICE: I withdraw.
Ms WALKER: I did not hear her, could she stand and speak into the microphone.
Mr CHAIR: I heard it, she has withdrawn it. Please, member for Nhulunbuy, you have the call.
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
In terms of pursuing a line of questioning with the member for Stuart, I have little faith she can answer questions. I might have liked to have asked her questions about whether she has approached the federal Treasurer on the removal of GST on sanitary items but I suspect she would have turned to the man next to her to ask him for an answer. I might have asked her whether or not she would back Rosie Batty, who is calling to have domestic violence leave enshrined within entitlements as a basic safety measure, but I suspect she would not have known what I was talking about. I did not pursue Women’s Policy because there are no answers from this current minister.
Going back to the area of Health, Palmerston Regional Hospital featured quite a bit in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition and I raised questions about when exactly the Palmerston Regional Hospital will be opened. Will it be May 2018 as the Health minister says or will it be in September or October 2018, which is what the Chief Minister and Treasurer claim. Even as late as this afternoon, in his reply, the Health minister was standing his ground yet again saying it will be May 2018, even though the Chief Minister said after the Health minister’s time in estimates said, ‘No, I know he is very passionate but it will be September or October 2018’.
To hear the Health minister say there is a $100 wager between him and the Chief Minister on the exact opening date of the Palmerston Regional Hospital provides me with absolutely no confidence as to when this hospital will open and even less confidence that the Cabinet of the CLP government really know what they are doing.
I was really concerned to hear about some of the cuts now being inflicted as a result of the savage federal cuts last year. Minister Lambley, the former Health minister, had flagged some of these cuts coming. To see $4m in cuts to a vital Health program around sexual health for Indigenous teenagers is devastating. I condemn the Abbott government and the self-proclaimed Prime Minister for Indigenous Territorians. It is disgraceful.
Equally unforgiveable is the $1.5m cut from the much-needed renal dialysis service which impacts directly on the Western Desert Dialysis services, which is now partnering with Miwatj in my electorate. However, to add insult to injury the Health minister said that he did not have a magic wand and may not be able to look after kidney failure in the future. He also entered into dialogue about where the responsibility lies and blaming patients for their behaviour and resulting medical conditions. I find that disgraceful, knowing there are people who suffer chronic disease, particularly Indigenous Territorians, and that we have a growing need for renal dialysis. That really worries me.
As for the AMT program, what can you say? The Health minister, as did his predecessor, refuses to enter into an independent, at arm’s length review of the AMT service. We see incredibly flimsy reports released quarterly with very basic data about how many people are in AMT. We do not see any record of success other than the occasional anecdote. These quarterly reports on AMT are next to useless. If the government is so confident its AMT system is working, which involved millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, then it needs to support it with an evidence-based approach. If they genuinely thought it was working they would say, ‘No worries, we will go to an independent review’.
The fact that the Health minister said the review can be done internally shows he misses the point entirely. By doing it internally he has his own hard-working public servants produce a report which he then decides whether or not he wants to release and what should be in it. That is not an independent report. The Menzies School of Health – I do not know who else is out there – one of the universities or a tertiary institution would be ably qualified. It is not to say there is a lack of expertise within the Department of Health because I know there is not, but this is what tertiary institutions do; it is their job. It is the job of this government to provide an evidence-based approach to substantiate the millions of taxpayer dollars that go into this system.
Interestingly, towards the end of his session the Health minister had been obviously slipped a note that said if they were to review it, it would cost in the vicinity of $100 000 to $200 000. He was dismissing that as far too costly. For me $100 000 to $200 000 is a very worthwhile investment into a government program which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars; a figure of $100 000 to $200 000 into that type of research pales into insignificance when we see what this government spends on ministerial travel, which we still do not have answers for about who went, where they went, why they went and who paid the bar bills. It is woeful that the Health minister and the CLP government will not commit to it other than to say maybe after it has been operating for three or four years. How very convenient you will not do that before an election.
I thank the Minister for Public Employment and the commissioner for coming before the Estimates Committee. We know the firies’ EBA remains outstanding, and I pleaded with the member for Katherine to take a message back to the Minister for Health that he really needs to get the paramedics’ EBA resolved. It is not the responsibility of government, but our ambos are working on the front line putting their lives at risk every day. I got a nod and a smile from the member for Katherine so I hope he took that back.
I had a lot of questions about WorkSafe NT and am waiting to hear back. There is nothing more important than worker safety. It is critical we see a balance with not only education, but the sending of strong messages to industry and workplaces that they must look after worker safety.
Mr VOWLES: Mr Chair, I contribute as the shadow for numerous portfolios. I thank all the staff who contributed to running the estimates process, and the committee, who worked tirelessly over the last couple of weeks, with long hours, a lot of preparation and a lot of listening to the same questions. To not have global questions we provided earlier to the ministers answered was concerning. It is something we need to address in the process. I thank most of the ministers who took the time to answer questions in an informative, open and honest way. That is what the people expect from the estimates process.
I thank the Minister for Mines and Energy for a very good session. The main point was hydraulic fracturing and the Hawke report. We tried to get a time when the review will be done by Dr Hawke. I am looking forward, as are Territorians, to that review coming out and the regulatory framework that will be implemented into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory.
We got some answers. I believe no licences for hydraulic fracturing have been approved since the minister has become the new Minister for Mines and Energy, which is interesting. I believe the government is doing the right thing by waiting for the review, because Dr Hawke is a very renowned person in this field. His original report is very good and specific, and has many recommendations that need to be implemented. We look forward to the review of hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory.
I move on to Indigenous Policy. I welcome any announcement that will improve Aboriginal people’s opportunity to have economic growth in their communities, be they remote or urban. The creation of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is a great start. It has taken nearly three years for the government to figure out we need an Indigenous-specific office. It is the way forward; it should have been the way forward from the start. We had some good programs in place. Just because there has been a change in government or political parties does not mean it was not working. I welcome that. I always welcome any initiative improving Indigenous people’s lives in the Northern Territory.
I will comment on the $155m from the feds to deliver outstation services. On this side we have serious concerns about this government taking control of that. There have been some very positive outcomes from this government, and I highlight the Tiwi Islands. Opportunities always need to be given to Indigenous people. The concern about the $155m – we need to see the detail of it and what it entails.
We have heard the talk about the closure of Aboriginal communities in WA due to the lack of federal funding. So when the government is offering $155m and the Chief Minister has said he welcomes the takeover of this, what is the ongoing funding agreement? The Treasurer has said in the media over the last couple of weeks that we need to see the details of that.
It is very important for remote Aboriginal people to know about the services that will be provided to them. We held our Caucus at Wadeye a couple of weeks ago and the two main issues we heard about were housing and the price of electricity. I hope they will be focused on improving people’s lives in our remote communities.
Moving on to transport, I thank minister Chandler, the member for Brennan, for a very good session. It was not as long as I wanted. I had many questions to ask, and I will be putting them in a written format to the minister at a future date. There was talk about privatisation of the Darwin Bus Service. At the time minister Chandler took over, we had had three Transport ministers in three months. There is a period when ministers are learning about their portfolios. I thank the minister and his departmental staff for being open and answering the questions I asked.
When the announcement was made about the privatisation of the bus service, government said there would be no change to conditions for the workers and nobody would be worse off. We were told in a media report last week that bus driver conditions have changed. They are earning less money and losing the opportunity to earn more money, so what the government originally said was not entirely correct. We will get to the bottom of that in future as more of the story comes out.
Regarding privatising the bus service, Territorians will be interested to know the ticketing system changed and cost taxpayers $1m. We never saw any announcement of that in the media. When asked if there is any ongoing expenditure for the Darwin Bus Service and its ticketing service, we found out that there is $700 000 ongoing per year for it.
When the government came to power it decided to charge seniors to get on the bus. At the time they said they were saving $200 000 a year. I asked the minister if he could reverse that decision because saving $200 000 a year by charging our seniors does not seem right. We are trying to keep these people in the Northern Territory and we should be looking after them. Every year I ask this, and I hope the minister can find it in his heart to change that.
I move on to the commercial passenger vehicle review regarding the taxi industry. I have had many meetings with the taxi industry. I thank the minister and his staff for the answers they provided on the review. There is one major point, which is the taxi licences. I am sure the minister’s office and the department are being inundated with taxi drivers who are for the issuing of more taxi licences, want fewer or want to keep numbers the same. I am inundated at my office on Sundays with people asking whether you will issue more taxi licences or not. I look forward to you reviewing that.
The minister said it is going through Cabinet soon. Significant time has elapsed since the review finished. At the time there were over 400 submissions received, which is a fantastic number of submissions. Taxis are people’s livelihood, business opportunities and sometimes retirement packages. I look forward to the announcement soon.
It was also interesting to note the minister’s response to my question about Uber coming to the Northern Territory. It sounded positive. I am sure it has been included in the review. Without doubt the NT Taxi Council has a strong view on this and any regulatory requirements that may need to be relaxed in the industry.
Going to Central Australia, I welcome the announcement of the upgrade to sections of the Plenty Highway, the Mereenie loop and the speedway and drag racing strips. I am sure people from around there will be very happy with that. The Summernats is there in September. I am sure a few people will be driving down …
Mr Tolner: Red CentreNATS, not Summernats; that is in Canberra.
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, Red CentreNATS, which reminds me, I will go back to transport. I asked a question about the reports on open speed limits, which have not been released publicly. There are four reports, and I asked the minister if he could table them or release them to the public.
Mr Tollner: We need to move them north a bit, Kenny.
Mr VOWLES: Open speed limits? Dave, come on.
I look forward to, hopefully, reading those reports. We keep requesting the four reports Territory taxpayers paid a consultant to write.
There is concern in Alice Springs about the closure of Stuart Lodge and the visitor accommodation that we are hearing a lot about. Some of those issues relate to accommodation not being available and extra pressure put on the hospital. There is possibly bed block happening there. I hope there is an announcement very soon about visitor accommodation because there are serious concerns …
Mrs Price: It is not closing.
Mr VOWLES: I am glad to hear the minister say it is not closing because, as the member for Stuart would know, it is very important in Alice Springs – a small community and the impact that would have, losing the positive opportunity for visiting community mob to stay there and visit family in hospital. I will welcome that announcement when it comes out, minister.
To Primary Industries, I welcome the work on lengthening the mango production season. I think $1.2m was appropriated in the budget for that. It is a massive industry and the Territory leads the way in it. A lot of work has been done by the department. I appreciate and welcome that. There was also significant work put into hay stock and fodder production. We look forward to that continuing.
Most of that session was about the green cucumber mottle mosaic virus and banana freckle. The mosaic virus, cucumber virus or melon virus, is an issue. The department and minister put out statements saying they cannot control it. We have seen media coverage over the last few days about the banana eradication program. There are still ongoing concerns. I am sure the department is working through those. There were 28 properties left a couple of weeks ago and now we are down to five. There has been a lot of media coverage on cutting down the trees in that property in Virginia.
That leads me to biosecurity, the work that is needed and is being done. A couple of years ago our government had to deal the lime tree virus. Now it is green cucumber mottle mosaic virus and banana freckle. We do not want something else coming in so we really need to focus and give biosecurity the importance it needs in the Northern Territory. Not many people know the NT produces 30% of all melons or watermelons in the country for a period of three to four months, so it is an important industry and we need to make sure our biosecurity is right.
On to Fisheries, the department is doing great work protecting our industries. It is difficult getting the right measures with commercial fisheries and how they can work with them and not impact on their businesses too much.
Barra prices have gone up since the closure of Chambers Bay. We do not mind paying a little more for our barra and chips, or barra and rice.
I look forward, along with plenty of other fishermen, to the $4.5m upgrade to the Dundee boat ramp. I think the minister said he would get back to me on how, with private land and the boat ramp, people can utilise it.
I also welcome the $2m for Shady Camp, which is a significant area for Top End fisherpeople. We need to make sure we do it right. There were concerns about some work that had been done which had increased waiting times.
I welcome the Indigenous maritime training program in Nhulunbuy. We were at Wadeye a couple of weeks ago and heard about the great work the sea rangers are doing in research, as well as protecting the pristine environment.
I thank all the staff in the department for the information they provided. As a former public servant, I know the months before estimates is a stressful time, gathering all the information. You are continuously updating the information. The amount of preparation for ministers is significant. I do not want to downplay that because, having been part of it for a few years, I know it is a significant amount of work. It is stressful and tedious. Sometimes you run out of time in estimates. I feel for the departmental people who spent hours and hours preparing. It is something we need to improve. I do not want to see all that work and information not used or made available because we ran out of time. This happened in some cases.
I appreciate the work the departmental staff did in the shadow portfolios I hold. It was an enormous effort and I applaud and thank them.
I also thank the Minister for Mines and Energy for the estimates process. We had a great couple of hours. Also, I thank the minister for Transport. I give a special thank you to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I believe the way our session ran for the four hours is what people expect from us – a respectful question and answer process where I got all the answers I needed and which made the public aware of what the Primary Industry and Fisheries department is doing, their forward planning, and what areas the opposition is looking at to hold them to account.
I thank the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, they have young children and having to be there for the entire period was a significant effort, and is something I really appreciate. Other members had to work long hours, but would finish a session and then go and work on something else, while the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri had to stay there.
Finally I thank all the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. They were fantastic and gave nothing short of exceptional support to me and the other members on this side of the House.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I acknowledge the people behind the scenes of the annual estimates process – the Legislative Assembly and Hansard staff. It is a privilege and a pleasure to work in a highly professional workspace. I have become used to that over a number of years. It is exceptional. The support you get is incredible. Everything runs extremely efficiently. The work motivates you and, as an elected community member, you do your research and gather very important knowledge.
An amazing amount of work goes into the Hansard, not only as historical records of the Northern Territory and this place, but also as research documents, when you trawl through those conversations, explorations, questions and the combination of discourse that makes a true, honest and open estimates process.
It was interesting to see the member for Port Darwin try to ridicule the opposition and squeeze it into the accountancy box. ‘You do it my way or you use the highway.’ As one of the heavy lifters on that side who has clearly lost control of any leadership space in Cabinet, and therefore, as an insider, sees the deficits and contradictions in the policy related to the appropriations, and sees it starting to unravel, he is very much in a frustrated state. He tried the basic Psychology 101 of intimidating new opposition members and trying to pigeonhole us. ‘You will be an accountant and that is as far as it will go.’ That is not the case. Everybody knows that is not the case, and the white noise distractions and deflections run by government members on the Estimates Committee were quite obvious, not only to those in the room but also to those watching or listening to the broadcasts.
One big disappointment I have with the Appropriation Bill in 2015-16 is that there is nothing to significantly address foetal alcohol spectrum disorder across the portfolios. I trawled the budget books and listened very carefully to each investigation. Other than the Department of Education, which outlined existing initiatives in school support and some of its pilot work with community groups, nothing was appropriated. I remind the Chief Minister that the FASD committee – an exceptional and hard-working committee – wrote a letter well before the budget Cabinet process with the specific aim of making sure this government knew its recommendations and they had time to factor them into a budget Cabinet process. But they did not, which was disappointing.
I thank the Treasurer, because I enjoyed how he and the Leader of the Opposition opened the estimates process with a very good conversation-style approach to exploring policy, appropriation and the important links between them. It was a good session. I made a lot of good notes. Every CLP minister after that just locked the gate. They retreated and had their hands up. They did not want to answer. The Chief Minister’s go-slow approach has been noted by my colleagues, that juvenile performance he gave that in the stand-up comedy business we call ‘dying on stage’. It was broadcast across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. People are talking about it. It was unfortunate the Treasurer set such a good example of how to run an estimates process.
When the Treasurer outlined for the Territory how this government has no signature economic project to hang its hat on, he retreated to an important point. Their policy is about creating diversity across the pastoral, agricultural and energy sectors. Energy is the big topic of debate in the regions and suburbs.
The Treasurer, in that conversational-style, said there will be no fracking in the Northern Territory in 2015, yet the Chief Minister talked about a sign-off for the pipeline in September 2015. This is a contradiction in policy: resource, exploration and production as opposed to infrastructure. Two senior ministers are saying opposing things. The Treasurer said, ‘Well-drilling will not intersect with freshwater aquifers’. That was a very powerful statement which led me into the process of prosecution and quizzing the Minister for Land Resource Management. I asked about additional appropriation to start exploring and mapping the water aquifers across the Northern Territory. I received blank looks. There is no appropriation or plan. Essentially what I got from the minister was, ‘No idea’. I found it alarming that the Treasurer talked about economic policy and diversity, including energy, and then the Land Resource Management department people said they had no appropriation for any of the studies and did not see it as their work.
I went from the estimates hearing to the Darwin Rural Community Forum at Humpty Doo on Tuesday 2 June, and participated in a rural forum about hydraulic fracturing and the exploration and production of the oil and gas industry. It was a great turnout with 25 residents and about 10 departmental people and associated speakers. It was a very interesting debate, and I met a couple of stakeholders.
I draw the government’s attention to the submission to the Northern Territory government’s Hydraulic Fracturing Inquiry from the NT Branch of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, submitted to the inquiry on 30 May 2014. This submission is exactly what I was talking about with the minister and the department. It is short but very comprehensive. It provides the certainty that Territorians are looking for. This government has ignored that and missed the opportunity to start bringing people on board with them.
A small group of people in Humpty Doo had that discussion. The submission is very comprehensive and gives a very accurate plan of how to go forward. It covers mapping, and how to make informed decisions about where exploration and production of alternative oil and gas should occur in the Northern Territory. Estimates is a formal process that is way beyond a briefing. But, alas, through an exploration, the formal estimates process, I kept being jammed with ‘a briefing’. The estimates process is formal, structured and has a high level of accountability. It is where you get that information. Unfortunately I have come away with great concerns about a government that has no appropriation, plan or idea. I encourage the ministers to look at that submission to the Hydraulic Fracturing Inquiry because it gives you a very pragmatic position to try to win trust.
When the member for Fannie Bay, the Leader of the Opposition, talks about a government with a trust deficit, it is for real. It is not just us saying that; it is being said across the length and breadth of the Territory. I tell the members opposite your legacy will be the member for Braitling, the Chief Minister. Nobody believes a word he says and nobody trusts him. That is a serious issue if you guys want to be re-elected; you will have to deal with that. That is very much articulated across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. You have a Chief Minister who nobody believes or trusts. It is very difficult to sell your message or any great budget, Treasurer, when you have that legacy. You need to address that.
The Health minister gave a very bad example of using conversation in estimates. I suppose he is so gun shy because of his comments about renal patients being responsible for their lifestyle issues, and if they do not clean up their lifestyle choices, he cannot guarantee there will renal support for them later in life. That was an absolute disgrace from a Health minister and learned gentleman who normally inspires me. I have learnt so much from him, as I have put on this record many times, but I could not believe the rubbish he uttered. He lost credibility in his conversational-style approach to estimates.
I was very fortunate about 35 years ago to be taught by some paediatricians about Indigenous children living in Third World conditions with poor nutrition who had recurrent primary skin infections like scabies and boils. The paediatricians explained that unless we address the holistic primary health of those children, as they progress their little bodies in their adolescent years will have to fight infections so hard it will cause an accelerated deterioration of major organs, particularly the liver.
When an Aboriginal person who has fought through all those extreme challenges reaches the age of 30 or 35, their renal system is operating as a 70-year-old’s because it has been traumatised and put under pressure for so long. That is what we have to deal with. That is the holistic and systemic nature of change required – the approach, in a bipartisan sense, from government. It is about housing, nutrition, education and health. To make a statement like that was shocking and, minister for Health, I expect much more from you. You need to go back to your departments to sit down quietly and learn. It is so important that you understand the relationship between critical primary healthcare, early childhood growth and development, and the impact of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder across our community. As a Health minister you need to be looking at serious appropriations to do something.
The member for Nightcliff dug straight into the Infrastructure budget, and came up with an obvious story. I will quote from the Hansard. It was a question about the 2014 revote in dollar figures, and the answer from the minister was $330.9m.
The member for Nightcliff asked:
The minister replied that it was $500m for 2015-16.
