2013-05-16
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Wanguri Primary School students accompanied by their teacher, Janine Woodroffe. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your tour of Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also welcome to parliament the member for Nhulunbuy’s husband, Lawrence, and her two sons, Harry and Patrick.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Italian Seniors – Centro Italiano Assistenza Scolastica e Sociale - Cesarina Gonzadi, Teresa O’Brien, Anna Barresi, Clelia Maddalozzo, Francesca Pacini, Anna Baronio, Lina Giacoponello, Elena Moretti, Maria Masolin, Maria Lelli, Gay Finocchiaro and Frank Finocchiaro.
If honourable members could bear with me for a few minutes I would like to say a few words to the ladies in Italian.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: That was my best anglicised Italian. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table Message No 8 from Her Honour the Administrator recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act that includes provisions authorising payments from revenue received by the Territory for purposes in relation to minimising or rectifying environmental harm caused by mining activities. The message is dated 15 May 2013.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to clarify the operation of the amendments made by the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013 to Division 6A of the Sentencing Act. Members will recall that on 14 February 2013, this Assembly passed the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013. That amendment act commenced on a date declared by the Administrator in a Gazette notice: namely, 1 May 2013.
Section 6 of the amendment act amended the Sentencing Act to repeal and replace former section 78BA of the Sentencing Act to insert a new Division 6A with five new levels of violent offence and their corresponding mandatory minimum sentences. The amendment act also introduced new mandatory minimum sentences of three or 12 months, depending on the level of the offence.
Since the act commenced operation on 1 May 2013, there have been two issues raised in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction that have come to the government’s attention. I am grateful these issues have been ventilated by the court. I thank the court for its attention to this matter and quick notification to government of its concerns. This shows the relationship between the courts and the executive is healthy and robust. Its forthrightness will enable this House to remove doubt before a question of uncertainty is raised.
However, the government considers there is only one issue that requires clarification in the new mandatory sentencing legislation. The issue requiring clarification involves the transitional provisions in new section 78EA of the Sentencing Act. That section states in respect of the new Division 6A:
The term ‘previously convicted of a violent offence’ which is found in a number of other sections - for example, section 78DA - may not be interpreted to include prior convictions predating the commencement of the new mandatory sentencing provisions on 1 May 2013.
Whether the offender has a previous conviction for a violent offence is often a consideration in determining what mandatory minimum sentence is to apply. The main issue is whether the new section 78EA of the Sentencing Act means that prior convictions for the new mandatory sentencing provisions can be convictions for offences committed after 1 May 2013. The intention behind section 78EA was not to limit the scope of the previous convictions the court could take into account. It was intended that the court must take into account any previous conviction for a violent offence committed at any time in the offender’s past and there was to be no limitation on that. This is the effect of the former Division 6A and its predecessors.
It is arguably incorrect to construe section 78EA as having the effect of limiting the scope of prior convictions because the phrase ‘previously convicted of a violence offence’ seems to be quite clear. Also, that phrase relies on the definition of ‘violent offence’ in section 78C which, in turn, includes an offence substantially corresponding to an offence listed in Schedule 2, but which has been repealed.
A reading of section 78EA together with a definition of violent offence in section 78C does not sit well with the construction of 78EA so that it means a previous conviction can only be taken into account if the previous conviction is for an offence committed after 1 May 2013.
Nonetheless, it is recognised that the current worded sections may be read down in favour of limiting the scope of prior convictions. Precedent for this approach can be found in the authority of McMillan v Pryce [1997] Northern Territory Supreme Court Law Reports, in which the majority of the Criminal Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory read down the meaning of the prior conviction in respect to the mandatory sentencing for property offences so it could only include a prior conviction for the offence after the commencement date.
Clauses 3 to 7 of the bill therefore make amendments to individual sections where the phrase, ‘previously convicted of a violent offence’, appears in Division 6A to include the words, ‘whenever committed’, to make it clear the court must consider all prior convictions for violent offences no matter when they occurred: before or after the commencement of the division.
Clause 8 also makes clear that section 78EA only applies to sentencing of an offender for an offence committed prior to the commencement of that section, and is not intended to affect the word ‘offence’ whenever it appears in Division 6A.
As an aside, the court has also raised the issue of whether, by repealing section 78BA, the section no longer applies to the violent offences which were committed but not sentenced prior to the commencement of the new mandatory sentencing provisions on 1 May 2013. The argument was because there was no relevant transitional or savings provision in the act to expressly state section 78BA continues to exist in respect of offences committed prior to the commencement of Division 6A, former section 78BA no longer applies. However, with the greatest respect to the magistrates at the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, I considered that transitional provision was not required for this purpose.
Section 78AE of the Sentencing Act provides the new mandatory minimum sentences introduced by the amendment act apply only to offences committed on or after the date of commencement of the amendment of the act. The purpose sought to be achieved by this section was that of making it clear the new sentencing regime did not have retrospective operation for offences committed prior to commencement. It is not intended to affect the sentencing regime applicable to the offences committed prior to 1 May 2013.
In respect of saving the former section 78BA of the Sentencing Act for relevant assaults committed but not sentenced prior to 1 May 2013, section 12 of the Interpretation Act applies so as to preserve the operation of the former section 78BA in relation to relevant assaults.
Section 12 of the Interpretation Act relevantly states that:
Advice was sought from the Solicitor-General, Michael Grant QC. The Solicitor-General advised section 12 of the Interpretation Act does not merely preserve a penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed prior to repeal, or in respect of a conviction recorded prior to repeal, but operates to preserve liability to a specified penalty notwithstanding its repeal and substitution by a different penalty. This was the effect of the decision in Samuels v Songalia (1977) 16 SASR 397 in respect of a similar provision in the South Australian interpretation act.
The words at the end of section 12, in particular, make it clear that section 12 operates to preserve the whole of the law so that investigations, legal proceedings or remedies for offences can continue to be enforced as if the law had not been repealed. Based on this as strong evidence, I have no doubt the legislation is clear.
Madam Speaker, I am confident this bill clarifies the interpretation of the phrase ‘previously convicted of a violent offence’ and ensures the full intent of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013, which inserted the new mandatory minimum sentences into the Sentencing Act, is now clear.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time on behalf of Hon Willem Westra van Holthe, Minister for Mines and Energy.
I am pleased to present the Mining Management Amendment Bill to honourable members.
When this government was elected it did so with the express intention of developing the Northern Territory economy on a three-hub model. The largest of those three hubs is mining and the industry is critical to the Territory’s future. This government recognises the need to support the industry through an efficient and effective regulatory process for both issuing of tenure and the approval of operations. The government also has a role in ensuring the development of industry through provision of pre-competitive, geoscientific information.
Whilst government strongly supports the industry, it also recognises that environmental expectations of the industry have changed over time. The level of environmental performance expected in 2013 is vastly higher than that which was imposed decades before. The Northern Territory has a significant number of legacy mining operations with ongoing impacts on the environment. Mount Todd is the most well-known, but there are many other sites in former mining provinces which pose ongoing threats to the environment
Legacy mines across the Northern Territory have a combined liability that may total in excess of $1bn. The Territory now has the strongest policy of remediation securities in Australia. Approximately $719m is held for all current mining operations. However, it should be clear that these securities apply to only currently approved activities. The historical disturbances are not covered. The government has taken the decision that strong action is needed to address three key factors: the effectiveness of the regulatory system; the development of the industry; and the action to address legacy mine issues. The challenge has been how to fund these initiatives in the current fiscal climate.
At the centrepiece of this bill is a new approach to funding these initiatives. The Territory currently requires mining securities to cover 100% of the rehabilitation liability of the environmental disturbance caused by the approved operation. Within the calculation of each security is a 15% contingency amount which is added to the total security to be held so the total amount is 115%. The government proposes to reduce the total amount of each security by 10% in return for payment of an annual non-refundable levy of 1% on the remaining amount. It is estimated this will generate $6.45m in revenue in the first full year of operation. It should be noted that the government will continue to hold 100% of the remediation liability, although the contingency amount will have been reduced.
The government is prepared to share a small amount of risk with the operators in order to deliver several initiatives. The approach is intended to be as cost neutral as possible. Operators with cash securities will be financially better off. The situation for operators with bank guarantees or undertakings as security is not clear because the underlying financial arrangements are commercial-in-confidence. However, these operators will receive a benefit by a reduction in the overall servicing fees and the assets that are tied to the guarantees.
A mining remediation fund will be established with the objective of identifying and assessing the environmental risks of legacy sites and undertaking works to address urgent issues. The fund will receive $2m in the first year. A small legacy mines team will be established to conduct this work. This is the first meaningful attempt by any Territory government to address legacy mine issues.
Officers employed within the mining assessment teams, technical support areas and the Environmental Monitoring Unit all work daily on legacy mining and related issues. In addition, there is ongoing work with existing operators to ensure good environmental performance and the mitigation of potential legacy impacts. For this reason, the Mining Environmental Compliance Division will receive the remainder of the funds to boost resources for this valuable work.
It is acknowledged this is a relatively small amount compared to the total liability. However, well-planned works can have a significant beneficial impact on legacy sites. It is also the government’s intention to work closely with operators of the sites where funds can be best applied to obtain maximum value. These initiatives go hand in hand with a review of the current approval system to streamline, simplify and speed up approvals. A key objective is to have mining officers spending less time behind their computers and more time in the field talking to operators.
There may be comments that current operators are being asked to pay for the sins of the past. I acknowledge that point, but the government’s view is that the mining industry bears a collective responsibility for the protection of the environment. The issue is so significant that some portion of funding must be allocated to deal with legacy mine issues. It is in the collective interests of the mining sector to see legacy sites addressed, as the continuing presence of legacy sites serves to reinforce the community opposition to mining, particularly when new developments are being proposed. Dealing with legacy issues is a critical element of a miner’s social licence to operate.
I turn to some of the specific clauses in the bill. In addition to the levy and the fund, there are a number of amendments to improve the administration of the act. There are a number of additions to the definitions of section 4 to include the fund, the levy and unsecured mining activities. Whilst the terms ‘legacy mine’ or ‘abandoned mine’ are in common use, for the purposes of the act it was important to be able to distinguish between the environmental disturbance left unremediated by previous operators and the fully secured activities of current operators. In almost all cases, legacy sites are held under current tenure, mostly by exploration companies but also some current producers. Therefore, the term ‘unsecured mining activities’ has been used as a technical description.
Section 5 has been amended to clarify the act does not apply to Darwin Port Corporation’s activities. This is to avoid potential confusion about whether the Mining Management Act would capture the export of minerals through the port. These activities will continue to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.
Section 30 has been amended to allow for the recovery of the Department of Mines and Energy’s costs in investigating an environmental incident.
Section 37 has been amended to allow for the payment of a levy to be included in an authorisation for mining activities. It should be noted this does not include the Ranger project area where the security is calculated and held by the Commonwealth government. Other changes to this section have the effect of changing the reporting requirements of the environmental mining report. The intention of this section, when introduced last year, was to require the major high-risk mines to publish a report of their environmental performance. It is not intended to remove this requirement.
However, it has been determined that a number of very small operators who are undertaking low disturbance activities would also be captured by the requirement because they were working on historical mining titles. The amendment introduces discretion so the focus of the provision applies where it was originally intended.
Section 42A is inserted to ensure Division 4 of the act, in relation to the security, does not apply to the Ranger project area.
Section 43 is amended to clarify the purpose of the security, and new section 43A is added to specify the amount of the security to be provided relates to the level of environmental disturbance for that operation. It also provides for regulations to prescribe processes around the calculation and application of a security.
Section 44A introduces the requirement to pay the levy and explains its use. New section 44B specifies the rate of the levy. The decision was taken to specify the rate in the act, rather than in a regulation, to ensure transparency about the amount to be obtained from industry.
Part 4A is inserted to establish the fund. Sections 46A to 46D establish the fund, and outline its purpose and how payments are made to and from the fund. The definition of unsecured mining activities is specified and, as I discussed earlier, section 46C also specifies that a minimum amount of the levy must be paid into the fund. That amount will commence at 33%, but my hope is it will increase significantly as the Territory’s mining industry develops. Section 46D outlines the areas on which payments may be made from the fund.
Section 78 is a small but important amendment. It extends the time in which legal proceedings must be commenced for an offence against the act from 12 months to three years. The department’s recent experience with environmental incidents is that some take significantly longer than 12 months to manifest their full environmental impact.
Section 80A is inserted to allow for an order of the DME’s costs and expenses to be reimbursed.
Section 92 is amended to clarify the existing power to make regulations about fees that may be imposed under the act. The proposed section 92(2)(ha) would allow for regulations to be made for the cost recovery of certain activities undertaken by the department.
Section 100 is self-explanatory and contains definitions.
Section 101 sets out the transition arrangements for introduction of the levy to current operations. In essence, DME will reissue existing authorisations with a clause specifying that the levy is payable.
Sections 102 and 103 specify, respectively, that the extended investigation period and the order of costs and expenses apply from the commencement date of the act, including those matters currently being investigated.
This bill represents a significant step in addressing a range of issues critical to the mining industry and the Northern Territory economy. It is acknowledged that the government will be obtaining money from industry, but the reduction in total security is intended to offset the impact. The department has held a number of discussions with industry bodies and individual operators. It is fair to say the prospect of paying a levy to the government was not popular. Notwithstanding, all those consulted have acknowledged the importance of dealing with legacy mining issues.
The government’s intention is to work in partnership with industry on implementing this program. There is no doubt the industry will benefit from improvements to the regulatory process, and the Territory population will benefit from the first meaningful program to address the legacy impacts of mining.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Legislative Assembly would be well aware of the ongoing government and media scrutiny of the integrity of Australian sports, sports men and women, and sporting teams. The main focus most recently is the deplorable practice of using performance-enhancing drugs in sport.
Another aspect that risks the integrity of Australian sport is ‘match fixing’, as it is commonly known. Improper behaviour that manipulates the outcome of a sporting match or gambling outcome in order to obtain financial advantage has been known to occur internationally and, unfortunately, there have been allegations of it occurring in Australia. The growth of the sports betting industry, particularly the online sports betting industry, provides a new market for criminal groups to exploit.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a number of offences to prohibit cheating or fraud in gambling to enable the prosecution and punishment of those who set out to fix, or be involved in fixing, a betting outcome.
This bill has had its genesis in national agreements, ministerial councils, and working groups over the last two years or so. On 10 June 2011, the National Policy on Match-Fixing was signed by the Sports and Recreation Ministers’ Council with the aim of protecting the integrity of Australian sport. Clause 3.4 of the National Policy states:
At the 21 July 2011 meeting of the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Attorneys-General agreed to establish a working group to develop a proposal and timetable for a nationally consistent approach to criminal offences relating to match fixing.
Around this time, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission completed a comprehensive report titled Cheating at Gambling, which was released in August 2011. At the 18 November 2011 meeting of the Standing Council on Law and Justice, Attorneys-General agreed to a set of match-fixing behaviours as a baseline for new criminal offences and agreed that legislation should be developed to implement these offences with significant penalties. The Sports Ministers’ Council has also endorsed the development of legislation.
The agreed prohibited match-fixing behaviours cover the following conduct:
match-fixing behaviour 1: a person intentionally fixes or influences the outcome of a sporting event or contingency for the purposes of causing a financial benefit for themselves or any other person, or for financial detriment for any other person. Examples of this behaviour include deliberate underperformance or an official’s deliberate misapplication of the rules of the contest with the intention of gaining a financial advantage
match-fixing behaviour 2: a person provides or uses insider information about a sporting event or contingency for the purposes of directly or indirectly placing a bet where the person knows or is reckless as to the fact the outcome has been fixed
match-fixing behaviour 3: a person accepts a benefit for the purposes of fixing or influencing an outcome of a sporting event or contingency whether or not that outcome or contingency occurs
match-fixing behaviour 4: a person offers a benefit for the purpose of fixing or influencing an outcome of a sporting event or contingency whether or not that outcome or contingency occurs
match-fixing behaviour 5: a person such as a betting agency or bookmaker accepts a bet on a sporting event or contingency knowing that the outcome has been fixed
match-fixing behaviour 6: a person offers another person a benefit for the purposes of fixing or influencing the outcome of an event or contingency and encourages the other person not to report the approach to relevant authorities.
While the Northern Territory’s existing criminal laws may cover some of the six match-fixing behaviours identified by the Standing Council on Law and Justice, there are gaps in its coverage. Similarly, a survey of jurisdictional arrangements found there were various gaps in existing provisions in jurisdictions across the country.
There were two options available to the Northern Territory government and the other governments to effectively fill these gaps. The first was to create new nationally agreed and specific offences for the six behaviours. The second option was to make necessary amendments to existing criminal law and allied gaming legislation in order to comprehensively cover the six behaviours.
The second option would only have been able to be implemented in the Territory with significant amendment to existing legislation, including the Criminal Code Act, the Gaming Control Act and the Racing and Betting Act.
The Standing Council on Law and Justice Working Group recommended the enactment of specific legislation. The creation of specific offences has a number of benefits. It removes ambiguity within the criminal law and allows enforcement agencies and the courts to deal with match-fixing behaviours in an efficient manner through a clear set of offences. It demonstrates a commitment by governments to preserving integrity in sport, and sends a clear and powerful signal to the community about the criminality of match-fixing behaviours and that such conduct has serious repercussions.
The fundamental nature of match fixing is perpetrating a fraud and is a very serious offence. Therefore, the government has chosen the first option - to introduce comprehensive and targeted offences into the Criminal Code Act and to legislate for significant penalties.
New South Wales has already enacted the Crimes Amendment (Cheating and Gambling) Act 2012 which was based on the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report to which I previously referred. The other jurisdictions have implemented the agreed prohibited match-fixing behaviours also. The South Australian parliament has passed the Criminal Law Consolidation (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Bill 2012 and, more recently, the Victorian parliament passed the Crimes Amendment (Integrity in Sports) Bill 2013.
The bill I present to the Assembly today is based on the New South Wales legislation and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission model bill, with relevant modifications to comply with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act and so the penalties are constant with like NT offences and the Criminal Code Act.
I now turn to the key components of the bill. The bill proposes five new offences directed at identified match-fixing behaviours modelled on the New South Wales legislation. To assist in the interpretation of these offences a number of relevant terms require definition and explanation.
Proposed section 237A deals with definitions and lists the terms and relevant proposed sections at which they are defined.
Importantly, proposed section 237D defines event and event contingency. An ‘event’ means any event, whether it take place in the Northern Territory or elsewhere, on which it is lawful to bet under a law of the Territory, a state, another territory or the Commonwealth. An ‘event contingency’ means any contingency that is connected in any way with an event and on which it is lawful to bet under the law of the Territory, Commonwealth, state or another territory.
These definitions mean that the offences apply not only to betting on sport but to any other event on which it is legal to bet. As I previously stated, the fundamental nature of match fixing is perpetrating a fraud, and there is no sound policy reason not to criminalise corrupt conduct in relation to betting on non-sporting events. The provision for the offences to apply to event contingencies ensures the offences cover the range of bets available in the market, such as betting on a player or team to score first in a contest.
Proposed section 237B contains the definition of conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. The term applies where conduct affects or, if engaged in, would be likely to affect the outcome of any type of betting on the event, and is contrary to the standards of integrity that a reasonable person would expect of persons in a position to affect the outcome of any type of betting on the event. This is a term that is integral to the new offences. It establishes that there must be a link between the conduct and the outcome of the betting. The key risk with match fixing is in relation to betting on events, hence the conduct must be related to the outcome of betting on an event.
Additionally, the conduct must be contrary to the relevant standard of integrity. This will preclude conduct that might affect the outcome of betting, but it is not inappropriate being caught by the offences. For example, strategic or tactical decisions made during an event, honest errors and spontaneous breaches of rules resulting in penalties by players may affect a betting outcome but would not be considered contrary to the standards of integrity that a reasonable person would expect of a person in their position.
Proposed section 237C contains the definition of betting and is deliberately broad to include placing, accepting or withdrawing a bet or causing any of these things to be done.
Proposed sections 237E and 237F deal, respectively, with the definition of obtaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage and matters relating to proof of intention to do these things. The offences are limited to matters where the accused intended to gain a financial advantage, be it for themself or another, or where the accused intended to cause a financial disadvantage to another. Again, this is so the offences do not criminalise actions that may affect betting on events but do not involve any financial gain or detriment.
The person committing the offence need not personally gain the advantage and section 237F provides that it is not necessary to prove that any financial advantage was actually obtained or financial disadvantage actually caused. It is sufficient to prove that the accused meant to obtain a financial advantage or cause a financial disadvantage, or was aware that another person was meant to do so, regardless of whether the financial advantage or disadvantage actually eventuated.
I now turn to the particular offences created by the bill. Proposed section 237H creates the offence of engaging in conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. It requires proof that the person engaged in conduct that corrupts a betting outcome of an event and does so with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage in connection with any betting on the event. This offence covers the most straightforward and obvious examples of match fixing such as deliberate underperformance by a player or an official’s deliberate misapplication of the rules of the contest in order to affect the betting outcome.
More specifically, an example identified by the working group is that of a professional tennis player, strongly favoured to progress to the fourth round of a tournament, deliberately loses his third round match. Prior to the match, he or an associate places a series of bets at a variety of locations on his opponent to win the match.
Proposed section 237J creates the offence of facilitating conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. It is similar to the previous offence but covers scenarios where a person facilitates conduct by offering to engage in conduct, encouraging another to engage in conduct, or entering an agreement about conduct that corrupts a betting outcome rather than actually having engaged in that conduct themselves.
Proposed section 237K creates the offence of concealing conduct or an agreement about conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event from the appropriate authorities.
All of these offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
Proposed offences in sections 237L and 237M create offences relating to the use of corrupt conduct information and inside information. Each of these terms is defined within the respective sections. Corrupt conduct information is information about conduct or proposed conduct that corrupts a betting outcome of an event. Inside information is defined as information about an event that is not generally available and would be likely to influence the betting on the event. The use of corrupt conduct information for betting purposes carries a maximum penalty of seven years, while the use of inside information for betting purposes carries a maximum penalty of two years.
The Standing Council on Law and Justice agreed to standard penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment for the agreed match-fixing behaviours. Members will note the bill presented today deviates from the standard of 10 years in two respects and for good reason. The maximum penalty of 10 years does not accord with the current penalty for the criminal deception in the Criminal Code Act, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment if the value of the benefit defrauded is less than $100 000 or 14 years’ imprisonment if the value of the benefit defrauded is $100 000 or more.
The maximum penalty of seven years proposed for the majority of offences in this bill accords with the maximum penalty of seven years for criminal deception where the value of the benefit defrauded is less than $100 000. This is a fitting penalty and reflects the seriousness of the match-fixing behaviours proposed to be criminalised by this bill.
It may be asked why the maximum penalties proposed by the bill are not dependent on the level of the financial advantage or disadvantage to be gained or caused as they are for criminal deception in the Criminal Code Act. Apart from the variable nature of gambling and associated odds that may affect the financial advantage to be gained and therefore impact on the calculation of such advantage or disadvantage, the proposed offences do not require proof that a financial advantage was actually obtained. This differs from the criminal deception offence which requires proof that an accused obtained a benefit for themselves or for another.
A 10-year maximum penalty also lies beyond the maximum penalties for various child sex offences including: attempts to procure a child under 16 years, which carries a maximum of five years imprisonment for adult offenders; having a sexual relationship with a child, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for an offence without circumstances of aggravation; and abduction, enticement or detention of a child under 16 years for immoral purposes, which carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment. Therefore, the penalty proposed in this bill is seven years imprisonment which ensures it does not eclipse or disrupt the levelling of penalties for other types of offending in the Northern Territory while still sending a clear message these are serious offences.
Second, the penalty for the proposed offence of using inside information in section 237M, as opposed to use of corrupt information, is two years’ imprisonment and not seven years’ imprisonment as for the other offences. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission originally proposed a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment for the use of inside information; however, this penalty was revised following consultation during which numerous stakeholders expressed concern that the penalty was too high. The revised lower penalty of two years reflects the lower level of culpability and specificity of knowledge associated with possession of inside information. New South Wales has adopted a two-year maximum penalty for the use of inside information, and this is also the proposed penalty in the bills currently before the parliaments of South Australia and Victoria.
This bill reflects the collective thinking and hard work of a number of people around Australia. The new offences will send a clear message to those who intend to use corruption and manipulation in betting in sport and any other event that their behaviour will not be tolerated and, by introducing this legislation in the Northern Territory, we are closing in on the risk of safe havens for this type of criminal behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of examining and reporting on the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation (2013-14) Bill 2013 and related budget documents pursuant to the terms circulated yesterday. For the sake of expediency, I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for bringing the motion before the House. Obviously, we need to do this to ensure we can have an Estimates Committee. There has been some debate between both sides around the shape and form of the next Estimates Committee. In some places we have disagreed, and agreed to disagree in some ways. We have got to where we are now which is, in many ways, similar to what we had before, with some important changes.
One of the issues we discussed with the government, both publicly and through the committee, was what kind of access we will have to public servants to answer questions in the Estimates Committee process. I welcome the changes to the draft terms of reference which made it explicit only the CEO was to be present and changed it to officer. We understand the government’s concerns about people bringing in entourages, but it is really within the hands of the minister who they bring. They know who they need present to answer questions.
Obviously, the agenda for an Estimates Committee is the budget outputs. That has been tabled today. The CEOs know their outputs; everyone knows the agenda of Estimates Committee. As a CEO, you know who can best answer the questions in each of those output items. It is quite up-front and straightforward.
Our only issue is ensuring the right officer is present to answer questions to each line item. Obviously, when it was exclusive to a CEO it would have prevented the Chief Financial Officer attending. It makes more sense that the Chief Financial Officer from each department be present to answer questions. In each of those outputs the CEO will know who they need to answer questions of an output. Some of our CEOs are quite new to their departments so it is reasonable that, while they will be across their business in general - to rise to the level of CEO you should be competent - they might not necessarily know, at each output level, some of the specificity within that output and the answers required. I completely understand the desire of the government not to have entourages but that is within their control. The CEOs can be clear about whom they need present for each output level to answer questions. From the opposition side, we want to have those people present at each of the outputs to answer the questions at that time. Obviously, estimates works best when there is free flow of questions and answers and the person present is the one to best answer the questions.
CEOs have a very good general grasp of their agencies, sometimes a quite specific grasp in certain outputs, but there are always different outputs where specific people can best answer the question. That can all be worked out well and truly in advance. We have the budget paper, we know the outputs. The CEOs will know in each output group who they need from the agency to answer the questions.
We have seen, over 11 or so years of the estimates process in operation, it is quite a sensible thing because that is what has happened in the past. CEOs have been there and are often able to answer the question but, on very specific outputs they know it is best, whether it is the Treasury expert or the agency expert on that output, because they can answer the question straightaway and that is the best circumstance.
We welcome the change in the terms of reference making it specific to officer. We had a good chat at the PAC. The letter came back from the Leader of Government Business and that was quite good. All we are asking is for each of those outputs - in a very sensible reasoned way with plenty of notice - you have the outputs here today, they have been tabled, you have plenty of notice, plenty of time for CEOs to talk to their ministers about who they might need at which of those outputs to answer questions so it can all be done well in advance. You do not need entourages, you can ensure each of those output items - you have the people capable of answering the questions. That is what works best for estimates.
At the PAC level, we are not debating this issue through the media and that has been quite a sensible course of action. We have all been quite reasonable on it and that is all we are asking. That is probably the most outstanding item to resolve through the estimates debate and discussions we have - ensuring the people who are going to be present can answer the questions.
I thank the Leader of Government Business for bringing this forward, keeping it away from the media and for being willing to talk. The outstanding question we have is about ensuring the people who can answer the questions are the ones present.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with the member for Fannie Bay in relation to the changes; they are good.
My concern is in relation to the government owned corporations. I remember much debate in various committees about whether the shareholding minister and the Minister for Essential Services should attend hearings. In fact, that was not originally the case but after much debate - I have some Hansard from the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, 18 June 2010, where Mr Tollner, in opposition, was complaining that the Minister for Essential Services was not going to turn up and he could not question him during the government owned corporations process. There was much debate about whether they should or should not, or whether they could be questioned in parliament or questioned in another part of the Estimates Committee.
What came out of that was the 2012 Estimates Committee information manual which said on page 15 under the heading Questions:
After all that debate, we brought on a change which allowed the Estimates Committee or other people who attended to directly question the portfolio minister, the shareholding minister or the board chairman.
I am unsure why, after that change which came from pressure from the opposition, now in government, the government now says this on the section for questions on government owned corporations. It says:
The portfolio minister and shareholding minister - something the government, when in opposition pushed time and time again for - has now been removed. That seems a little hypocritical because I heard the debates, and for years and years we did not allow the portfolio minister and the shareholding minister to be part of government owned corporations scrutiny. After all that fuss it was changed and now we have gone back to what it was before.
I am unsure of the logic in that. You are in parliament and you are in charge might be the logic. There was so much debate around this coming from the then opposition. It was changed. It seems peculiar now you are in government you change it to what you did not want in the first place. I am happy with everything else. I am looking forward to the Estimates Committee and agree with the member for Fannie Bay about the changes. It makes good sense allowing officers rather than just the CEO, but I would like an explanation as to why something was good one Estimates Committee ago and now it is not good in the Estimates Committee this year.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps before I respond, seeing as there are only about two minutes to lunch, rather than chop it in half we can go to lunch and pick this up again if that suits members opposite.
Debate suspended.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to Petition No 7 has been received and circulated to honourable members.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I take from the initial debate that we have support from the members opposite to go to an Estimates Committee. I thank members for their support. I want to deal with a couple of issues.
I will start with the member for Nelson. He specifically asked questions about the decision not to put ministers in with the GOC stuff. I heard what he had to say and can understand his position. However, I also recall having the experience of asking questions about the GOCs - basically a government owned corporation - so there is an extremely limited influence a minister has over it. Nevertheless, there were calls at the time to have ministers appear at the GOC estimates. When ministers started appearing at the GOC estimates the problem was the ministers would, sadly, take a combatant stance even when they did not have to.
From the time we had GOCs where there was only the Chairman of the Board and the CE of the Power and Water Corporation present, which was a really good conversation and much information was gleaned, particularly in the area of technical questions, once ministers were in the room it had the effect of obscuring the operation of the GOCs, which was somewhat frustrating.
From the perspective of this side of the House, when we were in opposition the quality of information we got from the GOC session went backwards once ministers were in the room because of an innate predisposition to combativeness, perhaps because of the political environment. As a consequence and being aware of another truism about GOCs and ministers, the ministers not only took up a combative stance but often would not know the answers to the technical questions. As a consequence, were we getting valuable information out of a GOC with a minister present? I would argue less and, as a consequence, that determination was made.
If the member for Nelson is unhappy with that, which I suspect he might be, so be it. That is the nature of the decision and genuinely what was in my mind’s eye, and the government’s mind’s eye, at the time of making that determination.
Dealing more generally, the problem with estimates as it has run in the past, particularly while we are carrying a $5.5bn projected debt, is we have to save money. There is the ugly truth. The members opposite do not like that truth; however, when you start to ask questions about how we can save money some of the solutions you come up with are curious. I have often wondered as I have been sitting through the estimates process watching it unfold how much it costs.
When there was a change of government one of the first questions I asked was, ‘How much does this exercise cost?’ The answer was $2.4m. That is a lot of dough in tight fiscal times. I go so far as to say vaguely self-indulgent from a parliamentary perspective. You spend $2.4m worth of public money, as well as ask public servants to spend the best part of several weeks compiling a bunch of folders which try to second guess questions that might be asked, of which those folders amount to, if you are lucky, 5% referenced. Remembering the estimates process as I do, the vast majority of questions were either dealt with by the minister, the CE, and, occasionally, the Chief Financial Officer.
The other thing that became apparent is a number of questions are taken on notice and flicked off to the departments because, in spite of all of the preparation and expenditure of $2.4m, there is still not a full coverage of the field of potential questions. So, when you get a curve ball, hence the question on notice. Generally speaking, the departments have been very good in getting answers to questions on notice back quickly.
Bearing in mind the estimates process is a mission of discovery, an interrogation of the budget, there is no problem giving us questions in advance. I recall a time when we used to go through the old estimates process of the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill - some 15 years ago - and the then Labor opposition proudly announced the production of 2000 questions they had ready to go for the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill or the estimates process. It is not beyond the capacity of oppositions to put questions forward. What we have invited the opposition to do is provide us with questions so, if there are areas of particular interest, by all means provide us with written questions in advance and we will prepare for those questions so they can be interrogated properly.
If no questions are forthcoming, which seems to be the indication in a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to government, the answer will be, ‘We will deal with those questions with the minister, the CE and, possibly, one or two other senior officers in the room’. If you go into an area of technicality or difficulty that cannot be answered we will simply take the question on notice and get an answer back to you shortly thereafter.
There will be somebody sitting on the fifth floor of Parliament House monitoring this. As a consequence, we will be able to get questions to the departments quickly. There will be people in departments, I imagine, monitoring their output groups and those people - is that 10 minutes in the sin bin, Kon?
For the purposes of Hansard, the member for Casuarina was just rushing towards the door of the Chamber. I am not reflecting on his presence or otherwise, but he is answering the telephone. It is now on the permanent record of the parliament of the Northern Territory, member for Casuarina.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! No member is allowed to refer to another member’s presence or non-presence in the Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, and I did not refer to his absence or otherwise. I simply said he was in the Chamber and heading to the door. I did not reflect whether he had gone through it, but thank you for pointing out he left in the process.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Getting back to the debate at hand, we will have departmental people monitoring things and as questions come up we will get the answers as quickly as we can. I encourage the opposition to give us written questions in advance because we will genuinely prepare answers.
This government is not prepared to spend nearly $2.5m of taxpayers’ money on guessing what might be in the opposition’s mind. That is not productive. It is disruptive to our government departments for weeks, and we on this side of the House do not believe it is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday complain we are not spending enough then complain our projected debt was too high, despite the fact it was $400m less than hers over the forward estimates. She then takes great umbrage that we have offered a way forward answering as many questions as she cares to ask of the estimates process but, in the process, saving $2.4m or thereabouts.
It is a position you can take from the comfort of opposition. You want this, you want that, you want it all and you want it now. Freddie Mercury, eat your heart out! At the end of the day, this estimates process will be as transparent as any other. There will be other elements to this estimates process which had long since disappeared, not least of which is the capacity to ask questions of ministers to exhaustion. That has not happened for a long time.
How often have we seen ministers filibuster towards the end of their time because they knew if they talked long enough they would reach their time and no further questions could be asked?
We have offered that a minister can be asked questions to the point there are no more questions. It is up to the discipline of the committee to determine how …
Mr Wood: Can I hear another mobile phone ringing?
Mr ELFERINK: You probably can. Who was it?
Mr Styles: It was a cough. Did somebody cough?
Mr ELFERINK: It probably was. I was not listening.
Mr Wood: It was on the government’s side.
Mr ELFERINK: If it was on the government side …
Mr Chandler: It must have been important.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps it was the member for Casuarina ringing somebody on our side.
Mr Chandler: Stop it, Kon!
Mr ELFERINK: I have now lost my train of thought completely.
Members will be able to ask questions to exhaustion. It is up to the discipline of the committee and committee members to determine how they want to spread that out.
Of course we want some of indication, as the thing goes forward, of how much time committees may require of ministers, and that can be negotiated. However, there will not be the habit of dropping the axe simply because an arbitrary time has been reached.
There will be a capacity to continue asking questions of a minister beyond an allotted time, but if that questioning becomes repetitive or some strategy is borne out to keep the minister - perhaps even the Chief Minister - in the chair for a number of days, then it will be up to the commonsense approach of the committee chair and the committee as a whole to determine whether or not those questions are allowed to continue. Boring and repetitive questions, which are a breach of standing orders anyhow - something that reflects a strategy of members or the committee to keep a minister in the chair longer than necessary, or some other form of conduct which is considered unreasonable will drive that commonsense approach. At that stage the committee can determine to release a minister.
There will not be an arbitrary cut-off time as we have seen in the past. That being the case, there is some flexibility built into the estimates process. Once again, it is up to the discipline, particularly of the shadow ministry, to determine who gets how much time with which minister. As long as that remains reasonable and the questions remain within the boundaries of being sensible, we should have an estimates process which is more open than we have been used to.
Preparation is what this is all about. The better prepared members are to ask questions in the estimates process, including giving us questions on notice beforehand, the better the answers will be.
As I said before, this government is not prepared to see massive disruption to the public service on a fishing expedition to fill up a bunch of folders that are barely referred to. It is a waste of time and money, and is not a productive use of taxpayers’ funds or public servants’ time, who have been lined up by the dozens in the rooms around this building when estimates occured.
Various CEs are aware of this issue. Ministers have been put on notice; they know how the system will work. The shadow ministries know how the system will work. The Public Accounts Committee knows how the system will work, so much so that when they invited me to come along I considered it to be a summons and dutifully attended and explained to the committee my intent.
I look forward to an estimates process that will be effective and supported by preparation by all members who seek to ask questions in that environment. I also appreciate the requirement for ministers to prepare. I hope I am sufficiently prepared to be able to deal with the questions opposition members, and other members of the committee, may put to me.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 28 March 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this bill. I thank the minister for his open communication, the opportunity for the briefing, and the Department of Transport for providing an excellent brief. It was great to catch up with officers from the Department of Transport and go through this legislation.
This debate is a good opportunity to talk about a bipartisan approach to this legislation from the previous Labor government and, now, the Country Liberal Party government, which is taking over the passage of this national uniform legislation, and also working with all the states and territories at a national ministerial council level. It is good and important legislation, known colloquially as harmonising legislation, in the interest of better efficiencies and operational procedures.
It is also a good opportunity to talk about the previous work of the Territory Labor government in attracting and building the oil and gas sector and those incredible investment opportunities which have come to the Northern Territory. One which relates directly to this legislation is the Marine Supply Base. The Marine Supply Base was visionary government work and very pragmatic in looking at the oil and gas sector and ensuring both opportunities were captured. The onshore opportunities are evidenced by ConocoPhillips and the Ichthys project and those incredible opportunities which are coming online offshore.
The Marine Supply Base will cover that base. It is good to see that project progressing through Budget 2013-14 because it is a very innovative concept for Darwin which, for me, represents the capital of northern Australia. Those opportunities will be brought to Darwin and the Northern Territory from across those exploration sites, representing wells and platforms and all the activity that goes on in the oil and gas sector. That is a jewel in the crown of the Northern Territory, representing a very good construction project going ahead, creating many jobs and, in a very critical time, saving many jobs with that fiscal stimulus approach through the effects of the global financial crisis. Ongoing, it is good to see the extra spending now - the continuation of spending - in Budget 2013-14 which will continue to develop in the maritime sector.
This national law has been developed by the Commonwealth, with the states and the Northern Territory, to implement the Council of Australian Governments Intergovernmental Agreement on Commercial Vessel Safety Reform signed on 19 August 2011. The IGA creates a single national law to regulate the safety of all commercial vessel operations in Australian waters, and to establish a single national regulator for commercial vessel safety.
I asked some questions around the new regulator, which is the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It was good to hear they have a real presence in the Northern Territory, that they are working closely with the Department of Transport and have many plans to work together into the future.
I brought with me to the briefing a perspective of the remote commercial operator in the maritime sector, and used examples such as the crabbing industry in remote areas in the northeastern Barkly. It was good to hear from the departmental officers that there is continual endeavour to engage those operators whether they are big or small, urban, regional or remote, and to continue their education and awareness through the changes, particularly with this national uniform legislation.
I also received other answers to questions I sought. One thing that needs to be mentioned, and I commend the government, is the continual work with the sea ranger programs and their operation. They are a great sector of the industry and will have much more operational capacity in the future. I believe there are more opportunities to explore federal government operations in Customs, the scientific community, and the collection of data and monitoring of the natural environment. It is good to see they are a part of the process, have their accreditation for operations well and truly under control, and are being supported by the department as they move forward creating a great innovative industry and bottom line employment and training for Indigenous people.
I always love to visit the sea rangers in Borroloola and always try, wherever I can, to get some of those younger people out of town and onto the decks of their boats, into traditional country, inspire them, and provide an exciting learning environment. This will offer them an alternative pathway to what some young people see as being a dead end.
This is certainly a gateway into the future and an exciting industry which is important not only for the young people and their families, but also their town and community, and the future safety and security of our country and natural environments.
There were also questions around definitions of vessels which were all answered by the departmental officers.
Finally, the question around the directing of vessels or the regulation of how the Territory is going to deal with it in remote areas - there was a good discussion about how the department is planning and operating in that area.
Madam Speaker, it is good legislation and I thank the minister for bringing it to the House. It is certainly keeping the Territory up there with the big end of town operating on a national perspective with a really positive COAG outcome. The Territory opposition will support this legislation.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and pass on my thanks to the minister and his staff for organising a briefing.
Like the member for Barkly, I take this opportunity to raise a few other things. In the budget brought down on Tuesday, one of the key themes was this government trying to support small business and reducing red tape. This national system complements this so I am glad to see it is fitting in with the projections from this side.
However, much needs to be done in the area of marine safety and registration and I will come to that in a minute. I will talk about the amount of money we are spending in this area over the next 12 months. We have allocated $0.3m towards marine safety, $0.5m to sustainable management of the fishery, $0.3 to a recreational fishing development plan, $0.68m to the ranger program the member for Barkly mentioned, $30 000 for a fisheries advisory board, $20 000 to support AFANT and $5000 for awards.
The national system came from an intergovernmental agreement in 2011 and covers all domestic commercial vehicles. It does not cover recreational vessels. However, it covers vessels that carry passengers and that is the area which needs addressing.
I raised concerns with the previous member for Daly about five years ago and was pretty disappointed when he never got back to me. That is why I am keen to raise these issues today.
The current status with the fishery is that all boats over 5 m need to be surveyed. This creates a problem when we have interstate builders building boats for us. This legislation will overcome that for boats over 7.5 m. However, it does not overcome the problem for our guided fishing boats over 5 m that need to be surveyed.
I will give some examples of the problems we have in this area. I, as the owner of the Daly River Mango Farm, have had two different guided fishing boats built, one locally. The first thing I hit was when we tried to get the locally-built boat put under survey and it was knocked back. Our questioning was that previous boats, exactly the same by the same builder, were currently under survey. We could not get an answer from our marine branch. Our investigations showed there was some litigation going on between the builder and the government over these boats and we felt we were caught in the sandwich.
The second boat was built in New South Wales. There have been some problems with one of the other states in this survey, but that boat was surveyed in New South Wales. They did a submersion test and everything on it - how many people you could put on the boat before it sinks. We brought it up here, took it in and again they said, ‘No, we cannot comply’. In the end they did and issued the survey. They wanted to go through everything again. This is an ongoing problem with our guides and the fishing boats they have built interstate.
Our hire boats do not carry passengers as such, but people hire the boats. I can give you an example of a problem I hit with our hire boats before they were registered. Four boats were purchased, two by me, two by someone else from the Daly. - four identical, brand new boats all complying to an Australian standard. When these boats were inspected we were told we had to put rails down the side. When I contacted the builder - a large company - they said as soon as we did that we were not complying with the compliance plate on them and not complying to the Australian standard. That was a worry, but it seemed someone decided we needed to put rails down the side of the boat.
Also, on the hire boats we had to put lanyards on our paddles and had to have certain length anchor ropes. The Daly is only 12 to 14 foot deep in most places. By the time you put all that extra equipment into 12-foot tinnies they become crowded. In fact, they were more dangerous than many of the boats you see running around.
In subsequent years, different inspectors inspected my two boats than the other two, and every time these boats were inspected we were given different indicators as to what we needed to do to comply with the boat registration. That became worse when I had an inspector rock up out at our place with his father and a boat. The government was paying for his accommodation and his father to be with him while our boats were inspected, and his father was standing with him while our boat was inspected. That was the last straw for me and I no longer hire boats.
Across the industry this has led to – many people may not be aware of this - people either not registering their boats - I know of several companies that do not register their boats as hire boats.
Some hire companies have not registered their boats and have now set up clubs. If you set up a fishing club, are a member of that club, and have a boat, you can hire it to other members without having it inspected. The best trick is guides are hiring boats - I am unsure whether they are hiring them from the clubs or if they are hiring legitimate ones - to get around the guided fishing requirements for boats.
The hire boat side of it raises several issues for me. I am off the track a bit, but I have waited for this opportunity for five years. If we are selling boats at a boat shop, brand new and complying to an Australian standard, yet our marine branch tells us we cannot hire those boats to tourists, why are we allowing Territorians to buy them? If they are not safe, why are we allowing Territorians to buy them?
I also find it unusual that we talk about the maximum motor size on boats. Anyone not in the business of hiring boats for guided fishing, and not having their boat inspected, can put any motor they like on any boat and as many people in the boat as they want. They can also drink as much beer as they like, according to the previous Labor Chief Minister.
The legislation being introduced tries to address certification. There are three types of certification: the competency of the person operating the boat; the operation for business, so we have a certificate of competency and a certificate of operation which applies to the business; and a survey for each boat.
What happens with those three things when you buy a boat privately? This is an issue with more and more boats on the Daly and will become a problem for us.
The member for Barkly talks about a bipartisan approach. I would like a bipartisan approach to look at some of this in the recreational boating area. I am not suggesting registration or anything along those lines. However, there are some controls we need to put in place similar to what we are doing with this legislation, which looks at boats under 7.5 m used in any form of commercial operation.
In summary, this is good legislation. We need to do something for hire boats and review the guided fishing requirements. After the recreational fishing marine safety awareness program is completed perhaps we need to look at how we are regulating our recreational fishing boats.
Do not interpret that as registration. I am saying people can buy any boat with any motor and off they go. About 10 years ago a person who was staying at our place was killed in a boat. That boat had a very large motor, and when you saw the boat you knew it was not safe. The people were thrown out of the boat and the boat went round and round in circles and ran over the top of this person. The person died and I was given the job of knocking on the door of the cabin where his wife was; I had to tell the wife her husband had been killed, so I feel strongly about this.
Minister, I support the legislation. I ask that we, as a parliament, look at other areas affected by marine vessels. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the marine safety legislation. The principal objects of this legislation are:
(a) to form a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, the states, and the Northern Territory that provides a single national framework for ensuring the safe operation, design, construction, and equipping of domestic commercial vehicles
This will have the main effect of promoting the safety of marine operations, the effective management of safety risks in marine operations and the marine operating environment, continuous improvement in marine safety management, public confidence in the safety of marine operations, involvement of relevant stakeholders in marine safety, and a culture of safety among all participants in the marine operating environment.
As a major trading nation and an island, Australia and the Territory are dependent on safe shipping arrangements; 99% of Australia’s international trade is by sea. Coastal shipping is very important for the transportation of Australian freight between states and the Northern Territory. It is essential the Territory join in this uniform approach to national legislation to ensure safer shipping and efficient marine transport system.
Shipping transport has a high level of risk. There has been an increase in the size and speed of ships. There has also been a sharp increase in the value of cargo carried by ships. Unless we move to a regime of uniform legislation there could be major safety problems, with the potential for very serious and costly accidents. There are also likely to be serious ongoing legal problems attempting to sort out who is legally responsible for such accidents. It does not seem sensible that as one nation we have over 50 different laws and eight different legal regimes. This leads to ad hoc standards.
The answer is to modernise maritime legislation to promote maritime safety. This will assist to build Australia’s shipping reputation internationally as well as locally. There will now be one national regulator for all commercial shipping in Australia. This will ensure appropriate safety standards are in place for commercial shipping in Australia and that these standards are not undermined by foreign-flagged vessels, for example.
Uniform maritime safety legislation will lead to confidence and certainty in Australia’s shipping arrangements. It can also be expected to lead to a reduction in the costs of bureaucracy and administration. Its main benefit to the Territory and Australia is it will improve safety outcomes by reducing risks and improvement of maritime safety management systems. This will reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of our products and producers who carry goods by ships.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me a briefing. I had difficulty reading this bill; it is different to other national uniformity bills that come before this parliament. This one is different because we are, more or less, handing over all the power to the Commonwealth – that is the way I understand it - and where you see the clauses in the bill at the beginning under Application of Commonwealth Laws as Laws of the Territory. It is different to a number of other laws where we are trying to get uniform legislation. Thankfully, people at the briefing were able to decipher some of the clauses which are not easy for a lay person to understand.
It is commendable we look at uniformity of legislation as much as possible, certainly in relation to the sea. It is obvious boats, especially those that travel intrastate, cross borders and it makes good sense to have legislation which cuts down on red tape and survey requirements. I wonder if one day we will get to the stage where we only have to have one registration of our vehicle and one licence. It may have the Northern Territory stamped on it, but it does not have to be changed just because you cross a border, and it does not mean you have to change your rego because you cross a border. Perhaps all our road rules, which are pretty well the same, have gone down the path of having, more or less, uniformity across Australia.
The other important area mentioned in the document - the differences will be overcome in this legislation and will remove some of the regulatory burden on operators. It says national standards relating to commercial vessel design, construction, operation and crewing will be adopted in the national law and provide a consistent approach and application across the nation. Other areas mentioned in the second reading:
That is very important today, especially with commercial boats and commercial fishing. It is an area where we need to keep costs down but ensure boats are safe.
Thankfully, in the discussions, the Territory has been able to keep some of its peculiar interests - not necessarily peculiar, but existing arrangements are retained for the sea rangers, people working on pearl farms, and inland water tourism. It is good we still have some control and recognition. Even though we support national legislation, we have some areas which need to be looked after as being distinct from other parts of Australia.
I take up some of the issues the member for Daly spoke about. He obviously knows much about the hire boat industry. I used to have a tinnie on the Daly and enjoyed travelling on the river, but in those days there were not many boats and on the weekend you could enjoy fishing there if you were a local. Nowadays I would go bush because so many boats use the Daly and it is a fairly crowded place.
However, he mentioned some fairly interesting issues. Governments have always been scared of registration and the member for Daly said this is not about registration. The previous government got very close to bringing in identification. I am a supporter of identification, whether by the name of the boat or by a number. It makes good sense that boats have some form of identification if the boat is lost, stolen or doing something illegal.
It seems we have an uneven playing field when it comes to fishing. Commercial operators have to have an identification number on the side. People ring the NT News or e-mail a picture saying, ‘This commercial fisherman is doing something wrong and here is the ID number on the side of the boat’. However, if someone in a tinnie is doing something they should not be in regard to netting, crabbing or taking too many fish, it is difficult to identify those people.
You also need identification in case your boat is stolen or lost, and we were very close to that. At Howard Springs fishing club there was agreement they would go along with the principle of identification. It would have cost about $5 and the club would have been willing to put the names on a database. If you had a name like ‘Blue Wing’ you had to have ‘Blue Wing 2’ or ‘Blue Wing 3’, if you had the same number, or you put a number on the side of your boat. That should be looked at.
I am not a great fan of registration because I believe it is impractical. For a small population over a large area the cost of administering registration would probably run at a loss. Whilst it might produce income we could use for more boat ramps etcetera, administering and policing that type of system would be quite expensive.
Alcohol has always been an interesting subject when it comes to boats. If you drive a car with six people in it you will be arrested for being over the limit. You can drive a boat with a fair bit of alcohol in you and you are not necessarily going to have anything happen to you unless there is an accident. They might say you were in charge of the vessel and did not take sufficient care. It seems driving a boat - the boats we are talking about now, as the member for Daly said, have huge engines and are capable of quite high speeds. As far as I know, you do not need a licence to drive a high-powered boat. You buy your boat and, as long as it has all the safety equipment, you can use it around the harbour or in the ocean. In some cases they are probably more powerful than small cars. It seems a bit of an anomaly that there is not some restriction on the person who drives the boat and the amount of alcohol they can consume.
I know the Territory lifestyle keeps coming up, and government sometimes says it does not want to over regulate, but there seems to be a lack of consistency when you can put limitations on people driving a car - the amount of alcohol they can have in their blood - but there is no similar restrictions on people driving boats. That is a gap in legislation and, if it is not going to be looked at by government, it needs to be put out for discussion.
The other area the member for Daly mentioned was uniformity when it comes to safety. The government needs to look at that. From reading this legislation - it does not cover all the little boats - it seems the safety requirements have become uniform. If we need to apply common sense to some of the more inland water operations, then the government could pick that area up as well.
I thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward. I thank the Marine Safety Branch and the people who looked at the complexity of this legislation. It has taken a fair bit of time to get through this and to a stage where it is before parliament. I thank those people for all the hard work.
I guess the proof will be in the pudding. Will this make a difference, because this is what the legislation has claimed? If people are going to say legislation will do this or that, somewhere down the track there is a responsibility of the government to say, ‘We can show you the benefits of this legislation’. If the legislation is passed but does not improve safety or productivity, reduce burdensome regularity processes or save money, then you would have to ask if the legislation is needed or requires upgrading. It would be good of government to review the effectiveness of this type of legislation two or three years after it has been implemented and report to parliament on its usefulness or otherwise.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. The member for Barkly, as the former minister, understands the virtues and importance of national reform. He was the minister working on this previously so I thank him for his support. The member for Daly made a very accurate contribution, particularly on historical issues concerning utilisation of commercial vessels in different jurisdictions and how they can operate in the Northern Territory. The member for Stuart gave a very good presentation about the importance of this legislation, as did the member for Nelson.
I note the comments from the member for Nelson about alcohol consumption. I will continue to think about how that might be considered into the future. It is not on the agenda, but I will think about it. I note your comments about being interested in bringing in licensing for recreational vessels …
Mr Wood: Identification of a boat.
Mr GILES: Boat registration?
Mr Wood: No, just identifying it. You are required to have a number.
Mr GILES: I thought you were talking about licensing. I will have to check the Hansard.
For the Northern Territory, national reform legislation in regard to commercial vessels presents an opportunity to allow the free flow of trade, vessels, and so forth amongst different jurisdictions. It provides a more secure regulatory framework, increases our uniformity, and provides a grandfathering component up until 2016 to allow people to get in line with the new reform agenda.
I thank the department for the work it did, particularly in the consultation phase in coordination with AMSA, and working with the industry so it understands the changes. There will be more people taken up in regard to the safety network of this legislative framework.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Transport) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, after the next bill I move that we go into tabled papers and then ministerial statements. The effect will be to debate the environmental health bill, then there will be a quick tabled paper from one of the committees, then we will move into statements and then go back to the Appropriation Bill to finish off the day.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the Minister for Health has been called away. I will be running this bill on behalf of the Minister for Health if that is okay.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, there is no problem with this bill. I understand the reason it has to be extended for a period of time. The only comment I make is that in her speech the Minister for Health tried to score some political points by saying the drafting of the legislation was delayed by a significant amount of time: about two years. That was done on purpose. From my previous experience, having worked in the field as the manager of environmental health, I understand that drafting legislation is often not simple, especially legislation to address issues from a number of regulators like public health, shops, boarding houses, barber shops, general sanitation, use and prevention, and noxious trades. The intention was to delay the drafting of the regulations until the industry was consulted so industry was not faced with a new set of regulations it has not been aware of or has not contributed to.
We believe it is better to work with the industry rather than against it. We have not heard any complaints from the industry with regard to the drafting of these regulations. I am quite happy to approve this amendment as put by the minister because it is for the good of the industry and the public.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. I had a briefing from the department this morning and the reasons were explained to me. Generally speaking, I am always concerned about bills going through on urgency. When you consider what happens in other parliaments - as I discovered in my travels - where some legislation has to go to committees, as happens in Queensland, we push legislation through fairly quickly - more than other parts of Australia and Commonwealth countries.
It made sense, when explained, that the department could have come up with regulations in time for this bill to satisfy the calendar requirements, but that would have risked introducing regulations that were not good quality or not been through proper processes and scrutinised. From the point of view of good governance, which is something I have asked the government to reconsider, especially in relation to the alcohol mandatory rehabilitation bill, this makes sense. In other cases, more time - as with the bill I am talking about - putting it through to committee stage would also make good sense. However, as it is, I support the amendments to the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I thank honourable members for their understanding in relation to this. It is quite a sensible approach. It is unfortunate this has been held up in the way it has, but there were two forms of urgency available. First, you urgently sorted out these regulations and, therefore, ran the risk of error and mistake, or alternatively, we move this bill on urgency so we could slow down the process of hurrying up. That sounds counter intuitive, but it is what we are voting for today. As far as we are concerned, and, obviously other members of this House are concerned, this is commonsense legislative change. It is not controversial, and it is sometimes better to hurry up by slowing down.
Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their assistance in the matter.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this government is taking responsible action to deal with the scourge of criminal and antisocial behaviour in our community, and is developing a comprehensive policing, justice, and corrections strategy which will be integrated across our government departments which tackle repeat offending, violence, and substance abuse. Our strategy is enshrined as pillars of justice.
The lead minister on this task will be the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and Correctional Services, the member for Port Darwin. However, as minister for Police and Chief Minister, I will be responsible for bridging the beginning, the laws of the land, with the middle, the policing and enforcement, and the ending, the actions of the corrections and youth justice systems. In speaking on these important issues, I bring this statement to this House.
This is a whole-of-government priority. It will be a root and branch reassessment of the way in which laws are administered, the scope of the legislation, and a focus on reducing the overall length of crime and antisocial behaviour in our community.
The five fundamental components of this package are police, courts, corrections, youth justice, and victims. We are all integrated and necessary adjuncts to this policy, together with the sixth pillar which identifies some of the legislative changes required. The emphasis we are putting on these aspects does not preclude the need for a continuing focus on prevention or early intervention and correction by addressing offending behaviours. These factors are prominent.
Prevention initiatives will always be more effective than treatment, and we must radically improve our efforts with crime suppression and reduction. Members will already be aware of the work undertaken to implement new laws in the Territory, to strengthen existing laws, and to provide legislative guidance to the judiciary: laws such as the Police Administration Amendment Act, which gives power to police to obtain a sample of saliva from a suspect to test for the presence of dangerous drugs; the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Act; the one punch homicide laws; the Criminal Code Amendment (Assault on Workers) Act, protecting people in their place of work - those just doing their job - the Bail Amendment Act and Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Act, dealing with the powers of police being able to enforce orders or conditions made prohibiting persons from consuming alcohol and other drugs by testing for compliance; the Victims of Crime Assistance Amendment Act which increased the levies on court imposed orders, infringement notices, and enforcement orders; and the Serious Sex Offenders Act which provides for the continuing detention or supervised release of serious sex offenders who are deemed to be such a serious danger to the community that regulation of the offender is warranted post-sentence.
The pillars of justice strategy extends beyond enacting legislation. The government commitment to increasing police numbers has been widely discussed over the last year. The focused deployment of adequate numbers of police officers is critical to any attempt to identify, act on, and reduce criminal activity. The preventative capability of the Northern Territory Police Force is widely recognised. Our plan has been to further improve the responsiveness of the Police Force by giving it the tools and resources it needs. I am committed to ensuring police in the Northern Territory are equipped with the necessary tools to deter criminal behaviour and reduce the occurrence of crime and the consequential impact on victims.
Our decisions have been to make concrete commitments to additional support and call centre staff across the Territory, plus more frontline police and better facilities at stations in urban centres and in the bush. It is important to us that police are given the proper tools with which to do their job. I doubt we will ever reach the stage where police can completely avoid written records; however, we can certainly move much further down this path than the present situation.
The practical impact of the need to satisfy evidentiary and court purposes with onerous written accounts and reports sees police diverted from patrolling our streets into offices and sitting at computers. Early arrest can see police numbers migrate from the front line to the back office for the majority of their shift to do the paper work. It is at this time, particularly on an evening shift, that criminal behaviour escalates. I am convinced we can truncate the recording requirements without sacrificing the protections written orders offer.
Obviously, the courts have a role to play in these matters, but some good work has been done by the police in this area. I can report we have some sound policy options to work with.
This government committed a frontline focus on service delivery across all agencies when we came to government, and over the past nine months this objective has been substantially realised. We committed to an extra 120 police officers across the Northern Territory to strengthen first response, crack down on antisocial behaviour and increase policing activities. Section 128 of the Police Administration Act prescribes circumstances where a member may, without warrant, apprehend a person and take them into custody for the purpose of a protective custody. This provision is intended to be used in circumstances where the person has not, or is not yet, suspected of committing an offence but is placed into custody for his or her own protection due to their level of intoxication, risk of self-harm or harm to others, or where the person is considered likely to commit an offence. Under section 128, the person may be held in custody for as long as it reasonably appears the person remains intoxicated and/or until 7.30 am.
Section 123 of the Police Administration Act describes the powers of the police to make an arrest or take persons into custody where a reasonable belief is held that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence. For a range of minor public order offences, particularly under the Summary Offences Act and the Liquor Act, police issue an infringement notice and/or may seek to place the person in protective custody under section 128 of the Police Administration Act where the person is intoxicated despite evidence of an offence.
While this is permissible under the legislation, it often results in the person being released from custody with no penalty for the original offending behaviour other than spending a period in custody. To put that in perspective, for the current operating year between 1 July 2012 and 28 February 2013 there have been just over 37 000 antisocial incidents across the Northern Territory. While this is a 4.9% reduction on the same period in 2011-12, this remains a significant issue for the Northern Territory Police.
It has been proposed that, where a person is suspected of having engaged in proscribed antisocial behaviour in breach of the Summary Offences Act or the Liquor Act, the police should have the power to apprehend the person into custody for a defined period up to four hours before releasing them with an infringement notice.
When it comes to antisocial behaviour linked to alcohol, there can be no doubt this government is serious about mandatory rehabilitation as a pathway to treatment. We care. Northern Territory Police have been engaged in ongoing meetings with the Department of Health in relation to the introduction of the mandatory treatment health regime. Where trigger is met, police will assist in the transportation of persons taken into protective custody to the health assessment centres. The police are also actively working with the Department of Attorney-General and Justice to ensure the trigger mechanism is automated as much as possible to accurately identify persons meeting the trigger and minimising the impost on frontline policing.
Further to the application of this government’s policy on mandatory treatment, the commissioner has proposed the introduction of police-issued alcohol protection orders under the Liquor Act. This is supported by the announcement by the Deputy Chief Minister last Friday, who has carriage of the issue through Cabinet. The proposal will support the achievement of the government’s target of a 10% reduction in crime and further strengthen the tools available to the police responding to the alcohol-related criminal offending, including family violence.
I used the word ‘scourge’ at the start of this statement in the context of those who abuse alcohol. The word describes one who causes universal affliction or disaster and that is what we witness in the Northern Territory. The physical and emotional effects of violence on victims are well-known. Tragically, we have intolerable levels of violence perpetrated on women in the Northern Territory, most of it alcohol-fuelled. People also die or are injured in road accidents caused by cars driven by drunk drivers. There is also the damage to an individual’s health and wellbeing through excessive alcohol consumption.
The introduction of alcohol protection orders will complement the government’s mandatory treatment initiative, which targets problem drinkers detected for the defined trigger level of protective custody incidents within a two-month period. We know the scale of the impact of alcohol-related offending, including family and domestic violence on the community. Whilst there are existing tools available for police to target antisocial behaviour and public order offending such as banning notices and other provisions under the Liquor Act, these tools target public order offending. They are not specifically designed for targeting and deterring criminal offending behaviour associated with alcohol, particularly where the offending behaviour does not occur in a public designated, restricted or alcohol-protected area.
I am supportive of the introduction of a law enforcement tool to provide police with the power to issue alcohol protection orders specifically designed to target offenders in alcohol-related crime. The introduction of these orders would act as a deterrent to alcohol-related criminality and reduce the occurrence of crime and the impact on victims. The core elements of the proposed provisions are as follows:
an alcohol protection order can be issued to any person who is charged with an offence carrying a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or more, where alcohol was a factor, including offences under the Traffic Act
As a major element of parole reform, the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services the Attorney-General’s department and the Northern Territory Police are working in partnership to investigate the most suitable product for introduction of electronic monitoring, or EM, to the Northern Territory.
This is a system of monitoring offender behaviour and location using devices attached to a person’s body and a link to a telecommunication system and control centre. EM has the ability to quickly alert monitoring agencies when an offender may be in an unauthorised location. The introduction of EM allows for corrections and the Northern Territory Police to locate and track movements of adult and youth offenders who are subject to supervision orders outside their home, whilst serving as a deterrent against further crime.
EM technology consists of a personal device worn by the offender, a base device placed in the home, place of employment or a court specified location, and a monitoring device which is the personal computer of the supervising community corrections officer. These components are connected to a central server which is the hub for an EM system. A review of the requirements is being conducted and legislation, IT and operational considerations are currently being canvassed to identify and understand the extent of work required to successfully implement EM.
On 22 March 2013, the Attorney-General met with the South Australian Minister for Correctional Services, Hon Michael O’Brien. During the visit, the South Australian Department of Correctional Services demonstrated how their current radio frequency, RF, electronic monitoring technology is used to monitor offenders on back end release orders and bail. At this time they monitor 60 offenders on back end release and approximately 240 defendants on bail.
This model works in remote areas and remote capability will be written into the requirements for the Northern Territory tender. There is an opportunity to explore partnership options with South Australia in respect to future use of electronic monitoring within the Northern Territory. The implementation of 24/7 offender location monitoring through the use of such GPS devices can lead to the swift detection of those who continue to offend and can deliver reductions in crime through changes in behaviour leading to offender desistance. It will enable the close monitoring of domestic violence offenders to provide protection and confidence where an offender is released back into the community.
This is another strategy to be put in place which Northern Territory Police believes will actively contribute to reducing crime by 10% in the Northern Territory.
I turn to the subject of youth offending. Supporting young people is a core function of any government. My mantra is, and always will be, that employment is the issue - the opportunity to qualify for a job, gain a job and keep a job. To walk away from our youth who go off the rails, but have the potential to grow up and mature as responsible members of the community, is not an option. The number of young people in juvenile detention is small but increasing. The age group has also changed in recent years. It is disturbing to see it includes children younger than 15 years of age. Youth justice functions have been transferred to the Youth Justice Division within the Department of Correctional Services in order to create a more streamlined and centralised approach to the delivery of services to young people in, or at risk of, entering the justice system. To reduce the rate of crime and juvenile detainee numbers, the coordinated approach and comprehensive response to young people in or at risk of entering the justice system is needed.
Reforms are required at all levels, as identified in the September 2011 youth justice system review, to enable the strategic targeting and delivery of services to support the reduction in youth crime and juvenile detainee numbers this government is committed to achieving.
The Review of the Northern Territory Youth Justice System identified the requirement for a continuum of services to address the increasing number of young people who offend and reoffend, and the increasing number of young people in detention. This government is committed to ensuring young people who offend are dealt with fairly but firmly and are diverted from a life of crime.
The Department of Correctional Services will be developing an integrated service system for young people in, or at risk of entering, the justice system. This will include effective challenging and targeting programs coupled with therapeutic intervention and follow-up. There will be a review of the family responsibility program; consideration of the introduction of youth justice teams who may perform more roles that may be required during a young person’s involvement with the justice system; the piloting of early intervention and sentenced detainee youth boot camps; discussion with NT Police diversion units about the possibility of expanding the delivery of community-based diversion programs; and development of pilot bail support services to address the high number of young people in detention on remand.
Overwhelming national and international evidence suggests shifting funding from high-cost interventions at the end of the justice system such as detention, to more cost-effective early intervention prevention measures, is an approach to reducing offending and recidivism and moving young people away from the justice system and becoming long-term criminals.
The youth justice strategy is being developed to support a coordinated and comprehensive approach to youth justice services across the Territory. Further information will be advised by the Attorney-General as progress is made.
In conclusion, across all the pillars of justice in this government’s law reform we are committed to introducing effective deterrents, empowering police and the courts, supporting and protecting victims of crime, emphasising training and the route to a more positive future, assisting young people to stay out of the youth justice system, and working towards meeting the expectations of the Northern Territory community.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House and move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement before the House this afternoon. We wonder about this statement, this puff piece - a term the member for Greatorex loved using because he hated ministerial statements. This statement is little more than the government creating and developing policy by Google. The five Pillars of Justice is a lofty-sounding title for a ministerial statement and one stolen from a first year legal studies textbook. However, I concede the Chief Minister has changed a couple of the five pillars around to suit his needs and is using the term ‘victims’ instead of ‘community’.
This is the level of desperation the CLP has sunk to. They whip up a statement on what is, without doubt, a crucial and central issue of importance - law and order, protecting Territorians, families, children, and men and women no matter where they live - and trivialise it, dress it up and fill in time on the floor of this House with little substance behind it. This statement proves all the tough on crime talk I have heard in my four years sitting on the benches on that side of the House, and now sitting in opposition after eight months of the new CLP government, was and it still is just rhetoric. Four years in opposition, eight months in government, and it is still just rhetoric.
This is the kind of statement you give when you know you have failed. The first sentence of the statement says it all, ‘We are developing a strategy’. Really? Is that where we are? On the back of all that tough talk before the election, with baseless election commitments, they get into government and spend eight months fighting amongst one another, reshuffling Cabinet and egos battling to be Chief Minister. Nine months later the CLP tells Territorians they are starting to develop a policy. Is this government serious?
What happened to the bold and boastful commitments contained in the CLP’s post-election action plan? There it is, post-election action plan with action man, the member for Blain, now sitting on the backbenches.
What happened to those commitments? I quote directly from the post-election action plan, to immediately:
Last time I checked a dictionary, ‘immediately’ meant right now, but we are nine months down the road. The Chief Minister stated:
Why is it the police told the Chief Minister the Banned Drinker Register was the best tool they had to crack down on alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour and he completely ignored that advice? They were right, he is wrong.
The CLP is not interested in supply of alcohol issues and, worse, is even prepared to see alcohol reintroduced to Aboriginal communities. It was even a platform for one member in a bush electorate that there would be the return of heavy beer to their social club if they voted for him.
There is no recognition from this government that alcohol is at the core of so much crime and subsequent misery in the Territory, including the most vulnerable women and children.
If you restrict access to alcohol you will reduce crime, a truism completely ignored by the CLP. I note the Chief Minister has dropped his claim that crime is coming down. It is curious that is not mentioned anywhere in his statement. Clearly, the Chief Minister has realised no one believes those earlier and incorrect claims that crime was reducing. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
The lack of support for the CLP government’s law and order policy has been deafening. Correct me if I am wrong, but in everything the CLP has said or announced on law and order, not one single person working in the field has supported the government’s law reform. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Many have attacked the government, but I cannot recall any party that has supported the CLP government.
There is any number of media releases from stakeholders and experts like NAAJA and the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory. Not only do they criticise, they also offer support, advice, and the opportunity to consult with the government. Whilst the government may go through the motions of thinking it has consulted and has taken people’s concerns on board, it ignores them completely and goes blindly forward along its own path.
What about members of the judiciary who, in their sentencing remarks for instance, comment about things like the unrestricted flow of alcohol or the harshness of minimum mandatory sentencing and the terrible blurring of those lines between politics and the judiciary from an Attorney-General unable to make those judgments? Someone who, at the end of the day, is a politician hell-bent on telling judiciary about what they can and cannot do in a court of law when it comes to sentencing people.
Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but I bet you London to a brick that for every supporter you could name I can name 10 others who will point out nothing you are doing is working or will work. In fact, experts have said, in relation to most of your policies, they will increase crime, not to mention increase prisoner numbers.
I remind the Chief Minister of remarks he made in this House a few years back which say a good deal about his approach to dealing with offenders and the vision of the model he has, or perhaps had, for corrections.
I quote from the Parliamentary Record of 20 October 2010:
There is no interest in the continuation of the SMART Court, a system implemented by the former Labor government which the Chief Magistrate and others have praised for its effectiveness, and which deals with people with a drinking problem who have offended but have committed non-violent offences. The SMART Court is due to be repealed and, as a result, we will see those people heading straight to prisons. Tragically, this statement is not much more advanced than that ridiculous rhetoric about digging a hole and putting criminals in it.
The Chief Minister referred to electronic monitoring. It is good to see he continues to build on the body of work established by the former Labor government to make this a reality, because it has been worked on for some years. This is not something new the CLP suddenly discovered. I am pleased to hear the member for Port Darwin travelled to South Australia recently to take lessons on electronic monitoring - a very worthwhile trip. I am sure he is listening to the Labor government in South Australia because, clearly, the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister have much to learn from it.
The Chief Minister made a very important point when he said towards the end of his statement:
I could not agree with him more.
Chief Minister, it is called justice re-investment, but it is the exact opposite of everything this government is doing. You are doing nothing to shift funding from the end point of detention to an intervention/prevention mode. Not only is justice re-investment a smart, effective, and proven way to work with those at risk of offending, it is a far cheaper way to work and a better way to spend taxpayer dollars.
The statement also made reference to developing a youth justice strategy. There already is a youth justice strategy - the Attorney-General has grudgingly acknowledged its existence - and you can now find it on the Northern Territory government website. The person who wrote it is now working in your office. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, just implement it and the nine recommendations it contains. It is a very good, thorough review which tackles youth justice issues in the Territory and proposes sound and sensible recommendations based on contemporary best practice recognised around the world. Despite those nine recommendations, the new government insists on putting youth justice within Corrections, a real no-no in best practice terms.