So we have a significant revote in the infrastructure program. As I progressed through the areas I was involved with, I discovered more major projects that are paper projects planned over forward years to create some big numbers in budget papers. The Minister for Arts and Museums outlined – from a media release from the Chief Minister – a $20m appropriation to an Indigenous cultural centre. As I talked to him about priorities, economic policy, appropriation and the clear alternatives, member for Port Darwin, he took umbrage and decided he was not so cashed up as a minister. That $20m is not planned to be appropriated until 2018-19. I suspect the bridges over the Roper and the Wilton Rivers – an appropriation of up to $50m – will also feature in that same forward estimates budget approach.
That needs to be told straight. As a previous Minister for Transport, and Construction, I sealed 6 km of the Mereenie loop road. Actually, I did not do it; politicians go way beyond themselves when they make those sorts of statements. I worked with the experts and the department, and 6 km of that loop were sealed. That is exactly what this government is doing. The story needs to be told straight. It needs to be actualised for the public so they really get an understanding as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of big numbers on a budget page.
Palmerston hospital, once again, was explored and there were enormous questions around the time frame of the construction program. I heard that the head services for Palmerston hospital will be $150m. There is $20m straight up to deliver the water main and water services. There will be another $20m for the rising sewer main and associated head services. If you are talking about $40m to service unserviced Crown land, then you are talking about a budget appropriation that needs to be clearly articulated for what it is and what it will deliver within the time frames.
The Arts and Museums prosecution was a good one. I was able to demonstrate for the government a clear alternative. They did not like it. The deflections ran strong and hard and the white noise was winding itself up more and more. The personal insults, attacks and attempts to try to discredit me were loosed, but as the member for Port Darwin said, I lined up the car – I already had a licence to drive it – and I showed them an alternative route. I showed how the regional and remote community art and cultural centres will wither on the vine because of federal cuts and cuts in the Northern Territory appropriation. Yet, we have $18.3m to renovate a building across the road.
I prosecuted that line and showed that clear alternative. I still challenge the government on that. Serious consideration needs to be given because these art and cultural centres are economic drivers in remote communities. This government talks about economic development in the regions and remote areas, and we on this side of the House support that. The arts and culture centres are some of the most powerful economic drivers where people get up every morning and go to work because they have jobs.
The Indigenous visual arts strategy, which has been cut by the feds, has a very strong link to justice. It helps people stay out of gaol. These are very powerful initiatives in the bush with very few other opportunities while the government takes us forward. That was an example of clear alternatives. As I discovered, the minister did not have $38.3m in capital cash because the $20m for the Indigenous cultural centre will appear in 2018-19.
We had a good process with local government and homelands. The minister provided some information. I will set some homework. I asked the homelands minister serious questions and the answer was:
It was great to get that information, minister. An amount of $5200 by 745 gives $3.874m. There is an excess of $126 000 which equates to the investment for 24.23 extra dwellings. I expect you will get back to me and say my figures go to 31 March and will be expended by 30 June. At the moment, however, there is, from the information you provided, the opportunity for 24.23 more dwellings.
I will finish with the environment. Why was the environment left until last? Why was the deflection so aggressive, personal and insulting to try to stop me having a very good estimates process with an independent EPA? I will leave that question with the government. The environment was left last and neglected. I have a lot more to say about that.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Chair, I also thank everybody who has been involved in this process, most particularly members of the Public Accounts Committee and the opposition. As the member for Barkly mentioned, I also thank the Hansard crew. I hope Melissa and her crew are upstairs listening and note my thanks to them for the work they have done. I thank the Legislative Assembly staff who supported the Public Accounts Committee and the myriad, the many hundreds, of public servants who put a lot of time and effort into getting information to support this estimates process.
Like the member for Nhulunbuy I have concerns about the estimates process. There is an enormous amount of time and effort put into making this process work. I would be very interested in toting up all that time and effort to understand what it comes to as a dollar amount. I am sure with the many hundreds, if not thousands, of public servants involved in this it is a costly exercise. I am curious as to whether there are ways and means of being transparent and accountable about the way government spends its money in a much more efficient way.
When we spend this time, effort and money to put together an estimates process and we still hear concerns from the opposition and others saying it does not deliver accountability and transparency, it causes me to wonder whether it is worth doing at all.
It has been an interesting estimates process and I thank my ministerial colleagues for involving themselves the way they did. This process went on for 55 hours and ministers did a lot of work to make sure it worked. It is somewhat sad that some of the big issues that affect Territorians were never discussed. For instance, Labor did not ask a single question I am aware of about north Australian development.
I thought in the Northern Territory parliament with a big national issue looming over us like north Australian development that more than one political party would take an interest. Clearly the Country Liberals are focused on developing northern Australia, want to play a part in it and are very thankful the federal government has put northern development on the agenda in such a big way. It would have been great to say there was a level of bipartisanship in the Northern Territory about developing the north, but when opposition cannot be bothered to ask one question about the development of north Australia you have to be concerned.
They failed to ask a number of questions on law and order issues. I am not aware there were any questions asked about domestic violence, Correctional Services or what some people see as one of Labor’s own initiatives, talking about the ice epidemic. I was stunned not to hear a single question about what government is doing to deal with the ice epidemic. The immediate past Opposition Leader has been way out in front on that saying they are going to hold inquiries, set up task forces and the like. You have to wonder – given the fact they have made such a big deal about the ice epidemic in the Northern Territory and saying they will do lots of things – exactly how committed they are to doing anything when they have an opportunity like the estimates process to tackle government on something they say is so important. Clearly the government has made decisions about ice, how we will handle it, resourcing police and working within the Health system. I thought all of those things would be of interest to a party which says it is very keen to tackle ice.
Similarly, it is a party that says it is supportive of women, affirmative action, women’s rights to be in the workforce and that sort of stuff but the shadow minister for Women’s Policy did not even bother turning up to question the minister for that portfolio. Labor has made a big deal over the years about Women’s Policy. I wonder how many of them are now questioning their membership of Emily’s List. They sign up for these things, say, ‘Yes, we support women, are advocates for women and have all signed up to Emily’s List. We are proud to be on Emily’s List’, yet the shadow minister for Women’s Policy cannot be bothered turning up to ask questions of the Minister for Women’s Policy.
Something that caught me by surprise was the way I was misinterpreted in relation to funding for the Palmerston hospital in 2018-19. I do not why people have jumped at that or why the Opposition Leader has made a big deal of it. I was curious the other day and asked if he was trying to seek an appointment there in 2018-19. I thought the point was more about moving resources rather than money. As our very good Health minister later advised, moving resources was fundamentally about meeting demand. Where demand increased, resources would go; where demand reduced, resources would leave. That seems quite natural.
What stunned me though was the lack of fundamental knowledge about how the health system in the Northern Territory is funded. Whether it is Royal Darwin Hospital or the new Palmerston hospital, it is funded through Top End Health Services. Asking me, as the Treasurer, where money will go in the Health department is not wrong. I am the Treasurer and I should have a big picture view of how the budget is allocated, but when it comes to the nitty gritty of running hospitals and how money is allocated amongst hospitals, I thought there would be some very detailed questioning of the Health minister about that.
We read every day in the newspapers how Labor says the hospital at Palmerston will not happen and that they have concerns. Given the opportunity to ask questions about that, they almost fell silent. ‘Fell silent’ is quite a statement because when you are talking about the Top End health and hospital service, you are talking of a budget of around $900m, if I am correct. It is the most significant portion of the Health budget by far. That an opposition interested in Health which says it supports the health of Territorians would overlook asking questions about $900m of government expenditure is amazing.
I was listening to the member for Barkly just a minute ago having a crack at the Health minister about his comments around renal dialysis. I did not hear the comments the Health minister made, but from the points the member for Barkly put on record, I can understand the point the Health minister was trying to make. It is an old saying, cure the cause, not the symptom. If there is one thing I know about our Health minister, the way he attacks that portfolio is the way he attacks most portfolios; he is interested in curing the causes, not just dealing with the symptoms. We deal with the symptoms every day. The Health minister deals with the symptoms when people are locked up and put into protective custody, with many health issues in the bush and a range of other issues.
The question is how long do you want to continue to deal with the symptoms before you start attacking the cause? If members opposite look at this budget they will see we are starting to attack the cause. When you look at statistics around the country and the world, it stands out that where you have parents living in happy and healthy relationships, and where both parents are working or one of the parents work, children tend to be healthier, have better educational outcomes and lead more active lives.
A range of benefits come from curing the cause. The cause in the Northern Territory is lack of jobs and opportunities in many remote areas. That is why this budget focuses so much on building infrastructure, driving private investment and encouraging private enterprise to set up in remote locations. This will provide that all-important cure to dysfunction – that is, jobs. This government is 100% focused on how we get jobs in the bush. It is why we are talking about diversifying the economy, putting money into infrastructure, roads and bridges, and health clinics. It is why we are talking about long-term township leasing that allows businesses to establish. It is why we have done the work in local government, given communities a greater say and tried to tailor situations that best meet their circumstances. All of these things are about curing the cause of so many problems we have in the Northern Territory rather than just the symptoms. That is why this is a good budget.
I will end on quite a worrying phenomenon: the bullying of Aboriginal members on this side of the Chamber. When the member for Stuart gave her presentation at the Estimates Committee, I received text messages and phone calls. I was contacted by a number of people saying it was just not on. The way Labor relentlessly attacked Bess Price was beyond the bounds of decency. I know the Labor Party believe the Aboriginal vote is theirs by right. They believe every Aboriginal Territorian should be a Labor voter and that they are rusted on. There is nothing that infuriates Labor people more than seeing Aboriginal people voting anything other than Labor. This has driven them crazy.
Mr Elferink: The Chief Minister was told he should be ashamed for being Aboriginal by the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr TOLLNER: I pick up on the interjection. The Chief Minister was told by the member for Nhulunbuy that he should be ashamed to be Aboriginal.
The member for Nhulunbuy has been rampant in her bullying of the member for Stuart. Make what you like of the interjection she made screaming about the white noise, but it seemed to be a personal attack on the member for Stuart. I do not want to labour this point, but as a warning to the new Opposition Leader, get your team in control. It is not a good look when you focus on attacking one member of this side simply because you perceive she has no right to be here as she is an Aboriginal member of parliament and should be on the other side. It is just not on. If you keep it up more members of the public will become aware of it. Particularly Aboriginal members of the public will become aware of it and you may well find that your God-given right to the Aboriginal vote will dissipate to nothing.
Having said that, I thank the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition. This year’s estimates process, for me as the Treasurer – I would not say it was easier, that is the wrong word, but there was less fire. The Leader of the Opposition is far less aggressive than his predecessor, and I thank him for that. I thank him for the way he conducted himself during the process. I was a bit baffled when he spent an hour-and-a-half talking about the population; I did not see that coming. It caught me out right from the word go. I thought there may well have been other questions of importance, but I never imagined we would spend an hour-and-a-half on the population. It was an interesting discussion. I learnt some things about population flows in that discussion.
However, from what I saw the members of the opposition made an effort to make estimates work. Ministers on this side of the Chamber did so too, and for that I am thankful.
I think we need to look at the estimates process. As I said earlier, given the time and expense of this process, and the fact people are still concerned about what they perceive as a lack of transparency and accountability, it is probably time to start questioning whether we have an estimates process like this at all. To my knowledge not a lot comes out of it.
There is an ability that members opposite do not know they have, which is to ask questions on notice. I encourage them to take the opportunity to put questions on notice. You will get very detailed answers to questions. If you use that facility more, we will not get caught up with the myriad of questions fishing for information during the estimates process.
Mr Deputy Chair, thank you for your involvement and thank you to the Public Accounts Committee.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, normally this bill is done in cognate, and last year was the first time we did not do so. Obviously the measures within this bill go to supporting the budget. We have had the budget debate, estimates and the committee stage. I looked at what we did last year and saw the Treasurer’s speech was very short.
In this bill we are looking at changes to the Gaming Control Act, the Stamp Duty Act, the Payroll Tax Act, the Tax Administration Act and the First Home Owner Grant Act. They are contained in this bill and we acknowledge, as the opposition, that they support the measures within the budget. We had quite a lengthy debate both inside and outside the House and during the Estimates Committee about the budget and our thoughts on it.
We acknowledge that this legislation supports the Treasurer in what he has been doing with the budget. With that in mind and looking at how we handled this last year, the first year we did not take the bills in cognate, we are here to talk about the budget. We have done that and we grant the floor to the Treasurer for this legislation on revenue.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I had forgotten about his bit, and now that the Opposition Leader has reminded me I am thankful that I gave him a good plug in the earlier bill. To the Opposition Leader, thank you very much. The point you make is right. There is not much debate of this bill; I have made the second reading speech, which explains these revenue measures quite well. I thank the opposition for supporting those revenue measures; they are good measures. The revenue unit in the Department of Treasury has done a great job. All of the revenue measures we have put together are designed to have the least impact on and raise the most revenue. They have been very good in that regard. I put on the record my thanks to Grant Parsons, the Commissioner of Territory Revenue, along with Jodie Ryan and her team in Treasury. Thank you to the opposition for their support of this revenue bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 29 April 2015.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition will cautiously support this bill. This bill, unlike the removal of the cap earlier this year, on the surface seems to strike the balance between common sense, fairness and keeping the community’s best interests at heart. There are still some overall concerns about the effects gambling has on the community and it is through that frame I make my remarks today.
I thank the minister’s office and the departmental staff for hastily organising a briefing late yesterday afternoon. Hopefully we will not be in this situation again. I think even the minister was surprised this legislation came on today.
We have always put the negative effects that gambling has in the community at the front of our minds when framing legislation for gambling. We thought the NT-wide cap on pokies was good legislation and your lifting of that cap will allow problem gambling to rise in our community.
Gambling has a hugely negative effect, particularly in the Territory. The Territory already has the highest proportion in Australia of poker machines per thousand people at 12.9, compared to the national average of 11. The NT Gambling Prevalence Survey taken in 2005, which was the last significant survey, found that 90% of respondents believe the number of gaming machines should be reduced or stay the same, yet we have seen moves to increase gambling machines. I urge the government to conduct a comprehensive report or inquiry documenting community attitudes towards gambling.
Gambling is a huge problem in our community. Research shows that problem gamblers are more likely to play electronic gaming machines such as poker machines more than any other form of gambling. They get into a trance-like state – the music, the sounds – and it tears families apart. We have huge concerns about the effects of gambling within our community.
We also have concerns with the funding the government is putting into addressing problem gambling. Through the estimates process it became clear that while there will be a massive investment from the government to the gaming industry that will see revenues increase, problem gambling will go largely untouched. I fear we could be creating a bigger problem than already exists.
It also worries me that he minister’s attitude to problem gambling is that he sees it as the same as women having an addiction to buying shoes, which is a very irresponsible comparison to make. Problem gambling tears families apart. It affects all demographics across our Territory. It is something we must keep in the forefront when we debate legislation and look at measures around gaming machines.
I will go into the detail of this bill. As explained in the minister’s speech and the explanatory statement, there are three major changes to the bill. There is the ability for gaming machine licence holders to apply for a transfer of that licence to another business in instances where the related liquor licence is also being transferred.
Secondly, this legislation will allow the gaming machine licence holder to apply for the substitution of a licence to a different venue in circumstances where the related liquor licence is also being substituted. Thirdly, this bill will allow some changes to the Liquor Act to give effect to government policy that store liquor licences cannot apply for and be granted variation to trade on Sundays.
I will outline the opposition’s thoughts on each of these changes. My understanding is that under the current legislation when you buy a pub or a club with gaming machines, the seller must surrender the liquor licence and gaming machine licence back to the government. The buyer must complete a community impact statement and put up a $50 000 levy per machine, then they will get their licences from the government.
Under the changes this legislation is putting forward, the seller can include the levy as part of the selling price and the buyer no longer has to complete a community impact statement. This makes practical sense. Considering the pub is still in the same location, to ensure there is no variance to the liquor licence and the number of poker machines, the last community impact statement should still be applicable. We do not perceive there would need to be another community impact statement unless some of those factors had changed.
Building the levy into the sale price seems to be reducing red tape, which is a good idea if it makes things easier for those business operators, especially under assurances from the agency that it is very rare, to almost never, that the government would not hand the new licence to the buyer.
It would also make it easier for the buyer to get finance. From my understanding of what the department officials told me, this reduces red tape. At the moment somebody has to surrender that licence and then those exact same licences are given back. Maybe the minister can address that in his reply; that would be appreciated.
I have some further questions. Does this legislation mean the government is losing the one-off levy or would the seller have the levy money returned and the buyer put theirs up, so the new system would see the money sitting with the government rather than being transferred in name to the seller.
What is the process of keeping an eye on the changing community around the pub or club? For example, if the demographics of the suburb change, how can the government reduce licences in that area if they are no longer able to do it at the transfer of sales? We were reassured when the department said it is very rare to never that the licence would not be reissued, but we would hate to forgo an opportunity, if there had been problems, to get that licence back. The minister should be able to explain or clarify that in his next speech.
In terms of the second change, some stakeholders were very happy and others were having conniptions. There was a wide understanding in the community that this was the change to allow a cap and trade system. Many stakeholders were quite excited about leasing out extra machines or getting leases off others to boost their numbers, others in the community were horrified at the thought of a loophole allowing more pokies to come into their community.
Thankfully the departmental officials cleared that up. The intent of this change of the location simply applies to when an existing licensee seeks to move the location of their establishment. It is just a mending of the legislation.
We on this side of the House also applaud the decision of the need to retain the community impact study for the new location as vitally important and that consequences of this are considered before the move is approved. It is also encouraging that the only outcomes can be retaining the same number of machines, a reduction in the number of machines or not allowing the move. We will not see an increase in the number of machines. We found that to be positive news.
The last part, the clean up on the liquor trading hours to remove any ambiguity around the Sunday trading, is also a good move. We saw that with some of the questions during the estimates process. Making things easier to understand is always a good idea.
The events of yesterday, when it was clarified that this legislation was coming before the House – in regard to the perceived lack of community consultation, how all the stakeholders misunderstood this shows you need to ensure the community is brought with you when you are changing something. Even with what seemed like relatively simple measures we had misunderstandings. Once we had that briefing – which we were only provided with yesterday, as we understood this legislation would come on later – we felt more comfortable. That would have been the case with the community. If people had been informed and were able to ask those questions then we would not have seen the panic we saw.
We do not agree with the lifting of the cap on the number of pokies. We feel there are enough poker machines in the Northern Territory. If you were genuine about looking at the effects of gambling, there would be another comprehensive report. It has been some time since that last one, and those figures I quoted earlier were from that report in 2006.
In summing up, we do not have a problem with these changes to gaming machines and the opposition will be offering their support to this bill.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I will clarify a couple of things that were said.
The opposition claims I made a flippant remark. Sadly it appears the opposition cannot read because if they looked at what I said in the second reading speech, gaming machines, gaming and people who have a gambling problem are a very serious business. Yes, there was a certain amount of humour in my comments, but if you read the Hansard you will see that I said there are many people who have many problems with a range of issues.
People gamble on all sorts of things. Some of the online gambling people are involved in is a problem. It is not just electronic gaming machines that are a problem. There are people who have all sorts of addictions and we wish they did not. However, it is human nature. People spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their hobbies or addictions which are not gambling is also a problem. I am disappointed that the opposition tried to trivialise what was said.
The Gaming and Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to modernise legislation to establish the right regime for electronic gaming machines in the Territory. There was a moratorium in 2008. The Territory has moved on from 2008. There has been a substantial population increase, with new suburbs built and requirements for things. To simply say, as the then ALP government did, ‘We will not do anything’, is not dealing with the issue where you have legitimate businesses and clubs that want to build facilities. These clubs would like to be able to offer gaming machines along with a range of other entertainment facilities in new areas we are building in the Northern Territory.
It would appear from the comments made in the past and in this House several minutes ago that the opposition’s idea is that you do nothing. You just say, ‘We are not going to do anything’. That is not appropriate. The government has dealt with that issue. We are getting representations from businesses and clubs which would like to move forward in their planning and the supply of services to the people of the Northern Territory.
That is what responsible government is about. It is not about just putting a moratorium on matters and not dealing with them; it is about dealing with issues in our community. Sometimes people ask some hard questions, and we have answers. Those answers are contained in the legislation and in the fact that the Director-General of Licensing has some pretty tough regulations he enforces. They also have some pretty tough requirements people have to meet, not only to be able to get liquor licences, but to be able to get gaming licences. Then if they want to increase the number, they have to do a range of things under community impact assessments to make sure they are not flooding the market with gaming machines.
I have listened to the community. It was inferred by the member for Nightcliff that all the stakeholders are confused. I believe the member for Nightcliff is confused. There may be some people who are confused, but generally, with the wide consultation we carried out, people are not confused. The amendments to the regulations and the act are in response to people who look after people with gambling problems and businesses in the industry which have come to us and said these are issues and asked us to fix them. That is what we do. That is what governments should do, not ignore the problem, but fix it. What you see in front of you today is a result of consultation with the broader community.
In particular, the bill amends the Gaming Machine Act to allow the holder of a gaming machine licence to apply to transfer that licence in conjunction with the related liquor licence. This is something industry asked us to do. We have listened to industry and to both sides of the argument. As a result, we now have these amendments before us.
This will facilitate the sale and purchase of hotels and enable a gaming machine licence to be an asset of a business. The industry made a fair request and we have looked at it. I am not here to do unfair things in this community.
The amendments will also enable the holder of a gaming machine licence to substitute that licence to a new venue in conjunction with the substitution of the related liquor licence. These amendments will address the unnecessary red tape and cost created by the inability to transfer or substitute a gaming machine licence, notwithstanding the related liquor licence can be transferred or substituted.
The amendments in this bill will enshrine into legislation successive governments’ policy preventing stores and liquor merchants from trading takeaway liquor on Sunday. It has been in this community in excess of 33 years and both sides of politics in the Northern Territory have supported that policy.
This Gaming and Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 contains the following elements: an application process for the transfer of a Category 1, which is a hotel or tavern, gaming machine licence from one licensee to another when done in conjunction with the transfer of the related liquor licence. Further, the transfer application will replicate the assessment requirements for the new licensee and will focus on probity, business acumen, financial security requirements and responsible gaming strategies.
A community impact analysis will only be required for a transfer application in exceptional circumstances, as deemed by the director-general. Further, an application for a transfer of a gaming machine licence cannot be determined by the Director-General of Licensing until the application to transfer the related liquor licence has been approved. So if there is no liquor licence transfer, there is no gaming machine transfer.
In relation to substitutions, in an application process for the substitution of a Category 1, that is a hotel or tavern, and a Category 2, clubs, gaming machine licence from one venue to another in conjunction with the related liquor licence, an application for substitution will assess the suitability of the venue for the gaming machine licence and the proposed problem gambling strategies, and will require a community impact analysis to be provided by the applicant. It is important to remember a gaming machine licence cannot be obtained by an entity without it first holding a liquor licence in respect of the same premises. These reforms ensure the gaming machine licence cannot be dealt with either through a transfer or a substitution application without the related liquor licence also being dealt with in the same way, that is, through a transfer or a substitution application.
The amendments to the Liquor Act will enshrine in legislation successive government policy that stores and liquor merchants should not trade takeaway liquor on Sundays.
I will put on the record some history in relation to the development of this bill. In late 2014 government announced policy changes to the regulations of the electronic gaming machines in the community. The arbitrary Territory-wide cap was abolished in favour of a rigorous community impact assessment process for new electronic gaming machines. Changes to individual venue caps were announced and will commence on 1 July 2015. Government also agreed to implement a levy for new electronic gaming machines. In the Northern Territory all clubs and hotels must apply for a licence to operate electronic gaming machines.
The Gaming Machine Act does not provide for the transfer of an electronic gaming machine licence to a new entity or venue. This created a legislative problem for any hotel business owner who wanted to transfer an electronic gaming machine following the sale of the business or as part of a corporate restructure. There was also a problem if a hotel or club was forced to move to new premises with the gaming machine licence not being able to be substituted to the new venue. In the past the Northern Territory Licensing Commission implemented an administrative procedure to address when a hotel business was being sold or a hotel or club was forced to move to new premises. In this situation the holder of the existing electronic gaming machine licences would hand back the existing licences. The new application would then be submitted by the new business owner if the business was being sold, or for the new venue if the hotel or club was forced to move to new premises. This was an acceptable workaround for licensees because there was no levy for electronic gaming machines.
With the announcement of the introduction of the new gaming machine levy, this administrative procedure is no long available without paying the levy. For a hotel business, the levy for an electronic gaming machine is $50 000. Existing hotel businesses can have up to 10 electronic gaming machines, and in the future, hotel businesses may be eligible to apply for up to 20 electronic gaming machines. That is not an automatic 20; that is what they are able to apply for. Whether or not they get any extra machines is up to the director-general, after the director-general has taken many things into consideration before assessing whether or not any further gaming machines will be permitted. The implementation of the levy meant that hotel businesses seeking to sell their business or to restructure would lose the value of the existing electronic gaming machine licences. As such, we have listened to the needs of the industry and have responded accordingly.
In relation to comments that were made about consultation; we have listened to the needs of the industry and have responded accordingly. A number of licensees and industry groups approached the Department of Business following the commencement of the gaming machine reforms to highlight unintended consequences of the reforms which have impacted on their businesses. For example, a business that was restructuring contacted the department. As part of the restructuring process their liquor licence was transferring to the new entity; however, gaming machines were not able to be transferred in a similar way and would have required a new application to be lodged. A community impact analysis would have to be prepared and advertising undertaken. We have listened to these concerns and understand the problem. The ability to seek the transfer or substitute a gaming machine licence in conjunction with the related liquor licence overcomes this problem.
What is the implementation communication plan? The Department of Business is working on developing a comprehensive range of application forms and fact sheets to cover the new applications process. Information has been placed on the Department of Business website for store and liquor merchant takeaway licence holders.
One of the problems we had when we came to government in 2012 was the amount of red tape. We have had representations right across the community to reduce red tape. What red tape reductions are expected as a result of these reforms? I am happy to say that licensees will now have a legitimate process to seek the transfer or substitution of a gaming machine licence, as opposed to applying for a new licence as was previously the case. This has allowed a critical assessment of the material needed to assess a transfer or substitution application against the objectives of the act, without the provision of unnecessary material and paperwork. The new amendments to the Liquor Act will clarify the government’s position in terms of Sunday trading.
We are here to listen to the people and the industry. We have summed it all up. By grants through the Community Benefit Fund, the money available to organisations like Somerville and Amity has increased. I had meetings with Amity earlier this week in relation to what is happening. We are listening to and working with them to help anyone who has an issue with gambling, not just gambling on electronic gaming machines but across the board. There are many ways that people gamble. Sadly there are a few people who have had issues with that, but the broader community, both the public seeking legitimate forms of entertainment and our electronic game machine operators and other operators of casino licences and clubs, all participate in responsible gaming programs. They are all very keen to make sure there is help for anyone who has a gambling problem and should not be involved in that legitimate form of entertainment.
I hear what the opposition has said. I hope I have been able to clarify some of those things.
I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination, I table three travel reports for the member for Namatjira, six travel reports for the member for Arnhem and one travel report each for the members for Wanguri, Nelson, Arafura and Johnston.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Ombudsman recently completed his review into allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Police Commissioner and another police officer. I now present the House with the Ombudsman’s report.
The report indicates that the Ombudsman noted the range of enquiries and investigations under way in relation to the matter and approached his investigations so as to reduce the potential for unnecessary interference with and duplication of the investigative effort.
A number of these investigations continue. The report consistently contains seven broad administrative recommendations which members may wish to consider.
Madam Speaker, I table the Ombudsman’s NT investigation report on this matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I rise tonight to congratulate the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre staff who will receive the Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal tonight from the Administrator at Government House. I apologise in advance for not being able to be there because of the duties of this House.
They have been presented with this medal for their outstanding service in responding to flash flooding in Northern Pakistan in July 2010. For the benefit of Hansard and spelling the names correctly, I will table the document I am reading from.
In July 2010 heavy rains in Northern Pakistan caused flash flooding resulting in 160 000 km2 of the country being inundated. Officially, 1700 people were killed, 1 900 000 houses destroyed and 21 million people were affected.
The Pakistan government requested international assistance through the United Nations. Australia provided an immediate response by delivering humanitarian aid stores and a further pledge of $35m in humanitarian assistance. The Australian Medical Task Force comprised of military and civilian medical personnel and was deployed by the Australian government on 25 August 2010 to the rural township of Kot Addu in the Punjab province.
The civilian element of the Australian Medical Task Force included an Australian Medical Assistance Team, or AUSMAT, coordinated by the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre. This was the first time AUSMAT was deployed. Team Alpha comprised six doctors, eight registered nurses and three paramedics, and was led by the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre’s doctor, Ian Norton. Team Bravo was deployed on 30 September 2010 and included an additional doctor, three nurses and a paramedic.
In the 10-week deployment known as Operation Pakistan Assist II, the Australian Medical Assistance Team treated more than 11 000 patients. It has since been recognised internationally that this was the most successful Australian deployment of a combined civil military task force in response to a humanitarian disaster
Thirteen clinicians were deployed by the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre on behalf of the Australian government in 2010. Ten will tonight receive their Humanitarian Overseas Service Medals at a special investiture at Government House. Five of the recipients are returning to Darwin from interstate to attend the ceremony. The recipients are: Dr Ian Norton, currently on secondment to the World Health Organisation; Dr Ruth Lennox; Mrs Abigail Trewin; Mrs Ronnie Taylor; Mr Mark Haste; Ms Megan Chandler; Dr Charlotte Heldreich; Mrs Anne Weir; Ms Marlene Ball; Ms Sharon Johnson; Dr Tim Gray; Ms Julie Rattenbury; and Ms Natasha Roberts.
My sincerest admiration and congratulations go to all of the recipients who selflessly gave up so much of their time to assist the people of Pakistan in their time of need. They well deserve their recognition and in receiving their medal I simply say, ‘Bloody good job!’
As the Health minister I had a chance to see the centre deploy its teams recently to Vanuatu. The capacity for these teams to respond is extraordinary. It does the Australian government and the Australian people proud, and, particularly, this organisation does the people of the Northern Territory proud.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 27
Message No 27
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 27 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed in the April sittings of the Assembly.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Go Red for Women Month
Go Red for Women Month
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, heart disease kills three times more women than breast cancer and is the single biggest killer of Australian women, taking a life every hour of every day. The national Go Red for Women Month is an annual health campaign commencing in June. The campaign seeks to raise the awareness of the risk factors contributing to heart disease. I have placed red ribbons on each member’s desk in support of Go Red for Women Month and I thank honourable members for supporting this cause with a little show of wearing red.
APPROPRIATION (2015-2016) BILL
(Serial 121)
(Serial 121)
Continued from 28 April 2015.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage now be taken.
Motion agreed to.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 30 April 2015 the committee has before it the Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill 2015 (Serial 121) and the report of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the expenditure proposed in the Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill 2015 (Serial 121) be agreed to and reports noted. I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers, 20 minutes; any other members, 10 minutes. The maximum period of consideration is five hours. If the debate is not concluded after five hours, I will put the question. When consideration of the bill and report has been concluded, and the question put, the following question will be put without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
I call the Chair of the Estimates Committee, the member for Drysdale.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Mr Chair, I am pleased to table the report of the Estimates Committee on its consideration of the estimates and proposed expenditure contained in the schedule of the Appropriation Bill (2015-16) and the report of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation.
These reports outline the key areas of interest or concern in the questions asked at the hearings. The questions taken on notice will be tabled in the Assembly on 18 June. Answers to questions on notice must be with the committee secretariat by 17 June. I note these deadlines are those set by the Assembly. The answers will be uploaded to the database on the Assembly’s website as they are received.
There were a couple of questions taken on notice that the committee accepted could not be answered within that time. These answers will need to be given to the Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee for publication when they are received.
There were 118 questions taken on notice this year, an increase of 25 from last year. Today, at the close of the hearing, 17% of questions had been answered.
This is the Legislative Assembly’s 14th year of Estimates Committee hearings. The estimates hearings provide a valuable opportunity for members to ask ministers questions relating to agencies funded under the budget. Members had the opportunity to hear from all ministers across their portfolios. Overall the hearings worked very effectively, and provided the opposition and other members with ample opportunity to question any areas of government they chose.
I thank all members who participated in the 2015 estimates process for their constructive approach, and the ministers and Madam Speaker for their cooperation throughout the process. Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work to ensure the whole process ran smoothly.
I also place on the record my sincere appreciation to the staff of all agencies involved in the estimates process over the five days. The process would not have been effective without their hard work and dedication.
I commend the reports of the 2015 Estimates and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committees to the Assembly.
Ms MANISON: Mr Chair, I place on the record my thanks to my colleagues on the PAC. This year the estimates process was a long slog, as it always is, but it was chaired firmly and fairly. I appreciate the teamwork of the PAC to keep the estimates process going.
It was a reasonably efficient estimates. I still believe the implementation of the set times has made sure we can get to the point on some of the issues, but of course it can be difficult when some ministers have far bigger portfolio loads than others. It can mean you do not have enough time to get to some important areas. It was particularly noted this week with the member for Port Darwin and the member for Brennan, who have huge portfolio loads. Unfortunately we could not go to the depth of detail we would have liked to.
It is an important process. For most of it this year it was very constructive. We were able to get some very important information about the financial performance and operations of Territory government agencies, which is a very important part of the estimates process.
However, there was one section of the estimates process that stood out to me as not being forthcoming with information. We could not get the answers we were after. It ended up impacting on all ministers. This was, of course, the Chief Minister’s session. A very important question was asked of him with regard to ministerial travel. I have said a few times this week that this kind of query is never a surprise. Every year the opposition asks this question, whether it is us sitting in opposition or the CLP. It is a stock standard question for the estimates process, year in, year out. It is never a surprise for a Chief Minister to be asked about ministerial travel and reporting around that.
To have the Chief Minister not provide that information when asked, after being given prior notice the question was coming – as I said, it is not a surprise question; it is asked every year – and then blow out the time to respond to the inquiry by expanding it to cover two months was truly a disgrace. We will see how we go getting that information. It comes back to the heart of the issue of trust in the Chief Minister. It highlighted why many people around the Territory simply do not trust the Chief Minister and what he says.
Estimates is a process for getting details of expenditure within government. We had some debate last sittings about ministerial travel and we appreciate it is important that ministers travel to perform their very important duties to the Territory. However, we want to see some transparency and scrutiny around that travel, and estimates is a prime opportunity to provide that. The Chief Minister was not forthcoming and now we wait for the details of that travel.
It will come in time; it will be revealed and we will wait. There was, however, a good opportunity to provide that data at estimates. It was, therefore, difficult for other ministers to talk about some of their travel and expenditure because the Chief Minister had not provided it.
Another thing I noticed at estimates this year was some ministers were really open to answering the questions as fully as they could. Some ministers performed better than others. Some ministers seemed to want to rely on pushing hard questions onto other ministers, even though their agency had a large interest in the area. There could have been less of that.
Overall the process went well this year. Again I thank my colleagues on the PAC.
I turn to some of the areas in my shadow portfolio responsibilities and some of the issues raised during the estimates process. With Parks and Wildlife there were some big issues and questions about Casuarina Coastal Reserve. We are pleased to see investment in the development plan. I asked questions about the public consultation process around the management plan. The development plan consultation finished in early 2012. We are over three years down the track. Given the development plan and some infrastructure upgrades were announced barely a month before the management plan, will any of the matters that may come out of this consultation on the management plan feed into changes and amendments to the development plan? I was pleased to hear the minister and the department would look at that, particularly given erosion factors did come into the development plan. There is without doubt worrying erosion there.
I was also concerned to hear there was not a significant consideration around the future development of the Lee Point suburb next to Muirhead north to ensure biodiversity of the environment is protected.
We are looking forward to seeing what happens with the future of the Casuarina Coastal development plan after the feedback from the management plans comes in after 12 June.
One question I put to the minister about mining and exploration applications across parks was referred to the Mines minister. That is something I will follow up to get more details. We did not ask the Mines minister and I had hoped for an answer from the Parks minister. Being minister for Parks she should have a very high interest in what is happening in them.
Education was another interesting and important session and one where sadly we were able to confirm that since June 2012 there have been 516 jobs lost from the Education department. That is a huge number. Looking back over the annual reports and the latest employment data, seeing that many staff have been lost from the Territory’s education system should be sounding alarm bells in the Territory. Our middle and senior schools in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs have all been hit. They have all had huge job losses through the middle and senior years.
It is concerning that students going through their secondary education, which is a critical part of their education, have fewer staff to support them. I raised the issue that it has impacted on schools. With their reduced staffing levels, some schools have had to cut right back on, for example, elective subjects. We all know it is important that people take their core education curriculum through reading, writing, English, maths and science, but elective subjects are an opportunity for students to further their learning development and journey. They target their key interest areas to keep them really engaged in their education.
Schools need these subjects to show how they can help a student in their education journey and to market themselves. It is essential they have a range of subjects. When you have fewer staff in the system there is less opportunity for those schools to deliver those subjects. We have seen significant cuts in that area.
When we asked whole-of-agency questions about ministerial travel paid for by for agency, this was an agency where we found the minister had embarked on significant travel at the cost of the department, which is highly unusual. We put questions on notice about that travel and asked for further details and an explanation. We will wait for the responses to those questions.
We have seen massive cuts to public education. In real terms, since 2012 we are talking about $80m less and 516 fewer staff in education. We know of over 150 fewer staff in middle and senior years. We are seeing subject selection being reduced, less support for students and bigger classrooms. While we see that huge cuts have been made to the department, we then see that the minister is travelling at the expense of the department. We have raised questions about that. It is highly unusual. We want to see every dollar that can go into education going in that direction. We have put questions on the public record and will eagerly await those responses about exactly how much was taken out of the education budget to fund the minister’s travel.
This morning we had an opportunity to sit down with the government owned corporations to explore what has happened since we last met in October and how things have gone post-structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation on 1 July last year. It was really clear that Power and Water Corporation was not ready for structural separation and that work is still ongoing with structural separation. It was an extremely rushed process last year, and we raised these concerns at that time. Today, through the government owned corporation scrutiny process, it seemed very clear the answer is no. Power and Water Corporation was not ready for structural separation.
Last year in October, during the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation were not able to provide full statements of corporate intent because they did not have full financial information about what they were as a government owned corporation. The government separated Power and Water knowing too well that the details of the assets of two of the new government owned corporations were not finalised and fully known, but they still proceeded. Last year we were told that process would be completed in January this year. Yet today we discovered that process is still ongoing and not anticipated to be completed until the end of the year.
We also heard that the Power and Water Corporation, as the monopoly GOC, had seen increases in how much their structural separation had cost. It had gone up to the vicinity, I believe, of about $3.1m. On top of that we heard of changes to delivering their finance system, and that project had hit the $10.5m mark. Much work also had to be done at Jacana and Territory Generation with changes to their financial management and asset management systems, as a direct result of structural separation. The costs keep going up.
I remind the parliament that last year during the Public Accounts Committee’s scrutiny of the government owned corporations there was a significant cost attributed to the Department of the Chief Minister for structural separation, as well as the burden of costs to the Department of Treasury. The costs keep going up day by day and it is not over.
Power and Water Corporation, minus Territory Generation and Jacana Energy, had anticipated a net profit this year after tax in the vicinity of $46m. Instead they are at a loss of about $63m. That is quite a change of position. One would have thought that would have been anticipated and, prior to separating the corporation, work would have been done to avoid such a loss.
We also heard, as a consequence of life after structural separation, about the emergence of stranded assets, staff, contracts and licences. That means as the changes occur with Territory Generation and Jacana Energy as they separate from the Power and Water Corporation, the Power and Water Corporation will be left with people who used to fill those jobs, licences they needed to do some of that work and systems that used to fill that space. We are yet to see the full details of that and what it will mean regarding jobs. How will it impact on people working within the corporation who thought they had a job? That is something we also will keep an eye on.