In the CLP’s election television advertisements and printed election propaganda they said serious young offenders will be sent to boot camp. This commitment was to have been implemented immediately not nine months down the track; however, no one has gone to boot camp. No one has been packed off to a military style boot camp, which are also condemned for their punitive nature and not regarded as best practice. While implementing nothing in that sphere, before Christmas, in their wisdom, they scrapped Balunu, an organisation which was having success in dealing with youth at risk and young offenders. That got the chop. Sounds a little like the Banned Drinker Register. Scrap something that is working and replace it with nothing.
All this ministerial statement says is you will pilot boot camps. There is not a scrap of detail about this. According to the Attorney-General, the trial was supposed to have commenced in May. We are halfway through May and still nothing. Noting this strategy is led by the Attorney-General reminds me of when he was leading the alcohol policy. That was a massive failure, was it not? Battling as he was with the member for Fong Lim, who had different ideas about alcohol policy, and next thing we knew the Attorney-General was taken off alcohol policy. I suspect this plan will be exactly the same and the Chief Minister will work out policy direction, based on the weird and wonderful world of the member for Port Darwin, is not heading in the right direction and youth justice and badly named boot camps will be taken off the Attorney-General as well.
This government does not consult; it does not listen to Territorians and breaks promises every step of the way. It is one thing not to listen to Territorians, but to ignore the advice of experts is shameful. To ignore the advice of eminent individuals from the legal fraternity is shameful. To not utilise the expertise and independent non-political advice which flows from the NT Law Reform Committee is sheer arrogance.
This is a government that says it knows what is best for you because the member for Port Darwin not only has a law degree but 20 years of policing experience. The member for Port Darwin says, when asked why he dismisses evidence-based policy and the advice of legal expertise, ‘Because it is my opinion’.
The rhetoric from the government in this statement from a Chief Minister nine months into government shows they do not have a plan and, worse, they do not have a clue.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Wow! There you go, look at that. One of the sad things about that is much is being done in this space and we will roll it out over the next couple of years. Something I have noticed from the members opposite is they have taken the opposition benches to heart and produce levels of bitterness I find astonishing. Exemplified by her interjection today about the Chief Minister’s race and that he was a shame to Aboriginal people, more of that attitude is now being projected.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My comments were definitely not based on race; they were based on his leadership and his failure to deliver to Indigenous Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, the Chief Minister told me he was not offended by those statements.
Mr ELFERINK: I was, Madam Speaker. I found those comments offensive and definitely based on race, but let us get on with it. Unfortunately, unpleasantness is a …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you may wish to make a personal statement at a later stage today in regard to those comments.
Ms WALKER: I may well do that, Madam Speaker, but I wish to make the point of order that the Chief Minister did not ask for a withdrawal of any comments I made. You asked him if he found them offensive and he said no. I would have happily withdrawn had I been asked.
Mr ELFERINK: Unpleasantness has become the hallmark, in the absence of anything else. The shadow minister’s reply was a little more than 10 minutes and was just an angry rant. I will pick up on a couple of points she made. She said this is hollow rhetoric and we are not doing anything. Fifty-three prisoners went to work this morning as part of this government’s hollow rhetoric. That is a damn sight more than those who went to work under former Corrections ministers. It is not hollow rhetoric; those people’s lives are being changed.
Let us get back to what we are talking about. As Attorney-General I have been given an opportunity, by the Chief Minister, to look at law reform, particularly in the area of the criminal justice system, from before arrest to beyond parole. There will be pillars, but between the pillars will be a lattice of communications so we put appropriate policies in place which will work all the way across the pillars. An independent department like police will have paperwork and systems in place which will complement the court system. The court system will have processes in place which will complement a model of swift justice. We will have a corrections system in place which will also complement the courts and the police. The three will complement each other.
Youth justice will be a pillar in its own right. For the first time in history, victims will be seen as a group of people who will be dealt with as a part of the criminal justice system and, under the Country Liberals, will be a pillar in their own right.
This means there are a number of things we can do to enable us to roll out policy that will vastly improve the operation and administration of the criminal justice system in the Northern Territory. Some of the ideas in relation to victims include the right for victims to have input into the parole system. They currently have input into the court system, but there is room for them to make submissions to a parole board. We are looking at a sex offender website to find a way to identify sex offenders in the community.
The paperless arrests referred to by the Chief Minister will never be entirely paperless. If police officers feel they will not be tied up at a police station for an hour-and-a-half or two hours to process somebody for a simple street offence, yet that person needs to be removed from the public domain, then we can find and implement systems to see police officers in the police station no longer than it takes to process a drunk under section 128 of the Police Administration Act, which is a few minutes, and so it should be. Unfortunately, the burden of paperwork that has grown for policing on the streets, particularly under the former government, means police become what I have described in the past as arrest adverse, and for good reason. If you are sitting in a police station doing paperwork your shift sergeant will be poking you on the head on a busy night saying, ‘Get back out on the road; they need you’.
What the police tend to do, by necessity, is move people on rather than apprehend them. However, when you move a person on and do not arrest and take them into custody, you have, essentially, created a situation where you will possibly be arresting them a few hours later, perhaps at 3 am or 4 am. That person will then be arrested for a serious crime such as a serious assault. It is much better to get those people off the streets earlier in the evening. A system of, essentially, paperless arrest for minor offences would be a wonderful way to go. That is one of the processes we want to roll out.
In the area of justice reform, there are a number of issues of concern in our court hearings. Currently, a defence lawyer can walk into the court, as is their right, put their hand up on behalf of their client and say the client pleads not guilty, or the client themselves can plead not guilty. That means a hearing date is set or a contest mention is set aside and, as a consequence, you have a file going back to the police station where the defence simply runs the line, ‘We plead not guilty on all fronts’. This means a file has to be prepared.
As I witnessed recently in Nhulunbuy while sitting in the Court House looking at a matter which was supposed to come to hearing, there was an eleventh hour change of plea to guilty because there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate the offender had committed the crime for which he stood indicted. The police had to run around and collect all the evidence for a guilty plea which should have been made in the first place because of the acknowledgement of the guilt of the offender.
In response to that - and this is not a new problem for the Northern Territory - other jurisdictions have initiated a system of pretrial conferencing, including a system of pretrial disclosure. Where this has been introduced in Victoria, the number of hearings went from 7000 to a little under 3500 in 12 months. What happens in that environment is, essentially - and this is an over simplification - when a not guilty plea is entered the magistrate says, ‘We will not set a hearing date’. The prosecution and defence go into a room and are required to have a conference about the matter. Pretrial disclosure requires that both sides, basically, play with an open hand.
This is already done in law in the civil courts. In a civil dispute, if you walk into a lawyer’s office you have a less that one chance in 10 of ever going to court because lawyers are, by virtue of the civil processes, pretty much required to talk about all aspects of the dispute so there are no surprises in the court case.
Where this can work particularly well is in the lower courts which are, for a lack of a better term - some people describe them as the sausage factory, I refer to them as the meat grinders of the judicial system. They deal with 95% of the matters heard in the Northern Territory. In a process of pretrial conferences and pretrial disclosures, essentially what happens is you have a conversation. The prosecutor says, ‘Okay, you are pleading not guilty’. The defence’s answer is ‘Yes’. The prosecutor then asks, ‘Why are you pleading not guilty?’ The defence responds, ‘Because my client says he was not there’. At that point the prosecutor can open the file and say to the defence, ‘We have CCTV footage, five statements and five photographs of your client on the scene at the time’, at which point the lawyer may want to talk to their client again and there may well be a change of plea.
Alternatively, that same conversation is held, the prosecutor opens the file and suddenly sees the whole prosecution case is predicated on the evidence of a single witness who was drunk at the time. That means there is an opportunity for the prosecution to pull the file because they know they do not have sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute the matter. Either way, the hearing does not go ahead and the result from the pretrial conference would have been exactly the same as the hearing would have been.
That is a substantial change to our system. I have briefly spoken to the Chief Magistrate about the concept of pretrial conferencing. She has nominated a model she is more attracted to and, as we roll this out, we will look at models appropriate to the Northern Territory for some very good outcomes.
I have spoken in a ministerial statement before about what we are doing in the area of Corrections. I heard the submissions by the shadow minister bleating about boot camps. Those boot camps will roll out. In fact, the I-camps - intervention camps - will roll out on time and we will see which model works best because we are going to settle potential winners of the longer-term contracts and trial a few of those. As a result of the trials this month we will report back to the House on how those intervention camps work. The detention camps will also roll out in an appropriate time once I, the government, and the department are satisfied we have an appropriate provider. A number of providers are close and we are in negotiations with them as to how they will run.
That takes me to the corrections environment, which is one of the pillars - Sentenced to a Job, sentenced to a future. A total of 53 prisoners left prison this morning and went to work in full-time jobs. These are low security prisoners who this government has said should not be in gaol during the day because they are healthy people and are of low risk to the community, so the government organised jobs for them. Today there are 53, and by the end of the year we are aiming at 200 and are on track to achieve that.
We are enabling people to leave prison whilst they are serving prisoners, travel to work, do a day’s work, earn a day’s pay, come back to custody that evening, pay $125 a week board, pay 5% of their income to a victim’s assistance fund, and the rest goes into trust, other than a small amount for incidental expenditure in the gaol. When they leave gaol, rather than the door of the gaol house hitting them on the backside and them being unemployed with no future, they have a start-up fund of around $15 000 to $20 000 and a job to go to.
The next step in the pillars and reform process is to create a system of group accommodation for parolees. Conditions of parole will include: you will reside in the group accommodation; you will keep a job; you will pay your rent; and you will follow all the lawful directions of your parole officer or community corrections officer. The effect of that will be not only will we be able to keep people in a job during the last six months of their sentence, we will be able to keep them in a job in a supervised environment for 12 or 18 months after they leave custody.
I heard the member opposite say that 80% of our prison population is Aboriginal, but there is a better correlation to use. If you are looking for a correlation, ask how many people were unemployed and welfare dependent at the time they committed their offence because you end up with a much higher number. I am not dealing with custody as an Aboriginal issue. This government and I are dealing with custody as an employment issue. If people leave prison having had a job, having some dignity and a sense of self-worth and they keep that job in the parole environment, the chances of them returning to custody are sharply reduced. If anybody watched the 7.30 Report a week ago on the Sentenced to a Job program, they would have seen prisoners serving out the last days of their sentences saying, ‘This is terrific. The stress of not knowing what is going to happen has gone away, or largely gone away, because I know I have money in the bank and a job to go to on Monday morning’.
The result of this program has been astonishing to the extraordinary extent one prisoner, who currently works in a full-time job in the private sector, drives the work ute from prison every morning and then comes back to prison at night, parks his car next to the prison officers’ cars, walks back into custody knowing full well he will soon be at liberty with a job to go to. These are good results.
I am unsure where the member opposite was when I spoke about this in the House previously because she knows we are doing this. For her to accuse us of hollow rhetoric - well this is 53 people after I reported to this House some time ago on a trial program. At the end of this year I expect 200 low security prisoners will qualify. How many prisoners have escaped in this process? None. How many prisoners have committed offences whilst at liberty in this process? None. How many positive drug and alcohol tests have we received from prisoners after thousands of days of work? None. The prisoners in this system understand they are being given an opportunity and are taking it with relish.
As this government develops the idea of Sentenced to a Job, let us get jobs into the gaol. We are currently in negotiation with several manufacturers, particularly with the new goal in the Darwin Correctional Precinct, to have manufacturing work done inside the gaol to provide jobs for medium security prisoners not yet in a position to go out.
In Alice Springs we are selling cattle yards manufactured in gaol for $125 a panel, sold at a profit. We hope, as a result of those profits and a littletraining money, we can soon get a galvanising tank inside the workshop to value add the product. Are those prisoners proud of the product they are making? Hell, yes. They have a sense of direction.
The difficulty for many people from remote communities is making those jobs stick. That is a challenge we are facing, hence why we are looking at group accommodation in parole. This is all real, all happening, and will be rolled out in 12 to 18 months because this has become a personal quest for me. I entered politics to make a difference. Frankly, whilst I never expected it would come through the corrections system, a captive audience enables a government to change these people’s lives and I am grateful for the opportunity.
The pillar of justice we are talking about is the pillar in relation to police powers and police systems which make the police far more effective in their capacity to control the streets. It is working in tandem with a court system which is far more effective in processing low-level offences, offences on complaints and low-level indictment. This then transfers into a corrections system in which the process of employment will hit you on Day 1. Once you hit the prison as a high security prisoner you will be expected to work and we will ensure jobs are available and will focus on the rights of victims in the process. Sentenced to a Job means prisoners are literally, in cash, paying their debt back to society. That enables this government to increase the amount of money we spend on victim support.
None of this means a person in the criminal justice system is in any way less responsible for their conduct. I would argue they are even more responsible for their conduct, but when they take up the cudgels of that responsibility they will be given every opportunity to demonstrate their contrition and desire for reformation. If you want to generate a desire for reformation in a prison, you make the prisoner believe they have an opportunity to change and make themselves worthwhile. On every occasion when I have spoken to prisoners in this system, I have been heartened by the fact they seem to see it that way, supported by conduct which demonstrates these people are upright in the work they do. The cost to taxpayers for Sentenced to a Job and group accommodation in subsequent post parole release is zero. Why? Because the prisoners will pay for it because they pay rent. Sentenced to a Job …
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I will try not to use the whole 10 minutes. Sentenced to a Job means we are making a few shekels on the side because we are charging board. It is more a nominal thing; it still costs $214 a day to keep a prisoner in custody in the Northern Territory, but they are used to paying board. When they go into the post-release environment, they will be paying for their accommodation as they would in any other environment. They will get used to that. In that environment, the only expense to the taxpayer is the classrooms we will put in.
I was talking to the federal government in Canberra recently about some Stronger Futures money to build a really good education system in the post-release environment so we can say, as part of the condition, ‘Follow the reasonable instructions of your parole officer - you will go to the following courses: money management, home economics, life skills, as well as training tickets such as chainsaws, forklifts, backhoe, whatever you need’.
In the employment environment today we are value adding the prisoner in their capacity to be attractive to an employer externally. We had a well-attended symposium in Alice Springs. One-hundred-and-ninety-five invitations have gone out to businesses for a symposium in the next few weeks in Darwin to advertise the product we have in prison - good, effective labour. We are increasing the quality of the labour offered to the private sector by educating them in simple things like backhoe tickets and forklift tickets.
The IGA supermarkets in Alice Springs have nine serving prisoners working for them. Recently, the head of IGA in Alice Springs described employment problems with general staff. They employ 120 people in their various stores in Alice Springs. In the last 12 months they have had to employ 700 people. That is the turnover for IGA in Alice Springs.
We can provide prisoners, particularly if we get them into post-parole environments. Currently, we can provide prisoners for months at a time. They will be the longest-serving employees in the IGA stores. The head of IGA in Alice Springs made the observation quite publicly the other day that not only do they serve longer than anybody else, our prisoners, with a few exceptions, turn up with ties on and their deportment is of a particular standard.
These prisoners are serving customers, doing stock control and handling money. Offences committed by these nine prisoners, as they try to lift themselves by their boot straps, are zero. This is heartening, positive, and this is what we are doing in the corrections environment alone.
In the courts environment there is a number of things we can do. There is another thing which goes right across the board, and that is electronic management - bracelets as I will refer to them from now on.
The technology is changing all the time. To my surprise, whilst I was in South Australia I was very careful to note that not only is the technology available through landline as well as GPS, but the technology is now available to drug test. If a person is on bail or at liberty after being sentenced by a court, we can police the condition that they do not consume alcohol and drugs by whacking a bracelet on them. These bracelets work in a number of ways and can work to exclude people from particular areas as well as include them in particular areas. If the same system is being used by police, corrections and the justice system, it makes sense to have one provider.
The reason we continue to talk to the South Australian government is why not work with them? This stuff is monitored, literally, in other countries. The people who run these systems have clients all over the world. They are run centrally through Europe, the United States, or wherever. If a person breaches the condition of their restraint, the bracelet will know where they are. If they try to cut the bracelet off that is an offence in its own right and they can go back to prison.
Ultimately, why would you not work with the South Australian government and the same contract? If we can negotiate it, and we are still working on it, that would work fine. The whole thing could be monitored, run through something in Adelaide and, if there is a problem, a protocol created where the local police receive a phone call saying, ‘Such and such a person is either on bail or a sentenced person under electronic management. That person has now set off an alarm because they have either left the area they are supposed to be in, gone to a place where they are not supposed to be, or there is evidence of alcohol in their system’. All that can be done remotely. Police or community corrections knock on the door and determine the veracity of what the bracelet is transmitting.
That is a good way to keep people out of custody. Is it expensive? I understand it will not be cheap, but it will be much cheaper that $214 a day. If people front up to courts and already have jobs, we can try to punish people with restraints on their liberty whilst they still go to work.
The bracelet technology works in another fashion. Occasionally, where a person is at work with bracelet technology fitted and it would be embarrassing for them, for whatever reason, to have a parole officer run a wand over the bracelet to ensure they are there, this can be done remotely. The prison officer or parole officer can park out the front, type into a screen and there will be confirmation the bracelet of the person who should be in the shop is sending the correct signal, and they can drive off. Nobody goes into the shop, and it is not awkward for the shop owner that they have a convict working in that environment.
This technology can lead to better sentencing outcomes. Through this system we intend to ensure police, the courts, and corrections are all working off the same song sheet. If we can get rid of half the hearings in the lower courts of the Northern Territory, we will save millions of dollars. If we can deal with police not having to be bound up by reams of paperwork every time they arrest a person on a complaint, we can make the police far more effective.
If the police can be more effective there will be better results in that area. If the courts can be more effective there will be better results in that area. If we can marry up the police and the court paperwork effectively, as they have done in Queensland, the police fill out a short prcis and apprehension report which finds its way to the court. Through pretrial conferencing and disclosures there is a complete assessment on that form, which is very quick, saying what the strengths and weaknesses of the case are, and they can determine whether they go to hearing or not if the charges are contested.
If somebody is found guilty through that process they end up in a prison system which says to them, ‘You will work for your own betterment and the betterment of your family’. This is not rhetoric; this is happening now. We have already done some of this. This is not an empty, hollow promise; this is a clear direction aimed at refining the systems of policing, adjudication, and corrections in our community.
I look forward to reporting to this House on a number of occasions over the next few years to let honourable members know how we are going in the area of looking after victims and creating statutes for a safer future, with I-camps and D-camps, the youth justice framework, court facilities, diversion and post-release mentoring, and work programs and training through the prison system. I also look forward to reporting good results from sentencing reform, pretrial conferencing, pretrial disclosures, paperless arrest, extra police on the beat, bracelets, diversion through the police directly into icamps, and a number of other things we will do.
What we will do through this process is change the system of criminal justice in the Northern Territory to keep it effective, make people responsible for their actions, and deliver outcomes, even for offenders, so they have an opportunity to fix themselves.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin. I was very interested in everything he said. I have never heard of pillars of justice, and I wish the person putting this paper together had written it in a better style. There are five headings and it would have been nice to have broken this up into those sections. It is not easy to follow, but I was trying to understand something in a hurry so I looked on the web and found there were five pillars of Islam, seven pillars of Judaism, and five pillars of Christianity. There is a film called Pillars of Justice. I do not believe that was it because I have never heard of this before. I also found five pillars of the criminal justice system from the Philippines. It took me some time to understand what we were talking about. There are the Pillars of Hercules but, obviously, it has nothing to do with that.
In some ways it is great we have this document, but in other ways it is sad we have to rush to have a decent debate about it. You get it late at night, you have other things to do - this is an important document. If, like me, you have not heard about the pillars of justice, you have to get your head around what the government is trying to say. It has been interesting listening to the member for Port Darwin because he made it easy to understand what the government is doing.
In general, whilst I support many things the member for Port Darwin has spoken about, one failing of the government is it tends to look at specific areas it wants to tackle and the bigger issues are left out of the picture. Much of what we are talking about relates to alcohol, yet we say little about why alcohol is a major factor in our society causing problems, whether it is drunkenness, the promotion of alcohol, or alcohol in sport. There is a range of other things where the government has not come into this House and said, ‘We are tackling things from another perspective’. What I see many times is fairly direct action on matters concerning us right now and, if we are to change the culture of drinking in our society - it has been around a long time. I said to people years ago when I was at Bathurst Island, some of the ads on TV in relation to alcohol implied you were not a Territorian if you did not drink. It was a manly thing and promoted in such a way you were a sis if you did not drink. That culture still persists in that society not so much with beer, but other forms of alcohol.
There are broader issues governments need to look at, which are part of the reason we end up having to deal with these matters in this House. The idea of improving police responsiveness, making them more efficient and having less paperwork is good. However, when a policeman goes to court, if the paperwork is not up to standard I imagine cases can be thrown out. Are you going to reduce the amount of paperwork police do? Are there any implications further down the line when an offender goes before court and police are required to provide sufficient documentation for that person to be prosecuted? The member for Port Darwin mentioned that and he has some experience in that area.
I am a great supporter of the Sentenced to a Job process. We have to be careful here; politics comes into it. To be fair, the previous minister for Corrections, the member for Barkly, did much work trying to promote the idea prisoners would go to work. We have the workers camp in Tennant Creek. The member for Port Darwin said one of the reasons he became involved in politics was to do things. I appreciate that, especially when, in his case, he is in government and has the power to do it.
Others, like me, are not going to be a member of government but we hope we can influence government decisions. The work camp came from much work I did after visiting the work camp in Wyndham about five or six years ago. That work camp is quite successful and Western Australia has a number of work camps. More work was done. The new CEO at Corrections, Ken Middlebrook, was keen on the idea and took me on a tour of prisons in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. His influence also turned things around.
The new prison - I become annoyed when I hear the Treasurer call it the Taj Mahal. It is new so it will look good; however, people are locked in cells with no air conditioning and nothing fancy in the cells. There are bars in concrete and steel. You would be locked up from 3 pm until the next morning - not the most pleasant place. One of the good things about that prison which the member for Port Darwin has not promoted - he probably has not had the opportunity - is that it has two large manufacturing sheds to train people and produce goods, as seen in other large prisons in Australia, where people will be trained within the prison surrounds.
For instance, there will be a bakery run by the women in the prison. Men can learn those skills as well. They can do the cooking as well. They are important things and we need to ensure we do not lose sight of the idea, which I support, that if you are sentenced to a job it does not necessarily mean you will be working outside. Hopefully, you will also be working inside.
In this debate you have to give some recognition to the previous minister for Corrections who put much time and effort into ensuring the concepts you are talking about today started. There will be quite modern education facilities at the new prison and the minister spoke about that. As prisoners leave the prison there will perhaps be education afterwards, and that is also a good idea. I congratulate the minister for taking up what the previous government started and going with it wholeheartedly.
The member for Port Darwin said about 58 prisoners are now working outside the prison. That, in itself, is not new, but the numbers seem to be much higher than before. The more prisoners we can have working the better chance we have of good outcomes and of those prisoners not returning to gaol.
There is talk about electronic monitoring. I am interested in that because the government has recently announced, and mentioned in this paper, alcohol protection orders. What I read in the media releases from the minister did not impress me much. That is why I said that issue appeared to be 99% spin and 1% practicality. I would be concerned if you are going to have police popping into the local pubs looking for people who might be on these orders. I am unsure if that is the way to go or if it is a good use of police resources. I am also not happy with the idea that police give banning notices.
I looked up the website for the UK government. They have drinking banning orders. I am not against banning people from drinking, but how do you enforce it? In the UK you can be given a drinking banning order if you break the law or cause problems while drinking alcohol, and you may get a DBO for vandalism, graffiti, antisocial behaviour, violent or threatening behaviour, or urinating in public. You can get a DBO if you are 16 years or over. It is issued by the magistrates court if police or the local authority apply for one for you, the county courts if you are already facing civil legal proceedings, and the criminal courts if you are convicted of an alcohol-related offence.
When you are given a DBO you may not be allowed to do certain things, such as drink or possess alcohol in public, buy alcohol, or enter certain places which serve alcohol. The DBO can last between two months and two years. One of the differences is you may be offered a health and drinking awareness course, which can shorten your DBO. The course is voluntary and you must pay for it. If you breach a DBO it is a criminal offence. You can be taken to court and fined up to 2500.
We are talking about introducing something that, theoretically, has merit, but as Rachel Seabrook of the Institute of Alcohol Studies in the UK said, they were concerned about the practical aspects of the order against Laura Hall, the first person in England and Wales to have a DBO. She said she was not opposed in principle to someone being banned from drinking alcohol in public, but had doubts about whether it is a realistic thing to enforce.
That is my argument. However, if the minister believes there is a chance these bracelets may have some practical use, it is possible they could be used to enforce that. If they have a GPS and are so modern they can tell whether a person has ingested drugs - if we are getting to that type of technology that may be a way around it.
However, I would not want to see the police, who have plenty of other things to do, breathalysing people in a pub or looking for someone in a pub who might have broken one of these orders. That could be a waste of police resources. If they come across them accidently, fair enough.
While the idea of banning people from alcohol is good in theory, whether it can be enforced in practice is yet to be shown. The Attorney-General said things are changing in that area. If the technology is there then perhaps that is the way to go.
I do not know how that would go out bush. If someone living in a remote area has been told not to drink and there is only one licensed club in the community, it would be interesting to see how it could be enforced. There are parole officers out bush; however, we will have to see if the Treasurer - he has control of this because he is also in control of the Licensing Commission.
Police should not be giving out protection orders. It could be done by a magistrate when placing a person on parole by saying, ‘You are on parole, but for the next six months you cannot drink’. That is more the role of magistrates rather than police because it is a form of punishment. Generally speaking, a serious punishment like that would be more appropriate coming from the judiciary rather than the constabulary.
In relation to youth justice, the government is having a go. I was concerned about Balunu being closed down. You spoke about boot camps, but you have softened that slightly and now refer to them as detention camps. Boot camps is the wrong term. We never called Wildman River a boot camp, it was a youth camp. You do not want to stigmatise people. What you do there is one thing, but the name sometimes sends the wrong message. The boot camps most people know about are the ones on television. The youth camp I knew, which, unfortunately, the previous government closed down, after I tried to convince them to leave it open, was Wildman River. There were other youth camps. The CLP closed down the one at Beatrice Hill. They have been around. Unfortunately, we took our eye off the ball and are now cranking up the same thing again. It is funny how life goes around in circles.
The Chief Minister mentioned early intervention in his statement. That is the real key. It is disappointing to hear there were cuts to the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, or NAPCAN. I mentioned it last night. We need early intervention at a very young age. If families do not have parenting skills we need to assist them. If children are not looked after properly in the early stages of their life, it is nearly a certainty they will be in trouble with the law later. I have said previously I visited a prison in Ohio, a therapeutic community. Six men sat in front of me, all had broken families and all started to get into alcohol and drugs at around the age of 10. You could see a similar pattern and they all ended up in prison.
The Chief Minister is right when he said:
One of the reasons I was so disappointed that money was pulled out of Freds Pass is I see money being put into facilities - the member for Drysdale knows - such as the soccer club at Palmerston and the upgrade of rugby there. Those things are part of what I call early intervention. Regardless of the reasons the government pulled money out of Freds Pass - whether it was the inability of that board to acquit its money - even a small amount of money into Freds Pass would have been symbolic of the fact they were serious about helping youth.
We need to give opportunities to young people so they are not sitting at home or walking the streets doing nothing, but getting involved in sport, where possible. There can also be dance, arts and music. However, sport has benefits some of the other activities do not, especially when it comes to team work, leadership, respect, and the things young people learn that will carry them through for the rest of their life.
John Kennedy, the famous Hawthorn coach, once said he was not about just making good footballers, he was about making men. He knew if he could train people when they were young they would make good leaders in society. I know the football teams he used to coach, and many of the people who came out of those teams were leaders in society because they had learnt things in sport. The government should look at ensuring it continues to fund youth facilities.
The government is going to upgrade the ANZAC Hill youth precinct, which is well and truly in need of an upgrade. It was built bit by bit over time. They are the things the government needs to look at as well.
I was disappointed NAPCAN, which is about early intervention with children, lost some of its funding. We need to put that money up-front otherwise, as the member for Port Darwin said - he quoted some fairly high figures to keep a person in prison every day …
Mr Elferink: $214.
Mr WOOD: If we can reduce that by half that would be good.
Member for Port Darwin, Sentenced to a Job is great. I am the Independent and sometimes people take as much notice of me as a dead frog on the road, but I support what you are doing. It is good and I am happy to promote that as a positive approach by the government. The previous government was heading in that direction, but your role now is to make that happen. I saw the 7.30 Report and the whole show was fantastic. I meant to write to the ABC ...
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Fannie Bay. The ABC report that night was wonderful. Quite a number of good topics were covered and one was Sentenced to a Job. I congratulate the ABC and the minister for being part of it and I congratulate Foxy. He is rubbished at times for being the big wealthy entrepreneur, but he is doing good things. He was working with the prisoners ...
Mr Elferink: He was one of the first to sign up.
Mr WOOD: He should be congratulated, and I hope other employers see that as a possibility. I umpire football when I can struggle around the ground. Under the previous government, prisoners were umpiring football. That is another area where we can get people involved. Believe it or not, umpiring requires responsibility to make a decision, sometimes under the threat of many insults. Even being a boundary umpire teaches people responsibility. There is another area, especially on weekends, where prisoners could be involved in sport.
I met Trevor Horman on the weekend coming out of Coolalinga Woolworths with two big parcels of lamingtons. He had a big smile on his face and I asked, ‘What are you doing, Trevor?’ He said, ‘I’m taking these lamingtons to the work camp at Adelaide River’. That is another great thing. I believe in work camps. I have been promoting them in this parliament for many years. Trevor was great because he said they are helping to clean up the historic Adelaide River Railway Station.
Minister, I am looking at a community effort - I will not get any money - to extend the bicycle path from Howard Springs to the Arnhem Highway as a gravel rail trail. We could have prisoners working on that project. It ends up being useful, and prisoners see they have done something positive and get a thrill out of it as well. They see they have contributed to the local community. There are many projects. I would like to see more mobile work camps going out to national parks working on trails, weed control, signage and all those things. There is great potential in that area and I appreciate that.
Minister, what disappointed me when you brought in mandatory sentencing was you took away home detention. With your bracelets you could have allowed home detention to continue. You said $214 a day - you could keep a person at home and off the grog. I am not a great fan of alcohol protection orders as described in the media release, but you said these bracelets are starting to get pretty smart and can detect whether someone has been consuming drugs or alcohol. If that is the case, home detention, bracelet - someone is still home with their family, which is important, still earning a dollar for their family, can still be traced and is reducing the cost of being in prison. That was one of the mistakes. Regardless of whether I agree with mandatory sentencing or not, that should have been part of the mandatory sentencing process. Perhaps you will reconsider that at another time. It has options, especially now you are looking at other options. It would make sense.
All in all, this document has some good points and some I am unsure about. It is a pity that issues like this, which require some time to give a well-thought out response, unfortunately, under the system we have - at 8.30 pm, ‘Here’s a statement’ and you do not give it your best. These issues are important for the future of the Northern Territory.
Law and order is, undoubtedly, an issue we continually have to look at. Hopefully, we eventually have a reduction in the number of people who need these types of orders. As I said before, there needs to be a bigger, wider approach to some of these issues because there are some underlying reasons why so many people are in prison. You mentioned some yourself: unemployment, overcrowding, lack of education …
Mr Elferink: Welfare.
Mr WOOD: You have heard me talk on many occasions about why we should not have welfare. We should have people working. We also have external issues such as the promotion of alcohol in our society. It is huge, and now we have the promotion of betting. If you watch the rugby league and the Aussie rules, the fence goes up and down in the background with TAB and another company as well. In your face you continually have gambling promoted. I like a bet, but it is going too far now. It is starting to get into people’s houses, young people are seeing it, the figures come up on the board at half time saying the next goal will be kicked by Fred and it will be $2.50 if he gets it and something else for somebody else. It is becoming invasive and it is the same with alcohol. Alcohol advertising controls our sport, much of the advertising on television, and there is a cultural issue with alcohol we need to look at.
Whilst we look at particular issues, the government should be looking at the broader issues. I would support moves by the government to have welfare in the Northern Territory changed. Recently, the federal government announced some enormous amount of money for jobs in remote areas. I have heard this many times and sometimes I am told, ‘You are an old fuddy-duddy’. I say, ‘Give that money to the councils and they will find the jobs. Do not bring in fancy, you-beaut people who are trying to make jobs out of nothing’. They invent jobs, and you turn up for work and get half-day training, and in the end there will be no jobs available.
Local government can produce jobs if it is given enough capital. The government is making a great mistake because, if we can create jobs in remote communities, as you say, member for Port Darwin, there is a much better chance we will not have people in our prisons because they will want to work, earn a quid, and look after their families. It will not be perfect, you will still have people in prison, but we would put a dent in the numbers.
I thank the government for the statement. There are several things I have my doubts about. I am willing to let the government travel down the path of - I do not call them boot camps - youth camps. I want to see what they are like. I believe it is good for kids to go out bush and have time to clear their head, not make them walk up mountains in shorts, singlet and a pair of thongs. There are times when kids need to go out, do some work, get some education, but have some quiet time. It is the same principle as mandatory alcohol rehabilitation - you allow people to go out bush and have time to sort themselves out. The peace of the bush is much cheaper than some of the other fancy ideas we have to try to overcome these problems.
Thank you, Chief Minister, and thank you for your comments, member for Port Darwin.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s statement. In preparing for this statement I looked through some of my notes from previous sittings and found copious amounts. We seem to have had this statement, or a variation of it, come forward almost every sittings. That is where the frustration of the member from Nhulunbuy, and the frustration the public is feeling, is coming from. The CLP was elected on a promise to take immediate action on a range of things, and we are now nine months in and have another ministerial statement talking about things this government might do.
As an aside, I like the fact the member for Nelson took the end of his speech to local government. I like the way the member for Nelson can often find ways to bring local government into debates. We are talking about the five pillars of justice but the member for Nelson found a very creative and constructive way of bringing local government into the debate.
Again, we are talking about things this government might be doing and the frustration the general public has around things the government has stopped doing since it was elected and before bringing in its own plans. Much of what this government has done is dismantle Labor initiatives purely because they were Labor and then work out ways to bring them back. A great example is income management. Through the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal we were able to income manage problem drunks. That is something we brought in. The CLP scrapped it and is now trying to bring forward ways to manage income.
We had an integrated comprehensive process. We discussed with a range of stakeholders ways to tie income management into the Banned Drinker Register and into rehabilitation. Our process had a purpose. It had a distinct coordinated approach to try to deal with problem drunks. We said, through the BDR and going before the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, repeat problem drunks would have their income managed. The only way they could come off income management was if they went through rehabilitation. We had a series of triggers and consequences, and we had income management.
Several months ago the Attorney-General spoke to the media complaining about problem drunks in Alice Springs spending welfare on alcohol. We had a tribunal in place to stop that but the CLP scrapped it and is now trying to find a way to bring forward income management. Our income management process was to come into effect in October. We were tied into Commonwealth legislation so the timing was out of our hands. It would have been in effect for six months now but the CLP scrapped it. They are now trying to find a way to bring forward income management.
What the CLP has being doing over the last nine months is dismantling some of the things Labor did before trying to find ways of bringing back in themselves - the exact same thing: income management tied into a rehabilitation process. It was there; the CLP could have used it, varied it, but they scrapped it. In the last six months we have not been able to manage the income of problem drunks and tie it into rehabilitation.
One of the reasons the general public is frustrated is because the CLP was elected on a platform of taking immediate action. Instead, they have dismantled Labor programs and put a big pause button on a series of justice reforms and things which were going to make a difference. They have worked out ways to bring those same things back in a slightly different form so they can rebadge them as CLP things. There is great frustration amongst the general public about that.
Income management is a great example of that. Alcohol protection orders, which the member for Nelson just spoke about, is another example. This government was elected on the basis of scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. They said quite clearly they wanted to scrap it. We, obviously, disagree with that, but they were elected on the platform of scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. That meant they had to think of something creative to do so they brought forward alcohol protection orders. The only difference, essentially, between the Banned Drinker Register and the alcohol protection order is no one will know if they are under an alcohol protection order.
People knew who was on the Banned Drinker Register. Under the alcohol protection orders, problem drunks who have been given an APO can walk into any takeaway outlet and buy as much alcohol as they want and no one will know. There will be no measure, at that end, to control the supply of alcohol.