It was also interesting to hear Territory Generation people talking about the future of the Ron Goodin Power Station in Alice Springs which they are looking to decommission over the next few years. That is being looked at now. What will that mean to staff currently at the Ron Goodin Power Station, given that the Owen Springs Power Station does not require the resources the Ron Goodin Power Station does? What will happen to the Ron Goodin Power Station site at Sadadeen Valley, which is owned by the Power and Water Corporation? These are things to keep an eye on and that is what we intend to do. I have put many questions on notice and look forward to getting that data.
I also put on notice today a question to confirm exactly what the 5% tariff increase has cost people. That came into place on 1 January this year. Not only did I ask for that information for customers broadly across the Power and Water Corporation and urban centres, but also about the Indigenous Essential Services revenue collected due to the 30% increase in power, the 40% increase in water and the 25% increase in sewerage tariffs. That question is on the record to find out how much extra people in the bush are paying for their power and water following the decision by the government to ramp those prices up and to see how that is impacting on their lives.
It has been a very busy two weeks of scrutinising the budgets and operations of the departments. I thank the agencies I am shadow minister for, for all of their hard work. Preparing for estimates is a very long and hard slog, but it is a very important part of the process in ensuring we have an accountable and transparent government and allowing us to scrutinize the performance of agencies. It is a lot of work but ultimately government should look at it as a yearly health check of their departments and agencies.
You hope a minister is regularly briefed by their agency to make sure they are on top of all the issues, but preparing for estimates is a whole different ball game. They really have to be across the details. A good minister tries to be across all their details of their portfolios. It is a good opportunity for them to ask some hard questions of their agency on why things might not be heading in the directions they thought they would or should be. It also gives them an opportunity to pick up areas where they feel they might need to invest more or which they feel are doing pretty well and they can give people a pat on the back.
It is a good yearly process which gives the opposition an opportunity to unearth details, to do its job to hold government to account and monitor its performance. A government should look at it as a very positive process as well, because it ensures they can check, down to very fine detail, the performance of the agencies they are in charge of.
I thank my PAC colleagues again. I thank all the hard-working staff within the government agencies for their work to prepare for estimates and look forward to receiving answers to those questions on notice so we can further scrutinise information we were not able to obtain during the committee.
Ms FYLES: Mr Chair, I thank everyone involved in the estimates process – the ministers before us, and particularly the agency staff who spend many hours preparing information.
It is interesting to note that this year there were 118 questions taken on notice, which is significantly higher than previous years – 25 more. We saw some tactics to try to avoid answering questions. There were questions provided prior to the estimates sittings by the opposition – straightforward questions that had been asked in the past and we were expecting answers to be tabled. Ministers, however, really did sink to new depths by not answering those questions.
We saw the Chief Minister – and I am not sure if he understands what came over him, but reading slowly to try to avoid answering the question was unprecedented. In that section of estimates when I was with the Leader of the Opposition questioning matters relating to travel, the Chief Minister had documents provided to him that he could have simply tabled. There were 33 pages, in fact. He told us there were 33. He refused to table that document. He then started reading that document, but obviously saw something he did not want to read and literally shut down estimates. Estimates shut down for 15 minutes, which I have not experienced before in the three or so years I have been on the Public Accounts Committee.
We saw ministers this year putting up a smoke screen when answering questions and sinking to new levels to try to cover up. With travel, there are a lot of unanswered questions Territorians want to know the answers to. Exactly how much have government ministers spent on travel? It is not your money to fly around the world with, going to London, New York, or wherever you feel like going. It is the public’s money. Absolutely, there are trips that need to be taken, particularly to Asia, our close neighbour. It is very important to have relationships, and I understand some of those relationships are built on contact, visiting countries and learning. We have seen an extraordinary amount of travel that is not accounted for. We do not have the documents. When we were asking questions and you were prepared, you refused to answer them.
We have a government that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ministerial travel while Territorians are suffering. This government needs to take a long hard look at that because Territorians are sick and tired of it. They are sick of opening up the paper and reading about another trip a minister has taken without providing an explanation. Travel is important, but we need to have an explanation for it and the full costs disclosed. We need openness and transparency.
As a PAC member, I spent a lot of time listening to the questions. Some of the responses in Lands and Planning were quite bizarre. We have seen significant planning approvals go ahead without consultation, but the Lands and Planning minister has a newfound consultative nature. He has agreed to public meetings, and I note his commitment to consult with residents prior to signing off on planning. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
In today’s paper there is an advertisement to change minimum lot sizes from 800m2 to 450m2. This is a chance to show his newfound wish to consult with the community. We saw an advertisement in the paper today, but what will you really do? How will you genuinely consult with our community? In the rural area we have seen planning decisions made without proper consultation. We have seen it in the Palmerston area at Johnston Ridge and across the community.
It was good to see the Minister for Lands and Planning agree to consult more. I note the minister made a commitment that before handing over any portion of the old Darwin Hospital site he would consult. When I questioned him on handing over that land for a private medical facility, he could not answer if the government had considered the Palmerston hospital site for that.
With Infrastructure, it was interesting that many questions that I thought could be answered on the floor, and have been asked in the past, around revoting and the percentage of federal government funding, were unable to be answered. I look forward to seeing that information come through the questions on notice process. It was unsettling that they were unable to provide details of the most basic funding agreements and amounts.
Sport and Recreation was very revealing. There was a positive announcement of $20m for sporting infrastructure. I welcome any investment in sport in the Territory. I am passionate about sport and opportunities for all Territorians, but a few basic questions that should have been answered on the consultation of that $20m spend were unable to be answered. We will not let that lie; there will be more questions. We asked many questions on notice and will continue to follow them up because Territorians expect to know how their money is spent. Some $20m for sporting infrastructure – there should be a lot of consultation. We need to make sure it is what the sporting community wants.
Last night we heard it is not just for rugby league, it is for touch football, soccer and other sports that use a rectangular field. That was interesting, and when I asked if those sports had been consulted I was unable to get answers.
I wrote to the Chief Minister prior to the budget being announced, raising the concerns of my community in Nightcliff, Rapid Creek and Coconut Grove about antisocial behaviour. We have experienced significant property crime; it is a hot spot. I asked if we could have our police station reopened, which this government shut down even though they promised to make it a 24/7 police station, and I asked for CCTV cameras because the community feels that measure would protect them. The Nightcliff police station, even though the CLP went to the election promising the community to make it 24/7, has been shut down. Since that was shut on 1 July last year we have had the mobile police station there regularly. Nearly every week that mobile police station is within the community.
I asked if in this year’s budget the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police would reopen our police station. I did not get a response until just this week in a formal letter. During questioning, my colleague was told that things might change, so there may be some hope for the people of Nightcliff that their police station will be opened so we do not need the mobile police station.
In this budget process I found out we are now going to get mobile CCTV cameras. Nightcliff is an agreed hotspot area. Our police station was shut and we have a mobile police station, and now we are getting mobile CCTV cameras. I am not sure why the community of Nightcliff is not good enough to get the police station you promised them and to have CCTV cameras permanently. Our community is really feeling the pressure of antisocial behaviour and property crime, and I will not, as the local member, let up on this.
I find little hope in the Chief Minister’s words that, ‘things might change’. Now is your chance to show our community you care. I know you have been receiving direct correspondence because I have been copied into it as the local member.
The shadow minister for Education, my colleague, the member for Wanguri, has spoken about the cuts we have seen there and how that has affected our community.
In questioning the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing it was very interesting to hear his comments around Sunday trading. I was reassured that the government has no plans to introduce Sunday trading, but bizarrely enough, following a meeting the minister had in February, three people applied for Sunday trading licences, as I understand from my questioning. Those people are now being compensated for the licences they have applied for. I find it bizarre that the minister has made it quite clear that there would be no changes to the Sunday trading, yet following a meeting he had, people have applied and will be compensated. I will review those notes.
We made it quite clear we are not comfortable with the amount being put into gambling support programs. This government will see a significant increase in revenue from gaming machines. We know it is a huge issue in our community and the Northern Territory has one of the highest rates of people using electronic gaming machines. People need support and those support services are crying out for extra funding. The government is receiving a significant increase in revenue, yet we are not seeing that flow on to those agencies that provide support.
I found it interesting that the ministers used every tactic to avoid answering questions, reading long opening statements, talking slowly and avoiding scrutiny of the government’s budget, which is the aim of the committee. There is a lot we will continue to follow up on. We will not let up because the community wants us to ask these questions. Sometimes ministers do not realise we are asking these questions on behalf of the community and when they see their responses the ministers lose even more respect.
There were some long hours involved in the estimates process, and I thank my colleagues on the PAC, the staff within the government agencies who prepare all the briefs and information, and the Legislative Assembly staff. I know it is a small team; they put in long hours so we appreciate all their time and effort, especially refilling those lolly bowls. That sugar was certainly appreciated late at night.
There will be many more questions and follow ups on issues raised through the community and parliamentary process.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Chair, estimates has proved again, for the third year, that the Chief Minister does not like answering questions and being held to account. The Chief Minister does not want to be transparent. The Chief Minister’s session was probably one of the low marks for estimates. It is clear there is something rotten with ministerial travel.
The CLP in opposition asked questions about ministerial travel; every opposition does. This is a question that every Chief Minister can expect, and which the Chief Minister can certainly expect when there has been significant public and media attention to the state of ministerial travel under the CLP. There is something rotten with ministerial travel and people want to know what the CLP is doing with taxpayers’ money and how they are travelling.
As an opposition, we support travel that benefits the Territory. But we do not know what the CLP is doing, where its members are going and how they are spending taxpayers’ money. There has been a significant number of trips that have caused concern.
We asked the Chief Minister about ministerial travel and his response initially was to read slower than the host of Play School when he went through the answers. He read so slowly. He did not want to table the the 30-plus pages he had in front of him. He insisted on reading it out. We had an hour debate about him tabling or reading, and it got to the point where the Chief Minister said, ‘I am not giving this at all’. He reached a point in his answer on travel he did not like and he stopped reading.
We asked him at that point, on the trip he was accounting for, who the travel agent was. He said, ‘I do not know. I cannot tell you.’
The next day the Business minister told us it was Latitude Travel, but the Chief Minister refused to give us the answer on that day. We now have to wait a couple of months for the information we asked for. The Chief Minister chose not to provide an answer he could be expected to rightfully give during estimates, in an open and transparent manner, to Territorians. He was not prepared to give that answer. He was not prepared for estimates. There are several options why that could be – negligence and incompetence or he wants to hide something. Or perhaps it is all of them.
We learnt from the Minister for Education yesterday that if you want to hide travel you take it through the Department of the Chief Minister. I found that an extraordinary thing to say.
We know the Chief Minister was not prepared to give Territorians answers about ministerial travel, despite the fact it has received significant public attention, that it is a question which comes up every estimates, and he was given a copy of the exact words we would use in asking that question a week earlier. Despite all of this, the Chief Minister was not prepared to give answers to Territorians. We now have to wait.
People do not trust this government and this Chief Minister. The approach taken through estimates reinforces and, in fact, significantly increases, the trust deficit that exists between Territorians and this government.
Territorians wanted answers and they did not get them. The public, the media and the opposition wanted answers but we did not get them. The Chief Minister was not prepared for estimates or to be open and transparent with Territorians. There is a trust deficit that exists between Territorians and this government, and it grows every day. The process of estimates for this budget has not helped with that trust deficit.
You have to repair the damage done between this government and Territorians. You cannot repair it if you refuse to be open and transparent. Something looks and smells rotten and you are not prepared to let the sunlight in and give answers to Territorians. People want to know the truth about how taxpayers’ money is being spent. This government is doing nothing to help the trust deficit that exists between Territorians and this government by not being prepared to give answers about ministerial travel in estimates.
At a point in time when those answers should have been prepared and given, they were not. This will drag on again and again; it is an anchor around this government’s neck. They are not being honest with Territorians. During this fortnight of estimates they refused to be honest with Territorians about how they are spending taxpayers’ money on ministerial travel.
Every week or two there is a new story about how taxpayers’ money is being spent on overseas trips. We want more information. We will keep digging and asking, and we will keep doing FOIs, as will the media. We will chase this government down on ministerial travel. That was not a good barometer for this government. It was not a good test for it; it failed the test on openness and transparency.
I thank members of the Public Accounts Committee for the work they did in estimates. They were required, between the two of them, the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri, to be present for the entirety of estimates. They did a very professional job, as did all our shadows, in how they interrogated government ministers.
It is possible the member for Greatorex answered more questions than some of the ministers, and certainly more expansively. I thank our members of the PAC and our shadow ministers for the work that they did. The member for Greatorex actually showed some of the ministers up. The only time I got upset with the member for Greatorex was when he asked a question I thought had already been asked and the minister chose to answer it again. We saw duplication, but otherwise I thought the member for Greatorex had more answers during the estimates than some of the ministers.
With the Treasurer on the very first day we had a conversation in depth about the budget, its framing and what is driving the Northern Territory economy. We are optimistic about the future of the Territory, certainly in the medium and the long term. Most Territorians are, too, and have been for quite some time. The things that drive their optimism and the Territory economy have been a growing population, a strong infrastructure spend – primarily driven by the private sector but strategically supported by government – and a strongly growing employment rate. What is very clear from reading these budget papers is that there are some short-term challenges that need to be addressed about whether or not the CLP has a plan. They do not have a plan to address the short-term problems we are identifying. These problems are very clear in these budget books, which show the population growth rate stalling. We are seeing a slowing of population growth and massive interstate migration.
More Territorians are leaving the Territory than are moving to it – 3500 in the last year. That is extremely concerning. We asked the Treasurer about the population rates, what they are and how we can address them with this budget. There is another budget to come from the Territory government. These are the short-term challenges the government has to deal with now.
As opposition we will be working on this between now and the next Territory election, but at the moment the responsibility sits with the Treasury benches over there. These things are not being addressed by this government. We are seeing a slowing population growth, massive net interstate migration, and you can see it in the Territory’s budget books.
It is presented in a couple of places but the one I am holding up is the Northern Territory Economy budget book, page 40. This graph shows net interstate migration. It is a concern; you can see the very sharp decline over the last year which has brought the total growth rate for the Territory down to below the natural increase. It is something we need to be concerned about. We have a strong natural increase – babies being born in the Territory – but net interstate migration is a serious concern. These are our workers. The majority of them are able-bodied adults.
Another concern is the loss of senior Territorians. We do not want to lose our grandparents. We want to keep our grandkids in the Territory; we want to make sure we keep the family tree. That is something of significant concern in these books.
I will give you one example, as a local member, of my electorate in terms of keeping grandparents. There was an opportunity for this government to expand Pearl Aged Care and the residential seniors village onto the Sports House site. They did not take that opportunity to provide extra aged-care beds or increased options for senior Territorians to stay in the Territory. It is something we have to work on. We are losing Territorians and it is a concern.
We have slowing population growth, stalling employment growth and a government that says it will not be spending on infrastructure after this budget. It is cutting the infrastructure budget after this budget; it is in the budget books. It is a significant concern that after the INPEX construction stage this government plans to cut infrastructure spending in the Territory. It is an extraordinary decision, and one way they reach a paper thin surplus in 2017-18.
The budget books clearly say the surplus reflects lower levels of infrastructure spending. We have three short-term concerns about how we are dealing with what drives the Territory economy and gives us our optimism: the population growth; the employment rate; and a government which says it will not spend on infrastructure after this budget. We have serious concerns about this government’s ability to recognise the challenges we have with what underpins this budget, what underpins the optimism Territorians have in the economy, how they will deal with that and how they will deal with the post-INPEX construction phase. The answer is not to cut infrastructure spending.
There is a structural concern with this budget that needs to be addressed by the next budget. We have to trust the CLP government to start tackling these issues or they will create a massive problem for the next government in the next term, which we hope to be us. How will we deal with these issues, particularly with a government that will cut back on infrastructure spending post-INPEX construction? Those are significant concerns.
It is concerning that net interstate migration, even at the height of the INPEX construction phase, is falling through the floor. It was 3500 people last year; more people left the Territory than arrived. This is a major problem and, as the people who know about the budget on the other side recognise, population is a big driver of GST receipts. We have concerns around the GST, GST receipts for the Territory and how we are going with our population. Population is more of a concern than just people working or spending here, or how they are contributing to the Territory economy. It is more than the social changes that occur. They are all important things and we do not want to lose people from our community. Additionally, those heads count for money in GST receipts.
We have concerns about what is happening to the Territory economy and our population under the CLP government. Population drives demand for goods, services and products, and drives demand in the private sector. It puts pressure on the government sector to deliver, and significantly affects our GST receipts. We cannot afford to lose significant numbers of skilled Territorians. We have a small population base. We need to keep our skilled and trained Territorians, and keep their incomes and their spending here.
We have, as I acknowledged, a slight natural increase in births, which is good. However, newborns demand money and services from government. We want babies here, but we have to recognise a baby being born is not the same as a fully skilled and trained Territorian working and contributing to the economy. They are fantastic, but there is a difference in how newborns affect the budget.
We need to look at our overseas migration, which is tracking okay, but we need to keep an eye on it. The net interstate migration is a huge concern. The implications for that around spending on goods and services, having fewer taxpayers, fewer heads to be counted for GST and perhaps a greater reliance on the feds are all concerns about the Territory economy. Yet for all this we do not see a CLP population strategy.
At the same time our unemployment rate has crept up from 3.9% to 4.7%. It is concerning that increase is happening now with INPEX and its current state. We have growing pressures on the Territory economy, growing pressures on the budget, and we do not think this CLP has the answers for issues linked to population, labour force figures or infrastructure spending. These things are of significant concern.
Page 11 of Budget Paper No 2 says the surplus in 2017-18 reflects lower levels of infrastructure spending.
This government is planning to spend less on infrastructure after this budget and the INPEX construction phase. We do not think that is a realistic plan from this government. I do not believe that is the government’s plan. From talking with the Business minister – I will not put words in his mouth, but I do not think the Business minister agrees that slashing infrastructure spending post this budget is the answer for the Territory.
A fragile budget surplus is predicted for 2017-18. It is based around a vulnerable GST figure not just from population, but radically different estimates for the GST between the Territory and the Commonwealth Treasuries and GST receipts, particularly in the 2017-18 year. It is a fragile surplus because it is based on the CLP government cutting infrastructure spending and a difference in projections for the …
Mr CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, as interesting as this speech is for those people at home, as I am sure it is to those who are listening, you are coming very close to breaching two standing orders. One is Standing Order 70, tedious repetition, and the other is Standing Order 67, digression from subject. I ask that you remain within the bounds of the committee report; this is a response to the committee report. In regard to Standing Order 70, you have established, on a number of occasions, a number of facts. I ask that you move on or you sit down and discontinue your speech.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Talking about the conversation I had with the Treasurer in the Estimates Committee process, and the Commonwealth budget books, which I am touching on for the first time, which have a completely different projection around the GST to the Territory government’s books, we are very concerned about the fragile nature of the CLP surplus. We also saw, during estimates, a difference of opinion about when the Palmerston hospital will come online.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer both said it would be the third quarter of 2018. That is the financial year of 2018-19. The Health minister is convinced he will be delivering it in May 2017-18, which is obviously a different financial year. If the Palmerston hospital comes online in May of 2017-18, with the doctors, nurses and other staff being employed for that hospital prior to May, you would believe – they are not going to start on day one of that – they will have to be paid.
In the forward estimates the Treasurer has made it clear that money for the Palmerston hospital, whether it is new or taken from Royal Darwin, is happening in 2018-19. So we have this incredibly fragile surplus built based on cuts to infrastructure spending, fragile GST receipts, and a Palmerston hospital that will not come online until the third quarter of 2018, in the 2018-19 financial year. This government will have to find money for the Palmerston hospital if the Health minister is true to his word and brings it on board in May. There is a significant concern that the surplus in these budget books cannot be met.
If the Palmerston hospital comes online, the Commonwealth is accurate with its GST projections and the CLP has a different response to the post-INPEX construction phase than slashing infrastructure spending, that surplus will be gone. That surplus will not be met at all. We have examined, through the estimates committee and the budget books, the clear fragility of the CLP projections.
We do not think the CLP has a plan when it comes to fixing the problems in the short-term for the Territory economy because we have seen five Treasurers since 2012. We have seen two Chief Ministers and a brief minister; we have seen three different people, technically, in that chair, and we have had ten reshuffles under Chief Minister Giles alone. We have seen a significant changing of the seats.
We have massive concerns about what this government is planning for the things that underpin the Territory’s economy and budget. We have significant concerns about the honesty of the government and its refusal to answer questions to provide information they should be prepared for during the Estimates Committee process.
The latest Sensis business confidence index reflects the worry that business has with this government. This government has slipped into negative territory when it comes to the confidence of small- and medium-sized businesses in their ability to handle the Territory economy in their policies. Worry is creeping in because they can see this government has no plan. They can see this government is not addressing the post-INPEX construction phase. These are significant concerns.
Moving on from the budget, I need to talk briefly about the Police minister and the concerns we had about police numbers. The CLP made a clear election promise of 120 extra police. We have had 15 in three years. I cannot see how they can meet 100 extra cops over and above attrition in the time available to them. They are breaking their promise when it comes to police numbers …
Mr CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I draw to your attention that you cannot move on from the budget. This is a budget debate. I bring you back to the budget and the Appropriation Bill. As fascinating as you and members on your side might find this, it better serves another day and debate. This is about the Appropriation Bill, and the Estimates Committee, so please, bring it back to the budget, or sit down.
Mr GUNNER: This was obviously discussed during the Estimates Committee process, Mr Chair, and while I said I was moving on from the budget, I meant moving on from my conversation with the Treasurer. We obviously have concerns around the CLP’s ability to deliver on its election promise about police numbers and its ability with the budget.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I listened to that contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. Even the lights are too bored to stay on. Moreover, it demonstrated the lack of preparation he put in to what should have been an important speech. He meandered around, which is essentially how the process was followed by most of the shadow ministers, with the possible exception of the members for Wanguri and Nhulunbuy, who both impressed me with their preparation for the questions they asked, particularly the member for Nhulunbuy who took the time to match annual reports to budget papers. To that end, she has demonstrated a clear understanding of how the budget process works. I lay my congratulations on the table.
However, I am less impressed with the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly has struggled with the idea of how the budget process works. I want to put to bed now, once and for all, the matter he raised in relation to the issue they are focusing on, which is when the Palmerston hospital will open. I am quite confident of my May 2018 date. I have a $100 bet going with the Chief Minister that I will meet that deadline. I will be more than happy to collect my $100 from the Chief Minister in May 2018.
The assertion that somehow that magically upsets the budget and the surplus is so much hokum. It was texted to the member for Nhulunbuy when she was trying to make that assertion. It should be texted again to the Leader of the Opposition because there are a number of vehicles available to government to deal with those issues, which will not threaten the surplus. I am more than confident that the surplus in several years’ time will not be threatened by the hospital being completed in May 2018.
I was, however, disappointed that while the member for Nhulunbuy had taken the time out to read some annual reports and budget papers, she had not read the agreement between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth in relation to the rolling out of the hospital site. It was clear when she did not admit, but did not deny, that she had not read the agreement that she started to fall apart. If we applied ourselves to the agreement in the way the member for Nhulunbuy and other members opposite suggest we should, then we would commit ourselves to a 60-bed hospital. We are providing 116 beds.
We have from the members opposite this assertion that we should have a 60-bed hospital because we should laboriously adhere to an agreement. They select some elements of the agreement and talk about them without addressing other elements and at least acknowledging that we are building a hospital of near twice the bed capacity as the one they proposed some time ago. There is, of course, flexibility built into the agreement to enable us to do so. It is in the terms of the agreement.
The site was chosen to enable sufficient growth for future development of the hospital. Their former site, which was slightly closer to the Palmerston town centre, would have consumed, with the building of a 60-bed hospital, half the site. As a consequence, if you allow then for car parks and a few other things, even if that had doubled at some point in the future, the pressure within a few years on a growing area – one of the fastest-growing cities in Australia as I understand it – would mean the hospital site would be full within, I imagine, a decade or so.
Identifying a 45 ha site enables not only the hospital to have room for future growth, but may enable some other investor or future organisation to seek space on the same site, or in a similar area. There is a capacity to offer to the people of Palmerston a raft of services in the future. That is an important thing to contemplate when you are looking at a hospital site.
The comparison is the Royal Darwin site, which was operational in 1980. At that time it looked like a very tall building in the middle of a paddock. There is not much room left now on the Royal Darwin Hospital grounds for future development and expansion. Consequently, we know full well that if you have a growth rate such as the one in Palmerston and the rural area, we have to allow for future growth.
It is for that reason we chose not to build the hospital on the site the former Labor government chose, but to build a hospital on a site which is substantially larger and will provide a larger range of services to the people of the Northern Territory, particularly, to those of Palmerston and its surrounds. I also point out that for all the noise they made about the hospital, there was no doubt, even from their own paperwork prior to the change of government, that they had made all sorts of promises they either could not keep or had never intended to keep.
The other thing I point out about the process of estimates is that preparation is most of your work. I was surprised to hear the member for Wanguri say, ‘Oh, we do not get enough time with certain ministers’. I express my dismay at that assertion. The year before last when we delivered our first budget on coming to government, we gave members opposite unlimited time with any minister they chose. Because of their lack of discipline, they suddenly found they had consumed nearly 40 of the 55 or 60 hours available on the Chief Minister and Treasurer alone, which left them with almost no time for other ministers. They screamed from the rafters asserting it was an outrageous thing to give them this flexibility so we should put time frames in place. Last year we did and this year we put the same time frames in place, only to hear now the member for Wanguri complaining they do not have enough time with certain ministers.
You either get it or you do not get it. If you want time with certain ministers, then ask for a system which is the one we originally introduced upon coming to government. You cannot stand here with a straight face and assert you need more time with certain ministers when you demanded that time limits be imposed. That is precisely the call that was made and is what we introduced last year. Now one year later on we hear calls for time limits to be opened up so you can inquire of ministers about their portfolio areas because some ministers carry a slightly larger portfolio burden than others. I find the approach of the members opposite both inconsistent and baffling because of this ever-changing expectation that it is never good enough no matter how we try to accommodate them and give them as much latitude as we can.
I was also surprised about a number of detailed questions I heard that would have been better served if notice had been given prior to being asked during the estimates process. If you are interested in how many paper clips the health clinic at Papunya or the police station at Lajamanu consumes, then write us a quick letter and we will find that information so when the question comes up, we can answer it. There were a number of generic questions written, but as you listened to the estimates process, what you started to see was an absence of discipline in how matters are pursued. That absence of discipline decays into a conversational environment.
I draw members’ attention particularly to the exchange between the member for Barkly and Bill Freeland from the EPA. At one stage the member for Barkly said he enjoyed conversations with scientists. That may be true and is fine, but if you are trying to test the directions of government, then asking how to drive a car and where to put the petrol is not what you should be doing. What should be occurring in your mind’s eye is, ‘How would I drive the car better than the people in government?’ All you were doing then was wasting time in the estimates process having a conversation.
I did not hear from members opposite at any point during the estimates process how they would drive the car of government. We spent 55 hours speaking about how we drive the car of government. I will hear all sorts of opinions as to how well people describe their role in the driver’s seat. What I heard from the members opposite was they have no plan to even get a licence, and if they have a licence, they have no plan for how or where that car is to be driven.
An absence of policy and the ability to articulate a contrary position to the government demonstrated by the repeated phrase, ‘We are asking the questions and you have to answer them’, when challenged on this issue demonstrates they are more than happy to criticise the driver of the car but not to get a licence themselves.
I was also surprised at the trivialities engaged in. When you think we have a $6.5bn budget or thereabouts over the next year, much of which can be found in the appropriation – some money comes from other sources – you can understand you would be asking questions about some of the big picture stuff we are doing.
The fact we did not even discuss Top End Health Services in my portfolio area surprised me a little because it is a spend of hundreds of millions of dollars. What attracted extended questioning was the purchase of lanyards in the department of child protection. Out of all the issues I could find to ask questions about in the Department of Children and Families, what surprises me the most is you would focus on the purchase of some lanyards. Seriously? That is the most important thing you could ask about from opposition in relation to what we are doing in the Department of Children and Families? Lanyards?
If I was an average Territorian sitting in my lounge room being a foster parent or a person who had lost my child to the child protection system, trying to find out what government was doing, where it was failing, where it was succeeding, and listening to the questioning from the members of the alternative government, and heard the best they could hint at was they have a lanyard policy – you have lost focus if that is where you want to go.
I suspect the signal was meant to be, ‘We have a source inside the department’. Bully for you. There are 20 000 public servants and I imagine some of them will have sympathies in certain directions. That is up to them. Realistically speaking, if you try to show off that you have a source in a department you will have to do better than lanyards because it does not impress anybody. It certainly does not impress me. Good, well-considered questions should be treated with respect. Bad, ill-considered questions are irritating because they do not serve the people we serve.
Another example of the introspection of the members opposite is the business about me going to departments. I have done that from day dot. It is no surprise. I presume union members working in the department have fed this back through to the CPSU, which then made an issue of it in a newspaper article. In other jurisdictions quite often the department and the minister occupy the same building. We have something quite unique in the Northern Territory in that the executive arm of government occupies space in Parliament House.
That is not always the case. I cannot immediately think of too many instances where it is the case. Perhaps the Australian parliament is a good example, where the ministers occupy an office inside Parliament House. They will have their member’s office, but their ministerial office will be in an office building somewhere in the CBD or around the city. Often those departments are in the same building. I can tell you from personal experience that the Attorney-General’s department and the Attorney-General’s office are in the Sydney CBD, and neither of those things is in Parliament House.
It is quite possible for the Attorney-General to walk through his department on a regular basis. It happens all the time. There is nothing unusual in this. Frankly it concerns me deeply that I am hearing from members opposite that they will not visit their departments because they might upset a union member or some other person with their presence.
You are effectively saying the only conduit of information in government you will accept is one person, your own CEO. I have great faith and trust in all my CEOs. Nevertheless, it is always useful to get more than one opinion when you are hearing about an issue. I am not suggesting for one second that people should be coming up to me telling me everything that is happening in the department; I am not interested in that, but it is nice to see what actually happens inside departments.
Do I go into operational areas of the department of child protection? Hell, no. I would not do that. If somebody is dealing with a child they have just taken away from their family or an angry parent, the last thing they need is the minister traipsing through the joint. I will always give good warning of my impending arrival into an operational area, but an administrative section like Health House I will walk through regularly. An administrative section like DCF here in town where there are never any clients, I walk through all the time.
Do I go through the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice? At least once a week; it is probably not that much now that I have Health, but very regularly. With Corrections it is the same deal; I do it all the time and talk to people on the floor. I am starting to know these people. I am starting to be able to ask them about their kids and dogs. Those people can tell me things they are doing in their world. The vast majority of them, I suspect, are happy to see me and proud to tell me about the work they do, unabashed and unworried that I happen to have the title of ‘minister’.
Nevertheless, for some reason the members opposite have signalled they will never visit any of the public servants who work for them and it is inappropriate to talk to them at any time.
Ms Fyles: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: Why do you object to me visiting my departments if the answer to that is rubbish?
Mr Tollner: Because they walk both sides of the street. The word ‘hypocrisy’ comes up. It is not appropriate for you to visit but they should.
Mr CHAIR: Order! Attorney-General, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the Treasurer because he is exactly right. They see the public service, for whatever reason, as their domain. Woe betide that anybody from another political stripe should condescend to visiting a department, or alternatively, and much more likely, the CPSU decides to have a whinge about me because I do not agree with their world view. In lockstep with the CPSU the members opposite say, ‘The CPSU is right and the minister is wrong, as we will always say’. Who will be the new government of the Northern Territory should the Labor party be elected, the members opposite or the CPSU?
Mr Tollner: It will be the CPSU.
Mr ELFERINK: It will be the CPSU. The CPSU does not like me because from time to time I say a word the Labor Party hates to say to the union movement, which is ‘no’.
I will continue to do what is necessary to govern for the people of the Northern Territory. As a consequence, my rating of most of what I heard during the estimates process is not a high one in relation to the members opposite. The work which should have been done in advance was not done. The execution of the work done was not really that strident, but much more importantly, they focused on peripheral matters rather than the core ones that are important to the people of the Northern Territory. Focusing on the purchase of lanyards and ministers visiting departments, and not reading important documents before you come into the estimates process, shows a level of ill-preparedness that reflects an ill-preparedness for government.
Ms MOSS: Mr Chair, I start by acknowledging the hard work of the public servants, not only on a daily basis, but in preparing for and participating in the estimates process, often into the night. It is an important process to ensure the scrutiny of this bill and provide further information to Territorians about the government’s priorities, challenges and achievements. It was interesting to hear the member for Port Darwin talk about some of the questions we asked about child protection, because there was an incredible number of questions which were very important to a range of stakeholders, including foster carers. Many of those questions were taken on notice as they could not be answered in that session. I will talk a little more about that in a minute.
Thank you to the public servants for all the work they have done to provide detail about agency activities. There is a lot of good work being done around government by public servants, and we acknowledge that. I also acknowledge, as my colleagues have done, that there will be a plethora of questions provided to the government in writing on a range of issues about government. It has been a very full-on two weeks. There were further questions raised as a result of estimates.
I too will comment on what I saw in the sessions last Tuesday with the Chief Minister. I was watching that session. This is my first estimates process so I watched as many sessions as I could throughout the two weeks to get a grasp of what conversations were taking place. I recall the comment from the Chief Minister about hoping that the estimates process would be more tasteful than the previous one. He then proceeded to talk extremely slowly through a range of documents that had been asked for in advance. He used props, and basically make a spectacle of the process from the outset.
Territorians were watching that. Territorians have spoken to us about what they saw. That is what they see from the leader of the Northern Territory, that when you guys are asked really important questions it is okay to make a mockery of the process. They are disgusted with what they saw on Tuesday, as we are.
The questions about ministerial travel are important. We have further questions. We have heard a lot of new information this week. We also asked a number of questions on ministerial travel which were not answered, so I am sure there is more information to come. Taxpayers want to know they are getting good outcomes for the money they spend. They recognise there is a role for travel, research, study and meeting people who are running initiatives in other states and territories, or even across the world. They want to see the outcomes. They want to know we are being up front about the travel we take as members of parliament. They are important questions. When a mockery is made by the Chief Minister of those questions and that process, quite frankly it is embarrassing.
I thank my colleagues for their support in helping me to prepare for my first estimates process. I will turn to my shadow portfolio areas in a moment, but I want to mention that we have not seen any serious investment in any of the recommendations from the Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Select Committee. Over 20 recommendations were made. This is an incredibly important issue in the Territory. It was important enough for parliament to create a select committee, yet it is hard to put your finger on any resources that have been allocated to any agency for implementing those recommendations.
I sit on the select committee for the government’s response to the ice issue we are seeing across the Territory. It is hard to find any kind of allocation of resources to recommendations that might come out of that committee. When we see national media focusing on the NT and stating we have the third-highest rate of incarcerating people of any region in the world, that makes me really sad. It made me feel incredibly ashamed to watch that last night, and to think that currently we have a government that does not take investment in prevention and early intervention particularly seriously. We have seen cuts to youth and community services, and services that deal with substance abuse.
Let us get serious about having a better vision for the Territory’s future. If we can keep finding the money to keep people locked up in the justice system, then surely we can find money to invest in our community and get people engaged in the positive areas of our community like education, jobs and meaningful activities.
On to my shadow portfolios of mental health and Disability services, it is clear that the NDIS, as it should be, is an important focus of the Office of Disability and the sector. There have been a number of media reports relating to issues around the Barkly trial. It is just that, it is a trial, and I hope to hear more about the lessons we learn from it as it continues. I feel we have the opportunity to really shape the future of how this scheme is rolled out across the country and in remote areas.
I hope to see further investment in the area of mental health. I have made no secret of that. More importantly, how we can identify issues early and make that connection to appropriate services. In the last six months a national review into mental health services has been released, and I look forward to hearing more information about how this might be considered going forward. There is a lot to be done, particularly in remote service delivery areas, across both of those portfolio areas.
I was quite excited to hear about the potential advocacy roles in mental health in Alice Springs and Darwin. I hope it is an initiative that works and is rolled out more broadly. I look forward to some more information about that.
I really appreciate the time spent with the Corporate and Information Services department. Quite often we take Corporate and Information Services for granted, but let us be honest, we really could not operate many things without the work of our ICT workforce. I look forward to asking more questions of the minister on how we are up-skilling and growing our ICT workforce in the Northern Territory. That is something the ICT workforce is quite interested in hearing about as well.
Across my portfolios of Youth, Seniors and Multicultural Affairs, I have a number of questions I will be providing in writing, particularly in relation to seniors. We have an ageing population. The cost of living is a huge issue and a major reason why we lose many of our older Territorians.
I had a keen interest in continuing the discussion around neighbourhood activity centres. It is an initiative in the member for Sanderson’s electorate which has attracted a $1.2m investment. The minister sees it as a way to address issues such as suicide amongst older Territorians and school attendance amongst youth at risk. It is a huge undertaking. There are considerable outcomes the minister is expecting from this initiative, but there is still very little detail around the evidence upon which it is based. It seems, at this point, to be based a lot on the minister’s personal experiences. I do not want to belittle that; he has had very important experiences, but I want to see more of the evidence base behind something that has attracted such a massive investment.
I hope it is the start of an ongoing and open discussion around the initiative, particularly given the struggles of the youth and community sectors, which have really struggled under the important cuts over the last three years from the CLP government. I hope to see more detail from the government around the formal consultation that has happened on that concept.
For the Department of Children and Families, I thank the minister for his openness during the estimates process. It is an enormous area, a very concerning area, and a complex and difficult one for any government. However, it is still a huge concern that the number of notifications in the child protection system continues to rise significantly. They have almost doubled in the last five years yet there was a drop in staffing levels of 28.
The minister has acknowledged the many difficulties of the portfolio area, which we appreciate; however, it is a concern that the budget for investigations in the child protection system does not seem to reflect the significant increases in current and future workloads. These were important questions we asked, and that stakeholders expect us to ask, because it is on top of caseloads that continue to rise across the Territory. We heard about those rising caseloads during estimates.
We now know the regional executive director position for the Katherine region has been vacant for three months. We are waiting for the second round of recruitment action to commence. It is critical that this is a priority because those child protection workers need leadership and support in Katherine and the surrounding regions to deal with this increasing workload.
We acknowledge quite an important incident occurred during that session, which the minister had to attend to. It is unclear what stage we are at with the recruitment of the new permanent Children’s Commissioner. I stress it is important the role is filled as soon as possible and there is a fair, transparent and open process for that position, particularly given the challenges we see in the child protection system. It is so important that we have that independent watchdog able to provide a balanced view and scrutiny of the activities of the department, particularly as we have a backlog within the child protection system. We do not have the additional resources to deal with that backlog. They are sometimes automatically allocated to child protection workers. It depends on the speed in which child protection workers get to those cases. I still hold huge concerns about what will happen to children whose cases are in that backlog.
Housing was a very interesting session. There are other important areas I look forward to presenting to the minister, particularly in relation to visitor parks in Alice Springs and housing in the Cyclone Lam and Nathan affected areas. It would seem at present there is no real vision or certainty around the future of visitor parks in Alice Springs, regardless of how important they are. I was hopeful I would have the opportunity to ask those questions; however, as raised by my colleagues, a number of documents that would previously have been tabled, the minister insisted on reading out during that session.
Staffing – year on year since the CLP government came into office we have seen significant job losses. There has been a loss of 71 FTEs in what is a vital service delivery area for Territorians. There was a lot of confusion around the cause of that, so I look forward to clarifying it. The minister tried to shut down that conversation by insinuating staffing was not a question related to the budget, which I was glad we were able to work through. There are a number of workload reviews happening in housing so I would like to ask more questions about that as well.