The member for Nelson asked if there would be a wall of wanted posters at takeaway outlets. There is no measure to stop a person on an alcohol protection order walking into a takeaway outlet and buying grog. The member for Nelson called it a gammon policy; we call it the unbanned Banned Drinker Register.
Essentially, they have brought forward something that will have no practical effect around supply. If you breach an alcohol protection order – the Chief Minister’s statement goes to this detail – you get three months for the first offence. If you breach it, they will simply extend the order to six months. A breach of an alcohol protection order will simply lead to a longer alcohol protection order.
Something which has members of the AHA concerned - I am sure the Attorney-General will be having conversations with the AHA and it will be interesting to see how the detail evolves – is the knowingly supply provision. They have no means of knowing who has an alcohol protection order and the police, as the Attorney-General probably knows, in doing their job, often on the beat, might stop in at a takeaway outlet and say, ‘I am just letting you know person X is outside’. Staff at takeaway outlets change regularly. There is turnover, shift changes and so on.
Members of the AHA are concerned about how the knowingly supply provision will be enforced. They are feeling vulnerable on this issue. That is something I am sure the Attorney-General will be looking at and working on, but there are concerns amongst members of the AHA about how knowingly supply will work in practice.
On our side, we cannot complain about comprehensive integrated policy approaches. They are good words and things that should happen. It will be interesting to see the detail which comes from those policies. We had, through the Enough is Enough reform, a comprehensive integrated policy developed with the police, the courts, health, justice, NGOs, and so on. You should have comprehensive integrated policies. This is not a new thing or a fresh concept. It is something governments should do and something that is often in place because these people talk to each other. We have no complaints about the government having a comprehensive integrated policy. It will be interesting to see the detail as it shakes out because, as we have already debated in this House and will debate very soon around the mandatory detention laws, there are details we will disagree with.
Through the Enough is Enough reforms we had a comprehensive integrated approach. We looked at points of intervention where you could bring in rehabilitation, because we believe intervention is important. We had a voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation scheme, but we did not have mandatory detention. There has to be a moment where people opt into rehabilitation because if they do not, it will not work. You might use a point of intervention such as going before the courts, and diversionary programs to get somebody into rehabilitation, but at some stage they have to opt in or it will not work.
If you breached your mandatory rehabilitation order through the process we were talking about - through diversion - then other things would fall on you depending on why you were there. If you were receiving a diversion from a court, then a sentence would fall on you and you might go to gaol. If you were there through the Banned Drinker Register and the income management approaches, then the only way to get off the Banned Drinker Register or income management was to go through rehabilitation. We had points of intervention and processes of rehabilitation all based on conversations with people working in that field. As they said to us and I am sure they are saying to the government, if that person does not opt in to rehabilitation, then rehabilitation will not work. We had measures in place to support that rehabilitation order. We knew, while we were trying to make an intervention to make a difference, it was not always going to work. However, we knew we had to make the effort to help.
We understand where the government is coming from, but we believe they are making a very expensive mistake by going further into the mandatory detention field. All the advice from the experts involved in rehabilitation is that people have to, at some stage, opt in for that rehabilitation effort to work.
There are many problems with this and we will go into this in great detail during the second reading debate so I will not cover all of our concerns today. You will also be holding people who have not committed a crime against their will for three months, and creating a problem internally when you make people part of the system where they are then criminalised.
There are many concerns about this. Other independent parties are, obviously, bringing forward these concerns as well about how the effects of this, which the government is describing as a health solution, will end up being part of the corrections and justice system and, essentially, criminalising the use of alcohol. That will cause many problems and means it will not be achieving the outcome the government is trying to reach.
People struggle with addictions. Addictions are hard. If someone has an addiction it is an incredibly difficult thing to shake, whether it is alcohol, tobacco, some other drug, or whatever it happens to be. Evidence shows you have to go through rehabilitation seven times, and that is voluntarily. You have to go through that process of trying to quit seven times before it works. The CLP is talking about three months of mandatory detention for rehabilitation and that is not going to work. That is the advice we have received from the experts.
The CLP has said it does not have the evidence base for this policy, and we have had the debate in this Chamber many times. The now Attorney-General, then shadow, is on the record prior to the election talking about how there was no evidence base to this policy. Essentially, it is going to cost a lot of money and will not work.
In the last alcohol statement the government brought to this Chamber they quoted from a New Zealand scientific paper trying to justify the lack of evidence with the great quote:
We should ignore the fact there is no evidence that this works and take on blind faith that the CLP policy is going to work. Also, we should take on blind faith that the alcohol protection orders are going to work because, according to the government when asked about the effect of this, it said people will know they cannot do it, therefore they will not. They will take on individual responsibility. They are given an alcohol protection order, therefore they will not drink. That will not happen.
The studies show for rehabilitation to work it needs to be supported. If you go through supported rehabilitation for one year there will be a two-third drop out. If you go through supported rehab for two years there is a one-third drop out, and if you go through supported rehab for three years you get into the 10% to 15% space for drop out. You are starting to get quite high numbers of success. That is someone who is trying to get genuine support over a three-year period to kick the habit. Rehabilitation is incredibly hard. People are dealing with an addiction. All the evidence shows they need ongoing permanent support to kick the addiction.
To give one example, Alcoholics Anonymous meets in my office after hours. That is one way people will try to find permanent ongoing support amongst peers to try to quit. All the evidence shows you need permanent ongoing support.
Rehabilitation is incredibly expensive, incredibly difficult and requires much support. It requires - this is the critical kicker - the person with the addiction to, at some stage, say, ‘I do not want to be addicted’. People will emerge from three months mandatory detention and return to an environment where their family and friends are drinking and they will return to drinking. This will end up being an incredibly expensive revolving door.
We support rehabilitation. There is no question at all from our side that we support rehabilitation, and efforts towards rehabilitation. However, we cannot support the incredibly expensive option the CLP has taken of mandatory detention.
I have touched the surface today because we have quite an extensive, interesting debate on this coming up. We welcome the statement from the Chief Minister. Again, sharing the member for Nhulunbuy’s frustrations, the CLP promised immediate action on a range of things and now we have a statement which outlines a framework for a strategy. Obviously, there is a great deal of frustration from us and the general public about the lack of action the CLP has taken in putting in place any of their measures while they have been busy taking apart measures we put in place to try to tackle these issues.
We always welcome the chance to debate these issues. There is often a level of common interest, debate, or shared concern in this House. However, in dealing with these issues there are, when you get into the detail, some quite significant differences of opinion about the best way going forward, particularly when the CLP is choosing an incredibly expensive option with no evidence it will work and all the experts are saying it will noto work. We cannot support that.
We welcome the chance to talk in this House on a ministerial statement around justice and alcohol issues. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee –
Public Private Partnership Arrangements
for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
May 2013 Report
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee report titled Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present to the Assembly the Public Accounts Committee report on Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct. The inquiry examined the adequacy of the procurement process for the Darwin Correctional Precinct. This included an examination of the costs and risks associated with delivering the project as a PPP and an assessment of whether this procurement method delivered the best value for money.
The inquiry also examined whether public disclosures about the project were adequate. This included both cost disclosures and disclosures about the contractual arrangements between the proponent and the government.
The inquiry assessed the adequacy of the procurement process through an extensive review of project documentation. In addition, it conducted two in camera hearings with key project and departmental personnel. Evidence from these hearings clarified and supplemented the project review. Only two submissions were received.
The inquiry did not explore the merits of the investment decision. For instance, it did not consider whether building a different type of facility or using the money for an entirely different purpose would have been a better use of the Territory’s money. Consequently, the committee did not form any views on these questions.
Major infrastructure projects in Australia today are subject to the national guidelines for PPPs. The inquiry, therefore, included an examination on the national guidelines and an assessment of the procurement process against them. The committee found the procurement process largely conformed to the national guidelines for PPPs. The competitive tendering process was conducted appropriately, and a fair comparison was made between the cost of a traditional design and construct project and a PPP model. Consequently, the committee is satisfied PPP procurement offered the best value for money.
However, the committee also notes the Territory could have secured the agreement with SeNTinel at a lower nett present cost if it had used a payment profile that commenced with higher payments. The documentation indicated this cheaper option was rejected due to concerns about short-term affordability. In evidence to the committee, the present Under Treasurer indicated the flatter payments profile chosen also maintained stronger incentives for the proponent to maintain its commitment to the agreement. Nevertheless, compelling reasons are required for not choosing the lowest nett present cost option, otherwise short-term gains are being obtained at increased long-term expense.
The cost of this project is substantial. The government, and therefore the people of the Territory, will be paying for the design, construction, management and maintenance of this facility for the next 30 years. In 2011, the present value of the full cost to the Territory for the project was $834m. Of this figure, the value of payments to be made for design and construction was $629m. In contrast to these figures but consistent with the applicable disclosure rules, the cost of the project outlined to this Assembly at the time was $495m. This disparity between these figures is not due to inaccuracy but due to the inadequacy of disclosure rules for PPPs in the Northern Territory.
The public expects a higher standard of disclosure for the commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money. In a public private partnership such as the Darwin Correctional Precinct project there are two disclosure issues at stake. The first pertains to private sector involvement in the delivery of public infrastructure. In contrast to the government, which aims to serve the public through capital investment projects, private sector involvement in such projects is motivated by profit. The pursuit of profit is encouraged as it can contribute to more cost-effective projects. However, for the interests of the electorate to be protected and for the electorate to feel confident that private sector involvement is in their best interest, it is essential to ensure a transparent process that is open to public scrutiny.
In this instance, the concept of disclosure is not limited to the cost of the project but also extends to the contractual arrangements between the public and private partners. The second issue is simpler and relates to cost alone. It is just as relevant to a project wholly-funded and managed by the government as it is to a public private partnership.
The public has a right to expect clear disclosure of the extent and nature of the costs involved in a major infrastructure project in which the government is committing to future expenditure well in excess of $0.5bn. The committee considers the disclosure practices in this project have revealed a gap in the Territory’s guidelines for public disclosures for PPPs.
It has noted useful precedents in this regard can be found in jurisdictions with more experience in this area. Accordingly, Recommendation 2 proposes that the Treasurer, in consultation with the Auditor-General, develops guidelines for the disclosure of both the costs and the contractual terms associated with PPPs before the Territory undertakes another such project.
A second finding of the committee relates to the long-term nature of the project and how this might impact on its management and, ultimately, on the realisation of the benefits expected from a PPP procurement method.
One of the perceived strengths of the PPP model is the bundling of the funding, design and construction of the facility with the maintenance and management over the term of the contract. In this instance it is a term of 30 years with the option of a further 10 years.
The integration of these components incorporates incentives for the private sector partner to build the facility to a standard that will last throughout the term of the agreement rather than incentives to cut corners and leave the government with an expensive maintenance bill, which occurs with traditional procurement models. However, realising the benefits of such PPPs requires effective management of the contract over the long term.
The committee shares the concerns raised by the Auditor-General that if the benefits of the PPP model are to be realised it will be essential for the long-term management of the contract to be both active and informed.
This requires a continuity of knowledge about the project which is unlikely to occur without careful planning. The Department of Correctional Services needs to incorporate appropriate succession planning into its management plan and ensure there is adequate and continuing documentation of all stages of the project.
The committee therefore requests the government gives careful consideration to Recommendation 1 which proposes that the Department of Correctional Services develops a contract management plan in consultation with and agreed by Treasury prior to the handover of the facility.
The Department of Correctional Services should also provide an annual report on the performance of the plant to the Minister for Correctional Services, and the plan should be submitted to Treasury for review every three years.
Finally, on behalf of the committee I thank the Treasury and Finance, Infrastructure, and Correctional Services departments for the provision of information. Thanks are also due to the Auditor-General for his advice throughout this inquiry. I also extend my thanks to the members of the committee for their cooperative approach to this inquiry and the former Chair of the committee, Hon Peter Styles MLA, who led the committee through the early stages of this inquiry.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to voice my support for Budget 2013-14 because I know the right decisions have been made for the right reasons. It is, as the Treasurer and others have said, a responsible budget from a government determined to deal with the unsustainable Labor debt we were left when we came to office: grow the economy; deal with unfunded legacy items left by the former Treasurer; harness existing opportunities for growth and pursue new ones; and achieve better outcomes for our fellow Territorians, whether they live in our capital, the bush or in between.
The Treasurer and his Cabinet colleagues had to make some tough decisions. As the Treasurer said, belt tightening is needed. At the same time, the Country Liberal government has delivered increases in many key areas.
I will talk about some of the budgetary allocations which affect the people I represent and whose lives will be improved by Budget 2013-14.
Safer communities: $57m has been allocated to provide fire and emergency services in the Alice Springs region, including nine police stations in Central Australia. That includes Yuendumu. This is a very welcome announcement and will make a real difference to people’s lives.
As outlined in the budget papers, $40.1m has been made available to provide safe, secure, and humane care of adult inmates at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, while offering a range of therapeutic and reintegrated interventions to assist in their rehabilitation. This is a great announcement. Many people will benefit from this, and I thank the Treasurer, and the Attorney-General, in particular, who is highly motivated to provide pathways and change for inmates in our gaols.
Like any member of parliament, I do not know how many of my constituents are in contact with the criminal justice system, but I know there are too many. These people are in gaol because they have been found guilty of committing a crime and they deserve to be there. However, everyone deserves the opportunity to improve themselves, and our government takes seriously its responsibility to assist in their rehabilitation. I am hopeful better outcomes can be achieved for these people and they go on to make valuable contributions to their communities.
The Chief Minister, the Attorney-General, and every member of the County Liberal government is committed to improving the corrections system. I look forward to hearing about a range of initiatives over time.
I also see $4.11m has been provided in Budget 2013-14, as outlined in the budget material, to provide assessment, monitoring, and supervision services to community-based clients in the Alice Springs region, in line with sentences and orders issued by the courts and parole board. I am pleased to see this.
There is another $4.11m for courts to administer justice for regional and remote communities. Our young people in the Alice Springs youth detention centre will benefit from the $2.77m provided in this budget. The $1.1m for the sex offender treatment, Indigenous family violence and elders program is welcomed, as is $0.78m for the Alice Springs integrated response to family and domestic violence project, including the men’s behaviour change program. Members know I want to do whatever I can to make our communities safer for woman and children. I know the importance of this project and am very supportive of it. I also know of good work being done by the project manager, Liz Olle, and the regional manager in the Attorney-General’s department, Fran Whitty. I look forward to learning more about it over time and monitoring progress of the project.
As the Minister for Health outlined very forcefully in Question Time this morning, there is a record spend in the Health area in this budget. This is a good news story, despite the carping and mischief making of the failed former Labor Treasurer, now Opposition Leader.
As a member from Central Australia, I am delighted with the $230m funding for acute care services, including patient travel. I am particularly pleased with the $62.2m for non-acute health and community services in Central Australia. The budget allocates $0.24m for additional consultation space at the Ti Tree Health Centre, and I know many people who will be very happy to hear that. There is $0.9m to provide a grant to the BushMob Youth Residential Rehabilitation Service in Alice Springs. There is also $0.33m for the implementation of important youth suicide report recommendations. I know many young people and their parents in my electorate, and others, who will be delighted to hear about this.
There are also good news stories for regional development and infrastructure. I knew when the Country Liberals came to government that the regions would do better than they did under Labor. This government has many members who are not from the northern suburbs of Darwin, but we are certainly working on getting some more from the northern suburbs for 2016 just to make it more interesting. The diverse geographic membership of our parliamentary members is the strength of our government. It provides a diverse range of experience, passions and needs. We are all able to highlight need in each of our electorates. That is what we did and we have seen our work with the relevant ministers come to fruition in this budget.
There is $3.1m for remote Indigenous housing and related infrastructure. I am very happy to see this because we want to see people who live in remote areas getting jobs and learning new skills. This is a passion of the Chief Minister and one I share. I want to see opportunities created in the bush and, in so many ways, Budget 2013-14 creates them. That is why I am proud to speak in support of it.
The $12.62m to expand the Territory and Commonwealth governments’ transformation plan is welcome. There is much to get through, but I will keep listing some of the highlights in this budget. My constituents will be happy about the $26.6m for remediation and upgrade of Alice Springs Hospital. There is also $0.88m to extend and remodel the stand-alone administration block to provide a new staff preparation area, and ablutions and offices at Yuendumu School. I know many staff and parents will be happy to see that; it is much needed.
I see $10m has been allocated to targeted repairs and maintenance of the regional roads as part of a three-year $30m regional roads maintenance program. Works will be undertaken in Central Desert, MacDonnell, Victoria Daly, Roper Gulf and the Barkly Shires. As any bush member knows, roads are critical in the bush. We need good, well-maintained roads if people are to travel and the distances are long.
Sports and recreation: although it is not in my electorate, many of my constituents will be pleased to hear of the upgrade to the Alice Springs drag strip which is critical if we are to host national and regional events. I thank the Minister for Central Australia for his hard work in this regard. There is also $75 000 to support the Central Australian Redtails Football Club if the AFLNT decides it is to be included in the 2013-14 NTFL season. We will keep our fingers crossed and hope that happens.
Of course, I have to mention the $50 000 allocation to support the delivery of the Imparja Cup. This is enjoyed by some of my constituents and is great for our town. We often talk about our footballers and we are all very proud of their achievements when they hit the big time of AFL football. What I would really like to see one day is the first Aboriginal cricketer from Central Australia selected into the Australian cricket team. That would be great.
Of course, we should not forget the Country Liberals government sports vouchers, a scheme that ensures all young Territorians have access to sporting activities. There is $4m in the budget for this great scheme.
Economic development: I want to put on record how supportive I am of the Treasurer seeking to increase economic development in the Territory. I know the Chief Minister is passionate about this, as is the Treasurer. I share their passion. Economic development is essential to the Territory’s future. It is also essential to the future of the regions. Gaining skills and gaining a job is something many people take for granted; however, many people in my electorate do not. Many people want to gain skills and employment. The problem is that economic opportunities do not exist where many of them live. If we can assist in creating the economic opportunities we will help make an important difference to people’s lives.
Economic development is the only way out for my people. We have had long relationships with pastoral families and the pastoral industry. They have said they want to work together with our people, encourage our people to work, and be part of the economy to change the Territory and make it more viable for everybody to live. These pastoralists are the salt of the earth.
I have seen in the budget there is $2.1m for the Industry Development Program to assist peak industry associations to grow the capability and capacity of local industry, and develop and grow a skilled workforce. There is $0.3m to develop and implement a live export market development strategy together with industry. Also, there is $0.26m to continue the Indigenous Pastoral Program with partner agencies which gives our young blokes an opportunity to be part of the workforce.
I am proud to support Budget 2013-14. It is a responsible budget which takes responsible action and I congratulate the Treasurer. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Treasurer’s Budget 2013-14. I thank him for this budget as it is one that, in many ways, we bring down with a great level of regret because we are unable to funnel as much money as we would have liked into areas that matter to Territorians, thanks to the legacy debt of the former Labor government.
It is now our government’s task to restore the fiscal health of the Territory and balance that with the exceptional service delivery that meets the needs and expectations of Territorians. Despite the high levels of debt as a result of the legacy projects that are chewing up inordinate amounts of money, such as the Asset Management System and the $750 000 in interest repayments every day which the former Labor government left us, there is good news in this budget. It is much better news than the opposition would have you believe. I am going to focus on a few of the key areas I am most excited about for my electorate.
In our budget, Tiger Brennan Drive has been allocated the money it needs so it can finally, after all these years, be duplicated from Palmerston through to the CBD. Tiger Brennan Drive connects and services the growth corridor of Palmerston and rural areas as well as the industrial hub of Berrimah and East Arm and the Buslink port precinct. Every day over 34 000 vehicles use Tiger Brennan Drive as their access point to and from the city and the industrial areas of Winnellie and Berrimah.
The 7.5 km Tiger Brennan Drive extension from the Stuart Highway to Berrimah Road was opened on 20 December 2010. This link has seen traffic growth significantly increase. However, a lack of planning foresight by the previous Labor government sees the road going from four to two lanes at Berrimah Road causing massive traffic bottlenecks in the mornings and afternoons, forcing heavy and light vehicles to compete for the one piece of asphalt heading into the city every morning.
This government recognises this critical arterial link and has heard the cries of the long-suffering Palmerston and rural residents, as well as our transport industry, and has allocated $16m in Budget 2013-14 to get traffic moving. The $16m in Budget 2013-14 will complete Stage 2, which is a duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive between Dinah Beach Road and Woolner Road by the end of the 2013-14 financial year. These works will include signalised intersections at Gonzales Road and Tiger Brennan Drive, duplication of the road in both directions, and consolidation of the mangrove mudflats so the road can be constructed over them. This project will help reduce the urban bottlenecks of Stuart Park, Dinah Beach, Bayview and Woolner and should see the lineup outside the city become a thing of the past.
Budget 2013-14 also allocates funding to commence the planning and prepare some concept designs for the next stage of duplication between Woolner Road and Berrimah Road. This final stage of completing the duplication link will be a major project and will be completed over the following years.
As many of you know, I take a very grassroots approach to being a local member of this parliament and am constantly immersing myself in community organisations and the schools in my electorate. I cannot tell you how excited I am that $870 000 has been allocated to the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre to upgrade its facilities. The Special Education Centre at Palmerston Senior College is beautiful and has the most amazing teachers and staff working there.
These people work tirelessly to deliver quality education and teach life skills to the students who attend to ensure they get the very best opportunity to live full and independent lives. The classroom sizes are naturally small due to the needs and attention required of the teacher. As a result of increases in numbers of students, they are really looking at all opportunities to expand, upgrade and enhance their facilities. I very much enjoy going to see the students at the Special Education Centre, especially at assembly because you get to see the wonderful work they are doing and can follow their achievements and see the exciting activities they have been up to.
Quite often I run into students and teachers at the Palmerston Shopping Centre who are on outings learning how to shop and all sorts of other wonderful things. I commend Frankie and Thevi, fearless women who tirelessly drive the school so the students achieve excellence. It is a tough job, a critical job, a job full of compassion and love, and no amount of money could replace the value of their contribution to these special young Territorians. On behalf of our government and the people of Drysdale, I wholeheartedly thank you and your team.
I will move on to talk about the Palmerston hospital. I do not know why I am surprised at the level of deception the Labor Party will inflict on Palmerston residents to achieve its political point scoring. The Labor Party has always had contempt for the people of Palmerston, which is disgusting. I cannot remember the number of times I have voiced my concern in this Chamber that Labor is causing unnecessary pain and anguish for Palmerston residents by peddling mistruths and creating hysteria. Our government has respect for the people of Palmerston. That is why we made an election commitment in 2008 to deliver a Palmerston hospital.
Labor was in government for 10 years and it was only in the dying months of their tragic election campaign that they thought up the media stunt of sticking a fence around a parcel of bush in a random location and calling it Palmerston hospital. They had funding from Canberra for 16 months, and in 16 months they erected a temporary fence. How stupid does Labor think the people of Palmerston are? How disrespectful can they be to Palmerston residents when 14 000 of them presented the Labor government with a petition for a hospital in the community? That demand, that need, that want was met with a cyclone wire fence and a great big shiny shine, followed by a media stunt where the then Chief Minister arranged a team of backhoes and a shovel to move a bit of rocky dirt around. Boy, was that a wonderful show. Thank goodness your display of showiness resulted in a resounding thump against your administration and all four Palmerston seats were won by the Country Liberals.
Our government will build a hospital, how amazing is that? That is why we took the ridiculous fence down today. Goodbye fence, goodbye sign and goodbye Labor lies!
Today my colleague, the Minister for Health, announced, in the company of me and my colleague, the member for Brennan, that the $5m commitment in the budget will be spent to undertake a thorough and comprehensive scoping study and master plan for the greater Darwin and Palmerston area …
Mr Vatskalis: I will give you two of them for nothing and save you $5m.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: You had your chance, member for Casuarina, and you failed the people of Palmerston. They know it and will forever remember your legacy as the Minister for Health and your government’s failure to deliver. It is imprinted on their minds, make no mistake.
I reiterate, as a member representing a large portion of Palmerston I support our government’s decision. It is the only logical decision to make. It is a wise and prudent decision. Our government must plan properly for the future. We are building a hospital, but you do not just build one on the first piece of land you see. Our study will assess the growth of the Palmerston region and the rural area, the demands of our health system, the role of Royal Darwin Hospital into the future, and the movement of population over time.
The piece of land Labor said it would build a hospital on is quite possibly the worst one they could have chosen. They were blindfolded, spun each other around, and threw a dart at the minister’s map on the wall. It is sandwiched between residential aged care and industrial land use areas. It sits between two major arterial roads. Labor failed to listen to the City of Palmerston, which does not support the proposed site.
We are ending haphazard development. We have a Planning Commission, and a Planning minister, my colleague, the member for Brennan, in whose electorate this ridiculous site sits. The minister is not afraid to make the right decisions for Territorians. You cannot, and we will not, whack bricks and mortar into the ground for the sake of cheap point scoring. We could have taken the Labor approach and muddled through this, poured a bit of concrete, and had a big show, but we are not that type of government and will do what is right for Territorians now and well into the future.
This means at the conclusion of the study Territorian’s can be certain - we are providing certainty to Palmerston residents - there will be a suitable piece of land identified for the Palmerston hospital and the land will be suitable for extensive growth for 50 years, if not further.
We have a commitment from the Coalition to match the federal Labor government’s funding, but we will not stop at that. How many walls we know down will depend on what our scoping study says and we will fight for further funding if that is what Palmerston residents need.
I commend the Minister for Health for setting the record straight on the Palmerston hospital and I hope Labor will finally stop pedlling its mistruths. You can do yourselves a favour and save money on the ridiculous Palmerston hospital letterbox drops currently happening to scaremonger Palmerston residents. It is not wanted; we do not want your rubbish in our letterboxes. It is untrue and unhelpful.
Mr Vatskalis: Says who?
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Everyone in Palmerston.
I thank the Treasurer for presenting this robust and responsible budget in the face of the terrible situation we inherited from the former Labor government. Quite frankly, with the things they have been saying about Palmerston hospital, in my view they are an absolute joke.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I provide my reply to the Treasurer’s Budget 2013-14. I premise my reply with an interesting visual I had the other night watching Emma Alberici interview Andrew Robb, the opposition’s spokesman for Finance. She turned the tables beautifully at the start of the interview and asked the opposition spokesperson, ‘Can you tell me something positive about the budget?’ It was amazing to watch a large old Liberal squirm in his chair in front of a very accomplished journalist. The mouthing of what he hoped to get out was immediately eliminated and he had to go with the flow.
In the interests of the Treasurer, I give credit where credit is due in my reply. The Northern Territory Treasurer delivered Budget 2013-14 this week and described it as ‘more pain and belt tightening with a CLP mining tax’. Budgets comprise income, expenditure, and forward estimates representing the government’s policies and plans for managing finances and growing the economy.
The Country Liberal Party came to government on the back of election promises to cut debt and reduce the cost of living. However, Budget 2013-14 formally breaks that promise with page 4 of the Budget Overview showing the government has increased the debt by $1.1bn, up from $3.278bn this year to $4.417bn next year.
Page 28 of Budget Paper No 2 shows the fiscal balance next year will only be reduced by $12m; however, it confirms $300m will be stripped out of the public sector.
Page 35 of Budget Paper No 2 measures domestic revenue - what is being taken from Northern Territory families in taxes and charges - and shows the CLP government has increased this amount by $84m, up from $55m to $135m, nearly tripling domestic revenue in one year.
Currently, the Northern Territory has the lowest taxes on small business in the country; however, taxes on employers increased by $24m, up from $176m to $200m, representing a 13% tax increase on business.
Page 42 of Budget Paper No 2 outlines the CLP government has only budgeted for a 3% wage growth for public servants, with cuts to the Education budget that will see the loss of 130 teachers as part of the decision to increase class sizes by increasing student/teacher ratios in middle and senior schools. In real terms, Education in the Barkly will see a cut of $4m, which rings alarm bells for managing schools and improving learning outcomes, with the Chief Minister ruling out the additional $300m in funding available to the Northern Territory from the Gonski education reforms.
The Northern Territory infrastructure budget has been cut and will continue to be cut, with page 1 of Budget Paper No 4 listing that total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than in 2012-13 and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates. Power and water prices are going up 30%; however, Power and Water infrastructure spending is cut by $20m. The Tennant Creek power house hung on to most of its infrastructure upgrade funding, receiving $16.725m of Labor’s planned $22m.
The Regional Development budget formally cancels the contracts the CLP signed with bush communities, with funding for health, schools, and infrastructure cut and no money allocated to continue Labor’s Regional Integrated Transport Strategy delivering bus services in remote areas like the Barkly.
Revoted works are capital works initiated in previous budget years and carried over representing big infrastructure projects, with Budget 2013-14 revoting $126.258m in Territory roads funding and $87.354m in Commonwealth roads funding from Labor’s 2011-12 record infrastructure investment.
The Barkly will see some roads infrastructure projects in Budget 2013-14; however, it also sees the loss of the Canteen Creek air strip upgrade and sealing, which has been deleted from the budget by the CLP government. The new Commonwealth-funded health clinics at Elliott and Canteen Creek have been saved with $700 000 allocated to expand the capacity of Tennant Creek’s family support centre. I look forward to further details on that project.
In the weeks and months ahead, the CLP government will see the real results of its economic policies and plan. However, the people of Tennant Creek are denied the chance to hear the details and ask questions as the Treasurer cancelled the budget road show. In a legislation briefing last week, I joked with the Treasurer, Hon David Tollner MLA, using an old line, a gag, ‘I am waiting for Budget 2013-14 to come out on video’, yet never dreamed it would become a reality.
I will go through different output areas commencing with the Department of Transport. I welcome the government’s increased investment in the provision of public transport and school bus services across the Northern Territory. However, there are no dollars for the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy, a Labor initiative for the first time in the Northern Territory to get safe, secure and reliable transport services into the regions and remote areas. The models built over the past four years are working and delivering results.
There were two elements in the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy for bus services: government supplying new infrastructure, and subsidies to put on new routes. The outcomes of safe and secure travel, community safety and people getting to and from town, improving health outcomes with patients having reliable transport to outpatient appointments, and getting to town to access services have been phenomenal.
However, I am disappointed it seems to have dropped right out of the sphere of the Country Liberal Party. I encourage those members who represent bush electorates to do some talking because when we talk about the cake, we in the bush did not get a piece. It is an important part of developing the bush. It has been wiped.
The funding for barge landings also seems to have disappeared. That was also part of the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy. There is no talk about the barge landing upgrades at Ramingining, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku; they have gone. Barge landings provide important efficiency which can deliver outcomes for budget expenditure like reducing the cost of living for people in remote communities on fixed incomes. The upgrade of barge landings was very important in supporting food security, in the delivery of services, and in the increase in efficiencies. It offered opportunities for employment as well.
There is no mention of the port for the Tiwi Islands. That is a big ticket item. It was bandied around in an election campaign but it did not appear in a budget exercising belt tightening.
The Tiwi ferry looks like it might have secured funding. I congratulate the member for Arafura on securing funding to continue the Tiwi ferry. This is one of the only initiatives of the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy still alive in the Country Liberal Party budget.
With regional and remote airstrips, the Utopia strip is completed. I was there recently. Lajamanu and Yarralin will also benefit. These are Labor initiatives, by the way, and represent a massive revote which is normal and part of a budget process. However, I am talking about it in a positive sense, not trying to slag it off as I heard during the last four years of Country Liberal opposition, using that chestnut to try to destabilise a government budget. It is the reality of the Territory; it is the reality of construction. You have your hand on a massive revote. Good on you, because it is stimulating the construction sector, growing the Territory and delivering important social infrastructure. Utopia, Lajamanu and Yarralin - good work. However, Canteen Creek missed out. It is in the Barkly and missed out. There has been no upgrade, no sealing, and the other important work we were going to plan around seems to have gone already.
In Question Time on 14 May 2013, the Chief Minister spoke about the CLP government being focused on investment in regional development, regional areas and regional towns. He needs to revisit the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy urgently.
In transport, the Country Liberal Party government investment in DriveSafe NT, the remote Indigenous driver education and licencing program, and the Motorcyclist Education Training and Licensing is to be commended. It was great to hear the Chief Minister deliver more information on delivering good community safety, not only in the urban areas, but right through the bush. However, it seems that has come at a cost. It seems to be a ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ budget. It comes at the cost of the driver offender training program and the Alcohol Ignition Lock Program. These two programs were related to the new orders introduced through the new era in corrections. They were debated ferociously by the then opposition, and they have finally secured the opportunity to knock both of them off.
The Minister for Correctional Services must be interested in having no planned driver offender training program in his Sentenced to a Job program because he is now going to sentence 60% of the population of Northern Territory prisons to a job without a licence. People would realise fundamental selection criteria requires a licence.
It was unfortunate to see the Alcohol Ignition Lock Program go, although it was a big target. For the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation it represents a fundamental alcohol rehabilitation tool. It represents a person who has made the decision to rehabilitate. They will have a reduced disqualification while they operate an alcohol ignition lock. By having this device fitted, they are making a conscious decision, engaging the psychology around giving up the grog, and showing the community they can do it properly, safely and in a measured way. The take-up rate has been small. The government can have all the arguments it wants, but, minister, this is a very important tool for rehabilitation and delivering community safety, and one that can be used in your rehabilitation plans.
The Minister for Correctional Services has an obsession, which I have noticed in the last few sittings of parliament, of jumping to his feet to conduct a vitriolic, abusive diatribe about how he is a better Corrections minister than I was. I am a teacher by trade. I taught children for 30 years so am qualified to say this. I have examined this a number of times and believe the Minister for Correctional Services has a developing issue he might want to get a handle on. It relates to the fact he is not cutting it with the prison officers. There is an issue going on where he might be using his micromanaging strategies to mess with the classification system which is upsetting the prison officers, and the ghost of the former Labor new era in corrections is haunting the corridors. These abusive diatribes, which are becoming quite regular, are setting an interesting pattern. I am qualified to teach and have taught children for 30 years. I am making that observation based on my qualifications.
What we see in roads infrastructure is massive revotes of the previous Labor government projects. Roll them out. That is the positive in it. Get that work happening because it feeds the economy and delivers important social infrastructure - revoted works to the tune of $106.806m, revoted transport assets opportunities of $19.452m, revoted works on the national network of $30.428m and revoted Territory road projects from 2012-13 of $56.354m. This is important work.
However, the Chief Minister has brought a new initiative into the budget which is celebrated and I commend it:
It is interesting to note, but not surprising, there are no upgrades to ensure year-round access from the Daly to Wadeye as stated in the CLP contract with Wadeye. ‘Our commitment to you, fully funded and fully costed.’ I am sure the member for Daly will be explaining that to the constituents in his electorate.
There is $3m to construct new overtaking opportunities at selected sections of the Stuart Highway between Darwin and Katherine - Commonwealth funded. I agree with that; it is a good initiative from the government. I travel the Stuart Highway often and have participated in Labor’s program, now continuing with the original money from the Commonwealth, because that section of the Stuart Highway between Katherine and Darwin is critical to providing more overtaking lanes which will deliver real safety outcomes.
It is a pity the poor old CLP letter writer in Tennant Creek, who was slagging me off in the election campaign and trying to discredited me because I was a minister spending all that money on overtaking lanes between Katherine and Darwin, will now have to turn that venom on the CLP. I will defend the CLP as I defended myself, because the CLP is delivering good outcomes here with overtaking lanes between Katherine and Darwin. The CLP letter writer, so active in the slagging campaign on me during the last election, will not be happy.
The Chief Minister talks so much about the Darwin Port Corporation, and so he should. In opposition, by jingo, did he talk about it! We will have to refer to Hansard for that because it was very creative stuff. However, there is not much new money for the Darwin Port Corporation and that is of real concern. There is $1.1m for environmental management relating to the Marine Supply Base. Of course, there is the revoted ongoing Marine Supply Base construction, with an allocation of $15.4m, which is important for an extremely important project.
I ask the Treasurer to not forget the Darwin Port Corporation because that is very much enabling infrastructure to support development from the regions. The Darwin Port Corporation is well, and there are hard-working people out there hunting customers in the regions every day. It is disappointing not to see more money in the Darwin Port Corporation as part of Budget 2013-14. However, there is the healthy revote of $32.178m incorporating the Marine Supply Base construction project.
The Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment’s new minister is at the wheel. He said ‘new governments invest in new areas’. It is good to see a balance there - revoted works from 2012-13 of $32.286m, but new works in Budget 2013-14 of $37.417m. That is good to see. Well done in the Cabinet room; you certainly got your fair share of the cake. So you should, because this is an important area that you continue to talk about …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present. Continue, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We were on the subject of a cake and the minister for the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment certainly got his share. It related to the cake in the freezer from the previous Labor government: There is $20m for Palmerston East headworks land release - a master plan suburb. Minister, you are in the box seat because you are working with the Land Development Corporation and the joint venture with Urbex, which is delivering a master plan suburb. They needed that extra $20m budgeted for Stage 2. Well done, because that will be a superb suburb exploring many elements of new urbanism. It is great to see the second stage of Zuccoli, a Labor suburb master planned and delivered, is continuing. I am glad it was not cut; it is continuing so it looks good.
I want to challenge you, minister, with an important project you have on the table: $15m for the Middle Arm industrial precinct water supply construction works. That is great. I drove into town recently on Jenkins Road, looked at Finn Road, came up Channel Island Road, went to Wishart Road and then came back on Tiger Brennan; by jingo have I spat out Labor roads infrastructure in that mouthful! The $15m Middle Arm industrial precinct is now water, power and roads going right past Weddell. When you get some dirt on your boots, minister, which I have not seen yet, you will suddenly realise how expensive and challenging it is turning off serviced land. You will find out the hard way because for four years and eight months all it has been is hot air. You will get your boots dirty. When you see power, water and roads going past Weddell, that is your greenfield site.
That will be the place to look if you are serious about pushing out reduced cost land and creating opportunities around more affordable housing. That is the challenge and the reward. However, it does not appear in the budget. Weddell has disappeared. If you look in the department at the amount of work done, and with $15m in your back pocket where Labor started and you are going to deliver - to put the headwork services that are going to go right past, Weddell is the one for you.
There is a $1.1m focus on land release initiatives across the Northern Territory. That is not much. It might all go to Katherine, but it is not mentioned in the budget. That is for the rest of the Territory - $1.1m for land release to deliver serviced lots of land in relation to a regional development agenda from the Country Liberal Party government. We will have to keep a close eye on that. There will not be too many estimates questions on that, minister, when we are only chasing $1.1m.
However, the other one you have in your back pocket, which is a great opportunity, is Kilgariff. The previous Labor government set that up perfectly and had budgeted $3.5m to create the entry statement and spine road, which is what you are finishing off now.
The budget paper talks about $854 000 for Kilgariff. There will be an interesting comparison in Hansard semantics. I drove past the other day and it is finally finishing it off. Your challenge is to get a developer to come in with you. My advice to the minister is go with the Land Development Corporation, go with the opportunities the previous Labor government was setting up around joint ventures to get Kilgariff moving because that will be a difficult space. You do not have a big demographic growth rate in Alice Springs, it is expensive turning out serviced land and you need a creative plan. You will need the Land Development Corporation and their experience. You have that money to try to finally set it up to bring in a developer. You really need a developer.
The Land Development Corporation is on the pad and has a number of really good projects on - revote projects they are carrying over. It is all about creation of the East Arm logistics precinct which is so good for the Northern Territory. That is a really good master-planned project and there is money to back it. It will be a great outcome.
In relation to Regional Development, the minister says not a white way, not a black way, but a right way. I am confused about a paragraph in the budget paper. Page 259 of Budget Paper No 3 says:
I am a resident of the regions as well. I am glad the minister made it clear it is about everybody in the regions. However, regional services have been cut, cut, cut; essential services has been cut from $91.782m to $72.206m; remote infrastructure coordination cut from $9.345m to $2.952m; homelands, outstations and town camps cut from $39.712m to $35.898m; and regional development cut from $8.602m to $6.615m. That concerns me. I am sure the minister will have a story on that. I hope it is better than the Question Time responses. Those cuts in Regional Development are most concerning to a Country Liberal Party which puts out it is all about the regions.
The Chief Minister said in Question Time on 14 May 2013 that the CLP government was focused on investment in regional development, regional areas and regional towns. All we have seen in that is cut, cut, cut. Regional areas were definitely better funded under Labor and the CLP government, effectively, has torn up those contracts with the bush. The Borroloola contract is a good one. There are some amazing ideas on this. They need funding but, unfortunately, nothing got up in this budget. The good people of Borroloola will have to wait.
Arts and Museums, well done, minister, there is an increase in the budget. The Defence of Darwin Experience gets support. However, it looks like you are into staff cuts. Cuts in a very sensitive area like preserving our antiquities, our heritage, and our culture do not go down well. They are specialised people.
I do not have time for the Department of Infrastructure unless I get an extension.
Mr VATSKALIS: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member to finish his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Arts and Museums is a sensitive and special area for the Territory. It is great to see the Defence of Darwin getting extra funding, and mention of the Darwin Festival. The Labor government set the Darwin Festival up with $1m each year for three years. Minister, good on you; you did not take it away. I would have been savage if I had seen that money taken away from the Darwin Festival. Let us hope they get it next year as well, because it was a three-year deal by the previous Labor government. Minister, you will love the Darwin Festival. I encourage you to get involved in the Darwin Festival. It is great to see they have been able to keep the money to deliver a high-end cultural festival in the capital.
Establishing the board of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory as a statutory authority is a good move. It creates opportunities for better governance, management, and, importantly, it provides the opportunity to attract funding from the philanthropic sector. That is a really good outcome; however, it is no excuse for reducing Northern Territory government funding. I was shocked when I saw the Country Liberal Party throw politics into a newsletter which appeared from the MAGNT Board. I quote from a media release issued on 16 April 2013 from the Country Liberal Party government Chief Minister. At the end, it stated:
That was an unfortunate paragraph and, no doubt, you will be taking it up with whoever wrote it. Do not let the statutory authority be an excuse to not fund our museum and art gallery sector in the Northern Territory. You will discover how much support this sector has within the community. Because we are such a small jurisdiction with such a large land mass and so much diversity, it will always need a good balance of government funding and what can be attracted from the philanthropic sector. The work of the Labor government was all about trying to build and educate the philanthropic sector and bringing those funding bodies, funding organisations, and individuals to the Northern Territory to show them our magnificent culture and heritage.
The Department of Infrastructure’s budget has been cut and will continue to be cut. Budget Paper No 4 page 1 says:
The minister said small business is actually the big business and he is right. I enjoyed that statement. My take on that is: it is all about the small- to middle-level subcontractor and contractor. I worked closely with that sector and it survived. We preserved jobs, created jobs and delivered social infrastructure because we used a fiscal stimulus strategy.
The Treasurer says, ‘There is no more money, they cannot use that strategy’. I advise the Minister for Infrastructure that when I left that sector they told me the government was on the right track. It recognised the countercyclical fiscal strategy of pulling back the public spend while the private spend kicks in, but they said it needed about 12 more months to secure those small- to middle-level contractors who were already starting to hurt. The word is coming back that they are already hurting. They needed that bit extra and you are cutting back at your peril and the peril of the Northern Territory.
It really is important that you listen to that sector, minister, and translate that information back to the Cabinet. The Treasurer said, ‘It is all about Labor’s spend, spend, spend. Give me something new. Give me something I can work with.’ I took up the challenge, Treasurer, and did a little number crunching for you. I want to deliver this in a brown paper bag directly to the Minister for Infrastructure. What could be critical in around 12 to 18 months, before the Ichthys project really starts to get grounded and step out of the earth, is the $5m to undertake a study for Palmerston hospital.
The previous Minister for Health offered the Health minister two studies for free. The federal Health minister has also offered those studies for free. It will cost you nothing and you can take the $5m and put it into concrete, rio and projects to stimulate the construction sector. In fiscal stimulus strategy, one of the reasons construction is favoured is because the construction industry puts the bread on the table of the working-class family. That is what makes the world go round. You have $5m. When you see only $1.1m allocated to land release across the whole of the Northern Territory outside of Palmerston East, that master planned suburb of Zuccoli, then you could put $5m into that and all the subbies in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Borroloola can get a piece of the action. That is a lot of cash for those regional areas. You put $5m into consultancies and studies when we can give you two studies for nothing.
There is also $9m going into the Chief Minister’s department. I rattled this government with that last time we were gathered in this House. They took great offence and started to create stories of what that money was for. That is a lot of money going into the Chief Minister’s department. If you add five and nine you get 14. When you are talking about $14m you have some serious capital to add to that infrastructure budget. We are already starting to subtract from that $64m cup.
There is another addition we could look at. About $3.6m is going to a consultation to scrap the shires. We in the regions know the minister is having all types of dramas in this area. The Chief Minister, who really set up the demise of the shires, is, no doubt, having the same pains. I would love to be a fly in the Cabinet room overseeing that operation. It means $3.6m. It does not sound like much money, but it is a hell of a lot of money in Tennant Creek, let me tell you. You can deliver serious infrastructure stimulus for $3.6m in a town like Tennant Creek. However, this money is going to be spent on a consultancy to scrap the shires, which will never happen anyway and that money could be redirected.
Give credit where it is due, but if you guys get it wrong there are serious consequences. When we talk about $5m for this, $9m for that, $3.6m for that - there you go, Treasurer, I did some number crunching, and came back to you with something positive - redirect it.
There is also what the Labor government was doing with department efficiency dividends. That is important, and you guys are using that with a twist. Also, we were doing things with the staffing cap of the public sector. You guys are doing that, but with a twist - you are sacking people. There is also the countercyclical fiscal strategy which you are aware of - I have seen that - but it probably needs some tweaking.
In conclusion, Minister for Infrastructure, listen to that sector because a number of issues are squeezing the economy: tourism and a new mining tax and probably even ramifications for exploration. In the delicate time between when these major projects really kick in you may want to keep your finger on the pulse and watch the infrastructure sector carefully so you do not slip behind. If you lose any ground in that sector it will be very difficult to pick it up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for the opportunity to comment on his budget.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not speaking for or against the budget but will comment on the first budget of the CLP government. There was a great deal of interest in the community to see if it would deliver anything for Territorians.
It was delivered early this week and yesterday my colleague, the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, commented that it was a budget of missed opportunities. I believe it is a budget of broken promises to Territorians on the cost of living, the debt, the drunks, health, and education.
The CLP came to government promising, first of all, to bring down the cost of living. The CLP inherited an inflation figure of 2.1% and, on their own admission this week, the inflation figure now stands at 3.9%. In January it was 4.2%, but because of the change of leadership in the CLP and the reduction of the massive increase from 30% to another massive increase of 20% in power and water, that has now gone to 3.9%. They promised to bring down the debt but, in the first seven months of this government, the debt has gone from $3.2bn to $4.4bn next year. This is a broken promise.
The economy is doing well? No, it is not. People will tell you they had some of the most terrible times in their business. Of course, again, from their own budget, from their own admission, we find the state final demand has plummeted from what we planned of 26%-positive to 15%-negative. Today, the member for Fong Lim said, ‘The state final demand is not a really good indicator of the economy. This is not what the economists say’. Well, I beg to differ. I support my difference with a publication by the Reserve Bank of Australia in 2012. In an article ‘The Recent Economic Performance of the States’ by Kathryn Davis, Kevin Lane and David Orsmond, there is a statement about the final demand. I quote from that article:
This is a statement by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which knows more than me about finances and more than the member for Fong Lim. Here we have somebody with authority who says the state’s final demand is a good indicator of how well the economy performs. Obviously, under the CLP, it would not perform very well.
Do I have to talk about the drunks? Since the scrapping of the Banned Drinker Register we have seen an influx of people we had not seen for some time because they could not access alcohol in Darwin and other major cities. The government argued that the Banned Drinker Register was not successful. It was not 100% successful; it was not perfect. Nothing put in place will ever be 100% successful, but it drove the people out of Darwin and out of takeaway liquor stores because they could not access liquor. When I go to liquor stores in my electorate and hear people complaining about the influx of people accessing massive amounts of alcohol I know the BDR had an effect. Members opposite know that and realise the mistake they made but are not game to reinstate it for their own reasons. They now have the register of banned drinkers. Even the local newspaper, which I do not consider to be pro-Labor, commented in the editorial it was an idea probably borrowed from Monty Python. It was not the best idea.
I listened to the Treasurer deliver his speech and could not help but smile at some of the things he said. One thing he said with a straight face was about Power and Water and I quote from his speech, page 4:
The member opposite neglected to say prior to 2000 the government that restricted access to the distribution lines was a CLP government. He also does not say NT Power successfully sued the Northern Territory government - won the case – and, in 2004, the Northern Territory government had to pay $60m compensation to NT Power and one of the first Chief Ministers of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham.
The other thing that worries me with this budget is the Treasurer said he identified $200m of savings in Power and Water alone. That worries me. The last time they identified savings in Power and Water they left it with a reduced workforce and no equipment in the sheds. This led to the well-known incident at Casuarina substation. It was not only Casuarina substation, there was other infrastructure in the Territory in danger of failing with catastrophic results. That is why Power and Water had to borrow the money and reconstruct some of the substations within the city and the suburbs to avoid another catastrophic event like the Casuarina substation explosion.
Another thing that worries me is the Treasurer stated another company is to put a 60 MW power generator in the Northern Territory to provide energy between Katherine and Darwin. They will bring their own generators and will utilise gas. We have difficulties, at this stage, providing gas to Gove. I wonder where this company will find the extra gas required. Also, I remember the deals done by the CLP government before 2001. The Darwin to Katherine power line is one, a power line, even by their own admission - some of the members opposite say they paid too much at the time, but they made a deal and paid too much.
Of course, my portfolio is not Power and Water but I highlight these issues because I was at the breakfast for the Territory Construction Association and the Treasurer started talking about the previous Labor government, the enormous debt it left, and other things. I thought, ‘If you are here to inform Territorians, at least tell them the truth’. The first is the $5.5bn deficit. The previous Labor government did not leave a $5.5bn deficit. It is recorded in the budget books of 2012 and the PEFO documents. The CLP knew the level of debt the previous Labor government left. It was far below $5.5bn. The figure $5.5bn was the forward estimate if nothing was done to reduce that debt. In the same books a strategy was recorded of what this government would do to reduce the debt.
Yes, there was a debt. I recall the debt to revenue ratio was 34%. I remind members opposite that when the Country Liberal Party was in government before 2001 - I am not criticising; as a matter of fact, I praise them because they put much effort and money into the necessary works in the Northern Territory. The Territory achieved self-government in 1978 and was in the development stage - the debt to revenue ratio in 2001, as per their admission in the budget book, was 69%. We left a debt to revenue ratio of 34% and, because they have pushed the debt to $4.1bn, the debt to revenue ratio now sits around 79% or 80%.
It is very rich for the member opposite to blame the previous Labor government for everything. They will probably blame the previous Labor government for the Wet Season not being very wet, but I will not continue with that.
I will comment on my shadow portfolios. Health is one of the most important portfolios in the Northern Territory because our people demand good quality health services and we have one of the sickest populations in Australia.
The tyranny of distance and the small population, of course, works against us. We are not able to attract doctors and nurses like they do down south and sometimes we have to pay top dollar. That is why the Labor government, in 2012, had a Health budget of $1.25bn which was, at the time, the highest in the Northern Territory. This year the Country Liberal Party has a Health budget of $1.36bn. I congratulate the Minister for Health for managing to get all that money out of Budget Cabinet. I know how hard it is; however, she knows, as do I and many other people who serve as Health ministers, this money is desperately needed in the Northern Territory.
My criticism is that she alleges this is much bigger than the Health budget of the Labor government. Our budget was $1.25bn. To catch up with CPI you have to put in an extra $50m, which brought our budget to $1.275bn. Considering you put an extra $40m in for alcohol rehabilitation, that will bring the budget to what it is today. It is not a budget with growth. It is a budget catching up with CPI and with extra money added to address the alcohol rehabilitation initiative this government is putting in place. It is a very noble idea to address alcoholism in the Northern Territory but the initiative will not work because it is a punitive measure rather than a treatment measure. Correctly, this morning I heard a member opposite say alcoholism is a disease. Yes, it is. You cannot treat people if they do not want to be treated. You can lock them up but, unless you throw the key away and keep them there without access to alcohol, these people will not be treated. Reformed alcoholics are scared to drink a glass of wine because they believe they will start drinking again.
My prediction is money will be spent, a few people will go in, the same people will come out, and the same people will be back time and time again. Meanwhile, lawyers from the Territory or down south will challenge every step of the legislation and the process because of the way it is being framed. People will be detained from 72 hours up to 13 days without being charged of committing a crime. Many people do not agree with that and there will be significant delays and challenges in the courts.
I agree with the members opposite: we have a serious problem in the Territory and have to address it, but this way is not the right way. If the government had consulted with experts to find a solution not based on punishment but on treatment, I would wholeheartedly give bipartisan support in order to resolve these issues. It has to be a combination of measures. There has to be abstinence from alcohol, control of income and controlled supply of alcohol. One measure alone will not achieve what we want. There has to be a combination of measures.
The government is putting much money into Health; however, I have many criticisms. I heard the Treasurer this morning, at the Territory Construction Association breakfast, accuse the previous Labor government of doing many things without thinking about the future. For example, there was no budget to run the Alice Springs Emergency Department. Excuse me? There is an emergency department in Alice Springs receiving money from the Health budget. It is an old emergency department treating people in Alice Springs and Central Australia and there is money to run it. When the new emergency department opens the old one will close. What will happen to the money currently allocated to the emergency department in Alice Springs? Where will this money go? Will it stop all of a sudden? No, it will be transferred to the new emergency department. Because it is bigger and better, there has to be an increase in allocation, which will happen. Do not tell me that in the $1.36bn Health budget some extra money will not be found to be allocated to the emergency department in Alice Springs.
On the other hand, we now have two boards: one in the north and one in Central Australia. These boards will make decisions about the allocation of funding in the different areas. It is for the Central Australian health board to decide how much money goes and where, not the minister or the Health department. That was put in place by the Labor government. The legislation I introduced was to avoid money being wasted here, there and everywhere by bureaucrats in Darwin without any involvement from the local community. Now, quite rightly, there are two budgets - one for the north and one for the south - and the two boards have to decide where this money will go.
The idea of the medi-hotels was not to make the Department of Health a hotelier or to make a hotel for long-grassers, as the member for Fong Lim enjoys saying, but to avoid the bed blockages at Royal Darwin Hospital. Time after time, bed occupancy at Royal Darwin Hospital is so high that people admitted through the emergency department cannot be transferred into a ward.
We have people not sick enough to stay in hospital, not well enough to travel, and we have to let them stay in the hospital, occupying a valuable hospital bed. The member for Fong Lim and Treasurer said: This is going to be a medi-hotel. We are not running medi-hotels’. The idea was never for the Health department to run the medi-hotels. The medi-hotels were to be run by NGOs, the same way Barbara James House for people with cancer is run by the YWCA and people pay with their PATS. That was the idea. I know it makes good publicity and the media loves the member for Fong Lim - Wicking does not, but the media does. That is the idea and, if he was serious about what he was saying and wanted to give the real picture to Territorians, he would immediately admit that medi-hostels were never to be run by the department. The department probably told him that, but he chooses to ignore it.
There is no money in this budget for a super clinic in the northern suburbs. The previous federal Health minister, Ms Nicola Roxon, and the current federal minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek, have steadfastly said there is $5m on the table for a northern suburbs super clinic - nothing in the budget for a super clinic.
The infectious diseases budget is reduced by $8m. My colleague, the member for Nightcliff, highlighted the problems that can be created with Clinic 34 and STDs, especially in young women and men from remote communities.
There is nothing in the budget for health research. In the previous Labor government budget, $7m was allocated for health research programs run by NGOs and medical schools in the Territory. In this budget, the Menzies School of Health Research will receive nothing because this budget does not have a penny, a dollar, for health research.
Let us talk about the Palmerston hospital …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr VATSKALIS: Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak about the Palmerston hospital, let us talk about the money allocated in this budget for infrastructure. This budget has cut new capital works for Canteen Creek, Numbulwar, Kaltukatjara and Maningrida. Apart from the fact Maningrida was announced by us in 2012, as was Canteen Creek, I have in front of me a statement by Hon Tanya Plibersek criticising the CLP for a media release telling people they are going to put new clinics in Numbulwar and Kaltukatjara financed with Commonwealth money, not Northern Territory government money.
That brings me to the hospital. Many times members opposite have criticised Palmerston hospital. Unfortunately for them, people also know the history of Palmerston hospital. They know about the consultation with the public, the City of Palmerston, seniors, and everybody else on Palmerston hospital. We said from the beginning the hospital would start small but would have space for growth. The reason that area was selected was the Ernst & Young study was done two years ago and looked into the health needs of people in the area as it was growing. The Aurora study was done in consultation with medical practitioners, nurses, the Australian Medical Association and other people and looked at the needs of the people in the area, both rural and Palmerston.
It was decided this was the best place to put it because it was close to the Palmerston Super Clinic - yes, the one the CLP opposed but came to accept because it provides a good service to people in Palmerston - and would create a health precinct. Also, that land belonged to the Northern Territory government and we did not have to buy new land. We found the land was big enough to accommodate the possible expansion of the hospital in the future. Not only did we erect a fence, as the member for Drysdale said, we brought the services to that site. Money was spent to service the site so it would be ready for construction immediately.
The members opposite have promised a hospital in 15 years’ time. They want to build a hospital on the model of regional hospitals in New South Wales. One of the models they chose was built and, unfortunately, proven to be substandard and had to be modified before it commenced operation. I believe it was Bathurst Hospital. The hospital in Palmerston was not an election promise; it was a real hospital for the people of Palmerston which would be built with the ability to expand. I remember the polemic against the hospital - the misinformation about being able to give birth at Palmerston hospital. You could; you would.
They also told us it was not going to be a 24-hour hospital. No, it was going to be a 24-hour hospital and would have day surgery. It was not going to have an ICU because you do not want to have ICUs in hospitals 30 km from each other. Also, trying to get practitioners to man ICU can be a big challenge.
Palmerston hospital will be a point of difference between us. Member for Drysdale, the people in Palmerston know about Palmerston hospital. As a matter of fact, you attended one of the briefings we gave about Palmerston hospital. I remember you turned up wearing your pre-election T-shirt, so you were in one of the briefings. You know people attended and you heard their comments. We will differ on Palmerston hospital and I am sure, when the election comes, people in Palmerston will realise who promised the hospital, who delivered it, and who did not.
Another shadow portfolio I have is Primary Industry and Fisheries. If I look at the budget for Primary Industry and Fisheries, also Mines, what can I say? The minister has highlighted things we put in place. We have not yet seen any extra money to buy fishing licences but the minister’s highlights say they are committed to buying the licences for Chambers Bay and Finke Bay. That was the money the Labor government had allocated to buy fishing licences.
The minister has delivered no new fishing licences and fish fingers for dinner. If you ask the fresh seafood traders they will tell you supply of barramundi is low and the price is increasing. Of course, the minister for Fisheries managed, because of his incompetence, to close the Finniss River to amateur fishermen in the Northern Territory.
The minister talks about developing the Northern Territory and developing the Ord. He is allocating money for a group to look after the Ord. We do not need extra money for a specific team. We already had a team of people working with the Western Australian government on the Ord. One thing that scares me about the Ord is the massive demand for infrastructure in the Ord area if it was to be developed by the government. Not only money and resources to be allocated for the commercial sector which would exceed $0.5bn, but also negotiations have never taken place with traditional owners on this side of the border.
It is very easy to throw headlines around about development of the Ord. It would be a good idea to substantiate your headlines and statements with real figures because the minister for Fisheries is not brave enough to ask Territorians to contribute $0.5bn to develop the Ord. On our side, and as a minister, I made it clear to the company that proposed to develop the Ord that we were happy to work with them as long as they were prepared to pay for the infrastructure. We wanted to do that because our priorities at the time were the Katherine, Mataranka, Ti Tree and Alice Springs regions. We could see areas for development.
I also remember the criticisms about not providing money for the abattoir to be constructed at Livingstone. I noticed there is nothing in the budget about providing money for the abattoir. I am not going to argue. I agree with that because a private business has to finance its own affairs. If a private business cannot make a profit without the government putting money in, it should not be in that business. We should help businesses by providing in-kind support rather than putting money in their coffers.
Another example of how unpopular the budget and measures of the government are can be seen by the media releases of the Minerals Council of Australia. One is, ‘NT Government’s Mining Tax Grab’, about the 1% levy. The other is, ‘Another Day, Another New Tax on NT Mining’. I am talking about the levy. I believe the legislation was introduced today by the member opposite on behalf of the Minister for Mines and Energy.
While I support any attempt to rectify some of the legacy mines in the Territory, it should be remembered these are the CLP government legacy mines of the Territory. Since 2001, when we gained government, we demanded and put in place a 100% environmental bond. This is not commercial-in-confidence because, in the past, we always disclosed the bonds we imposed on mining companies. Also, we published on the department’s website the mine management plans of all the mining companies in the Territory. None of the companies opposed or rejected it, and none said anything about it. When the minister refused to disclosed the information about the environmental bond by the ilmenite …
Ms FYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member for Casuarina to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: When the minister claimed commercial-in-confidence in parliament and did not disclose the environmental bond the department had put on the new ilmenite mine, the company had no problem. The next week it disclosed the level of the environmental bond.
While the levy may be a good idea, it is unfair for corporate citizens who do the right thing to be slapped with a levy to fix the mistakes of previous CLP governments. It will cost jobs and discourage other people coming to the Territory. There are a number of questions about who will pay. Are exploration companies going to pay as they have a small footprint in the Territory? Are companies that bought legacy mines and work them going to pay? They are already fixing the problem with that legacy mine. However, this is a discussion for a later date when the legislators debate it in parliament.
The mining companies are very disappointed by the lack of communication from the government. The levy and the tax on royalties and on offices were imposed by this government with no communication or consultation with industry. It is interesting to see the Minister for Mines and Energy, while very active with primary industries and cattle, has completely abandoned mining. I noticed in his budget the amount allocated for travelling overseas to promote the Territory has been cut by $700 000. A sum of $1.7m was previously allocated for departmental staff to promote the Territory four, five and six times a year. That has now reduced to 60% of the previous budget. It looks like the ‘Territory Open for Business’ sign has gone down and a new one has gone up, ‘The Territory May Be Open For Business’.
Overall, the first budget for the CLP was not a good budget. It was a budget not only of missed opportunities but of broken promises. It was a disappointing budget. There are good things in the budget, but there are many things that could be done better and provide better opportunities for Territorians. If we are to see the Territory develop, we have to be brave and make decisions that sometimes will not go the way the Treasurer wants but will help the Territory economy and Territory businesses.
The same Country Liberal government, from 1978 to 2001, went against the Treasurer’s wishes because they knew what needed to be done in the Northern Territory. They borrowed money and invested it in the Northern Territory. I recall something the then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, said when he was criticised because the budget for this building was double the original budget. I will paraphrase, and I apologise to Marshall for that - if he had not spent the money in Darwin at that time thousands of businesses, builders, tilers, framers and cabinetmakers would have been out of a job and, most likely, have left the Northern Territory.
These are the decisions you sometimes have to make. We have been criticised for borrowing money. Yes, we borrowed money to put more teachers in schools, more nurses and doctors in our hospitals, an oncology unit in Darwin, clinics in remote communities, and to build houses and schools in remote communities. We had the first Indigenous students graduating from Year 12 in remote schools. That is what we bought with the money we borrowed, the same way you go to the bank and borrow money to buy a house. You pay back the debt but, at the end of the day, a legacy will be left for your family: a house. We borrowed the money because we knew we would leave a Territory developed and thriving with Territorians who are not leaving because they could not get a job, an education, or proper treatment in our hospitals.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, this budget is not good news for Territorians. It has reduced funding to children services and is not properly supporting our environment. Government speeches in support of this budget have been big on rhetoric and development but light on commitment to protecting our environment, whether it is the bush or urban environments.
The Treasurer, in this House yesterday, made light of the environment and laughed at the importance of environmental impact statements. Living in the Northern Territory is not just about benefiting from economic development. It is about appreciating and enjoying our wonderful lifestyle, living and working in a place where you can avoid the environmental degradation often found down south, and ensuring adequate resourcing and good planning and management for our environment for future Territorians to enjoy. It is about not repeating the mistakes being made in other jurisdictions.
This Country Liberals Giles government seems stuck on making the Northern Territory a difficult place to live with the slashing and burning of services, and by imposing increases on the cost of living and CPI as a result of their budget decisions.
Something that will help keep people here is a quality environment - we retain our natural environment. This is especially so with the government keen to accelerate development and help achieve the Coalition dream of developing the north, yet not focus on protecting the environment along the way. The Treasurer, in his first speech in this Twelfth Assembly spoke about the joy of being in government:
It is good to see the budget provides an additional $9m for the monitoring and regulation of mining activities, but government had to make some contribution while imposing a new tax on the mining sector to fund remediation of legacy mining issues. Many of these legacies are from previous Country Liberal Party administrations. I was pleased to hear COOLmob, such an important and valuable program aimed at not only helping Territorians reduce their energy consumption and live sustainably but also helping them save on their power and water bills, was not hurt in this budget. This program is so important with the huge increases to power and water bills we have seen. We need to support programs like this, and I was pleased to see that this funding, as I understand, is untouched.
It was also good to see ongoing commitment to our ecoBiz NT program encouraging better environmental practise within business. Similarly, it was good to see some support for weed management in the Katherine and Tennant Creek regions, as well as continuing support for our bush firefighters - important programs.
It is a great pity our noisiest minister, the member for Greatorex, has not been able to convince his colleagues to support our treasured national park estate. Our parks are our greatest asset, something we can all enjoy and something to leave for our children. However, the minister, who talks so lovingly of his tourism brolga logo, sadly has not had the same affection for the Parks and Wildlife eagle. The budget sees a measly $1.35m for improving cycling and walking tracks within our parks, and only a modest increase in funding for visitor management, yet our parks continue to expand. Anyone who visits Litchfield regularly will know visitor management is a pressing issue at peak times, and funds could easily go into work on improving and planning across all our parks.
Earlier this year the government disallowed the joint management plan, citing the need for further work due to the busyness of the park. This is not recognised in this budget. That is worrying. When we are looking for savings to redirect other functions, the first point of call seems to be the conservation management component of the Parks and Wildlife budget. We have seen that cut from around $31m across the Territory, down to $23m in this budget. That is very concerning.
We will soon see the removal of two Parks and Wildlife rangers from the Indigenous ranger groups on the Gove Peninsula. These positions will be gone. They currently provide vital support to the local community, particularly in assisting with the removal of nuisance wildlife such as feral dogs, buffaloes, and crocodiles. Often, these rangers are the first on the scene to search and rescue or retrieve in the event of a fatal crocodile attack. I urge the minister to look at this decision again regarding the Gove Peninsula.
It is also concerning that support for our marine ranger groups is declining. Our marine ranger groups have been a wonderful initiative, helping to protect our coastlines and manage our marine resources. The development of these ranger groups has been a great example of new activity bringing value-adding benefits to some of our most disadvantaged communities. New opportunities for them to contribute to environmental services, opportunities for jobs, community leadership, enterprise - gone. These programs should be encouraged and supported, as the experience tends to be that where local people can see there are local management and protection systems in place they support the environment, more enterprise development and access for visitors whilst, at the same time, protecting our natural resources.
In Budget Paper No 3, Budget Highlights for 2013-14 for the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, it says there is $680 000 to support the Marine Ranger Program, but the Regional Highlights for Budget 2013-14 say there is $200 000 to support the Marine Ranger Program Territory-wide. The Regional Highlights for last year said there was $460 000 for the Marine Ranger Program. It would appear there are significant cuts to those programs. In any case, there is uncertainty about the real budget allocation, and I look forward to the explanation from the minister on the real story for support of marine ranger groups.
As I said last night, the Northern Territory budget handed down this week was not good news for child protection in the Territory. I am still wondering where child protection - the Office of Children and Families - sits within government. Nobody has clarified that. I understand the Treasurer believes it is still within the Department of Education. Page 253 of Budget Paper No 3 shows a real budget cut of nearly $9m to the Office of Children and Families - $9m less to provide essential services to Territory children.
Budget Paper No 3, page 254, shows 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation. The budget anticipates reports of child abuse and neglect will increase from 8000 to 10 000 in just one year. However, investigations will drop from 5400 to 4000. Those figures cause alarm and concern - an increase in notifications but less funding, fewer resources, and fewer investigations. I have already mentioned the 44 vacancies in the Alice Springs office. Child abuse must be being swept under the carpet. You cannot have a third of your positions in an office unfilled and provide acceptable levels of support to Territory children.
We know since the CLP came to government frontline staff in child protection have been sacked, contracts not renewed, positions left vacant, and senior executive staff have all been sacked. From this, children suffer. At the same time we will see child protection notifications increase, but will see a decrease in these notifications being investigated. Alarm bells are beginning to ring. There are 10 000 child protection notifications but only 4000 being completed. What is the criterion for investigating some cases and not others? This raises more questions than answers and, from the budget papers, we have been told child protection investigations being finalised this year are tracking below the estimated figure. This must be a reflection of the chaos the Office of Children and Families is in.
It is hard not to look at these cuts and worry that they are directly relating to children’s services being affected. The budget paper talks about strengthening the child protection system but there is no evidence to this. In fact, everything is to the contrary.
Since coming to power, the CLP has decimated child protection resources. It has scrapped the independent oversight, the Coordinator General, moved child protection in and out and we are not sure where it is sitting. It has cut the family support budget by 24%, a $4.8m cut to child protection and youth services, slashed the NGO funding, sacked the CEO, then said she was doing a good job, paid her out and reemployed her in Transport. It sacked the child protection executive team and the independent external monitoring committee. It is chaos. The increased funding to the sector under the previous Labor government must be reinstated and the Giles CLP government must start to take child protection seriously.
Like all Territorians, people in my electorate are very concerned about hospital and health services. This budget confirms the planned children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital has been scrapped. This is scrapping a facility anyone who has ever taken their child to Royal Darwin Hospital insists is needed. The staff are wonderful, the medical care is wonderful, but the facilities need to be improved. The children’s wing needs to be built. I do not know what I can do to convince the Minister for Health she needs to listen to this. She ignores the comments and this budget backs up that the children’s wing will not go ahead.
Not opening the medi-hotel to free up acute bed space is appalling. These beds are for patients who do not need to be in the acute care area of the hospital but are not well enough to travel home. The first question they ask at the hospital when you are looking at leaving is, ‘Where do you live?’ It is okay if you live in the northern suburbs or Palmerston, but if you live further afield you need to stay in town. You need to have an affordable safe place to stay and the medi-hotel was the answer, run by NGOs to support patients leaving Royal Darwin Hospital and freeing up bed space so other patients can be seen to.
Cuts to our hospitals are just the start of the CLP funding cuts to health. This budget rips $8m out of vital disease control funding used to reduce the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the Territory. The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control shows there were 841 sexually transmitted disease notifications in six months in children aged between 15 and 19, 90% being Indigenous, two-thirds of them girls. You cannot take $8m out of a budget and pretend the number of STIs will not increase. The budget confirms the funding cut will result in the number of treatments at Clinic 34 in Darwin and Alice Springs will drop from 14 000 to 12 000. It is a disgrace that any member of the CLP can sit in Budget Cabinet and let this happen to children and families. It is a budget of dysfunction with no support for our most vulnerable, our health system or Territory families.
The CLP promised boot camps but has scrapped Balunu. We still do not have anything in place resembling their promise. I was extremely disappointed, as was my electorate, to see no funding in this budget for Nightcliff Police Station. This was promised; it was an election commitment. You had a contract signed with the Nightcliff community - torn up, no funding. A commitment to deliver a 24/7 police station to an area that is growing, becoming denser, already dealing with antisocial behaviour issues but no, nothing in this budget for Nightcliff Police Station.
This government has allowed 2500 people to start drinking again and children to be the victims of this alcohol abuse. The level of antisocial behaviour in our community is unacceptable. Police are being called daily, sometimes twice a day, and shopkeepers were being assaulted just down from my office only a few weeks ago. People do not feel safe even visiting the local playground. They are stepping over broken glass and witnessing things they should not. You promised to clean up the streets immediately. You have not done so and this budget does not deliver. The Nightcliff area needs a police station and we are not seeing that. It completely fails to support police to support the community.
I am passionate about education, a massive loser in this budget. In real terms, the education budget has been cut by $51m. This budget confirms that changes to the student/teacher ratio will result in 130 fewer teachers. Some schools will lose as many as 23 teachers. The middle school in my area will be affected by this, looking to lose four teachers. How can we support education if you are cutting teachers? This is why the Country Liberal Party has not signed up to the $300m under Gonski. Gonski is about more teachers, but the Country Liberal Party is cutting teacher numbers. The response from the Country Liberal Party is, ‘Our teachers do not work hard enough’. This is a disgrace and a clear indication they are out of touch with the priorities and concerns of Territory families.