Wait times have grown approximately 37% across the Territory since 2012 on a one-bedroom non-pensioner dwelling. This is pretty much the same across all dwelling types, and the repairs and maintenance budget for 2015-16 is less than it was in 2012-13. The length of vacancy is increasing. We also hope to get an answer in relation to the impact on wait lists from the relocation of 80 tenants from Kurringal, particularly when other areas of social housing delivery seem to be significantly slowing.
I want to provide some of those figures. In Alice Springs it is now 87 months that people have to wait for one of those houses. That is an enormous amount of time and it is growing. We did not get a succinct answer about what is being done to try to decrease those wait lists for some of our most disadvantaged Territorians. We saw 95 new social houses budgeted for in 2014-15 with only 18 delivered. It will take the CLP government more than two years to deliver what was promised in one year, and even that depends on the CLP meeting the targets for this year.
I have acknowledged there will be a range of written questions provided to the government, but I would like to remind the members opposite that there were some incredibly important questions asked yesterday on behalf of Territorians and stakeholders which were not answered. We look forward to more detail on those matters.
I really appreciated the opportunity to ask those questions on my shadow portfolio areas, and again I thank the public servants who helped that process along.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, I also add my thanks, as other colleagues have, to the many people involved in the running of the annual estimates process. I thank the staff from the Legislative Assembly for their efficiency and patience over what were some very late nights, although not as late as they were a couple of years ago, thank goodness. I thank the many public servants who work hard behind the scenes in the lead-up to estimates and on the day they appear with their minister. I observed that when there was a changeover of public servants as we change from an output, those public servants going out the door looked a little happier and a bit relieved compared to the public servants I saw arriving in the lift ready to take up their seats where they know they have some hard work in front of them supporting their minister.
I thank the members of the PAC. I commend the member for Drysdale for her chairing of the PAC for the third year. She is clearly quite comfortable in the role as she makes good, sensible decisions. I know, because I have been in that chair as the deputy, that sometimes you have your work cut out for you in trying to get things back on track. Congratulations to the member for Drysdale. I also thank the member for Blain for his efforts, and I congratulate you, Mr Chair, as a PAC member, for your work in answering questions for ministers and trying to get conversations and lines of questioning back on track. It was most interesting to observe how you worked this year. I am sure your colleagues are eternally grateful to you.
I commend the members for Wanguri and Nightcliff for their efforts. There are very long hours if you are on the PAC committee, and if you are a PAC committee member in opposition you have, in addition to your PAC duties, those of a shadow minister; to my two colleagues, well done. They are also the two colleagues on this side of the House who have very young children, one an infant, and juggling those responsibilities with family is no small feat. The member for Drysdale might be taking some tips from the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri as to how to manage those things because she may well find herself in that boat next year. Unless, of course, she finds herself elevated into Cabinet, in which case it is a whole new kettle of fish.
I thank the ministers who came before the Estimates Committee. We saw varying degrees of preparation and preparedness to answer questions. This is a process that is about openness, transparency and accountability. We should never lose sight of that and the knowledge that whilst we might just have a microphone in front of us, those microphones transmit a stream out to the whole world, as do the cameras within the Litchfield Room. It is not just media watching; Territorians and the public service are watching. It is not just about those who are in the room; it is about the messages that get taken outside. People will make their own judgements on the basis of what they hear and see.
I am not sure I am feeling entirely satisfied that the estimates process has really delivered what it is supposed to, which is an opportunity to provide openness and transparency about the government’s appropriation, the budget. With ministers answering questions with a mixture of written queries provided in advance and those asked in the course of going through each budget output, disappointingly – not just for those of us who were asking questions from opposition but for hard-working public servants and members of the public – too often ministers simply chose not to cooperate, not to participate in estimates in the spirit of how it should operate, and not table answers to written questions. I commend the Speaker, the member for Goyder, who happily, as the first member of the government appearing before the PAC, was happy to table answers to her questions. There were ministers, not the least of whom was the Chief Minister, who did their utmost to avoid the very scrutiny estimates is designed to provide. How shameful it was to watch some of those performances.
The most shameful of all performances was, without a doubt, the Chief Minister’s. How he magically remains in his role as Chief Minister, even though nine of his colleagues do not support him and only five do, I do not know. I cannot help but wonder whether after this week those numbers might shift, given his very ordinary performance on what he knew he would be asked. Questions were provided in advance about ministerial travel, which is a very hot topic in the Territory right now. His behaviour was schoolboy-like, with the use of props and deliberately reading on to the record pages and pages of information that could so easily have been tabled.
‘Schoolboy-like’ reminds me how, during the Education session, the member for Brennan, the Education minister, made the observation that it is Year 9 boys who are the most difficult to deal with as they can be the naughtiest. There were a few nods in the room. As an ex-school teacher I remember Year 9 boys. That is what I thought of as I watched the Chief Minister – a naughty Year 9 boy who was not prepared to cooperate. I have seen a picture of him online recently with his mullet haircut from his school days. I pictured him with his mullet haircut, sitting in the back of the English classroom, rocking on a chair, which is what Year 9 boys do. That is the image I have of the Chief Minister following his performance in estimates.
I daresay, the whole ministerial travel saga, the shameful and extraordinary sums of taxpayers’ dollars to send ministers, their advisers and their mates on overseas junkets, will unravel and come to light of day even though the Chief Minister and his colleagues have done their very best to cover things up and avoid the truth. Such monumental failings are not sustainable. I sincerely hope the truth about this dreadful episode in the CLP’s term with a complete lack of transparency on big travel budgets will come to light. It simply has to.
We are not anti-travel; travel is an important part of the job. The member for Katherine, in his role as Primary Industry minister, has done good things as a result of his travels. No one is saying do not travel but when we do not get transparency about the purpose of the trip, who was part of it and why the bills were so substantial – it is basic stuff around being accountable.
I will not be able to address in detail all the portfolios I went through, given the time I have, but I will start with Attorney-General and Justice. I welcomed the opportunity to hear from the Attorney-General about plans afoot to build up, within his agency, the Domestic Violence Directorate. I see this as a step in the right direction towards addressing and reducing unacceptably high levels of family and domestic violence in the Northern Territory which continue to grow. Overall, our statistics are unacceptable and it is a critical issue that needs to be dealt with.
In my discussion with the Attorney-General during estimates I noted that while domestic violence assaults have dropped in places like Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, which is obviously very reassuring, at the same time, for women and children escaping domestic violence – and I refer specifically to Alice Springs – places like the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter continue to see an increase in demand for their service. While crime statistics will tell a certain story, there are other statistics that come from the providers of crisis accommodation like the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter that show the demand is such that they continue to turn away, in increasing numbers, those who come to their door.
The Attorney-General agreed with me about that. He asked me whether that meant we would be funding more beds for women and children escaping domestic violence. I put to him the answer that I had heard from Dale Wakefield, who runs that centre in Alice Springs, because it is an incredibly sensible approach. You really need to invest that money at the front end, in prevention and education programs, real stuff to try to prevent these things from happening rather than dealing with the crisis end all the time. This is where government spends too much time. There is a huge body of work around the Domestic Violence Directorate. It is across 11 agencies and is a whole-of-government approach.
I chose to ask these questions of the Attorney-General because I know he is a hard-working minister, and he really considers what the issues and challenges are across his portfolio areas. For that reason I did not follow with continued questioning into the area of women’s policy. When minister Price came before the Estimates Committee she had a lot of important questions she needed to answer. As a bush member I know of matters around failings in housing and local government, where budgets have been cut and services are not being delivered. So we made a decision as to where we directed our energy. I was pleased the member for Barkly was able to use that time.
Mrs Price interjecting.
To be honest with you I had very little faith in the member for Stuart’s ability to answer questions. That realisation came to fruition later in the night around statehood. Given the questions I might have asked the member for Stuart around Women’s Policy, one of the most important things being domestic violence, I was satisfied, having had the discussion with the Attorney-General around this important issue, that I did not need to pursue that with the member for Stuart. To be honest with you if I had asked questions of the member for Stuart as the Women’s Policy minister, I doubt she could have answered them. I heard her appear before the Senate hearings into domestic and family violence a couple of months ago ...
Mrs Price: I am the Minister for Women’s Policy. You never asked me questions.
Ms WALKER: You will get your turn in a moment, minister. For someone who normally does not like talking or answering questions, you are rather vocal over there at the moment. Mr Chair, you might ask the white noise over there if she could cease interrupting for a moment.
Mrs Price: I will tell the Yolgnu women you are being racist.
Mr CHAIR: Order, minister! Member for Nhulunbuy, you have the call.
Ms WALKER: I would ask the member to withdraw that. It is highly offensive.
Mr CHAIR: I did not hear it.
Ms WALKER: She accused me of being racist. I would ask her to withdraw, please.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, it is a serious allegation. You can make it by substantive motion but in the spirit of this debate, I ask that you withdraw.
Mrs PRICE: She comes in with an angry face every time she confronts me.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, please.
Mrs PRICE: I will refrain from saying it next time but I do get offended as well.
Ms WALKER: She has been asked to withdraw, Mr Chair.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, I do ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mrs PRICE: I withdraw.
Ms WALKER: I did not hear her, could she stand and speak into the microphone.
Mr CHAIR: I heard it, she has withdrawn it. Please, member for Nhulunbuy, you have the call.
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
In terms of pursuing a line of questioning with the member for Stuart, I have little faith she can answer questions. I might have liked to have asked her questions about whether she has approached the federal Treasurer on the removal of GST on sanitary items but I suspect she would have turned to the man next to her to ask him for an answer. I might have asked her whether or not she would back Rosie Batty, who is calling to have domestic violence leave enshrined within entitlements as a basic safety measure, but I suspect she would not have known what I was talking about. I did not pursue Women’s Policy because there are no answers from this current minister.
Going back to the area of Health, Palmerston Regional Hospital featured quite a bit in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition and I raised questions about when exactly the Palmerston Regional Hospital will be opened. Will it be May 2018 as the Health minister says or will it be in September or October 2018, which is what the Chief Minister and Treasurer claim. Even as late as this afternoon, in his reply, the Health minister was standing his ground yet again saying it will be May 2018, even though the Chief Minister said after the Health minister’s time in estimates said, ‘No, I know he is very passionate but it will be September or October 2018’.
To hear the Health minister say there is a $100 wager between him and the Chief Minister on the exact opening date of the Palmerston Regional Hospital provides me with absolutely no confidence as to when this hospital will open and even less confidence that the Cabinet of the CLP government really know what they are doing.
I was really concerned to hear about some of the cuts now being inflicted as a result of the savage federal cuts last year. Minister Lambley, the former Health minister, had flagged some of these cuts coming. To see $4m in cuts to a vital Health program around sexual health for Indigenous teenagers is devastating. I condemn the Abbott government and the self-proclaimed Prime Minister for Indigenous Territorians. It is disgraceful.
Equally unforgiveable is the $1.5m cut from the much-needed renal dialysis service which impacts directly on the Western Desert Dialysis services, which is now partnering with Miwatj in my electorate. However, to add insult to injury the Health minister said that he did not have a magic wand and may not be able to look after kidney failure in the future. He also entered into dialogue about where the responsibility lies and blaming patients for their behaviour and resulting medical conditions. I find that disgraceful, knowing there are people who suffer chronic disease, particularly Indigenous Territorians, and that we have a growing need for renal dialysis. That really worries me.
As for the AMT program, what can you say? The Health minister, as did his predecessor, refuses to enter into an independent, at arm’s length review of the AMT service. We see incredibly flimsy reports released quarterly with very basic data about how many people are in AMT. We do not see any record of success other than the occasional anecdote. These quarterly reports on AMT are next to useless. If the government is so confident its AMT system is working, which involved millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, then it needs to support it with an evidence-based approach. If they genuinely thought it was working they would say, ‘No worries, we will go to an independent review’.
The fact that the Health minister said the review can be done internally shows he misses the point entirely. By doing it internally he has his own hard-working public servants produce a report which he then decides whether or not he wants to release and what should be in it. That is not an independent report. The Menzies School of Health – I do not know who else is out there – one of the universities or a tertiary institution would be ably qualified. It is not to say there is a lack of expertise within the Department of Health because I know there is not, but this is what tertiary institutions do; it is their job. It is the job of this government to provide an evidence-based approach to substantiate the millions of taxpayer dollars that go into this system.
Interestingly, towards the end of his session the Health minister had been obviously slipped a note that said if they were to review it, it would cost in the vicinity of $100 000 to $200 000. He was dismissing that as far too costly. For me $100 000 to $200 000 is a very worthwhile investment into a government program which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars; a figure of $100 000 to $200 000 into that type of research pales into insignificance when we see what this government spends on ministerial travel, which we still do not have answers for about who went, where they went, why they went and who paid the bar bills. It is woeful that the Health minister and the CLP government will not commit to it other than to say maybe after it has been operating for three or four years. How very convenient you will not do that before an election.
I thank the Minister for Public Employment and the commissioner for coming before the Estimates Committee. We know the firies’ EBA remains outstanding, and I pleaded with the member for Katherine to take a message back to the Minister for Health that he really needs to get the paramedics’ EBA resolved. It is not the responsibility of government, but our ambos are working on the front line putting their lives at risk every day. I got a nod and a smile from the member for Katherine so I hope he took that back.
I had a lot of questions about WorkSafe NT and am waiting to hear back. There is nothing more important than worker safety. It is critical we see a balance with not only education, but the sending of strong messages to industry and workplaces that they must look after worker safety.
Mr VOWLES: Mr Chair, I contribute as the shadow for numerous portfolios. I thank all the staff who contributed to running the estimates process, and the committee, who worked tirelessly over the last couple of weeks, with long hours, a lot of preparation and a lot of listening to the same questions. To not have global questions we provided earlier to the ministers answered was concerning. It is something we need to address in the process. I thank most of the ministers who took the time to answer questions in an informative, open and honest way. That is what the people expect from the estimates process.
I thank the Minister for Mines and Energy for a very good session. The main point was hydraulic fracturing and the Hawke report. We tried to get a time when the review will be done by Dr Hawke. I am looking forward, as are Territorians, to that review coming out and the regulatory framework that will be implemented into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory.
We got some answers. I believe no licences for hydraulic fracturing have been approved since the minister has become the new Minister for Mines and Energy, which is interesting. I believe the government is doing the right thing by waiting for the review, because Dr Hawke is a very renowned person in this field. His original report is very good and specific, and has many recommendations that need to be implemented. We look forward to the review of hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory.
I move on to Indigenous Policy. I welcome any announcement that will improve Aboriginal people’s opportunity to have economic growth in their communities, be they remote or urban. The creation of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is a great start. It has taken nearly three years for the government to figure out we need an Indigenous-specific office. It is the way forward; it should have been the way forward from the start. We had some good programs in place. Just because there has been a change in government or political parties does not mean it was not working. I welcome that. I always welcome any initiative improving Indigenous people’s lives in the Northern Territory.
I will comment on the $155m from the feds to deliver outstation services. On this side we have serious concerns about this government taking control of that. There have been some very positive outcomes from this government, and I highlight the Tiwi Islands. Opportunities always need to be given to Indigenous people. The concern about the $155m – we need to see the detail of it and what it entails.
We have heard the talk about the closure of Aboriginal communities in WA due to the lack of federal funding. So when the government is offering $155m and the Chief Minister has said he welcomes the takeover of this, what is the ongoing funding agreement? The Treasurer has said in the media over the last couple of weeks that we need to see the details of that.
It is very important for remote Aboriginal people to know about the services that will be provided to them. We held our Caucus at Wadeye a couple of weeks ago and the two main issues we heard about were housing and the price of electricity. I hope they will be focused on improving people’s lives in our remote communities.
Moving on to transport, I thank minister Chandler, the member for Brennan, for a very good session. It was not as long as I wanted. I had many questions to ask, and I will be putting them in a written format to the minister at a future date. There was talk about privatisation of the Darwin Bus Service. At the time minister Chandler took over, we had had three Transport ministers in three months. There is a period when ministers are learning about their portfolios. I thank the minister and his departmental staff for being open and answering the questions I asked.
When the announcement was made about the privatisation of the bus service, government said there would be no change to conditions for the workers and nobody would be worse off. We were told in a media report last week that bus driver conditions have changed. They are earning less money and losing the opportunity to earn more money, so what the government originally said was not entirely correct. We will get to the bottom of that in future as more of the story comes out.
Regarding privatising the bus service, Territorians will be interested to know the ticketing system changed and cost taxpayers $1m. We never saw any announcement of that in the media. When asked if there is any ongoing expenditure for the Darwin Bus Service and its ticketing service, we found out that there is $700 000 ongoing per year for it.
When the government came to power it decided to charge seniors to get on the bus. At the time they said they were saving $200 000 a year. I asked the minister if he could reverse that decision because saving $200 000 a year by charging our seniors does not seem right. We are trying to keep these people in the Northern Territory and we should be looking after them. Every year I ask this, and I hope the minister can find it in his heart to change that.
I move on to the commercial passenger vehicle review regarding the taxi industry. I have had many meetings with the taxi industry. I thank the minister and his staff for the answers they provided on the review. There is one major point, which is the taxi licences. I am sure the minister’s office and the department are being inundated with taxi drivers who are for the issuing of more taxi licences, want fewer or want to keep numbers the same. I am inundated at my office on Sundays with people asking whether you will issue more taxi licences or not. I look forward to you reviewing that.
The minister said it is going through Cabinet soon. Significant time has elapsed since the review finished. At the time there were over 400 submissions received, which is a fantastic number of submissions. Taxis are people’s livelihood, business opportunities and sometimes retirement packages. I look forward to the announcement soon.
It was also interesting to note the minister’s response to my question about Uber coming to the Northern Territory. It sounded positive. I am sure it has been included in the review. Without doubt the NT Taxi Council has a strong view on this and any regulatory requirements that may need to be relaxed in the industry.
Going to Central Australia, I welcome the announcement of the upgrade to sections of the Plenty Highway, the Mereenie loop and the speedway and drag racing strips. I am sure people from around there will be very happy with that. The Summernats is there in September. I am sure a few people will be driving down …
Mr Tolner: Red CentreNATS, not Summernats; that is in Canberra.
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, Red CentreNATS, which reminds me, I will go back to transport. I asked a question about the reports on open speed limits, which have not been released publicly. There are four reports, and I asked the minister if he could table them or release them to the public.
Mr Tollner: We need to move them north a bit, Kenny.
Mr VOWLES: Open speed limits? Dave, come on.
I look forward to, hopefully, reading those reports. We keep requesting the four reports Territory taxpayers paid a consultant to write.
There is concern in Alice Springs about the closure of Stuart Lodge and the visitor accommodation that we are hearing a lot about. Some of those issues relate to accommodation not being available and extra pressure put on the hospital. There is possibly bed block happening there. I hope there is an announcement very soon about visitor accommodation because there are serious concerns …
Mrs Price: It is not closing.
Mr VOWLES: I am glad to hear the minister say it is not closing because, as the member for Stuart would know, it is very important in Alice Springs – a small community and the impact that would have, losing the positive opportunity for visiting community mob to stay there and visit family in hospital. I will welcome that announcement when it comes out, minister.
To Primary Industries, I welcome the work on lengthening the mango production season. I think $1.2m was appropriated in the budget for that. It is a massive industry and the Territory leads the way in it. A lot of work has been done by the department. I appreciate and welcome that. There was also significant work put into hay stock and fodder production. We look forward to that continuing.
Most of that session was about the green cucumber mottle mosaic virus and banana freckle. The mosaic virus, cucumber virus or melon virus, is an issue. The department and minister put out statements saying they cannot control it. We have seen media coverage over the last few days about the banana eradication program. There are still ongoing concerns. I am sure the department is working through those. There were 28 properties left a couple of weeks ago and now we are down to five. There has been a lot of media coverage on cutting down the trees in that property in Virginia.
That leads me to biosecurity, the work that is needed and is being done. A couple of years ago our government had to deal the lime tree virus. Now it is green cucumber mottle mosaic virus and banana freckle. We do not want something else coming in so we really need to focus and give biosecurity the importance it needs in the Northern Territory. Not many people know the NT produces 30% of all melons or watermelons in the country for a period of three to four months, so it is an important industry and we need to make sure our biosecurity is right.
On to Fisheries, the department is doing great work protecting our industries. It is difficult getting the right measures with commercial fisheries and how they can work with them and not impact on their businesses too much.
Barra prices have gone up since the closure of Chambers Bay. We do not mind paying a little more for our barra and chips, or barra and rice.
I look forward, along with plenty of other fishermen, to the $4.5m upgrade to the Dundee boat ramp. I think the minister said he would get back to me on how, with private land and the boat ramp, people can utilise it.
I also welcome the $2m for Shady Camp, which is a significant area for Top End fisherpeople. We need to make sure we do it right. There were concerns about some work that had been done which had increased waiting times.
I welcome the Indigenous maritime training program in Nhulunbuy. We were at Wadeye a couple of weeks ago and heard about the great work the sea rangers are doing in research, as well as protecting the pristine environment.
I thank all the staff in the department for the information they provided. As a former public servant, I know the months before estimates is a stressful time, gathering all the information. You are continuously updating the information. The amount of preparation for ministers is significant. I do not want to downplay that because, having been part of it for a few years, I know it is a significant amount of work. It is stressful and tedious. Sometimes you run out of time in estimates. I feel for the departmental people who spent hours and hours preparing. It is something we need to improve. I do not want to see all that work and information not used or made available because we ran out of time. This happened in some cases.
I appreciate the work the departmental staff did in the shadow portfolios I hold. It was an enormous effort and I applaud and thank them.
I also thank the Minister for Mines and Energy for the estimates process. We had a great couple of hours. Also, I thank the minister for Transport. I give a special thank you to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I believe the way our session ran for the four hours is what people expect from us – a respectful question and answer process where I got all the answers I needed and which made the public aware of what the Primary Industry and Fisheries department is doing, their forward planning, and what areas the opposition is looking at to hold them to account.
I thank the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, they have young children and having to be there for the entire period was a significant effort, and is something I really appreciate. Other members had to work long hours, but would finish a session and then go and work on something else, while the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri had to stay there.
Finally I thank all the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. They were fantastic and gave nothing short of exceptional support to me and the other members on this side of the House.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I acknowledge the people behind the scenes of the annual estimates process – the Legislative Assembly and Hansard staff. It is a privilege and a pleasure to work in a highly professional workspace. I have become used to that over a number of years. It is exceptional. The support you get is incredible. Everything runs extremely efficiently. The work motivates you and, as an elected community member, you do your research and gather very important knowledge.
An amazing amount of work goes into the Hansard, not only as historical records of the Northern Territory and this place, but also as research documents, when you trawl through those conversations, explorations, questions and the combination of discourse that makes a true, honest and open estimates process.
It was interesting to see the member for Port Darwin try to ridicule the opposition and squeeze it into the accountancy box. ‘You do it my way or you use the highway.’ As one of the heavy lifters on that side who has clearly lost control of any leadership space in Cabinet, and therefore, as an insider, sees the deficits and contradictions in the policy related to the appropriations, and sees it starting to unravel, he is very much in a frustrated state. He tried the basic Psychology 101 of intimidating new opposition members and trying to pigeonhole us. ‘You will be an accountant and that is as far as it will go.’ That is not the case. Everybody knows that is not the case, and the white noise distractions and deflections run by government members on the Estimates Committee were quite obvious, not only to those in the room but also to those watching or listening to the broadcasts.
One big disappointment I have with the Appropriation Bill in 2015-16 is that there is nothing to significantly address foetal alcohol spectrum disorder across the portfolios. I trawled the budget books and listened very carefully to each investigation. Other than the Department of Education, which outlined existing initiatives in school support and some of its pilot work with community groups, nothing was appropriated. I remind the Chief Minister that the FASD committee – an exceptional and hard-working committee – wrote a letter well before the budget Cabinet process with the specific aim of making sure this government knew its recommendations and they had time to factor them into a budget Cabinet process. But they did not, which was disappointing.
I thank the Treasurer, because I enjoyed how he and the Leader of the Opposition opened the estimates process with a very good conversation-style approach to exploring policy, appropriation and the important links between them. It was a good session. I made a lot of good notes. Every CLP minister after that just locked the gate. They retreated and had their hands up. They did not want to answer. The Chief Minister’s go-slow approach has been noted by my colleagues, that juvenile performance he gave that in the stand-up comedy business we call ‘dying on stage’. It was broadcast across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. People are talking about it. It was unfortunate the Treasurer set such a good example of how to run an estimates process.
When the Treasurer outlined for the Territory how this government has no signature economic project to hang its hat on, he retreated to an important point. Their policy is about creating diversity across the pastoral, agricultural and energy sectors. Energy is the big topic of debate in the regions and suburbs.
The Treasurer, in that conversational-style, said there will be no fracking in the Northern Territory in 2015, yet the Chief Minister talked about a sign-off for the pipeline in September 2015. This is a contradiction in policy: resource, exploration and production as opposed to infrastructure. Two senior ministers are saying opposing things. The Treasurer said, ‘Well-drilling will not intersect with freshwater aquifers’. That was a very powerful statement which led me into the process of prosecution and quizzing the Minister for Land Resource Management. I asked about additional appropriation to start exploring and mapping the water aquifers across the Northern Territory. I received blank looks. There is no appropriation or plan. Essentially what I got from the minister was, ‘No idea’. I found it alarming that the Treasurer talked about economic policy and diversity, including energy, and then the Land Resource Management department people said they had no appropriation for any of the studies and did not see it as their work.
I went from the estimates hearing to the Darwin Rural Community Forum at Humpty Doo on Tuesday 2 June, and participated in a rural forum about hydraulic fracturing and the exploration and production of the oil and gas industry. It was a great turnout with 25 residents and about 10 departmental people and associated speakers. It was a very interesting debate, and I met a couple of stakeholders.
I draw the government’s attention to the submission to the Northern Territory government’s Hydraulic Fracturing Inquiry from the NT Branch of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, submitted to the inquiry on 30 May 2014. This submission is exactly what I was talking about with the minister and the department. It is short but very comprehensive. It provides the certainty that Territorians are looking for. This government has ignored that and missed the opportunity to start bringing people on board with them.
A small group of people in Humpty Doo had that discussion. The submission is very comprehensive and gives a very accurate plan of how to go forward. It covers mapping, and how to make informed decisions about where exploration and production of alternative oil and gas should occur in the Northern Territory. Estimates is a formal process that is way beyond a briefing. But, alas, through an exploration, the formal estimates process, I kept being jammed with ‘a briefing’. The estimates process is formal, structured and has a high level of accountability. It is where you get that information. Unfortunately I have come away with great concerns about a government that has no appropriation, plan or idea. I encourage the ministers to look at that submission to the Hydraulic Fracturing Inquiry because it gives you a very pragmatic position to try to win trust.
When the member for Fannie Bay, the Leader of the Opposition, talks about a government with a trust deficit, it is for real. It is not just us saying that; it is being said across the length and breadth of the Territory. I tell the members opposite your legacy will be the member for Braitling, the Chief Minister. Nobody believes a word he says and nobody trusts him. That is a serious issue if you guys want to be re-elected; you will have to deal with that. That is very much articulated across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. You have a Chief Minister who nobody believes or trusts. It is very difficult to sell your message or any great budget, Treasurer, when you have that legacy. You need to address that.
The Health minister gave a very bad example of using conversation in estimates. I suppose he is so gun shy because of his comments about renal patients being responsible for their lifestyle issues, and if they do not clean up their lifestyle choices, he cannot guarantee there will renal support for them later in life. That was an absolute disgrace from a Health minister and learned gentleman who normally inspires me. I have learnt so much from him, as I have put on this record many times, but I could not believe the rubbish he uttered. He lost credibility in his conversational-style approach to estimates.
I was very fortunate about 35 years ago to be taught by some paediatricians about Indigenous children living in Third World conditions with poor nutrition who had recurrent primary skin infections like scabies and boils. The paediatricians explained that unless we address the holistic primary health of those children, as they progress their little bodies in their adolescent years will have to fight infections so hard it will cause an accelerated deterioration of major organs, particularly the liver.
When an Aboriginal person who has fought through all those extreme challenges reaches the age of 30 or 35, their renal system is operating as a 70-year-old’s because it has been traumatised and put under pressure for so long. That is what we have to deal with. That is the holistic and systemic nature of change required – the approach, in a bipartisan sense, from government. It is about housing, nutrition, education and health. To make a statement like that was shocking and, minister for Health, I expect much more from you. You need to go back to your departments to sit down quietly and learn. It is so important that you understand the relationship between critical primary healthcare, early childhood growth and development, and the impact of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder across our community. As a Health minister you need to be looking at serious appropriations to do something.
The member for Nightcliff dug straight into the Infrastructure budget, and came up with an obvious story. I will quote from the Hansard. It was a question about the 2014 revote in dollar figures, and the answer from the minister was $330.9m.
The member for Nightcliff asked:
- That was for 2014-15. What is it for 2015-16?
The minister replied that it was $500m for 2015-16.
So we have a significant revote in the infrastructure program. As I progressed through the areas I was involved with, I discovered more major projects that are paper projects planned over forward years to create some big numbers in budget papers. The Minister for Arts and Museums outlined – from a media release from the Chief Minister – a $20m appropriation to an Indigenous cultural centre. As I talked to him about priorities, economic policy, appropriation and the clear alternatives, member for Port Darwin, he took umbrage and decided he was not so cashed up as a minister. That $20m is not planned to be appropriated until 2018-19. I suspect the bridges over the Roper and the Wilton Rivers – an appropriation of up to $50m – will also feature in that same forward estimates budget approach.
That needs to be told straight. As a previous Minister for Transport, and Construction, I sealed 6 km of the Mereenie loop road. Actually, I did not do it; politicians go way beyond themselves when they make those sorts of statements. I worked with the experts and the department, and 6 km of that loop were sealed. That is exactly what this government is doing. The story needs to be told straight. It needs to be actualised for the public so they really get an understanding as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of big numbers on a budget page.
Palmerston hospital, once again, was explored and there were enormous questions around the time frame of the construction program. I heard that the head services for Palmerston hospital will be $150m. There is $20m straight up to deliver the water main and water services. There will be another $20m for the rising sewer main and associated head services. If you are talking about $40m to service unserviced Crown land, then you are talking about a budget appropriation that needs to be clearly articulated for what it is and what it will deliver within the time frames.
The Arts and Museums prosecution was a good one. I was able to demonstrate for the government a clear alternative. They did not like it. The deflections ran strong and hard and the white noise was winding itself up more and more. The personal insults, attacks and attempts to try to discredit me were loosed, but as the member for Port Darwin said, I lined up the car – I already had a licence to drive it – and I showed them an alternative route. I showed how the regional and remote community art and cultural centres will wither on the vine because of federal cuts and cuts in the Northern Territory appropriation. Yet, we have $18.3m to renovate a building across the road.
I prosecuted that line and showed that clear alternative. I still challenge the government on that. Serious consideration needs to be given because these art and cultural centres are economic drivers in remote communities. This government talks about economic development in the regions and remote areas, and we on this side of the House support that. The arts and culture centres are some of the most powerful economic drivers where people get up every morning and go to work because they have jobs.
The Indigenous visual arts strategy, which has been cut by the feds, has a very strong link to justice. It helps people stay out of gaol. These are very powerful initiatives in the bush with very few other opportunities while the government takes us forward. That was an example of clear alternatives. As I discovered, the minister did not have $38.3m in capital cash because the $20m for the Indigenous cultural centre will appear in 2018-19.
We had a good process with local government and homelands. The minister provided some information. I will set some homework. I asked the homelands minister serious questions and the answer was:
- Applications for the 2014-15 Homelands Extra Allowance program opened on 1 July 2014. This allowance provides a grant of $5200 for eligible homeland dwellings for repairs and maintenance. The uptake of the program has been pleasing, with the 2014-15 funding allocation of $4m fully committed for full expenditure by the end of the current financial year, which will benefit 745 eligible applicants.
It was great to get that information, minister. An amount of $5200 by 745 gives $3.874m. There is an excess of $126 000 which equates to the investment for 24.23 extra dwellings. I expect you will get back to me and say my figures go to 31 March and will be expended by 30 June. At the moment, however, there is, from the information you provided, the opportunity for 24.23 more dwellings.
I will finish with the environment. Why was the environment left until last? Why was the deflection so aggressive, personal and insulting to try to stop me having a very good estimates process with an independent EPA? I will leave that question with the government. The environment was left last and neglected. I have a lot more to say about that.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Chair, I also thank everybody who has been involved in this process, most particularly members of the Public Accounts Committee and the opposition. As the member for Barkly mentioned, I also thank the Hansard crew. I hope Melissa and her crew are upstairs listening and note my thanks to them for the work they have done. I thank the Legislative Assembly staff who supported the Public Accounts Committee and the myriad, the many hundreds, of public servants who put a lot of time and effort into getting information to support this estimates process.
Like the member for Nhulunbuy I have concerns about the estimates process. There is an enormous amount of time and effort put into making this process work. I would be very interested in toting up all that time and effort to understand what it comes to as a dollar amount. I am sure with the many hundreds, if not thousands, of public servants involved in this it is a costly exercise. I am curious as to whether there are ways and means of being transparent and accountable about the way government spends its money in a much more efficient way.
When we spend this time, effort and money to put together an estimates process and we still hear concerns from the opposition and others saying it does not deliver accountability and transparency, it causes me to wonder whether it is worth doing at all.
It has been an interesting estimates process and I thank my ministerial colleagues for involving themselves the way they did. This process went on for 55 hours and ministers did a lot of work to make sure it worked. It is somewhat sad that some of the big issues that affect Territorians were never discussed. For instance, Labor did not ask a single question I am aware of about north Australian development.
I thought in the Northern Territory parliament with a big national issue looming over us like north Australian development that more than one political party would take an interest. Clearly the Country Liberals are focused on developing northern Australia, want to play a part in it and are very thankful the federal government has put northern development on the agenda in such a big way. It would have been great to say there was a level of bipartisanship in the Northern Territory about developing the north, but when opposition cannot be bothered to ask one question about the development of north Australia you have to be concerned.
They failed to ask a number of questions on law and order issues. I am not aware there were any questions asked about domestic violence, Correctional Services or what some people see as one of Labor’s own initiatives, talking about the ice epidemic. I was stunned not to hear a single question about what government is doing to deal with the ice epidemic. The immediate past Opposition Leader has been way out in front on that saying they are going to hold inquiries, set up task forces and the like. You have to wonder – given the fact they have made such a big deal about the ice epidemic in the Northern Territory and saying they will do lots of things – exactly how committed they are to doing anything when they have an opportunity like the estimates process to tackle government on something they say is so important. Clearly the government has made decisions about ice, how we will handle it, resourcing police and working within the Health system. I thought all of those things would be of interest to a party which says it is very keen to tackle ice.
Similarly, it is a party that says it is supportive of women, affirmative action, women’s rights to be in the workforce and that sort of stuff but the shadow minister for Women’s Policy did not even bother turning up to question the minister for that portfolio. Labor has made a big deal over the years about Women’s Policy. I wonder how many of them are now questioning their membership of Emily’s List. They sign up for these things, say, ‘Yes, we support women, are advocates for women and have all signed up to Emily’s List. We are proud to be on Emily’s List’, yet the shadow minister for Women’s Policy cannot be bothered turning up to ask questions of the Minister for Women’s Policy.
Something that caught me by surprise was the way I was misinterpreted in relation to funding for the Palmerston hospital in 2018-19. I do not why people have jumped at that or why the Opposition Leader has made a big deal of it. I was curious the other day and asked if he was trying to seek an appointment there in 2018-19. I thought the point was more about moving resources rather than money. As our very good Health minister later advised, moving resources was fundamentally about meeting demand. Where demand increased, resources would go; where demand reduced, resources would leave. That seems quite natural.
What stunned me though was the lack of fundamental knowledge about how the health system in the Northern Territory is funded. Whether it is Royal Darwin Hospital or the new Palmerston hospital, it is funded through Top End Health Services. Asking me, as the Treasurer, where money will go in the Health department is not wrong. I am the Treasurer and I should have a big picture view of how the budget is allocated, but when it comes to the nitty gritty of running hospitals and how money is allocated amongst hospitals, I thought there would be some very detailed questioning of the Health minister about that.
We read every day in the newspapers how Labor says the hospital at Palmerston will not happen and that they have concerns. Given the opportunity to ask questions about that, they almost fell silent. ‘Fell silent’ is quite a statement because when you are talking about the Top End health and hospital service, you are talking of a budget of around $900m, if I am correct. It is the most significant portion of the Health budget by far. That an opposition interested in Health which says it supports the health of Territorians would overlook asking questions about $900m of government expenditure is amazing.
I was listening to the member for Barkly just a minute ago having a crack at the Health minister about his comments around renal dialysis. I did not hear the comments the Health minister made, but from the points the member for Barkly put on record, I can understand the point the Health minister was trying to make. It is an old saying, cure the cause, not the symptom. If there is one thing I know about our Health minister, the way he attacks that portfolio is the way he attacks most portfolios; he is interested in curing the causes, not just dealing with the symptoms. We deal with the symptoms every day. The Health minister deals with the symptoms when people are locked up and put into protective custody, with many health issues in the bush and a range of other issues.
The question is how long do you want to continue to deal with the symptoms before you start attacking the cause? If members opposite look at this budget they will see we are starting to attack the cause. When you look at statistics around the country and the world, it stands out that where you have parents living in happy and healthy relationships, and where both parents are working or one of the parents work, children tend to be healthier, have better educational outcomes and lead more active lives.
A range of benefits come from curing the cause. The cause in the Northern Territory is lack of jobs and opportunities in many remote areas. That is why this budget focuses so much on building infrastructure, driving private investment and encouraging private enterprise to set up in remote locations. This will provide that all-important cure to dysfunction – that is, jobs. This government is 100% focused on how we get jobs in the bush. It is why we are talking about diversifying the economy, putting money into infrastructure, roads and bridges, and health clinics. It is why we are talking about long-term township leasing that allows businesses to establish. It is why we have done the work in local government, given communities a greater say and tried to tailor situations that best meet their circumstances. All of these things are about curing the cause of so many problems we have in the Northern Territory rather than just the symptoms. That is why this is a good budget.
I will end on quite a worrying phenomenon: the bullying of Aboriginal members on this side of the Chamber. When the member for Stuart gave her presentation at the Estimates Committee, I received text messages and phone calls. I was contacted by a number of people saying it was just not on. The way Labor relentlessly attacked Bess Price was beyond the bounds of decency. I know the Labor Party believe the Aboriginal vote is theirs by right. They believe every Aboriginal Territorian should be a Labor voter and that they are rusted on. There is nothing that infuriates Labor people more than seeing Aboriginal people voting anything other than Labor. This has driven them crazy.
Mr Elferink: The Chief Minister was told he should be ashamed for being Aboriginal by the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr TOLLNER: I pick up on the interjection. The Chief Minister was told by the member for Nhulunbuy that he should be ashamed to be Aboriginal.
The member for Nhulunbuy has been rampant in her bullying of the member for Stuart. Make what you like of the interjection she made screaming about the white noise, but it seemed to be a personal attack on the member for Stuart. I do not want to labour this point, but as a warning to the new Opposition Leader, get your team in control. It is not a good look when you focus on attacking one member of this side simply because you perceive she has no right to be here as she is an Aboriginal member of parliament and should be on the other side. It is just not on. If you keep it up more members of the public will become aware of it. Particularly Aboriginal members of the public will become aware of it and you may well find that your God-given right to the Aboriginal vote will dissipate to nothing.
Having said that, I thank the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition. This year’s estimates process, for me as the Treasurer – I would not say it was easier, that is the wrong word, but there was less fire. The Leader of the Opposition is far less aggressive than his predecessor, and I thank him for that. I thank him for the way he conducted himself during the process. I was a bit baffled when he spent an hour-and-a-half talking about the population; I did not see that coming. It caught me out right from the word go. I thought there may well have been other questions of importance, but I never imagined we would spend an hour-and-a-half on the population. It was an interesting discussion. I learnt some things about population flows in that discussion.