The Country Liberal Party has hit businesses in every way possible. Power price rises went through the roof, and rates and charges. Businesses in my electorate say they cannot handle it. Thousands of dollars have been added to their power and water bills. This is not a good budget for Territorians, for health, for education, for children’s services, or for the people of Nightcliff. Thank you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, these budget bills will enshrine in legislation that the Country Liberal Party is breaking election promises. It is breaking a promise to cut the cost of living, to cut debt, and its promise that frontline workers are safe. These are election promises the public took on faith and trusted the Country Liberal Party to keep. These are simple promises that are easily understood and easily kept. The Country Liberal Party has brazenly broken them.
The former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, broke these promises in the mini-budget. There was some hope from the optimistic in the community that our new Chief Minister, Adam Giles, might keep the Country Liberal Party’s election promises. That has not happened. There may have been a change of leader, but there has been no change in the actions of this government. They continue to break promises and faith with the people who elected them. They have broken trust with people by increasing the cost of living rather than cutting it. They have done this despite knowing the state of the books before being elected. They made all their promises before they were elected, knowing the state of the books, yet still made promises they knew they were not going to keep.
Their decision to increase the cost of power and water has doubled the cost of living pressures on households in the Northern Territory. Budget Paper No 2, page 25, says the CPI is forecast to increase from 2% to 3.9% due to the Territory government’s utility price increases.
The Country Liberal Party made a clear promise to cut debt. It was straightforward; the Country Liberal Party would cut debt. Those were the words but what are the actions? In this budget they have borrowed an extra $1.1bn. They have taken debt from $3.278bn to $4.417bn. This is a broken promise. By their own actions the Country Liberal Party has shown all the rhetoric around debt is just political grandstanding. This government borrows. The Country Liberal Party knew the books before being elected and made a promise to cut debt. Instead, they have borrowed $1.1bn. They did not say they were going to borrow less than the Labor government; they said they were going to cut debt and, instead, have borrowed $1.1bn. They are borrowing because they know debt is manageable and is essential to building the Territory’s future.
The Country Liberal Party is brazen when it comes to breaking promises. It has increased debt, not cut it. It has increased the cost of living, not cut it. Frontline staff are being sacked. In education, the Territory government is cutting funds to schools for the first time since 1992. Teacher numbers are being cut and resources supporting schools are being reduced. It is the most backward step for schools in more than 20 years. In real terms, the Education budget has been cut by $51m and payments to teachers and support staff are being cut by $34m. The 2012-13 budget was $863m. Based on the CPI forecast in this budget of 3.9%, for that department to keep operating as usual it would need an increase to $897m just to maintain current services. Instead, Budget 2013-14 shows $846m - a nominal cut of $17m, a real cut of $51m.
Budget Paper No 2, page 82, also lays it out: a $17m cut to education. However, the critical cut is in Budget Paper No 3, page 198, with employee expenses going from $451m to $417m, a $34m saving by employing less teachers. That is a broken election promise that frontline staff will be safe. We have amazing teachers who do an incredible job, often work late hours, take work home and volunteer for school community events. They should be congratulated for the extra work they do ...
Mr Chandler: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER: The minister calls, ‘Hear, hear’. I am sure he believes that but he will have a great deal of trouble walking away from his down time comments. He has tried to clarify them, put them into context, explain them away but, at the end of the day, what the minister said about there being quite a bit of down time for teachers, ‘If there are 27 students in the class and one teacher when you have a teacher/student ratio of 14:1, what are all the other teachers doing?’ To the minister’s great regret, that comment will follow him for the rest of his career in Education. He lost many teachers that day. It went through the education community immediately. That comment cut to the heart of many teachers because it is something they are very sensitive about. It is an accusation they know is made and know is not true. If you have any involvement with a school you will know teachers do not have down time. Teachers are constantly working in their schools and often work after hours. As I said, you often see teachers volunteering at community events at schools.
The minister is trying to walk away from those comments. He is trying to put them into a broader context; however, tragically, he made them, teachers heard them, and they will remember them for a long time. That went to the heart of many of the vulnerabilities of teachers. They want a minister who will defend them from those accusations, not make the accusation. That hurt many teachers.
This budget confirms we will be losing 127 teachers. Our maths said - we did the ratio changes - 130. The minister has confirmed 127 teachers will be cut as part of the decision to increase classroom sizes by increasing student/teacher ratios in our middle and senior schools.
Middle schooling was introduced by the previous government to ensure students were given support in their critical and turbulent years. It was designed to nurture students and provide them with a strong framework of teaching, learning and engagement. This has been damaged by these changes. Middle schools will now only have one teacher for every 20 students instead of one for 17. Some of our middle schools, for example, Rosebery Middle School, will lose around eight teachers, five next year and three the year after. A maximum of five will leave the school in one year. They are still going to lose around eight teachers over two years.
Sanderson Middle School will lose around seven teachers. All of our middle schools will lose a significant number of teachers over the next few years, which will mean reduced programs. The classes that parents and teachers are most worried about and which are the most vulnerable, and which most people have raised with me, are those around alternative education for students who need extra attention: students who are not learning or are disrupting the learning of others in mainstream classrooms. These are the classes that parents and teachers see as most vulnerable with a reduced number of teachers in the school. Catering for subjects will be at risk with fewer teachers for the students you have.
The change to the staffing formula for senior schools is also very significant. It has been slashed from one teacher for every 14 students to one teacher for every 18 students. At Darwin High School, which is, in my opinion, the best school in the Territory, you are looking at losing around 20 teachers: five a year every year for four years. I feel for that principal. I do not know how they will work out which five they lose each year. Who will decide which teachers will not be employed? We are talking about specialist senior schools; you cannot rely on natural attrition to sort this out. What if you lose all your maths teachers in one year? You will need a maths teacher, a science teacher or a specialist teacher. This is not a natural attrition question. Somehow they will have to work out which teachers they will lose from the school each year.
Senior schools will be making decisions about what support they will cut to students in these critical senior years as they determine the direction of their life in the workforce or higher education. Around 127 teacher positions are gone - fewer teachers, larger classes, fewer subjects. This is what the CLP is delivering in education.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 37, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
There is a quorum.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, in the media release from the minister on 15 May, he talked about there being …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: I would like to say I called attention to the state of the House to have you join me, Dave, but I did not. You are welcome to stay; I would love to have the Treasurer in the Chamber.
Sorry, Madam Speaker, I should not reflect on the presence or absence of members from the Chamber.
From the media release the minister issued yesterday - getting my days straight - he said of those 127 teachers lost in senior schools, 61 would return to early childhood teaching. That is not going to happen. Senior secondary teachers want to teach in senior secondary schools. They are not going to leave a Year 12 class at the end of Term 4, and start in a Year 1 class at the start of Term 1 next year. Therefore, we will be losing 127 senior secondary or middle school teachers from our system; they are going. Separately, the minister is talking about there being, because of the change of ratio in Transition to Year 2, extra teachers. He has pegged a number at 61.
What the minister did not refer to in his media release or his speech in this House during budget is how they will count students. This is quite critical. The number of students the school has determines how many teachers it needs. At primary schools you will see one teacher for every 20 students in years Transition to Year 2, and one teacher for every 22 students in Year 3 to Year 6. How students are counted is critical. This is what the minister has been silent on.
In the past, the staffing allocation was based on an average attendance plus a 10% margin. If you had 50 students attend in Term 1, you were staffed for 55 students in Term 2. This meant schools had enough teachers to deliver a quality education for our students and schools should be planning for improved attendance. The new government has scrapped this; there is now no 10% buffer. Schools will be staffed on the best two non-consecutive weeks attendance in a term, averaged over a year. If your attendance is 90% you will be staffed at 90%. In most urban primary schools, often you are staffed at 100% because your attendance is around 90%. Now, you are not going to get that 10% buffer. For every teacher a primary school thought it might be getting extra because of the change of ratio in the early childhood years, it will lose because of the changed method of counting attendance …
A member: You are drawing a long bow.
Mr GUNNER: There is no long bow. This is an extreme concern to primary schools. By changing the method by which you count your students, which is obviously critical to how ratios are determined, there will be fewer teachers in schools. This is an extreme concern amongst primary schools. If the minister has not heard or been aware of this it is something he needs to look into urgently. Changing the method of counting at schools will drastically affect ratios. This means senior and middle schools will cop a double hit because not only has their teacher ratio changed, but the counting method for attendance and student numbers will change as well. This is of extreme concern to schools and has been reflected in the savings in the budget paper.
Budget Paper No 3, page 189, says $6m cut to primary schools, $5m cut to middle schools and $7m cut to senior schools. It is concerning that Indigenous senior student enrolments are going to drop from 1850 students to 1635. That is 215 fewer Indigenous students in senior school next year. That is an immediate return to the days when the CLP did not invest in senior schools in the bush.
The first students to graduate in the bush happened under a Labor government, and the number of students graduating each year has grown. That has been reversed by a CLP government returning to the bad old ways. There will be 215 fewer Indigenous students in senior schools - extremely concerning. That is straight from the budget books; your number in your budget books. It has gone from 1850 students to 1635 - Budget Paper No 3, page 195.
A strong education with vibrant schools is the best hope for all our children. By cutting into schools the CLP government is being short-sighted and reckless with our future. That is reflected in how we deal with Gonski. This budget confirms the extra $300m from Gonski will not be flowing through to our schools. Gonski required extra teachers and resources and the CLP is cutting them.
There is no way they could sign up to Gonski because Gonski required the CLP to not cut education for six years. The CLP has cut funding, not just to primary schools, middle schools and senior schools, but also to CDU. One reason given - there have been many - for not signing up to Gonski is they were worried about the federal government cutting funding to universities. The federal government is giving them less next year. The university is getting more next year, just less than what was originally planned.
What is the CLP doing? At the bottom of Budget Paper No 3, page 195, they are cutting the operating grant to CDU from $9.6m to $6.8m – a 30% cut. Federal funding for Charles Darwin University has gone up by 90% from $62.5m in 2007 to $119m in 2012. Federal funding will increase in 2013. What is the CLP doing? It is cutting funding to CDU by 30%. That is a nonsense reason for not signing up to Gonski. The reason they could not sign up to Gonski is they had to guarantee no cuts to education - they made a $51m cut in real terms - and had to increase Gonski by at least CPI every year for six years. They cannot do that. They are cutting education and therefore cannot sign up to Gonski.
In Budget Paper No 2, page 74, there has been a $20m cut in the capital works budget for education. They are cutting education all over the place. That is extremely concerning and is the approach the CLP has taken to education. It is short-sighted. You have to invest in our children for the Northern Territory’s future. Instead, the CLP is doing the opposite. It is a concern of mine that extends into the business portfolio regarding short-term decisions.
The Northern Territory was the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small business and the CLP is flagging, in Budget Paper No 2, page 18, that by 2016-17 our tax will be on par with the national average. We have already lost 3600 jobs and the CLP is flagging, instead of providing an environment conducive to small business in a highly difficult business environment with the costs we have, it will be increasing the tax base on small business to take it up to the national average. This is extremely concerning.
The infrastructure budget has been cut by $64m and will continue to be cut. Page 1 of Budget Paper No 4 says total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than 2012-13 and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates. At the moment we are facing a business environment where you have the haves and the have-nots. Some people have contracts with the big private sector projects like Ichthys, some have not. The NT government provides a lot of work in the Northern Territory. At the moment, while we are still stepping out from the global financial crisis - the reason we are $3.2bn in debt at the moment – some businesses are relying on the Northern Territory government to make sensible asset decisions in our infrastructure budget. Instead, the CLP is cutting it by $64m and will continue to cut it. We have a number of businesses in the Northern Territory that are reliant on the NT government making sensible infrastructure decisions and, instead, we are cutting our infrastructure budget. That is concerning.
To the police portfolio - I started my speech talking about broken CLP promises. They are all over the place in decisions in the police budget for the next financial year. The people of Nightcliff were promised their police station would be upgraded and would be 24/7. That is not in here - not happening. However, the people of Nightcliff should not feel persecuted because Alice Springs - where the Chief Minister comes from in regard to representation; his seat is in Alice Springs - has been done over more than anyone else when it comes to police decisions. They were promised a call centre; that is not going to happen. The Chief Minister promised if you called the police in Alice Springs you would talk to a local - not happening. They were promised an extra police beat; they closed the existing police beat. These are broken promises to the people of Alice Springs.
We were meant to have a safe streets audit for the Northern Territory completed and acted on by December last year. Instead, it has been pushed into next financial year. This was one of the immediate promises from the CLP - there would be a safe streets audit done by police, completed and acted on by December. This is not happening until next year. The only increase in the police budget comes from the Commonwealth government, which has increased its funding to the NT government from $7m to $23m to fund an extra 90 police at the detention centre. The CLP is being cheeky trying to claim them as the extra 120 it promised. Those 90 were negotiated before the CLP came to government. When the CLP promised an extra 120 police, it was meant to be on top of those numbers. That was our understanding. It was a promise made to the people of the Northern Territory and the understanding of the NT Police Association. That was the promise the CLP made around police, and they are not keeping it.
This government breaks promises. These budget bills will become acts and will be enshrined in legislation - the CLP breaking promises to cut the cost of living and cut debt, and breaking promises that frontline workers are safe. Those were simple, easy to keep promises. In this budget the CLP is brazenly breaking them. This is not a good budget, especially not for a government which said it would keep election promises.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the first budget of a new government is always a significant one. A budget demonstrates what a new administration stands for, what its priorities are, how it will allocate and use the wealth entrusted to it by the people it represents, and whether it will do good or, at the very least, do no harm. Importantly, it demonstrates what is not a priority.
Since coming to office in August last year, the Country Liberals have shown us who they really are. This is an important distinction because there are two Country Liberal parties: the Country Liberal Party that says one thing during an election campaign and the Country Liberal Party that does another once the election is over. Let me remind the House of the things they said they stood for during the election campaign.
The Country Liberals said they stood for lowering the cost of living. Terry Mills and his not-so-team-orientated team went out on the stump declaring loud and wide across the great expanse that they would put you, the voter, first. ‘Trust us’, they said, ‘and life will be better.’ The people of the Northern Territory put their trust in the CLP. Instead of delivering, they brought working Territorians pain, debt and cuts. Instead of lowering prices and improving living standards, they have hiked up nearly every charge they could get their hands on. Power and water prices are up, as are rego fees. The CLP is driving down our living standards. It inherited an inflation rate of 2.1%, which has now blown out to 3.9%.
Under the CLP, the cost of living in the Northern Territory is rising much faster than the rest of Australia. This is not just about numbers, this is about people who are feeling the financial squeeze of the Country Liberals’ debt cuts and price hikes, and it is all across all walks of life: our seniors, who are enduring cuts to their entitlements; families with young children paying mortgages; and young people trying to pay their rent and put themselves through study. We have learnt one thing since August last year: the CLP costs you.
Against the backdrop of broken promises which have cost Territory households thousands of dollars a year in new costs, we have the first CLP budget - a chance for the Country Liberals to formalise their policies of pain, debt and cuts. This budget does it all. It is impressive in the scale of the devastation it causes. It cuts frontline services, destroys jobs and investment, breaks election commitments, cuts investment in our infrastructure and increases debt.
The economy is central to everything. A strong economy means opportunity for all Territorians and more jobs and investments. A strong economy means we can invest more in social services to help those in our community most in need. Budgets should support a strong economy. This budget takes our economy backwards. It is a jobs and investment destroyer. It is an attack on our living standards. The budget paper forecasts a massive decline in our economy. The CLP inherited state final demand of 26% this financial year; next year it plummets to 15% and stays negative throughout the forward estimates.
The CLP inherited from the former Labor government a flourishing economy. It has taken less than a year to ruin it. An amount of $300m is to be ripped out of the public service. Infrastructure spending will be cut by $64m.
What we can say about the Country Liberals? We know they cannot be trusted to keep their promises. We know they have raised the cost of living for Territorians, and we know their budget will impact negatively on our growth, and drive down our living standards.
This budget is bad for people who rely on services. Hospital funding has been cut. The Palmerston hospital project has been scrapped. We have heard tonight there is $5m for a third study, further delaying the hospital being built in Palmerston. The children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital is not to go ahead.
This budget delivers deep cuts that will affect people and their families. If you want your children to succeed in the world of work, would you not invest resources into the people who could make that happen? You would think so.
With the world increasingly more globalised, is it not true the best asset we have to be competitive in the world today is a well-educated population? You would think so, wouldn’t you? The CLP does not seem to think so. It has cut the Education budget by $17m and will cut 127 teachers from our schools. If you are a government about the future you should be investing in the future. This CLP government only invests in the past. It will not invest in our schools but has wasted millions of taxpayers’ funds employing old CLP mates.
An extra $300m could be in our education system now as part of the Gonski reforms. These reforms will deliver more funding for every student in the Northern Territory, but the Chief Minister said no. Apparently, it is more important for him to put his Liberal leaders in Canberra first rather than his real employer, the people of the Northern Territory. Pleasing Tony Abbott means more to him than standing up for disadvantaged students in the remotest parts of our country. It shows us he really is a political opportunist. Faced with an opportunity to improve the education of young Territorians for generations to come or the opportunity to play politics with his mates down south, he chooses to play politics.
The same opportunities led him to conduct a vicious execution of his own party leader only a few weeks ago. He waited until his leader was thousands of kilometres away before he took the opportunity to knife him. I want to touch on that briefly. I cannot help but ask whose budget was this supposed to be? I cannot help but think just 10 weeks ago a different man was in charge of this government. Just 10 weeks ago, the CLP had a leader who had led them to an election victory in August last year. Ten weeks ago he was leader and had his own Treasurer. I have spoken to many people about what happened to the member for Blain - how he was knifed in the back while representing the interests of all Territorians overseas in Japan. I know none of those on the other side are allowed to talk about it in this Chamber or publicly, but many Territorians feel that no matter what happened, what was done to the member for Blain was wrong and undignified.
The reality is, on Tuesday it should have been the person the member for Blain chose to be his Treasurer delivering this budget. They cut off at the knees the man who led them to victory in August 2012, even before he had brought down his government’s first real budget.
I now turn to some of my portfolio areas and matters within my local electorate of Johnston.
I welcome the investment in tourism, it is one of the most important parts of our economy and we, on this side, support the industry wholeheartedly. I note a few areas of interest with this budget. It is difficult to see what changes have been made to the business development side of tourism: a consequence of that important element being ripped out of Tourism NT and dropped into the Department of Business. I can only hope the Minister for Business is treating this area of tourism with the attention it deserves.
In a similar vein, Indigenous tourism development now sits with Regional Development and, again, no new initiatives are reported there. There was a concern that, given this market area is one where we can excel, there is so much opportunity in this area. After all, we are all about action and commitment - not words – which will count in the long run.
What is clear from this budget is there is no good news for tourism in the regions outside Darwin and Alice Springs. For instance, there is no good news for tourism anywhere in Arnhem, Katherine, or the Barkly region. This is a shame as there are so many interesting and diverse tourism opportunities in these regions. Tourism NT is not the Tourism Commission we were promised. Whilst we know the CLP’s appalling track record on accountability so far, I hope this will not extend to the commission.
We are yet to hear what is coming out of the Tourism NT Board. There are no reports of their deliberations and priorities publicly available. We only get to hear what the minister thinks. Of course, we all know he is a bit of a liability, and the CLP does not like to wheel him out in front of the media too often. There is no greater example than when, in this Chamber last sittings, he embarrassingly banned me from talking, visiting, and meeting anyone or anything to do with tourism. I must thank him, though, because I received an overwhelming response from tourism operators and staff who contacted me to pass on their support. We remain in the dark about the activities and achievements of the board and I hope that will come to light soon.
In marketing dollars, of course we need to market the Territory, but we need to ensure we have a well-thought-out and systematic approach that delivers real results, not just makes us feel good. In using taxpayers’ money to market the Territory, we must be accountable. We need to see that marketing delivers real results, particularly in our share of inbound international tourism, including new and developing overseas tourism. Territory taxpayers want confidence that in tough times and rising costs of living under the CLP, their dollars - money that could easily be spent in other areas of need – are realising a result, delivering more tourism expenditure in the Northern Territory, more visitor days, more happy customers, and more returning customers. We do not want to see our marketing dollar result in no visits, only some happy thoughts of someone, somewhere, thinking the Northern Territory must be a nice place and that is it.
We cannot mention tourism without also pointing out the cost of running a business in the Northern Territory, and how the CLP is making it harder. Tourism businesses are hurting just like everyone else because of the CLP’s drastic price hikes. The cost of conducting business is skyrocketing and, with many Territorians deciding to move out of the Territory because of the high cost of living, many businesses are also experiencing difficulties retaining labour. This budget does nothing for the pain experienced by those businesses.
I mention, on behalf of many tourism businesses affected by the removal of the Banned Drinker Register, it is downright reckless what the CLP has done in removing the BDR and putting nothing in its place. The CLP keeps saying the BDR was not working. Ask tourism businesses and they will tell you otherwise. They will tell you how drunks are affecting their ability to do business in Darwin.
This is an extract from a letter I received from a tourism business in a state of despair when it came to problem drunks affecting the business, particularly in February and March this year. It reads:
The CLP policies have increased public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour. Pure pride and politics guided the CLP to remove the BDR and refuse to bring it back in its entirety. In this budget, things are no better.
I turn to Sport and Recreation. Seven weeks ago, the Tourism minister announced a long-term partnership with a Melbourne football club. He said the Northern Territory government was excited to be aligned with a club climbing up the ladder. One of these organisations is a dysfunctional basket case which has let down everyone who believed in it and become a complete laughing stock, and the other is a footy club.
In footy they say you make your own luck. The incompetence of this government has made its own bad luck. I note with interest an investment of $710 000 for the lead-up and promotion of the Masters Games, a fantastic bipartisan event. I wish I could say the same for the Arafura Games. As the Leader of the Opposition so rightly put it yesterday and I quote, ‘This budget has the wrong priorities’.
Right now this town should be enjoying the Arafura Games and the $10m in economic benefits it would bring. However, the CLP scrapped it and spent more money on giving former candidates and members high paying jobs - more than the entire cost of the Arafura Games. That is a crying shame. Many accommodation, hospitality and retail businesses are doing it tough at the moment. If the Arafura Games were on now the opening ceremony would have been last Saturday and there would be a $10m boost to the Darwin economy.
The Chief Minister said the government is serious about bringing the Arafura Games back ‘bigger and better’. The CLP certainly has not put a dollar figure to that commitment or a date or time frame. This incompetent government has no idea about the long-term damage it has done by pulling the Arafura Games. They think they can snap their fingers and bring something bigger and better. The sporting community does not work like that. Planning is done well in advance, even years in advance when you consider elite athlete program schedules. There is not a single dollar in this budget to plan for the next Arafura Games. The Chief Minister has it all wrong if he thinks he can do something bigger and better.
I welcome the $8.22m for Major Events. However, I note a few matters of interest. Of the events listed, none include rugby league or rugby union for future matches. I recall earlier this year the minister spouting a rugby event to the Northern Territory public. Later, he was forced to confess it would be the last of its kind.
The CLP government is cutting ties with the Brumbies, who were playing annual union matches in the Northern Territory, to the delight of union and Territory sports fans. The minister said it was not bang for buck. Perhaps I missed it somewhere in the budget paraphernalia, but there seems to be no mention of rugby union or rugby league games in the future.
The minister may want to phone the heads of rugby in Darwin and Palmerston to reassure them there are some matches coming, although they are not mentioned anywhere. Perhaps it was an oversight. I am happy to be wrong.
We are thankful the CLP has come through on the sports vouchers - $4m. Families with school kids welcome the vouchers but recognise this does not go far enough to lessen the enormous burden the CLP government has inflicted on them and the cost of living. Also, $75 will not cut it for the increase in power, water, sewerage and rego. In fact, some sporting groups have had to raise their fees by around the $75 mark because of the increase in running costs when watering the ground. This has meant parents are no better off with the $75 voucher.
I congratulate the minister on extending the scheme to include ballet and other organisations across the Northern Territory, honouring the election commitment. The CLP said ballet and Scouts would be covered by the voucher system. It is good to see the minister come through with this, albeit nine months later. Although those activities are not recognised as a sport by the Australian Sports Commission, if you have a scheme like the sports voucher you have to open it up to all activities involving children.
I welcome the increase to peak sport and recreation funding, but would like to know more about another grant to the Alice Springs Golf Club and how much it is.
I turn to seniors. The Labor government had the very best Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. We cared for our senior Territorians who have contributed to the Northern Territory and built what we call our home. Unfortunately, the CLP felt this was an abundance of money for the taking, putting an axe to the travel entitlements of our seniors. This budget will see a massive $664 cut every four years to the current generous scheme levels Labor had in place to look after seniors, carers and veterans. Why does the CLP feel the need to target senior Territorians? To date, many seniors are confused about the changes. I had a briefing over three weeks ago and am still waiting for a number of answers from the Minister for Senior Territorians.
One of my major concerns was that on 1 July all seniors will start at zero and it will be another two years before they are eligible for their first travel entitlements. That means even if they were almost up to their four years on the scheme at 1 July, the slate is wiped clean and they have to start again. That would be unfair. I hope I am wrong and I hope the minister’s office will get back to me as soon as possible. It has been over three weeks and many seniors are contacting my office confused and concerned. The travel scheme comes under the Minister for Health’s portfolio; however, the Minister for Senior Territorians has carriage as well.
I call on the minister to come clean with seniors about these changes. It is time to get communications out because seniors are very nervous about what is going on, very confused, and want to know what is happening with their travel scheme.
Finally, when I started I said there were two Country Liberal parties: the Country Liberal Party that says one thing during an election campaign, and the Country Liberal Party that does another once the election is over. There is no better example of this than in my electorate of Johnston and the situation at Rapid Creek, which I spoke about in adjournment last night. The mini-budget last year halved the CLP pre-election commitment of $1.5m. This new budget does not set aside a single dollar for what needs to be done at Rapid Creek and the people of Rapid Creek deserve better from this government. This budget is a failure. The CLP cannot be trusted to do the right thing by Territorians or keep promises. This budget causes pain; it causes cuts to frontline services and increases debt. The budget reflects its owner - an incompetent budget by an incompetent government.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I comment on Budget 2013-14. Sadly, it is not a budget to support Territorians at a time when we should be poised to jump at every opportunity. This budget cuts jobs and services for Territorians, throws money back at the federal government for improved health and education, puts more pressure on the cost of living for Territorians, and may be the last straw for many families.
This budget comes at a time when we have seen CPI increase to 3.9%. We keep hearing businesses have been doing it tough in the wake of a government which spent the first eight months in power in-fighting and trying to find its feet. We are also seeing a growing divide - the haves and have nots. Some of this is driven by those benefitting from major projects or people who have already secured home ownership or permanent employment. On the other hand, we have people struggling to make ends meet. They are faced with high rents, higher cost of living pressures, and no security if they do not have a permanent job. We are seeing people in the bush still faced with the challenges of overcoming major deficits in housing, education and health. Many Territorians are at the crossroads and the decisions being made by the government in Budget 2013-14 will help determine the future of many of those people.
I turn to my shadow portfolio of Housing. We all know housing is one of the most critical portfolios in the Territory. Everyone wants to have a roof over their head. People desire to have safe, secure, and affordable housing. Most Territorians aspire to become homeowners at some stage of their life to help build their long-term financial security and have a place to call their own. We have seen for too long now in the Territory the devastating impacts of homelessness and overcrowding. This flows on to health and personal safety issues. We have all seen that it directly affects a child’s schooling as well. The public housing wait list grows and the divide between the haves and have nots in home ownership has been a national issue for some time. However, we are also seeing a growing divide in the rental sector and a significant gap between public and private market rents. Private market rents are a steep option for many, and push them well beyond 30% of their income.
It is in this setting and background that I will address my budget remarks. In the area of home ownership, it has been made so much harder under a CLP government for first homebuyers and low- to middle-income earners to get into the housing market. With the average house price nudging at $600 000 in Darwin, there needs to be practical and effective help for first homebuyers. This government has made some decisions that will stop many Territorians from realising the dream of home ownership.
Backward steps have been taken in several different ways, first by the scrapping of HOMESTART NT. The HOMESTART NT scheme assisted low- to middle-income earners to purchase a home with a low deposit, which included a flexible shared equity option with up to 35 years to repay the loan. In other words, the government can take a certain percentage of the loan up front to allow people to get into a home more appropriate to their circumstances than they otherwise may have been unable to afford. For example, someone could have the borrowing capacity of $300 000 and have found a suitable property for $400 000. The government would purchase 25%, or $100 000, and as the HOMESTART client built equity over time, they could refinance the property and buy the Territory government’s share at market rates. It worked. Territorian’s got into a home and paid loan repayments comparable to rent until they were ready to own the property outright and purchase the government’s share. It was a great initiative helping first homebuyers wanting to get into a home. It applied to existing and new properties. This no longer exists under the CLP because they scrapped it. Limiting home ownership options and programs to only new houses built after 1 January 2013 is not making it easier for Territorians; you are making it harder.
The CLP government has also scrapped the first homeowner stamp duty concession. This provided first homebuyers with a stamp duty concession of up to $26 730 on a property up to the value of $540 000. This was first scrapped in the mini-budget, and the decision remains in Budget 2013-14. Instead, we have seen promotion of your changes to the First Home Owners Grant, which still leaves the majority of first homebuyers worse off. You replaced the $7000 payment with a $12 000 payment for someone who buys an existing property in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area. You also granted $25 000 for people who buy a new property across the Territory or an established property in the regional areas. They have very limited land options to buy something new.
Looking at the scenarios a few different ways, your incentives still make it much harder for first homebuyers. For example, based on an existing property purchased in Darwin for the price of $540 000, a first homeowner would have saved $33 730 after Budget 2012-13. Under your changes, a first homebuyer now saves $12 000. That is almost $22 000 a first homeowner needs to find.
Buying a new home in Darwin for $540 000 after Budget 2012-13 would have also included $10 000 under the BuildBonus scheme in place at the time, and a first homebuyer would have saved up to $43 730. After 1 January, under changes introduced by the CLP government, a first homebuyer would have only saved $25 000. That is almost $19 000 extra they now have to find to buy a home. First homebuyers find it much harder under the CLP.
After your first changes in the mini-budget, you destroyed the dreams of so many families. I have met three so far who have told stories about what happened to them after the 4 December mini-budget. The first is a co-worker who was going through the process of buying a property. Her husband is a police officer, and they have one gorgeous child and a baby on the way. They found their dream family property in Leanyer and were going through with the purchase. On that day, 4 December, they had not exchanged contracts. At the end of that day, they had to find an extra $37 000. That home deal fell through. They have not bought their family dream home in Darwin or Palmerston and are still renting. It was devastating for them as a family, and they are good people who make a fantastic contribution to the Territory.
Another person I met was a cleaner, an incredibly hard-working woman. Her husband was a cleaner and her daughter was also working to support the family. They had scrimped, saved, and worked very hard over many years to save money to buy a property. They had secured approval for a bank loan and were about to move out of their sister’s overcrowded home and buy a property in Moil to fit their budget. They could see it was going to become their family home of the future. Unfortunately, after the mini-budget they had to find an extra $15 000. Their house deal also fell through and they are still living with her sister, with her daughter working very hard to help them out and deferring going to university to help the family put extra money together to get a property as housing prices continue to grow.
I met a family in my electorate which shared with me the consequences of the mini-budget and the removal of the first homeowner stamp duty concession. They were public housing clients, had been given permission to buy their home and were going through with the sale. It was an older property and they were looking to use money approved to do renovations to bring that home up to scratch so they could raise their children there. Fortunately, they were able to purchase their property. Unfortunately, the renovations are now a long way off.
Those changes directly impacted families and have made it much harder for Territory singles, couples, and families trying to get into the housing market. Budget 2013-14 fails to reinstate what were effective home ownership measures. They are now gone and it is much harder for many Territorians.
It is also disappointing to see no real vision or wins in public housing. In fact, it appears to be going backwards. At a time when the minister stated he is selling 50 public housing dwellings, there appears to be no new money in Budget 2013-14 for public housing construction. All the money for new construction of public housing is revote and carryover from commitments made under Labor. There are no plans for new urban public housing beyond the revote projects in Labor’s last budget. That is $13.7m of revote funding for new urban public housing in the northern suburbs and Palmerston which was already under way. It appears there will to be less public housing under this government, especially when they are reverting to sell-off.
Will the government be reinvesting every cent generated from the sale of 50 properties earmarked back into public housing dwellings? The list to get into public housing is not getting any shorter; demand is growing and it is tough. At the moment, if you are waiting to get into a three-bedroom property in Darwin or Alice Springs, you wait 67 months in Darwin or 65 months in Alice Springs. That is well over five years. I acknowledge this is not a new issue; this has been going on for some time. However, the answer is not to start selling off public housing or to go backwards in public housing stock numbers. It is important at this time to look at this stock and look at reinvesting every cent generated from the sale of those properties back into public housing. I understand there is a need for regeneration; there is a need to look at the older stock and how you turn it over. However, what is vitally important at this time is that there is no nett loss of public housing stock at a time where pressure on housing is immense, especially for families doing it tough. We should not be making it any tougher
It was also disappointing in Budget 2013-14 to see for some of our oldest public housing complexes - Kurringal, Tomaris Court, Shiers Street - we do not see any firm plans. Going into the last election, Labor outlined some very firm plans for the redevelopment of these prime public housing sites. The opportunity for mixed development with some affordable, private and public housing is immense, particularly in Tomaris Court. That is a fantastic site where you can incorporate business and retail in the heart of the city. There are amazing development opportunities for those sites with a bit of innovative work. However, we have not seen anything come forward in the budget.
Runge Street has been decanted and sits vacant, adding more pressure to the public housing wait list. I understand it is tough when you do that, but I have not seen any firm plans in the budget for what might happen with that site. As I said, the public housing wait list is not getting any shorter.
There is $3.38m invested in the redevelopment of older complexes in this year’s budget. This is below the $5.4m mark in the previous financial year. The repairs and maintenance budget remains almost identical to the previous financial year, and the minor new works and targeted upgrade money seems to be on par with the previous financial year. Again, I am disappointed there are no new public housing construction initiatives in the budget.
We all know the demand for public housing is growing, and we are seeing a further divide between those who do not qualify for public housing yet are struggling to keep pace with market rents. I acknowledge a need for more affordable housing and to fill that space in the affordable rental market. It is essential for people, particularly key workers in our economy - people in retail, tourism, hairdressers - people who earn a bit too much to get into the public housing system and probably do not have time to wait five-and-a-half years, but also find it incredibly tough to make ends meet affording rent in the private market. There is definitely much work there.
The Northern Territory’s own affordable rental company, Venture Housing, was established under the Labor government and gives the new government great opportunities. In the last budget, there was $47.6m for the construction of 140 new dwellings in Zuccoli, Johnston and Maluka Drive. They were to be managed by Venture. I am keen to find out what has happened to these properties since the CLP took government.
I acknowledge that the minister understands the importance of affordable rental properties and is working in that area. The challenge is to ensure these homes are delivered. More affordable rental properties will be a positive thing for the Northern Territory. However, dropping the ball on public housing and treating affordable housing as a substitution is not the answer. I fear this is what we are seeing in Budget 2013-14 under the CLP government - a real decline in urban public housing.
I welcome the continued investment in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. This year we are seeing $139m under NPARIH in joint Territory and Commonwealth funding, and $32m for repairs and maintenance grants under the Stronger Futures funding. We are also seeing $60m going into property and tenancy management and repairs and maintenance. The challenge the government has is ensuring the works continue and targets are met. The program delivers life-changing opportunities and so far we have seen almost 3500 in new or improved housing: 780 new homes built and 2633 refurbishments and rebuilds completed as of January. We are in May and that is still firing along.
I note you now have Allan McGill as Chief Executive for the Housing department. He ran the Territory Alliance which delivered much of this work. I appreciate the understanding he will bring.
I also pay tribute to the former Housing Chief Executive, Mr Ken Davies, and the Remote Housing Executive Director, Mr Andrew Kirkman and his Remote Housing team. They have done a remarkable job with NPARIH. There is a long way to go, but I have seen them put in much hard work - many hard hours - and they should be very proud of the difference they will make to people’s lives. I will keep a keen interest in NPARIH, and an eye on the construction and employment targets and the quality of works being met going forward.
It is also vital to have a continued focus on the delivery of supported accommodation. I am referring to crisis accommodation, transitional accommodation and medium-term accommodation. It is important to ensure we have effective programs to break the cycle of homelessness and to support people to find more permanent accommodation. It is important the government works hand-in-hand with non-government organisations and the experts in delivering this type of care and support for Territorians. It is good to see money in the budget to support this line of work.