However, from what I saw the members of the opposition made an effort to make estimates work. Ministers on this side of the Chamber did so too, and for that I am thankful.
I think we need to look at the estimates process. As I said earlier, given the time and expense of this process, and the fact people are still concerned about what they perceive as a lack of transparency and accountability, it is probably time to start questioning whether we have an estimates process like this at all. To my knowledge not a lot comes out of it.
There is an ability that members opposite do not know they have, which is to ask questions on notice. I encourage them to take the opportunity to put questions on notice. You will get very detailed answers to questions. If you use that facility more, we will not get caught up with the myriad of questions fishing for information during the estimates process.
Mr Deputy Chair, thank you for your involvement and thank you to the Public Accounts Committee.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 123)
(Serial 123)
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, normally this bill is done in cognate, and last year was the first time we did not do so. Obviously the measures within this bill go to supporting the budget. We have had the budget debate, estimates and the committee stage. I looked at what we did last year and saw the Treasurer’s speech was very short.
In this bill we are looking at changes to the Gaming Control Act, the Stamp Duty Act, the Payroll Tax Act, the Tax Administration Act and the First Home Owner Grant Act. They are contained in this bill and we acknowledge, as the opposition, that they support the measures within the budget. We had quite a lengthy debate both inside and outside the House and during the Estimates Committee about the budget and our thoughts on it.
We acknowledge that this legislation supports the Treasurer in what he has been doing with the budget. With that in mind and looking at how we handled this last year, the first year we did not take the bills in cognate, we are here to talk about the budget. We have done that and we grant the floor to the Treasurer for this legislation on revenue.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I had forgotten about his bit, and now that the Opposition Leader has reminded me I am thankful that I gave him a good plug in the earlier bill. To the Opposition Leader, thank you very much. The point you make is right. There is not much debate of this bill; I have made the second reading speech, which explains these revenue measures quite well. I thank the opposition for supporting those revenue measures; they are good measures. The revenue unit in the Department of Treasury has done a great job. All of the revenue measures we have put together are designed to have the least impact on and raise the most revenue. They have been very good in that regard. I put on the record my thanks to Grant Parsons, the Commissioner of Territory Revenue, along with Jodie Ryan and her team in Treasury. Thank you to the opposition for their support of this revenue bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
GAMING AND LIQUOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 125)
(Serial 125)
Continued from 29 April 2015.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition will cautiously support this bill. This bill, unlike the removal of the cap earlier this year, on the surface seems to strike the balance between common sense, fairness and keeping the community’s best interests at heart. There are still some overall concerns about the effects gambling has on the community and it is through that frame I make my remarks today.
I thank the minister’s office and the departmental staff for hastily organising a briefing late yesterday afternoon. Hopefully we will not be in this situation again. I think even the minister was surprised this legislation came on today.
We have always put the negative effects that gambling has in the community at the front of our minds when framing legislation for gambling. We thought the NT-wide cap on pokies was good legislation and your lifting of that cap will allow problem gambling to rise in our community.
Gambling has a hugely negative effect, particularly in the Territory. The Territory already has the highest proportion in Australia of poker machines per thousand people at 12.9, compared to the national average of 11. The NT Gambling Prevalence Survey taken in 2005, which was the last significant survey, found that 90% of respondents believe the number of gaming machines should be reduced or stay the same, yet we have seen moves to increase gambling machines. I urge the government to conduct a comprehensive report or inquiry documenting community attitudes towards gambling.
Gambling is a huge problem in our community. Research shows that problem gamblers are more likely to play electronic gaming machines such as poker machines more than any other form of gambling. They get into a trance-like state – the music, the sounds – and it tears families apart. We have huge concerns about the effects of gambling within our community.
We also have concerns with the funding the government is putting into addressing problem gambling. Through the estimates process it became clear that while there will be a massive investment from the government to the gaming industry that will see revenues increase, problem gambling will go largely untouched. I fear we could be creating a bigger problem than already exists.
It also worries me that he minister’s attitude to problem gambling is that he sees it as the same as women having an addiction to buying shoes, which is a very irresponsible comparison to make. Problem gambling tears families apart. It affects all demographics across our Territory. It is something we must keep in the forefront when we debate legislation and look at measures around gaming machines.
I will go into the detail of this bill. As explained in the minister’s speech and the explanatory statement, there are three major changes to the bill. There is the ability for gaming machine licence holders to apply for a transfer of that licence to another business in instances where the related liquor licence is also being transferred.
Secondly, this legislation will allow the gaming machine licence holder to apply for the substitution of a licence to a different venue in circumstances where the related liquor licence is also being substituted. Thirdly, this bill will allow some changes to the Liquor Act to give effect to government policy that store liquor licences cannot apply for and be granted variation to trade on Sundays.
I will outline the opposition’s thoughts on each of these changes. My understanding is that under the current legislation when you buy a pub or a club with gaming machines, the seller must surrender the liquor licence and gaming machine licence back to the government. The buyer must complete a community impact statement and put up a $50 000 levy per machine, then they will get their licences from the government.
Under the changes this legislation is putting forward, the seller can include the levy as part of the selling price and the buyer no longer has to complete a community impact statement. This makes practical sense. Considering the pub is still in the same location, to ensure there is no variance to the liquor licence and the number of poker machines, the last community impact statement should still be applicable. We do not perceive there would need to be another community impact statement unless some of those factors had changed.
Building the levy into the sale price seems to be reducing red tape, which is a good idea if it makes things easier for those business operators, especially under assurances from the agency that it is very rare, to almost never, that the government would not hand the new licence to the buyer.
It would also make it easier for the buyer to get finance. From my understanding of what the department officials told me, this reduces red tape. At the moment somebody has to surrender that licence and then those exact same licences are given back. Maybe the minister can address that in his reply; that would be appreciated.
I have some further questions. Does this legislation mean the government is losing the one-off levy or would the seller have the levy money returned and the buyer put theirs up, so the new system would see the money sitting with the government rather than being transferred in name to the seller.
What is the process of keeping an eye on the changing community around the pub or club? For example, if the demographics of the suburb change, how can the government reduce licences in that area if they are no longer able to do it at the transfer of sales? We were reassured when the department said it is very rare to never that the licence would not be reissued, but we would hate to forgo an opportunity, if there had been problems, to get that licence back. The minister should be able to explain or clarify that in his next speech.
In terms of the second change, some stakeholders were very happy and others were having conniptions. There was a wide understanding in the community that this was the change to allow a cap and trade system. Many stakeholders were quite excited about leasing out extra machines or getting leases off others to boost their numbers, others in the community were horrified at the thought of a loophole allowing more pokies to come into their community.
Thankfully the departmental officials cleared that up. The intent of this change of the location simply applies to when an existing licensee seeks to move the location of their establishment. It is just a mending of the legislation.
We on this side of the House also applaud the decision of the need to retain the community impact study for the new location as vitally important and that consequences of this are considered before the move is approved. It is also encouraging that the only outcomes can be retaining the same number of machines, a reduction in the number of machines or not allowing the move. We will not see an increase in the number of machines. We found that to be positive news.
The last part, the clean up on the liquor trading hours to remove any ambiguity around the Sunday trading, is also a good move. We saw that with some of the questions during the estimates process. Making things easier to understand is always a good idea.
The events of yesterday, when it was clarified that this legislation was coming before the House – in regard to the perceived lack of community consultation, how all the stakeholders misunderstood this shows you need to ensure the community is brought with you when you are changing something. Even with what seemed like relatively simple measures we had misunderstandings. Once we had that briefing – which we were only provided with yesterday, as we understood this legislation would come on later – we felt more comfortable. That would have been the case with the community. If people had been informed and were able to ask those questions then we would not have seen the panic we saw.
We do not agree with the lifting of the cap on the number of pokies. We feel there are enough poker machines in the Northern Territory. If you were genuine about looking at the effects of gambling, there would be another comprehensive report. It has been some time since that last one, and those figures I quoted earlier were from that report in 2006.
In summing up, we do not have a problem with these changes to gaming machines and the opposition will be offering their support to this bill.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I will clarify a couple of things that were said.
The opposition claims I made a flippant remark. Sadly it appears the opposition cannot read because if they looked at what I said in the second reading speech, gaming machines, gaming and people who have a gambling problem are a very serious business. Yes, there was a certain amount of humour in my comments, but if you read the Hansard you will see that I said there are many people who have many problems with a range of issues.
People gamble on all sorts of things. Some of the online gambling people are involved in is a problem. It is not just electronic gaming machines that are a problem. There are people who have all sorts of addictions and we wish they did not. However, it is human nature. People spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their hobbies or addictions which are not gambling is also a problem. I am disappointed that the opposition tried to trivialise what was said.
The Gaming and Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to modernise legislation to establish the right regime for electronic gaming machines in the Territory. There was a moratorium in 2008. The Territory has moved on from 2008. There has been a substantial population increase, with new suburbs built and requirements for things. To simply say, as the then ALP government did, ‘We will not do anything’, is not dealing with the issue where you have legitimate businesses and clubs that want to build facilities. These clubs would like to be able to offer gaming machines along with a range of other entertainment facilities in new areas we are building in the Northern Territory.
It would appear from the comments made in the past and in this House several minutes ago that the opposition’s idea is that you do nothing. You just say, ‘We are not going to do anything’. That is not appropriate. The government has dealt with that issue. We are getting representations from businesses and clubs which would like to move forward in their planning and the supply of services to the people of the Northern Territory.
That is what responsible government is about. It is not about just putting a moratorium on matters and not dealing with them; it is about dealing with issues in our community. Sometimes people ask some hard questions, and we have answers. Those answers are contained in the legislation and in the fact that the Director-General of Licensing has some pretty tough regulations he enforces. They also have some pretty tough requirements people have to meet, not only to be able to get liquor licences, but to be able to get gaming licences. Then if they want to increase the number, they have to do a range of things under community impact assessments to make sure they are not flooding the market with gaming machines.
I have listened to the community. It was inferred by the member for Nightcliff that all the stakeholders are confused. I believe the member for Nightcliff is confused. There may be some people who are confused, but generally, with the wide consultation we carried out, people are not confused. The amendments to the regulations and the act are in response to people who look after people with gambling problems and businesses in the industry which have come to us and said these are issues and asked us to fix them. That is what we do. That is what governments should do, not ignore the problem, but fix it. What you see in front of you today is a result of consultation with the broader community.
In particular, the bill amends the Gaming Machine Act to allow the holder of a gaming machine licence to apply to transfer that licence in conjunction with the related liquor licence. This is something industry asked us to do. We have listened to industry and to both sides of the argument. As a result, we now have these amendments before us.
This will facilitate the sale and purchase of hotels and enable a gaming machine licence to be an asset of a business. The industry made a fair request and we have looked at it. I am not here to do unfair things in this community.
The amendments will also enable the holder of a gaming machine licence to substitute that licence to a new venue in conjunction with the substitution of the related liquor licence. These amendments will address the unnecessary red tape and cost created by the inability to transfer or substitute a gaming machine licence, notwithstanding the related liquor licence can be transferred or substituted.
The amendments in this bill will enshrine into legislation successive governments’ policy preventing stores and liquor merchants from trading takeaway liquor on Sunday. It has been in this community in excess of 33 years and both sides of politics in the Northern Territory have supported that policy.
This Gaming and Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 contains the following elements: an application process for the transfer of a Category 1, which is a hotel or tavern, gaming machine licence from one licensee to another when done in conjunction with the transfer of the related liquor licence. Further, the transfer application will replicate the assessment requirements for the new licensee and will focus on probity, business acumen, financial security requirements and responsible gaming strategies.
A community impact analysis will only be required for a transfer application in exceptional circumstances, as deemed by the director-general. Further, an application for a transfer of a gaming machine licence cannot be determined by the Director-General of Licensing until the application to transfer the related liquor licence has been approved. So if there is no liquor licence transfer, there is no gaming machine transfer.
In relation to substitutions, in an application process for the substitution of a Category 1, that is a hotel or tavern, and a Category 2, clubs, gaming machine licence from one venue to another in conjunction with the related liquor licence, an application for substitution will assess the suitability of the venue for the gaming machine licence and the proposed problem gambling strategies, and will require a community impact analysis to be provided by the applicant. It is important to remember a gaming machine licence cannot be obtained by an entity without it first holding a liquor licence in respect of the same premises. These reforms ensure the gaming machine licence cannot be dealt with either through a transfer or a substitution application without the related liquor licence also being dealt with in the same way, that is, through a transfer or a substitution application.
The amendments to the Liquor Act will enshrine in legislation successive government policy that stores and liquor merchants should not trade takeaway liquor on Sundays.
I will put on the record some history in relation to the development of this bill. In late 2014 government announced policy changes to the regulations of the electronic gaming machines in the community. The arbitrary Territory-wide cap was abolished in favour of a rigorous community impact assessment process for new electronic gaming machines. Changes to individual venue caps were announced and will commence on 1 July 2015. Government also agreed to implement a levy for new electronic gaming machines. In the Northern Territory all clubs and hotels must apply for a licence to operate electronic gaming machines.
The Gaming Machine Act does not provide for the transfer of an electronic gaming machine licence to a new entity or venue. This created a legislative problem for any hotel business owner who wanted to transfer an electronic gaming machine following the sale of the business or as part of a corporate restructure. There was also a problem if a hotel or club was forced to move to new premises with the gaming machine licence not being able to be substituted to the new venue. In the past the Northern Territory Licensing Commission implemented an administrative procedure to address when a hotel business was being sold or a hotel or club was forced to move to new premises. In this situation the holder of the existing electronic gaming machine licences would hand back the existing licences. The new application would then be submitted by the new business owner if the business was being sold, or for the new venue if the hotel or club was forced to move to new premises. This was an acceptable workaround for licensees because there was no levy for electronic gaming machines.
With the announcement of the introduction of the new gaming machine levy, this administrative procedure is no long available without paying the levy. For a hotel business, the levy for an electronic gaming machine is $50 000. Existing hotel businesses can have up to 10 electronic gaming machines, and in the future, hotel businesses may be eligible to apply for up to 20 electronic gaming machines. That is not an automatic 20; that is what they are able to apply for. Whether or not they get any extra machines is up to the director-general, after the director-general has taken many things into consideration before assessing whether or not any further gaming machines will be permitted. The implementation of the levy meant that hotel businesses seeking to sell their business or to restructure would lose the value of the existing electronic gaming machine licences. As such, we have listened to the needs of the industry and have responded accordingly.
In relation to comments that were made about consultation; we have listened to the needs of the industry and have responded accordingly. A number of licensees and industry groups approached the Department of Business following the commencement of the gaming machine reforms to highlight unintended consequences of the reforms which have impacted on their businesses. For example, a business that was restructuring contacted the department. As part of the restructuring process their liquor licence was transferring to the new entity; however, gaming machines were not able to be transferred in a similar way and would have required a new application to be lodged. A community impact analysis would have to be prepared and advertising undertaken. We have listened to these concerns and understand the problem. The ability to seek the transfer or substitute a gaming machine licence in conjunction with the related liquor licence overcomes this problem.
What is the implementation communication plan? The Department of Business is working on developing a comprehensive range of application forms and fact sheets to cover the new applications process. Information has been placed on the Department of Business website for store and liquor merchant takeaway licence holders.
One of the problems we had when we came to government in 2012 was the amount of red tape. We have had representations right across the community to reduce red tape. What red tape reductions are expected as a result of these reforms? I am happy to say that licensees will now have a legitimate process to seek the transfer or substitution of a gaming machine licence, as opposed to applying for a new licence as was previously the case. This has allowed a critical assessment of the material needed to assess a transfer or substitution application against the objectives of the act, without the provision of unnecessary material and paperwork. The new amendments to the Liquor Act will clarify the government’s position in terms of Sunday trading.
We are here to listen to the people and the industry. We have summed it all up. By grants through the Community Benefit Fund, the money available to organisations like Somerville and Amity has increased. I had meetings with Amity earlier this week in relation to what is happening. We are listening to and working with them to help anyone who has an issue with gambling, not just gambling on electronic gaming machines but across the board. There are many ways that people gamble. Sadly there are a few people who have had issues with that, but the broader community, both the public seeking legitimate forms of entertainment and our electronic game machine operators and other operators of casino licences and clubs, all participate in responsible gaming programs. They are all very keen to make sure there is help for anyone who has a gambling problem and should not be involved in that legitimate form of entertainment.
I hear what the opposition has said. I hope I have been able to clarify some of those things.
I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for Members for Namatjira, Arnhem, Wanguri, Nelson, Arafura and Johnston
Travel Reports for Members for Namatjira, Arnhem, Wanguri, Nelson, Arafura and Johnston
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination, I table three travel reports for the member for Namatjira, six travel reports for the member for Arnhem and one travel report each for the members for Wanguri, Nelson, Arafura and Johnston.
TABLED PAPER
Ombudsman’s NT Investigation Report
Ombudsman’s NT Investigation Report
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Ombudsman recently completed his review into allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Police Commissioner and another police officer. I now present the House with the Ombudsman’s report.
The report indicates that the Ombudsman noted the range of enquiries and investigations under way in relation to the matter and approached his investigations so as to reduce the potential for unnecessary interference with and duplication of the investigative effort.
A number of these investigations continue. The report consistently contains seven broad administrative recommendations which members may wish to consider.
Madam Speaker, I table the Ombudsman’s NT investigation report on this matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I rise tonight to congratulate the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre staff who will receive the Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal tonight from the Administrator at Government House. I apologise in advance for not being able to be there because of the duties of this House.
They have been presented with this medal for their outstanding service in responding to flash flooding in Northern Pakistan in July 2010. For the benefit of Hansard and spelling the names correctly, I will table the document I am reading from.
In July 2010 heavy rains in Northern Pakistan caused flash flooding resulting in 160 000 km2 of the country being inundated. Officially, 1700 people were killed, 1 900 000 houses destroyed and 21 million people were affected.
The Pakistan government requested international assistance through the United Nations. Australia provided an immediate response by delivering humanitarian aid stores and a further pledge of $35m in humanitarian assistance. The Australian Medical Task Force comprised of military and civilian medical personnel and was deployed by the Australian government on 25 August 2010 to the rural township of Kot Addu in the Punjab province.
The civilian element of the Australian Medical Task Force included an Australian Medical Assistance Team, or AUSMAT, coordinated by the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre. This was the first time AUSMAT was deployed. Team Alpha comprised six doctors, eight registered nurses and three paramedics, and was led by the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre’s doctor, Ian Norton. Team Bravo was deployed on 30 September 2010 and included an additional doctor, three nurses and a paramedic.
In the 10-week deployment known as Operation Pakistan Assist II, the Australian Medical Assistance Team treated more than 11 000 patients. It has since been recognised internationally that this was the most successful Australian deployment of a combined civil military task force in response to a humanitarian disaster
Thirteen clinicians were deployed by the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre on behalf of the Australian government in 2010. Ten will tonight receive their Humanitarian Overseas Service Medals at a special investiture at Government House. Five of the recipients are returning to Darwin from interstate to attend the ceremony. The recipients are: Dr Ian Norton, currently on secondment to the World Health Organisation; Dr Ruth Lennox; Mrs Abigail Trewin; Mrs Ronnie Taylor; Mr Mark Haste; Ms Megan Chandler; Dr Charlotte Heldreich; Mrs Anne Weir; Ms Marlene Ball; Ms Sharon Johnson; Dr Tim Gray; Ms Julie Rattenbury; and Ms Natasha Roberts.
My sincerest admiration and congratulations go to all of the recipients who selflessly gave up so much of their time to assist the people of Pakistan in their time of need. They well deserve their recognition and in receiving their medal I simply say, ‘Bloody good job!’
As the Health minister I had a chance to see the centre deploy its teams recently to Vanuatu. The capacity for these teams to respond is extraordinary. It does the Australian government and the Australian people proud, and, particularly, this organisation does the people of the Northern Territory proud.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016