I now move to my shadow portfolio of Public Employment. We know the CLP slashed 600 jobs after the mini-budget. The government went out on the second day of the August election campaign with A4 flyers saying to the public sector, ‘Your job is safe’. That was not the case. You said frontline services were safe. That has not happened. You have broken the trust of many Territory public servants and many Territory families through these moves - slashing the public sector and the damage it has caused to many families.
On budget day, the Treasurer gave public servants no further reassurance about their future. He stated on ABC radio to Julia Christensen:
We know 600 jobs have been slashed from the public sector. Although no new number has been given for job cuts, it is clear the new government intends to continue down the path of seeing jobs disappear. People will not see their co-workers replaced when they leave and will carry a heavier load. We have already seen people with significant ability, dedication and skills lose their jobs for no reason other than to get rid of people on temporary contracts. Things are already tough and staff morale in the Territory public sector is at an all-time low. You only need to talk to your friends, family, old work colleagues around the traps, go to training or chat to people in the public sector. They will tell you things are the worst they have seen in the public sector and they are not enjoying it; they are not having a good time.
We are hearing this right across the public sector - teachers, people in Children and Families, staff at Power and Water getting a mouthful wherever they go, lawyers, communication staff. The list goes on. The personal misery and stress I have seen people suffer because of this uncertainty is what upsets me most. People have left the Territory or resigned from the public sector because of this uncertainty. We are losing good people. I have heard of cases of people who are not used to dealing with this type of stress as a result of uncertainty and have seen the impact it has on their health. It is quite tough on them. Some public servants who have had a passion for serving the Territory for a long time are losing their fire and drive. The CLP government has not treated public servants with respect for their hard work and commitment.
Sadly, I still remain pessimistic about the future of this area after Budget 2013-14. The first offer has been put on the table as part of the EBA for public servants. However, given the level of distrust the public service has for the government, the unions will be carefully combing through it to ensure their workers do not suffer any further at the hands of a government which has already put them through so much.
I turn to what is in the budget for the Wanguri electorate. First, I acknowledge there are many important works happening in the electorate as we cater for growth. We have seen Lyons come on board and Muirhead coming out of the ground very quickly. Catering for increased growth will be a theme in the electorate for some time and it is critical we do this. I acknowledge that this government has included $5m for the City of Darwin to complete its Lee Point Road upgrade, assisting growth in the electorate. I have been doorknocking and have made very clear to the council the main concerns of residents: to deliver this project properly. That includes looking at parking requirements for residents along Lee Point Road, noise abatement to minimise impact on people, smooth traffic flow, safety, landscaping and ensuring people keep the fabulous exercise path along Lee Point Road which we all use.
Unfortunately, I see a few lost opportunities in the budget. One I am particularly disappointed to see, which I am sure you are all well aware of, is Henbury School. We all know Henbury School caters for children with special needs going through middle and senior years of schooling. It is at capacity; it is bursting at the seams. Many kids do outreach programs and go to other schools; however, enrolment continues to grow as the population grows. The forecast for enrolments next year puts it well out of its capacity. It is getting to the point where it is ridiculous. It is tough for them to deal with having so many children there. The teachers are fantastic. The school council is an extremely dedicated group of parents working towards ensuring their children and staff have the best possible facilities. Unfortunately, it has reached the stage where work needs to be done and the answer is building a new school - a commitment Labor gave at the last election, not matched by the new government. It is really disappointing to see no money in the budget for additional classroom space and capacity when it is bursting at the seams. I am disappointed there is no money for planning for a new school or no announcement to build a new school.
I will keep working on that. Something has to happen; it needs to be done. Things are tough but the staff have to keep working through it because they love working with the kids and giving them the best opportunities and care they can.
That leads to the special school for Palmerston. There is also an immense need there. There is $2m for additional classroom space at Woodroffe, but there is a need for more special schooling capacity in Palmerston. It is also bursting at its seams.
Another school that did not receive any funding through Budget 2013-14 was Wanguri Primary School. A couple of classrooms were recently finished at that school and it looks pretty busy. Muirhead is coming online and you can see the additional pressure that will put on it. That is something to keep an eye on. The children would definitely benefit from having a few more classrooms to move around in. It is pretty tight.
There are several local issues with the Wanguri electorate and Budget 2013-14. There is no doubt, with the CPI at 3.9% the cost of living - power and water bills are an issue. People struggle with it day to day and it is not getting any easier. Budget 2013-14 does not make it easier for them.
I have been overwhelmed by the number of inquiries from seniors since the changes to the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. You have cut $600 from travel entitlements previously due every four years. Communication at the time could have been much better, particularly with travel agents and seniors. Many seniors have come to my office with mixed messages. We have tried to help resolve their issues so they could book their holidays and make their plans as quickly as possible. It is disappointing to see money cut in this area. The scheme should continue because we want to keep our seniors in the Territory and we should be taking care of them.
The children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital – I am disappointed to see money going back to the Commonwealth government. There are many families in my electorate and parents want to know when their kids get sick they have access to the best possible care. The Star Ball is happening on Friday. I am sure many people will support the great Starlight Foundation cause. There was to be a Starlight Room - another missed opportunity.
Many public servants in my electorate are disappointed with job cuts. Many people have been telling me it is just a job to them now. It is just money in their pocket and security because the way things are being restructured and the services that have been cut make it really hard for them. They need job security; they need to buy time to find something that really gets them fired up, but it is tough.
The government is investing significant funds in this budget into alcohol issues in the community. However, mandatory rehabilitation is not the answer and the alcohol protection orders will not have the same impact as the BDR. People struggle to understand how there will be any enforcement around it.
I recently met several small business owners who told me things have been very quiet since the change of government. Local businesses, small business in particular, do not have contracts with the big projects but have enough work ticking over, enough government contracts, to mean they have a healthy business. Businesses tell me they have to do small jobs they would never generally look at it in order to keep staff on because they want to ensure everybody has a job. Things have been pretty tough since the change of government, and it is really important that money flows through to local businesses, particularly the smaller ones.
Casuarina Senior College - we have already seen fewer teachers at the school, and the government is signalling more will go. It disappoints me, particularly as an ex-student of the school. The school had a huge impact on my life. I would like to think students going through today still have access to an extensive subject selection list and to as many teachers as possible as they go through their education. It is a real concern to see changes happening under the new government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2013-14 misses opportunities and makes life harder for many Territorians doing it tough. I look forward to going into the budget books for further detail at estimates.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Well done, member for Wanguri. She has only been a member of this House for three months and has delivered a comprehensive dissection of the budget and the negative impacts it is having on her shadow portfolios of housing and public employment. It is clear she is entirely across the matters that affect her constituents in the electorate of Wanguri.
I am speaking on the budget handed down by the Treasurer on Tuesday - the third CLP Treasurer we have seen in eight months. This is a terrible budget from a terrible government so consumed with clashing egos in its own ranks and fighting amongst themselves as to who would be Chief Minister that they have forgotten about the job they were elected to do: govern the Northern Territory and look after the interest of Territorians ahead of their own personal interests and ambitions.
A revisit to the CLP election material with a message from the now deposed leader of the CLP says, ‘Our candidates will fight for you’. The reality is the only fighting has been amongst themselves. It is a government which has forgotten about the election commitments to Territorians and the promises they said they would deliver on. It has broken every one of those election commitments. The commitments were enshrined in signed contracts with Territorians in the bush and campaign material rammed into our mailboxes boasting a five-point plan which was cut and pasted straight out of Queensland and which the CLP has failed to deliver on.
Territorians are angry because they have been duped by this deceitful and incompetent new government which, far from reducing the cost of living as promised, has jacked it up. A 30% increase in utilities is making it incredibly hard for Territorians to make ends meet – for families across the Northern Territory, businesses as well, which have no choice but to increase prices and to pass these hikes on to their customers.
Even the new Chief Minister, installed on 13 March after doing the numbers and the deals with bush members to oust the member for Blain, admitted the CLP was hurting Territorians. Will he admit with this budget that the CLP continues to hurt Territorians? Will he admit accountability and transparency are not part of the way the CLP does business? Will he admit so many of the decisions made on coming to government were bad decisions, not the least of which was the decision to sack the Under Treasurer, ignore Treasury advice, deny Treasury figures and bring out of retirement CLP old mates on whacking big consultancy fees and lucrative contracts, which included luxury apartments, all on the taxpayer purse?
It is even tougher for people living in our remote communities where the cost of living - the cost of accessing goods and services - is already much higher and people are really hurting.
Exactly where does this new government think these people will find the extra money to, quite literally, keep their lights on? Sadly for many Territorians, they have had to make the decision to pack up and leave the Territory and the lifestyle which was second to none because they cannot afford to live here anymore. For Indigenous Territorians, this is their land, their country, and leaving is not an option. It is these disadvantaged people who are hit hard by this new government and this budget.
A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 36: a quorum. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Ms WALKER: Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is worse is this new government has come to power on the back of winning seats in the bush. Its four members from bush seats have accepted decisions from this new government, and have not challenged some of the terrible decisions made to cut jobs and services in education, child protection and health, perhaps because they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. However, they must remember they are answerable to their electorates and the people they represent.
In addressing the shortcomings of Budget 2013-14, I reflected on some words from the newly elected member for Arafura in his first speech in this Assembly:
Nobody would disagree with the sentiments of the member for Arafura. It is a great dream shared by many. However, Indigenous Territorians will be waiting a little longer to see that dream realised thanks to the first budget of the Giles CLP government.
The budget is big on clearing the decks for fast-tracking land development, speculative business opportunities, and funding a new regime for locking up people with grog problems. It also continues the pattern of trashing people and resources focused on regional community development in the Northern Territory, hard-working Territorians in the public sector and NGOs working to deliver services out bush, and trashing those worthless contracts signed with people in Borroloola and Wadeye.
Let me turn to arguably the most important of those services: education. The member for Namatjira, then Minister for Indigenous Advancement, a portfolio which no longer exists, built many of her early speeches as a minister of this government around education. She talked about not accepting second-class education for Indigenous kids living in the bush. This budget does nothing to build on the incredible investment Labor put into the bush and our remote communities over 10 years, including delivering the first Year 12 graduates in the Northern Territory. That never happened under a CLP government over the previous 20 years. The contrary is true, with cuts to school budgets out bush.
The member for Namatjira likes to quote Helen Hughes from the Centre of Independent Studies as an authority on this subject, and has quoted Ms Hughes as saying the problem is the quality of the schools. In her early speeches as minister, the member for Namatjira committed to making education normal for all children no matter where they lived. ‘Real education for real jobs’, she said. More specifically, on 1 November last year she said:
Well, not in this budget. The CLP is cutting the budget for Indigenous enrolment in senior schools by 215 places for students in just one year. What a terrible shame. There are deep cuts to school funding across the Barkly. It makes you wonder if that electorate is being punished for returning a Labor member at the last election, and a very good one at that. They have done nothing to support boarding schools for remote Indigenous students. The government has pulled out of support for a federally-funded boarding facility at Garrthalala, yet when asked recently at a meeting at GanGan when they launched their homelands policy in a non-announcement, the Chief Minister was less than honest about the boarding facility when he said the federal government had pulled out. Not at all - the federal government has not pulled out. The federal government remains fully committed. The Northern Territory government has withdrawn support for the aspirations and wishes of the Laynhapuy Homelands people to host a secondary boarding facility on one of their homelands which has had successful secondary boarding operating for a number of years.
I have no doubt the member for Stuart is taking it to the Chief Minister to ensure they do not let the federal dollars slip away for a facility planned in the Warlpiri which is yet to materialise because of difficulties to agree upon a location in the region. Let us not see this federal government money handed back by an incompetent Northern Territory government that cannot get things sorted and make the best use of federal resources handed our way.
There is $500 000 for new activities at the School of the Air. There is a trial to reach out further to remote Indigenous kids. What is happening to support this new medium for delivering education? Who is supporting the technology on these small remote places? Is there the infrastructure to get the technology in there? What support is there for adults to support the kids who would be joining the School of the Air in the trial program? How will deep cuts to small schools assist their engagement with parents and activities to improve school attendance?
This budget provides very little for the bush. In fact, half the capital works expenditure for this year is simply revote from last year. It is the former Labor government’s budget and the 10-year funding package with Strong Futures, which Labor bush Caucus members pushed hard and negotiated with the federal government to deliver. I do not recall seeing or hearing the member for Namatjira proactively working with the federal government to get that money delivered for funding homelands for the next 10 years.
Some of those revoted works have disappeared - barge landings for Millingimbi, Gapuwiyak and Ramingining. I bet the member for Arnhem is furious about that, knowing how challenging freight services are in current conditions in remote locations, how unhappy her constituents must be that they have waited for these barge landings which would make a huge difference to freight services, and now they have been pulled out from her electorate. Lord knows where that money is being spent - probably in the electorate of Namatjira.
Indigenous Essential Services capital works expenditure was $37.7m. This year’s budget shows a disappointing $16.78m. How will that improve and advance the lives of people in remote locations? What about improvements to water, sewerage and power out bush? The budget for services to 72 communities provided by Indigenous Essential Services has been slashed from around $90m to just over $70m. Where are the savings of $20m being made and why are you cutting the safe and reliable supply of power, water and sewerage to these communities? Do not get me started about power cards and the 30% increase in the bush, not to mention the woeful campaign advising people their power prices were increasing. From time to time we would see brochures in English, which do not make much sense to Indigenous people, about power hikes. On the front they said, ‘Use less power’. These have been renamed by many people to ‘useless power’. We might add, ‘useless CLP government’ as well.
The budget paper reveal that MNW capital works are reduced by $1m, from $5m down to $4m. That is appalling. This is for town camps and homelands. What about power for residents at places like One Mile Dam and other homeland essential services upgrade?. Where is the money for that?
There is $14m on offer for HOMESTART Extra grants for more than 500 homeland and outstation dwellings across the Territory. However, if you look into the fine print you will see access to the $5200 has means tested eligibility criteria, and, coupled with the cumbersome and costly administrative process, will see most people miss out on access to this funding.
On the Local Government front, while the budget for just over $2m to consult on the regional governance options paper across the Territory is positive, it is money poorly spent because there are no options. It is simply a rebadging exercise of the shires which the CLP says it is not getting rid of, contrary to promises made to people in the bush and contrary, once again on 2 May, to the Chief Minister saying to people at GanGan - 100 or so homelands people - ‘We are getting rid of the shires’, not once but twice. How are people to believe what this Chief Minister is on about when he says one thing and then something completely different?
The consultation meetings, with more than $2m dedicated to them, are so poorly advertised and promoted that no one goes to them. Word is getting around they are not of much use to anybody. There is a very small attendance and I have not heard of the Minister for Local Government getting along to any of them, which is incredibly disappointing. She needs to be listening to people. She is full of rhetoric but never follows up with any action.
We also see $5m in the budget to support operation of the shires. It is a plus, but not the $10m needed or what the Chief Minister, as the former Local Government minister, asked for in Cabinet documents leaked to us. Now the member for Namatjira is minister, he has revised that figure down to $5m, and I am sure she is really unhappy about that.
A quick look at the budget papers for the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice reveals little on offer there. There is certainly no extra money. In fact, there is $13m less to support courts facing a huge increase in their workloads with more people finding themselves in the justice and corrections system and courts and police being bogged down with more not guilty pleas in the face of minimum mandatory sentencing. There is no money for legal aid. How are all the people who will go through this dreadful mandatory rehabilitation, who have a right to representation - they may be taken in for 72 hours or longer, having done nothing wrong, having been charged with nothing. They are not criminals but have been taken into custody for an assessment to be made. How do these people have access to representation and where is it in the Northern Territory CLP budget that there is additional funding for legal aid through agencies like NAAJA? From what I can see, the $13m ripped out of the Attorney-General and Justice department has simply been shifted over to corrections to meet the escalating cost in the number of people we are about to see locked up in prison.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no good news in this budget. It is a terrible budget which will hurt Territorians everywhere and will, no doubt, take the Territory backwards.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I nearly missed the jump there. I was not really paying attention. I was watching something on the video. That was one of the most uninspiring budget speeches. She had a three-minute break while she called a quorum and still could not get to 15 minutes. It is a good way to burn up the time.
It has been interesting listening to some of the comments across the Chamber over the last few days, particularly today, from the opposition about their position and their thoughts on the budget. There is much negativity from the opposition. We have not spent money here, we have not done this, we have not put money into this program or that program or what have you. The budget could have, potentially, been better too. No one in this Chamber would have liked to deliver a better budget than the Treasurer. In fact, we all sat around Cabinet, the whole Country Liberal wing, saying, ‘Wish we could deliver a stronger budget for the Northern Territory’. However, we cannot. We have done the best with what we have. There are many references to what we said at the election and where we are today. It is like Lord of the Rings. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, you start off with wonderful lofty ideas about what you are going to do, and what seems like a simple task turns out to be something quite different.
At the election, we did not know the state of play. We did not know what we were in for. We were unaware of what we were up against until the 27th, the Monday morning when the then Chief Minister and the Treasurer looked at the books. It was a different story then. We learnt, not long after that, we were tracking rapidly to a $5.5bn debt.
We had to make some changes. As an opposition you are not privy to the state of play. You go into an election saying, ‘Aspirationally, this is what we want to do; this is what we are going to do. We are going to do some of this; we are going to try some of this. We would like to do some of this.’ However, it is very difficult to do that when you are tracking toward a $5.5bn debt, and that is exactly what this government has inherited.
I would love to have seen much more money poured into Sport and Recreation, Health, and Education. I am sure the Minister for Education …
Mr Elferink: I would love to have paved the streets with gold!
Mr CONLAN: Absolutely! I would have loved to. I would love to have started a Northern Territory space research program in the middle of the Northern Territory! It would be wonderful to do those types of things but we cannot. There is not one minister or one member in the Country Liberal side of the Chamber saying they do not want any more money or, ‘Boy, this is enough! Gee, thanks very much, Treasurer. I am more than happy with my lot in life. Please do not give me any more.’ Of course we want more - absolutely. We need more; there should be more.
I agree with every member on the opposite side of the Chamber; it is not good enough. Unfortunately, it is where you left us. We are tracking toward a $5.5bn debt if we continue at the rate of spending you lumped on us. Of course, we cannot. Sadly, we do not have any more money. We have to make the most of what we have. We have done an extraordinary job. Hats off to the Treasurer, everyone in Cabinet, and our members for saying, ‘Okay, this is what we have. This is what is left. Let us do the best we can with what we have.’
If the Labor Party, after 11 years in government, had squirrelled away some of the GST receipts - Holy Cow! - could you imagine where we would be today? They might even still be in government; you never know. Hopefully not. If we had been elected in August under different circumstances where they had put some money away for a rainy day and had delivered a budget surplus, imagine where we would be today. No, they did not save one cent! They have saddled the Northern Territory with a $5.5bn debt.
We have done everything we possibly can to not only continue spending where we need to grow the Northern Territory, but also to rein in that debt and deficit. It is huge. All in all, it is an extraordinary job. It is not a job I could have necessarily done. There are probably a few over there nodding their heads, but it is a job for a better man than me. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for putting together a very difficult budget; a tough budget under such circumstances. It is about building on our economy, continuing the Northern Territory lifestyle we dearly love, preserving community safety, and also about, member for Namatjira, regional development. It is about ensuring the whole of the Northern Territory counts in this story.
Let us look at some of the areas. There is so much to comment on, so much to respond to, there is not enough time in the day. I have 40 minutes including a 10 minute extension so let us see how we go.
I will touch on my portfolios. I am in a fortunate position with the portfolio of Central Australia which allows me to touch on areas such as health and education, infrastructure and regional development. I do not necessarily have carriage of that, but it allows me to be a spokesperson on areas in the region of Central Australia. However, let us talk about tourism.
As I said during Question Time this morning, it is fantastic. It is an exciting part of government. There is at least one former Tourism minister in this Chamber, the member for Casuarina. For all intents and purposes he did not do a bad job. He is not a bad bloke. He goes okay half the time. He is the best guy on the paddock. He is the Bobby Simpson of a pretty defunct Australian cricket team but he is okay. He did a reasonable job in tourism. If we map the decline in tourism and where this industry, essentially, started to haemorrhage, if you take international visitation for example, 2007 was where things started to go pear-shaped. I was new to this Chamber then. I am pretty sure the member for Casuarina was the Minister for Tourism and moved on from there, but I cannot be sure.
His departure from the portfolio started the acute decline we have seen in international visitation to the Northern Territory from about 2007. Perhaps I am wrong, maybe his hands were all over it as well, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. We see subsequent Tourism ministers in this Chamber - not any here - I do not believe the member for Karama was in Tourism. I believe she was Sports minister or something. Nevertheless, subsequent Tourism ministers dropped the ball. The story leads to our immediate predecessor, the former member for Arnhem, a really sad story - her capacity to deliver on the job when it came to tourism. That is why we have a problem with our tourism industry and our tourism dollar - tourism expenditure in the Northern Territory.
It is critical that the government invests in our tourism industry. By way of doing that, we have given an $8m boost to Tourism NT which brings their complete budget to $54.2m for Tourism and Major Events. That is significant and we are the only jurisdiction - I am sure but could stand corrected - in Australia to have invested in tourism. Everyone else, including the great powerhouse of Queensland which has owned tourism in Australia for so long, is taking money out of tourism. They are in a similar situation to us. Queensland inherited a huge amount of debt and has serious problems with social and public service infrastructure - enormous problems. The people of Queensland were lining up to rid themselves of such a disastrous long-term Labor government. You saw what happened; it is completely the other way. The LNP picked up something like 78 seats as a result of Labor’s failure in Queensland.
We also saw it in New South Wales. Take our three core tourism products in Australia: Sydney, the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru, broadened out to the Northern Territory. Then you see a powerhouse like Queensland. Our biggest tourism player in Australia is Sydney. New South Wales is taking money out of the tourism budget. Yes, there is a Liberal government in New South Wales. There is an LNP government in Queensland. Do I agree with it? No, I would love to see them put more money into tourism. They are doing what they can through a partnership with Tourism Australia to ensure that investment. In fact, they have struck up a significant deal in New South Wales with Qantas to boost that tourism spend in New South Wales. Nevertheless, the government’s investment has decreased. Western Australia is also reducing expenditure in tourism.
The Northern Territory pretty much stands alone with regard to investment in tourism. That is how seriously we take it. We campaigned on it, having recognised it. We recognised it at the time of self-government, and the rest of Australia recognised the Northern Territory as this shining light of tourism. Tourism began in the Centre. Uluru and Ayers Rock was it for Australian tourism. That is where it began; there was no Cairns, no Barrier Reef. There was a bit happening in Surfers Paradise. There was no Broome and nothing happening in Darwin. We are talking 40, 50 and 60 years ago, even longer. Tourism in Australia began in the Centre.
The rest of Australia looks to us and recognises the product we have. The rest of the world does, so it is incumbent on us to ensure we protect that product and invest in and grow it. That is exactly what we have done - $54.2m into tourism. An extra $8m boost to grow our tourism industry. I can break some of that down: $15m has been allocated to extend the Northern Territory’s international marketing activities. Our international visitation is suffering. Our domestic visitation is not too bad. As a result of the global financial crisis, the high Australian dollar, some increased air capacity in and out of the Northern Territory, and a love affair with our country all over again, we are starting to see some good inroads into domestic visitation to the Northern Territory.
The international market is in trouble and the previous government did not do much about it. I can tell you because I have been there. I have seen it, heard it and we are witnessing it. So, $15m has been allocated to grow the international sector and increase international visitation. Of that, $12m will go towards marketing partnerships, including partnerships with airlines, which is so important. Air access in and out of the Territory is vital to us. It includes partnerships with online travel agents and traditional trade partners: the huge international travel agencies or wholesalers, such as Trailfinders; there are a number of them.
These huge international wholesalers are bigger than anything you can possibly imagine in Australia. In Europe these guys are enormous and are selling tours to the rest of the world. When someone wants to buy a stack of holidays to sell to a client base we want them to say, ‘I know you want a desert experience, an outback experience, well instead of considering South Africa’ - one of our biggest competitors - ‘how about the Northern Territory? Why don’t you go to Australia and while you are there, go to the Northern Territory? You can have a wonderful outback experience, high-end adventure tourism - the luxury side of it - and you can have soft adventure; you can have the works.’ We need to ensure the Northern Territory is front and centre for our international trade partners.
When someone walks into a wholesaler - it is not just wholesale, it is retail too. When a German couple say, ’I would like to go on a holiday. Let’s go somewhere. We will walk into a travel agent or dial up something online’, which is where it is all done now. The traditional travel agents where you take a brochure off the shelf – it no longer works like that.
That the NT is front and centre is what this is all about. The $12m is about partnering with our wholesalers, retailers, online travel agents and, of course, our airlines.
Digital marketing is so important - digital awareness campaigns across all government agencies and encouraging our tourism operators to be active in the digital online arena. With the greatest respect to our tourism operators, and they would be the first to admit it, we have not been really good at that. Some are fantastic but, overall, we are not that great. We need to encourage them to be active in the digital online space. If you did not know what I was talking about you might ask, ‘What the hell is that guy on about?’ When you start to explore it and dig deeper you see how vital online exposure is to our tourism product. If you are not in that digital space, if you are not online, if you are not part of social media then you are not in business; it is very difficult. Money is going towards bringing our tourism operators into the digital age.
We also have $1.9m for regional marketing and visitor information services across the Northern Territory. It was interesting listening to the shadow minister. I made a few notes. I ran out of ink because there was so much baloney. What I find amazing about the member for Johnston is what he says after a briefing. He had a briefing, by the way. After the briefing he said, ‘I did not get a briefing. He refused to give me one.’ That is baloney. The briefing went okay, from all accounts. Just as he was going he said, ‘You know, I reckon Conlan’s doing okay. I reckon you are doing okay with digital tourism. As long as he starts bringing tourists to the Territory, I am happy.’ He says that behind closed doors but comes in here and pontificates about how terrible everything is; the sky is going to fall in and there is not one ounce of recognition of what is happening.
He made a claim about regional tourism. ‘No good news in the budget for the regions’, he said. Where do we start? There is $1.9m for regional marketing and visitor information services across the Territory, which includes Tourism Top End and Tourism Central Australia. There is $1.7m to market and promote business events across the Northern Territory. That does not only include Darwin, it includes the whole of the Northern Territory. This is where the member for Johnston needs to take a deep breath and understand what we are trying to do. It is not about Darwin and Alice Springs, Kakadu and Uluru, Barunga or Yuendumu. It is not about playing one off against the other; it is the whole Northern Territory story. We have fallen over in the last 10 or so years because we have been concentrating on particular pockets of the Territory, and that is why we are starting to see while one is going up - what goes up must come down. That is why we are seeing declines in some areas and boosts in others - peaks and troughs across the Territory. We need a peak across the whole of the NT not just pockets, whether that is Darwin, Alice Springs or wherever. It is not the regions versus Darwin; it is about the Northern Territory. That is what we are doing.
Nevertheless, there is $1.9m going into regional tourism organisations such as Tourism Central Australia, a vital organisation that drives and pulls. Using the marketing phrase correctly, Tourism NT’s job is to pull visitors - pull people into the Northern Territory. As a marketing organisation, that is what we do. We pull people in then rely on the regional tourism organisations to push their product onto the consumer. That is how it works - push, pull, push, pull. I have used the phrase before, ‘above the line, below the line’. It is about not only ensuring our product is out there, but we are making noise above the line. The only way you can do that is to market; it is all about marketing. Marketing is not just about a logo, member for Johnston. We need to ensure we are pushing people to the Territory and pulling them into the tourism products available through our tourism operators.
I attended the Tourism Top End cocktail party tonight. I went for half-an-hour with Trevor Cox and the gang. It was a launch to welcome the Dry Season. It has not been very dry lately; nevertheless, they had a launch to welcome in the Dry Season. Cheers and good luck with the season. They are all excited and very pleased to see the government’s investment into tourism. It is a bit unfair, but it is okay. I have been in this Chamber long enough to know how it works. Sometimes I wonder, ‘Holy cow! Were we as bad as them; that poor old government?’ However, I know how it works.
I know your modus operandi and what you have to do. Much is smoke and mirrors because I know, member for Johnston, what you say behind closed doors. We all heard it. I know you do not mean it; you have only been here a short time. You have to puff yourself up. Everyone is jockeying for a position and you want to be the guy who delivered the killer blow. Well, it did not quite work. It has not worked so far but we know where you are coming from. We can see you coming a mile off.
I know people are genuinely pumped about the investment we are making into tourism. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you are pleased to know this government is doing just that.
Major Events has $8.2m to bring big name entertainment acts to the Northern Territory. There have been a few swipes about that. I almost do not have enough energy to respond to some of the rubbish coming from the opposition. Let them be the whingeing, moaning, carping from the sideline outfit, we will just get on with what is important. I was in opposition for five long years, and it stood me in pretty good stead. When in opposition, I would look over to this side of the Chamber and say to my colleagues, ‘I cannot believe how obsessed they are with the Country Liberals; how obsessed they are with the opposition’. It was not just in the lead-up to the election. During my five years in opposition all I heard was how bad the CLP was. I thought, ‘Is this what it is like in government?’ You become obsessed with the opposition for some reason.
Are you not the government? Should you not be governing and getting on with it? I thought, ‘If I ever get into government I am not going to obsess and become so strung out by what happens, or the opposition, its stunts, or what it says because it is not worth it’. One thing I learnt in opposition is once this parliament is over and we go back to our burrows and fox holes, start doing the job because no one really cares about you. In fact, you are so irrelevant that no one even knows you exist. People are focused on the government of the day and you have 36-odd days a year to strike a pose, be noticed, and try to demonstrate some relevance or desperately search for some relevance in the landscape of the political scene of the Northern Territory. It is a tough gig and it is hard to be noticed. I am not going to be one of those ministers, and we are not going to spend all our time obsessing over an outfit that really is not playing much of a role, if any, in what is good for the Northern Territory. I have already spent a minute-and-a-half talking about that. One-and-a-half minutes I have given the opposition and that is one-and-a-half minutes of my life I will never get back.
Let us continue talking about some of the great work the Northern Territory government has done in this budget. Treasurer, hats off to you because I could never have done this with what we had to work with. We are tracking towards $5.5bn in debt and still have to ensure we provide for Territorians; we spend on essential services and leave some money aside to invest in those very important areas of agriculture, mining and tourism.
Major Events is another important area. There is $380 000 for BASSINTHEGRASS; $1.3m for AFL games to the NT; $500 000 to host the Australian Superbike and Supercross Championships at Hidden Valley; and $710 000 for preliminary activity and promotion in the lead-up to the Alice Springs Masters Games in 2014. That does not take long to come around. There is $1.81m to meet contractual commitments to support the V8 Supercars and V8 Superbikes. There has also been some huge investment through Sport and Recreation to resurface the track at Hidden Valley. There is $5m this year and another $4m next year for some changes around turn 1. Overall, it is close to about $10m, an enormous amount of money we faced some criticism about. I will not be the minister who says, ‘Guess what, the V8s are cancelled because we cannot afford to resurface the track. They will not come back next year, it is over.’ I will not make that announcement.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker and honourable members for the extension of time. The money for Hidden Valley is vital to the economic story of the Top End particularly, but also for the Northern Territory. That money flows right through the NT. We see tens of millions of dollars in return by hosting this premier event every year and we see close to 50 000 people through the gates. It is like the Darwin Cup Carnival - huge amounts of money.
I will waste another minute of my life responding to something the member for Johnston mentioned. He talked about the Arafura Games and issued a media release saying the sky would fall in because we put the brakes on it. The whole thing was pretty much thanks to his handiwork; he was senior sports advisor at the time. It was on its knees and not achieving its objective. It was an Asian engagement strategy, something lost on many people, particularly the opposition. The Arafura Games was not about a mini-Olympics in Darwin, it was about Asian engagement. We used sport to engage with Asia. That was the vision of the former Country Liberals government 20 years ago. Marshall Perron, the then Chief Minister, brought the Arafura Games on board as a way to engage with Asia because, in those days, Asia was lacking in sport. They turned to Australia and Darwin for leadership to play competition utilising good infrastructure, including fields, ovals, and facilities. They came to us.
It is a vastly different world now. Our budget for the Arafura Games was close to $2m. The budget for the Asia Pacific Games is $1.2bn, and that is a small one. The Pacific Games has a $3bn-plus budget. They do not need our help with sport. They have picked up the ball - pardon the pun - and run with it, but they look to us for diplomatic engagement. That is what the Arafura Games was about. By the time we came to government, diplomatic Asian engagement was not there. It became a mini-Olympics for Darwin and put strain and stress on sporting facilities. Some of the peak sporting bodies were bummed about it; that is okay. Some people will be put off by the decision but, largely, there was some relief.
The member for Johnston said $10m is no longer coming into the economy. People coming from Timor and the BIMP-EAGA region to compete were not buying $15 hamburgers. These are very low socioeconomic countries; they do not have the wealth we do in Australia. They do not have the disposable income. They are not coming here spending money. They are largely non-drinkers so they are not going to the pub. It is nothing. It could not be further from the social activities surrounding the Alice Springs Masters Games; it is almost completely the opposite. They are not spending money. We believe they spend millions of dollars but they do not. Hotels at the moment, contrary to what the opposition claims, are chock-a-block and some will remain that way right through the dry.
The money we are supposedly missing out on is already being spent by tourists throughout the Northern Territory economy. They are going to restaurants, hotels, bars and on tours. They are embarking on these activities and spending money. While we are not getting the $10m, we are getting $10m-plus as a result. Otherwise, all those hotel rooms would be booked out by Arafura Games competitors who were not spending money on the ground. They would spend some money, of course. The opposition likes to take things literally sometimes and might throw that back. Of course, they are spending some money but not the tens of millions you believe. The people who go on tours, spend time in our restaurants and enjoy the night life on Mitchell Street are the ones injecting significant amounts of money into our economy.
We need to say, ‘Thank you, Arafura Games. You have served the region well. We now need to rethink our Asian engagement strategy.’ That is what we are doing because it is about diplomatic engagement. We used sport previously because that was the mechanism to engage with the region. We no longer need to use sport because they are off and running. We need to look at other ways to engage with the region.
I have mentioned other areas of Sport and Recreation but will not get anywhere near Central Australia. I will go through some of the other portfolios in the last few minutes.
An amount of $132m is provided to fund major events. The $4m Sports Voucher Scheme, which has been really well-received, has been tweaked a little. Ballet is now on board. This is an important scheme to get kids into physical activity and assist families to encourage kids to stay in sport through their school life. You can play netball, cricket, hockey, footy or basketball throughout your school life. The Sports Voucher Scheme encourages kids to get outdoors and be active. It seems to have, thus far, worked well. Hats off to the Minister for Education because it was hard - you promise something before an election then realise you have to deliver it. It was not an easy program to deliver. How do you marry sport with schools? The department of Education and the Sports and Recreation department did a fabulous job to pull this together and have just about nailed it. It has been very well received.
There is $14.7m to assist the thoroughbred racing industry. That is a healthy investment considering the tough situation we have with our budget position. It shows the confidence the Northern Territory government has in our racing carnivals. These things generate huge amounts of money, as I said, much like the V8s. There is nothing much bigger than the Darwin Cup Carnival, then couple that with the Alice Springs Cup Carnival and our country race meets. I have an economic impact statement, something I recommend everyone looks at. It is from the thoroughbred racing industry in the Northern Territory and mentions the economic impact racing brings to the Northern Territory.
There is no capacity for me to continue talking other than about 35 seconds, which is a shame because I had much more. Again, hats off to the Treasurer and Treasury for putting something tremendous together. It is a vote of confidence in the right areas. We would love to have seen more. Not one bloke in this Chamber would have said more than the Treasurer, ‘I would love to have delivered a budget with more outcomes or more investment in certain areas’. However, thanks to Labor’s $5.5bn projected debt, this is the situation. We did a great job with what we had.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, we have done a great job with what we have. I will pick up exactly where the Minister for Tourism and Major Events left off. We have ourselves a problem. As the former shadow Treasurer, I bleated it endlessly: day in, day out, sittings in, sittings out, month in, month out, year in, year out saying we will have problems. One of my greatest frustrations is I sat here for years and watched the rivers of gold, the goods and services tax, particularly after 2001, pour into this jurisdiction and watched Labor repeatedly determine to hardly squirrel away any money in savings.
At one stage they were doing okay, but they never made a dedicated attempt to get rid of the debt they had. I have said a thousand times in this House but will say again, John Howard managed to get debt down to zero. To be fair, the Labor government in Western Australia, under Mr Gallop, managed to get the state’s debt down to zero. How did they manage that? They suddenly realised they had more income than they were spending and, what was better, every year they were getting more money than expected. When you get more money than you expect you can do one of two things. You can (a) save it or (b) spend it. The solution from the government of the day was to spend it. The member for Barkly has mentioned ‘countercyclical’ several times in the last few days. If he is an adherent to the countercyclical argument, he would have understood his government was working counter to the countercyclical environment.
Bad luck has not visited this government, it is bad judgment. Bad luck is bananas on a boat. Bad judgment is the poor management of the budget, which is exactly what occurred year in, year out. I find it frustrating to be the recipient of their legacy in this environment.
Clearly, members on the other side of the House believe in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus does not exist. I can evidence it by one truism. If Santa Claus existed, every time an election finished the new government would start with a clean slate, have their own source of income, and the debt would magically disappear. That does not happen because we carry forward the debt and decisions of former governments.
The member for Wanguri racked up about $200m in thought bubbles while saying, ‘We need a new school here, a new school there, new public housing; we need all these things’. I would love to do all that, member for Wanguri. It would delight me to build everybody in the Northern Territory a house for free, pave the roads with gold and prepare, with a large committee, for the zombie apocalypse. However, it will not happen.
We have to determine what it is worthwhile spending money on and what it is not. You cannot trot out a wish list and say how bad the government is because they have not spent $200m-odd on thought bubbles. I would love to do all those things but, in the real world, the non-Santa Claus world, we do not operate that way. We try to keep the books on track. We also have to deliver services. It frustrates me that we, because of the legacy of the former government and its failure to plan, have to continue to raise the debt of the Northern Territory. That is something we are going to do for the next four or five years. I do not like that.
However, if we were to balance the books this year, we would have to spend most of our budget on paying off debt. We would have three public servants, one police car and perhaps a rickshaw left. You cannot do that.
The original intention was to balance the books or get rid of the deficit cycle within the forward estimates. However, because of the Grants Review Commission and the foibles of the disability surrounding indigeneity, we suddenly lose $400m over the next few years. Despite that $400m shortfall in the forward projections, the Treasurer still manages to deliver a budget which, in the forward projections, delivers an outcome of $400m less debt than the former government would have done with the extra amount from the Grants Review Commission.
In essence, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory has said, ‘Taking those two factors into consideration, we are in an $800m better position than we would have been under a Labor government’. What would we have been doing? We would have been paying for all that Labor expenditure we have seen in the past.
We have evidence of the way a Labor government thinks. I draw members’ attention, at the risk of anticipating debate, to a recent tabled paper. I am referring to paragraphs 10.25, 10.26 and 10.27 on page 62 of the Public Accounts Committee Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct. Paragraph 10.25 says:
This is the goal:
The telling comments are in the parenthesis which follow:
That is the figure the government convinced itself, and told the public of the Northern Territory, was the price of the new prison. Of course, by the time the Auditor-General looked at it - we know this from his Auditor-General’s report earlier this year - in paragraph 10.26:
That is already substantially more than the $495m the former government was talking about. Here is the actual cost to the Territory of the payments for the design and construction.
The first paragraph was about design and construction, the second one is fair value of the design and construction - whoops, add an extra $30m there. Now let us talk about the payments for design and construction. Paragraph 10.27 says:
That is the point. You operate in this ethereal space where you believe $495m and $629m are the same amount of money. It is small wonder you start to run into trouble.
The former government had its spending habit and it borrowed money to, believe it or not, pay wages. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘Oh no, that is a hideous thing to say. We never borrowed money to pay wages. That would be a hideous misrepresentation of what we did.’ However, today the member for Casuarina said in his budget reply:
referring to the accumulation of debt. Continuing the quote:
Really! What was the borrowing for? The price of a cab charge to get to work? No, it was about borrowing to pay the wages of doctors, nurses and teachers.
Mr Tollner: Operational costs.
Mr ELFERINK: Borrowing to pay operational costs and recurrent expenditure means you are borrowing money which generates no collateral, no assets, and, if you run any business in that fashion, you will be broke in about 10 minutes flat. Borrowing money to pay wages is fiscal irresponsibility at its highest order. However, the former government had developed a spending habit on building a public service which had spiralled out of control. When you try to bring a modicum of constraint into that environment the shrill hysteria from the Labor Party, the comrades opposite, is almost intolerable.
The member for Wanguri made the accusation that all we are providing for public servants when we pay them is security and an income as if it were insufficient. The purpose of paying people wages is to provide them with security and an income; the purpose of being an employer is to expect work from people. We certainly get that from many of our public servants. However, from a fiscal management point of view, borrowing to pay them means eventually you have more debt than money for wages. That means if you believe restraint in the public service is a problem now, wait until you have more debt than money for wages and see what happens to the public service.
We are attempting to do what the Labor government failed to, that is, inflict, sadly, frustratingly, some pain now to avoid a horrible pain in the future. If you want to see the final result of that type of fiscal management, go to Europe. Ask the people in Cyprus how they feel about the government rummaging around in their bank accounts. Ask the people of Greece, who are throwing rocks at the front of the Greek parliament, what that is all about. Ask the people of Italy, or Ireland, how good it is to have all of this debt and no reasonable outcome.
I also listened to the shadow minister for Mines, the member for Casuarina, and he repeated in his budget reply something he said on Facebook at 10.18 am recently. He was banging on about the dreadful truth about the mining levy and said:
Really? The CLP is proposing to reduce the value of the NT’s environmental bonds by 10%. Yes, correct. I said that in the second reading speech today. A 1% levy - that is true - on the remaining 90%. No, that is wrong. I explained it in this House and this is a former minister for Mines. He should know the bond is 115% under current arrangements. This man was in charge of mining in the Northern Territory for the best part of five or six years and does not know the value of bonds on mines. He went on to say:
The inaccuracies from members opposite are magnificent. The member for Wanguri will spend $200m on thought bubbles and good ideas. They are noble in their intent, but she cannot describe how she will pay for all this. The member for Casuarina, a former minister, has no idea how his ministry used to work, and the psychological review by the member for Barkly into - God knows what he was banging on about – countercyclical expenditure was quite excruciating to listen to. There are times when I feel embarrassment rising on his behalf when he opens his mouth because it is problematic and I have trouble listening to it sometimes. As for the Opposition Leader, she is now articulating so many of the arguments she denied ever existed, one after the other. She talks about government debt going up as though it was something hideous. She accuses this side of the House of raising debt. Well, we are. I do not want to, but we are doing much less than she ever was going to and in an environment of a shrinking projected income.
It is astonishing how quickly they have become a cynical, embittered opposition. It is no more pronounced than in the member for Nhulunbuy, sadly.
I congratulate the Treasurer for his efforts in this area. He has done, under the circumstances, a responsible job. In the area of corrections we will expend $637m in Budget 2013-14 to create a safer community for Territorians. I want to use that money wisely but for all the purposes I described. It is a problem we have such a high recidivism rate, which was acknowledged by the previous minister for Corrections in the former government. The only difference is he acknowledged it often, said he was going to do something about it, but on coming to government we discovered not much had been done at all, sadly.
Shortly, in the current financial year, we will be rolling out the first of the trial program for boot camps and looking at various operators to see which one delivers the best product. We will be making more announcements in due course. Next year we will be spending $2m, not only for intervention camps but also what I call D-camps or detention camps. These are for kids who are currently serving time in detention in places like Don Dale and the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. Hopefully we can bring about some changes.
The opposition is all bent out of shape at the expression ‘boot camp’. As I have described publicly on a number of occasions, this is not military style. Whilst it still creates physical pressure on these kids, as well as emotional pressure, it is not just the regimental sergeant major yelling at children. This is about challenging these kids in a number of ways and getting them to make better decisions into the future.
We are also spending money on work parties. They continue to perform enormous amounts of work in our community. The in-kind work from prison work parties and the contribution they have made to Territorians has been in the order of $3.5m or the equivalent of 250 000 hours of community work. Work parties have been used for a range of community organisations and events, not least of which are the Garma Festival, the Finke Desert Race, the Hidden Valley drags, the V8 events, the Henley-on-Todd Regatta and numerous other functions.
I recently visited the Adelaide River site where we have 30 prisoners working. I am grateful to the local Adelaide River community for coming around to the idea. I know they were a little unnerved to start with, but the feedback I have had over the last few days has been heartening. When the Ghan stopped in Adelaide River on Anzac Day the prisoners spontaneously decided, out of respect to some of the old Diggers who came along, to do a dance of welcome. I understand it became quite a moving, spontaneous event which touched the hearts of many of the Diggers. The prisoners did the warriors welcome several times in deference and to show respect to the old Diggers and their fallen comrades. I find it uplifting, being Minister for Correctional Services, when you have people in the custodial environment who understand, when they are not on the booze and those types of things, some of the contributions other people have made to their community and do a warrior dance to show respect for the Diggers. My only complaint is I was not there. It would have been an amazing thing to see. I understand some of the Diggers were quite choked up by what they experienced. It was utterly spontaneous. I spoke to the Administrator earlier today, who was in Adelaide River at the time, and she described the scene to me as being quite extraordinary. She also commented that many of the people in the work camp were ones she put there when she was a judge. She was pleased to see some of these people were coming along. I have given the Administrator a commitment that I will do everything in my power to make certain none of those people see the inside of a court room again, certainly not in the role of the accused or the defendant.
We remain committed, through the systems I described in my response to the Pillars of Justice statement today, to work with our corrections system to advance the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
As Attorney-General, I also have carriage of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. I hope at some point to drop the Justice title. I believe the Department of Justice is called a court. It is my job to administer and oversee the administration of the justice system of the Northern Territory, not to sit in judgment as a trial judge.
There are seven output groups for the department: Solicitor for the Northern Territory, Courts Support and Independent Officers; Northern Territory Correctional Services - whoops, that is the old department; Policy Coordination; Licensing and Regulation; Alcohol Strategy; Youth Justice; and WorkSafe. New administrative arrangements were issued on 4 September 2012 which saw the department being restructured and the creation of a new department which, of course, was the department of Corrections, giving the commissioner for Corrections a direct line of contact with the minister. I believe that has been part of the reason we have seen such good results in corrections advances in recent times. The momentum in that department has substantially increased.
One of the areas I want to touch on is savings. Whilst I might be a villainous, hideous, nasty liberal who believes in fiscal responsibility, I not only believe it in government, I believe it applies to my departments. It was no secret I determined there was room for trimming in the number of lawyers. That has been done. Some of those lawyers will be touched on in the mini-budget savings I am about to describe, which include the community justice policy.
This division was responsible for the payment of grants to non-government organisations for the intervention, in-case management services, Night Patrol, and other referential services. Staff in non-governmental organisations affected by this decision were advised, and practical steps were required to disband the unit within the Attorney-General’s department. This was completed and the savings were between $2.8m and $3m.
The Community Court was also an area we sought savings in, which saved $200 000 and $420 000 ongoing per year. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal and the SMART Court saved $118m in 2013-14, and will save another $3.5m ongoing. Court clinicians saw a saving of $275 000 a year, and in-house government lawyers a saving of $2.438m, which is recurrent.
There is generation of anticipated revenue of $4.9m a year through increased fees and charges from the following services provided or administered by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice: land titles lodgement fees and levies; land title search fees; enforcement fees; local court fees; birth, deaths, and marriage fees and levies; Public Trustee fees and charges; criminal court fees; Public Trustee commissions; Supreme Court fees; criminal infringement fees; and court charges. The effect of these changes brings the Territory in line with national averages.
There are a number of highlights in the budget which include: $170 000 for domestic violence services; another $1.29m for Court Support Services; $770 000 to continue the operation of expanded court facilities in Alice Springs, etcetera; and $6.5m to provide increased support to the DPP.
I have tried to bring some imagination to the job I do. The former government had a problem with the cells for juveniles in the lower court in Darwin. I believe I have found a way to get through that problem spending less than the former government intended to. Whilst there is $1m in the budget set aside for dealing with the problem, I will probably be able to report to the Treasurer that we can do it for less if a couple of solutions I am working on at the moment come to fruition.
We have commitments to do a great deal of work in the justice precinct in Alice Springs. To advance the justice precinct, once again, I have tried to bring some imagination to it. There will be a justice precinct, but there may be a way to do it less expensively than is provided for. If, as ministers and a government we use imaginations, we can find a number of savings by doing things better.
It is unusual for ministers to talk about where they have made savings, how they have raised revenue, and where they are continuing to find savings. It is my personal philosophy that government can be done more cheaply and effectively in a number of ways, and I try to do that all the time. Whilst the Corrections budget has increased, it is largely the position of corrections to start generating income for itself in a number of ways. As I mentioned before, we are starting manufacturing in the prisons. The Alice Springs prison has a proto-manufacturing process building trailers and cattle yards. We are looking at getting into the wholesale market for fruit and vegetables at the gaol in Alice Springs. Whilst the gaol will never, I suspect, make money as a profitmaking concern, we can take pressure off future budgets by having it at least contribute to its ongoing operation. I see gaols as a source of labour which can then be used to lift people out of poverty, give them training, give them opportunities and, in the process, lighten the burden on the taxpayer.
It is for that reason I want parole group housing to cost the taxpayer nothing. That is why Sentenced to a Job is costing people nothing. The moment it starts costing us, we are missing the point of what we are trying to do. People responsible for themselves pay their own way, and that is what I believe should occur in the management of departments. Yes, we shed lawyers. Yes, we put up fines not only as a revenue raising measure, but for their deterrent effect as well. Yes, we have put up fees and charges, particularly through the mini-budget process and all of that was well-known. However, I am part of a government that tries to be responsible, I like governments that are responsible, and I believe people respect responsible governments. As a person who takes that duty of responsibility seriously, I will make whatever contribution I can so the pressure is off the budget into the future, not increasing. The answer is not always spend more, it is get clever and, hopefully, within the next few months or weeks I will be in a position to make some really good announcements as to how we can still get all the outcomes we want for less.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the Attorney-General often inspires me and I am very proud to work beside him because he comes up with inspirational ideas. I appreciate many of the things he does for government and the true welfare of Territorians, and good on him.
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a lot of inspirational stuff and, on the other hand, a lot of nonsensical stuff. Some of the things I have heard in the last day or two have knocked me for six. I am amazed some people can think the way they do.
I read the Opposition Leader’s budget reply speech a couple of times. Talk about nonsensical statements. That would have to be one of the most nonsensical statements. This is the person who almost single-handedly raised the Northern Territory government debt to a level of unprecedented proportions, projected to be $5.5bn in 2015-16, equating to $1.1m a day in interest payments and 98% revenue to debt ratio. That is almost 100%. This is coming from a base when she first became Treasurer of around 60%. Over the preceding two decades or so, the rate was around 29%. In effect, in a few short years she has managed to triple the Territory’s debt to earnings ratio. That is quite alarming. Not a backward step, not an apology, no recognition she borrowed too much or put the Territory in a precarious financial situation. In fact, she has railed against every savings measure this government has had to find. On this side of the Chamber we have a desire for fiscal integrity and, in every instance where we have tried to right the budget, the Opposition Leader has criticised us.
I commented today that not one savings measure was proposed anywhere in the Opposition Leader’s reply to the budget. The interesting thing is the Opposition Leader contradicted me on that saying she had proposed savings measures. I asked, ‘What?’ She said, ‘We will not implement the mandatory alcohol treatment policy’. That is not a savings measure; it is a $35m spending measure. It is one of the very few spending measures this budget has where we have created a new policy. Okay, she does not want that. Well, that is not a savings measure; that is a new measure she is not taking on board. Show us where you are going to find savings throughout the budget to alleviate this debt burden you have left us. Where? There is nowhere.
I have accused the Opposition Leader of going into debt to meet operational costs. ‘Oh, no, no, no’, she said. However, as the member for Casuarina revealed tonight, they were borrowing money to pay wages. The member said they were the kind of decisions sometimes you had to make. ‘We have been criticised for borrowing money. Yes, we did. We borrowed the money. We put more teachers in schools. We put more nurses in our hospitals. We hired more doctors in our hospitals.’ That is borrowing to pay wages. It is bizarre. Later on in his speech, he said, ‘We borrowed the money because we knew we were going to leave a legacy behind’. Goodness me! He belled the cat on that one, didn’t he? They left a legacy behind!
A range of things have happened over the last few days. The Opposition Leader said, ‘Power and Water Corporation is not a business, it is an essential service’, like it is a charity. It is not a business but it was her Labor government which created the Government Owned Corporations Act which turned the Power and Water Authority into a business …
Mr Elferink: A corporation no less, not just a business.
Mr TOLLNER: A corporation, exactly, and well on the way to being a fully privatised company. Lo and behold, they are opposed to privatisation of a corporation. Goodness me. It was the Opposition Leader’s government which corporatised the Power and Water Authority and created an act and rules that determined how that corporation would act. I remind the House again that the GOC Act states that the Power and Water Corporation must:
It is a business according to the Government Owned Corporations Act:
I spoke in Question Time about the weighted average cost of capital which, for the Power and Water Corporation, is 6.8%. The weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, as it is known, is generally understood to be what it takes for an organisation to break even. It is what they call normal profit. You would not find an investor in a private world investing in a company making a normal profit or achieving the weighted average cost of capital because it means you are not getting a return; the company is just breaking even.
The weighted average cost of capital for the Power and Water Corporation at the moment is 6.8%, but the Opposition Leader said, ‘Oh no, that is wrong. We should be feeding the Power and Water Corporation with more taxpayer-funded subsidies to make sure tariffs stay low.’ It is voodoo economics - drongo economics I think I called it today in Question Time - that says taxpayer subsidies are not costing the taxpayer. These subsidies should be paying for better roads, schools, health systems and those types of things. This is taxpayers’ money we are putting into the Power and Water Corporation so they can enjoy lower costs …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: It is bizarre how these people think. To suggest it is an essential service, therefore, we should not be paying for it. Who pays?
Mr Elferink: Santa Claus.
Mr TOLLNER: Santa Claus, as the member for Port Darwin said. Most of us in the real world have grown up and realised Santa Claus does not exist, but he clearly exists in the minds of the opposition.
In 2001, the then Territory Labor government, under the leadership of Clare Martin and Syd Stirling, and which the member for Karama was a part of, instigated the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, or FITA. FITA has five principles of sound financial management contained within it.
In fact, Budget Paper No 2 on page 19 makes reference to these principals. It says:
That is, fundamentally, saying what the member for Casuarina outlined in his speech; that the borrowing to pay the operational costs of government – that is wages of teachers, nurses and doctors - should be avoided at all times. It was a complete acknowledgement that the former Treasurer was in breach of her own Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The other principal:
Which I just read out:
Well, $1.1m in interest every day would have to be considered a legacy issue for future Territorians. Again …
Mr Elferink: The member said as much.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely. The member for Port Darwin is right; he said as much in his speech; they have left a legacy for future Territorians.
Hence, Moody’s put us on a negative outlook with our credit rating. Further from the act when it comes to risk:
It says, again on page 20 of Budget Paper No 2:
Goodness me, does this sound like the Power and Water Corporation the Opposition Leader described - an organisation that is supposed to be self-supporting? No, she says it is an essential service and taxpayers should continue to fund it in order to maintain very low tariffs.
Again, the former Treasurer was in breach of her own act, the FITA – her government’s act of parliament designed to ensure the fiscal integrity and transparency of government finances. From the act:
Well, we all know about that, federal Labor just ripped $120m out of the Territory’s GST share. Watching the federal Treasurer on Tuesday night deliver the federal budget, and the projections he put forward, the debt he is sending the Australian government into, and the reduced size of the GST pool, sends me into shock. Not only are we now belt tightening for the deeds of the former Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the member for Karama, we have to start thinking about the deeds of the federal Treasurer, who is sending Australia into a downward financial spiral and is going to cripple many states and jurisdictions across Australia. Further belt tightening is clearly required.
Again from the act:
Madam Speaker, I put to you that the former fiscally irresponsible Labor government was in breach of its own act of parliament on several different counts. I look at the FITA and think, ‘Goodness me. What does it mean when you break the law?’ It is an act of parliament; it is law. I will read that. This is what Labor proposes as the penalty in the framework of the act:
They make up a law they want to apply to themselves, they knowingly breach it, and they know they cannot be penalised for breaching the law.
They put debt on to future generations. They racked up enormous amounts of debt. They put the Northern Territory into an enormously financially precarious situation. They come here and rail about spending cuts and savings measures. They say, ‘Spend, spend, spend, spend’. The member for Casuarina willingly said, ‘We borrowed money to spend on wages, the operational costs of government’. He was, basically, confessing to this parliament in this Chamber that they have broken the law, but they know it is a law that carries no penalty.
It is a bit like the Banned Drinking Register. You get picked up for drinking and they issue you with a BAT notice - a Banning Alcohol and Treatment Notice. Gee whizz, you would not want to get one of those because what happens if you get picked up the next time? Well, you get another BAT notice! Some joker got 114 BAT notices. And they want to bring this law back!
Here we have the fiscal integrity and transparency framework, as put forward by the Labor government, very similar in penalty to the Banned Drinker Register. ‘Let us break the law and see what happens. We will get a BAT notice’. Break the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, what happens? Nothing! Goodness me! What a government they were! They set a bunch of rules for themselves and knowingly breached them.
It all sounds quite funny but this is a very serious matter we are dealing with because we are not just talking about penalising ourselves and our future. I have children. I look around the Chamber here and I see the number of members who have children. This is a serious matter because it is our children who have to pay for the irresponsibility of this mob.
We made an election commitment that we would return to fiscal balance by 2015-16. We found out we have had a heap of money stripped out of our revenue and we have a whole lot of unfunded liabilities left to us. We pushed that out to 2017-18. That is when we will achieve fiscal balance, all going right. Let us hope there are no other external factors like another Wayne Swan coming along. However, that is not paying off the debt. In 2017-18 we can finally say we are paying for what we use. That is all we are doing. This is serious stuff. The debt is still there; it is just that we will have reached a stage where we have enough income to pay for our expenses. We just balance the budget.
This was the enormous task that John Howard and Peter Costello faced. It took them a long time to pay off the debt. It took them a long time to stop the boats. When they did, it was a massive saving to Australia. When they paid off the debt, we started having surplus budgets; we had 11 surplus budgets. We started putting things away for the future with the creation of the Future Fund, the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and a range of other savings measures that were put in place by that federal government.
Have a look now. Many people are still stunned. We are talking about 2007 when Australians saw the back of the Howard government, and here we are in 2013, just a few short years later. Look at where we are and where federal Labor has left us. This will take decades to pay off. It will take an enormous amount of work and discipline to get back in the black. You know why? Because – hallelujah! - the global financial crisis came and that was an excuse to throw around money everywhere. It blew me away, Kevin Rudd saying, ‘We have to stimulate the economy, so let us send out $900 cheques to everyone’, including dead people and people who have never lived in Australia - $10bn just gone like that. What do you get for it? Joe Hockey said, ‘We spent $10bn in order to get a $300m bounce in retail sales’. $300m for the cost of $10bn ...
Mr Elferink: Everyone else was paying off their bank card.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. The normal person thought, ‘$900 comes in, I can put a bit of money on the Mastercard or the Amex or the bank card’. No, Kevin could not see that. Kevin had to spend it. Once Kevin started this prolific spending, all the Labor mates around the country had to start as well, because it was crucial that they spent money and as much as they could. On what? What do we have to show for $5.5bn worth of debt? We have an amazing problem because they employed more public servants. We saw the public service numbers explode, and then revenue dried up. So, they had a bunch of people and a lot of operational costs. Then they had to start borrowing money to pay the people they just employed. How irresponsible! These people say they are good economic managers. The hide of them, the ignorance of them, if they truly believe that. Absolutely appalling.
They are in breach of their own act, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. There is no penalty for breaking their own laws. They made sure there was no penalty; they enshrined that in legislation too, similar to the Banned Drinker Register. ‘Oh well, I have ended up on the Banned Drinker Register’. What happens? ‘I get a sanction - a BAT notice. Goodness me, I would not want to do that again. Well, actually, I just did.’ What happens? ‘Oh, I got another BAT notice’. It is appalling. The Opposition Leader asked in her speech, castigating us, ‘What about the teachers you are sacking? What about the frontline workers?’ The fact is, we have managed to preserve these jobs ...
Mr Elferink: And we did not sack anyone.
Mr TOLLNER: And we have not sacked anyone. In fact, we have managed to screw out a whole heap of savings and efficiencies in the public service in our first budget that amount to more than $200m. This is just the rats and mice looking across the agencies. When you add all that little stuff up, we get $200m, which is amazing. This work has to continue, which is why we have created the Budget Management Subcommittee of Cabinet and will continue to look at ways to drive efficiencies within the public service. We will continue to try to find ways to cut waste and slash red tape.
Why do we talk about slashing red tape? To encourage business. But slashing red tape is about cutting expenditure as well. All these silly needless laws and regulations which have been put in place by the former government cost a lot of money. When you start slashing red tape, not only do you get a whole lot of obstacles out of the way for business, private enterprise and people going about their daily business, you save government money.
We have a job to do over the next few years - quite a few years, until at least 2017-18, because at this rate that is how long it will take to balance this budget. We will meet regularly. There are a number of people on that Budget Management Subcommittee. We will be talking regularly to chief executives and chief financial officers of government departments and agencies. The intention is to get them on performance packages and have it as part of their contracts that they constantly look for efficiencies and savings within their agencies because, ultimately, the money which has been racked up by the former government has to be repaid.
I thank, in particular, my Cabinet colleagues. This has been a very difficult time for the government. It has been a difficult time for all members on this side of the Chamber; there is some pain, we acknowledge that. I acknowledge that my Cabinet colleagues have worked very proactively to look at how we can reduce spending in their agencies. I thank them for that and I remind them this is not over. This is very much the start because this work will have to continue; we have to continue to tighten our belts and cut spending further.
I thank all members, even the fiscally irresponsible opposition, because they have highlighted exactly how we got into this problem during this debate. I thank members for their contributions. After the Clerk reads the long title of the bill at the second reading, I will move that the committee stage be later taken.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage be later taken.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I had a conversation earlier today with the member for Namatjira, in her role as the minister in charge of the Office of Children and Families, in relation to some assertions which were made by the member for Nightcliff regarding slashing the child protection resources in the Northern Territory budget by $9m, and the member for Nightcliff made reference to slashing that budget when she referred to page 253 of Budget Paper No 3.
Today, as a result of those conversations with the minister, the tame member for Nightcliff, basically, revealed what I, the department, and the minister thinks she is talking about. In truth, what Territorians have to understand is there is no $9m cut in OCF funding in the budget, and she must know this. She is either being mischievous or deliberately misleading.
There is something wrong with somebody else’s sums when you turn to the professional accountants in the Northern Territory public service and try to get them to cobble together the same structure the member for Nightcliff is talking about. When they struggled to cobble that together, I find that concerning. The best number crunchers we can lay our hands on could not get the result she got because the numbers she is relying on are simply not there.
I have spoken, as I said, to the minister who, in turn, has spoken to her chief executive. There is no cut of that magnitude in the budget for OCF. It is as it is printed on page 253 of the budget.
This morning, of course, the member for Nightcliff let slip that one of the concerns about the Centre for Disease Control in the budget was that, in her mind, it meant that vulnerable children with sexually transmitted diseases would not be treated. That sent alarm bells off in my mind because I am concerned about that sort of thing, because I know how serious those issues are in our community. I also know the Minister for Health is pretty much the expert in this area.
Accusing government of failing to treat children with sexually transmitted diseases because the member for Nightcliff has misread or misunderstood the budget is not something I ascribe to as laughable; it is something I take very seriously indeed. This is a highly emotive subject she has strayed on to. Cloaking herself in the mantle of caring for children, she is using that cloak to then drive a political argument.
That is fine because I do not doubt the member for Nightcliff cares very much about kids. However, it is irresponsible to then wade into these debates ill-informed with ill-considered accounting practices. The reason it is irresponsible is because this is the stuff that drives a great deal of passion in the community. It is irresponsible to do what she is doing. If she is going to run arguments in this space - and trust me, I am sure there will be arguments that can be run in this space - she does not have to manufacture these issues simply to pursue these matters. Do not let passion get in the way of standards and integrity when it comes to arguing these types of points.
I bring the House’s attention to the fact the member for Nightcliff is not reading the Health budget numbers correctly. She is not reading them correctly either because she is being deliberately mischievous or her lack of expertise in reading these numbers is leading to this misunderstanding. For some inexplicable reason, she seems to be adding Health budget numbers to the OCF budget. That is the only way we can come to her conclusions.
This is not a good way to perform, I suggest to the member for Nightcliff, because once you start stirring up public irritation in this area, people will expect a standard from you and, if you do not meet that standard, they will be still aware of your passion, but it will seriously diminish your integrity in the public imagination. It is an astonishing way to approach this issue, and I find it reckless and careless. It is not something I would do if I was in the member for Nightcliff’s shoes.
She is also casting a grim light upon the people who work in the organisation she is purporting to defend. She is complaining that 4000 notifications will not be investigated – that 4000 notifications should be investigated but will not be. She is saying the fine professional people - some of the finest in our specialist units, the central intake - will ignore 4000 cases they should refer to investigation. Really? Health professionals dedicated to the protection of children deliberately ignoring 4000 cases of child neglect and abuse? That sounds like a pretty long bow to draw and casts a poor and grim light upon those professionals. I ask, once again, that the member for Nightcliff tread softly in this space because, in her enthusiasm to attack the government on either perceived or real shortcomings, she cannot allow that enthusiasm to intrude upon the sensibilities of people who would justifiably feel aggrieved at assertions they are, somehow, ignoring 4000 cases of abuse.
It appears the member for Nightcliff believes a family which does not have an allegation of sufficient concern should have us knocking at the door, stressing them out and intruding upon their lives. One of the things you have to be very careful of in child protection is when you receive a complaint you access it effectively before you start changing people’s lives. This is a dreadful thing to do and get wrong if you are a government. Professionals in this area understand that, know that, and that is why they work carefully in these spaces. It does not mean we have abandoned these people or children, we are just being very careful.
The staff average of 50% in the numbers of notifications that are converted into investigations is reflective of this truism and of a proportion that has been operational in this field for a long time. The investigators receive complaints and about half of them lead to actual investigation beyond the summary overview of the original complaint. This has been around for a long time; it operated under the former government and continues to operate in this space.
This is what the budget says. Frankly, the member for Nightcliff should be very mindful of what she is saying. I believe she is in a position where she should apologise to the staff for her careless use of the budget papers to drive a political point. I trust the judgment of the professionals in this field, as I know the Health minister and many of the very senior public servants who work with these professionals do.
Madam Speaker, whilst I will not go so far as to accuse the member for Nightcliff of engaging in deliberate mischief at this stage, I believe her assertions are simply a misunderstanding and we will give her the benefit of the doubt. I urge her in the strongest possible terms to restrain herself until such time as she has a clear understanding of how this system operates and of the sensibilities involved in this area before her crusade, righteous as it might be, hurts and upsets people deeply.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to address the House on my budget reply for Budget 2013-14 from the Country Liberal government and how this budget will help my people in the Arnhem electorate.
However, first I will make a statement on the opposition’s member for Nhulunbuy and how grubby she is at trying to make personal attacks on us all the time in this House. Two-thirds of us are probably new members in this House and I find it disgusting that she carries out all these little grubby attacks towards us, always behind our backs. That is such a low standard. I have integrity and I am a loyal, honest person. If I had to say something to her, I would do it in Question Time directly to her face. I find that disgusting. I am sitting in there and have to watch her on television; I have to listen to how she is trying to attack me and say that I am a liar, that I do not do my job in the electorate.
Of course, I know the priorities in my electorate. I know there is a high demand for the road, even to the barge landing on Ramingining. I know how bad it is. My great-grandfather is from Ramingining. That is what she does not know. I know the high demands of a barge landing in Milingimbi. They are the same people; Ramingining people came from Milingimbi. I know that; I have been there campaigning. Even before I got into this House I knew about the demands on that.
I have raised it with the former Treasurer and the current Treasurer, but because of the state the former Labor government left us in, it is impossible to make promises we cannot keep at the moment. We have a dire financial problem we have to take care of before we can even think about fixing, promising or doing things we really want to.
There is much I can say now that is in budget that really does contribute to my electorate, and I am proud of that. However, the most important thing in this budget is that this government has an unquestionable commitment to homelands of $27.3m. Where was the heart from the former Labor government in the homelands? Look at my homeland. We had to build it up on our own; my family had to contribute and work hard on a day-to-day basis. My seven sisters and I, my five brothers, and my mum and dad, worked very hard to pay for our own homeland because the government would not contribute, and that was the Labor government. I am very sorry but that is in my outstation. That is shocking and that is everywhere. You go to some of the other homelands, they are just left there. They are still being funded but no one lives there anymore because they were ignored by the former government.
Now we are making the effort to give the people the opportunity to go back to their country and be connected to their land. It is the best place to be. When I come up to Darwin, all I hear is cars driving past every night, screaming, horns blowing. You go out in the bush; there is such peace and quiet. All you listen to is birds singing and that is the life my people desire. They are comfortable in that life; they like it and I support them on that. This Country Liberal Party government supports them on it. We are going in the right direction.
I congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister for what they have done. They made a valuable, unquestionable commitment in favour of supporting the people in the bush. We are not only looking at homelands. The Northern Territory government has also kicked in $14m over four years for Homelands Plus where eligible houses on homelands and outstations can access $5200 in works to develop basic services that are enjoyed by all Territorians, especially the people in the bush electorates: people who live in homelands. The Country Liberal government respects Indigenous Australians’ right to live on homelands and actively supports them to do so.
There are many other exciting inclusions in this budget for Arnhem, including $6.17m to construct a new health centre in Numbulwar, which is much needed. The health centre they have there now is a corrugated iron building, which was probably built 30 to 40 years ago. The numbers in the place are growing every year and the only thing that stands out is the health centre. It was poorly recognised by the former government. I do not believe that it was even in their budget to fix the health centre there. Go there and look at the standards of the old one. There are many things I can outline. The way the SIHIP houses were built was shocking!
There was not only that amount, but $5.9m to construct a new health centre in Ngukurr, and $5.4m for training centres in Ngukurr, Groote Eylandt and the West Arnhem College, which the member for Nhulunbuy should be praising because it will also benefit her electorate.
All I heard from her was the negative things. She never spoke about anything good in the budget that contributes to the people in the Nhulunbuy electorate, and that is shocking. The low standards she has; she walked in here the other day and talked about two non-Indigenous people working in the ranger group. Not for one minute did she encourage, or show leadership as a member in parliament, to the Indigenous people to take control of Caring for Country incentives. She did not even say that. She was very sorry about the two non-Indigenous people leaving. She was empathising about the whole thing. She thought it was bad and that those people would be lost without them.
Well, in my region, the Jawoyn region, it is our own who are doing Caring for Country and are the managers. We have to encourage our own people to get into management roles, higher levels, and higher education. All we hear from the member from Nhulunbuy is it is better that Indigenous people be directed for the rest of their lives. Well, that is not me. I am not here to stand in this House and represent that. I am here to represent my people in their best interests and give them the opportunities we never had in the bush. That is what they need. That is the only way they are going to move forward - education around everything.
What is wrong with Indigenous people taking control over their country? There is nothing wrong with that. That is the best way to go about things; that is the right direction. The Country Liberal government supports that and that is the best direction. This government is one of the best examples of economic development. We have the best business people in this House. Yet, we have our opposition which just wants to direct and tell Aboriginal people what to do for the rest of their lives. I have been listening to that. I am 29 now, going on to 30. I have been listening to that for almost 30 years and I have had enough. I am here to tell you that stuff does not work on me and it will not work on my generation. It sure as hell will not work on the people out there because that is the whole reason you are over there.
Look at $420 000 for a new transportable middle classroom at Milyakburra – a beautiful little island - and $1.3m of upgrades to Angurugu, which is for a new admin building that was needed. These are just a few of the exciting outcomes of yesterday’s budget.
What is most exciting in the Northern Territory is that it now has a responsible government. We are fighting for the best for the Northern Territory. Yesterday was the first step in getting the Territory back on track after a decade of mismanagement under Delia Lawrie and her Labor administration.
The people of the Northern Territory responded to the utter incompetence of the last government by voting them out. The NT was heading down a dark hole towards a $5.5bn debt and the Country Liberal government has inherited a huge responsibility, with our first task being to re-establish the NT’s financial credibility.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for his budget. My electorate will benefit from this hugely. There are millions of things I would like to say but I only have 25 seconds left on the clock. Thank you very much for listening to me everybody. Goodnight!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I express my thanks and appreciation to Mrs Nancy Cowan, Barkly electorate officer, who is resigning on Friday, 17 May 2013, from the position to accompany her partner, Frank O’Donoghue, to Alice Springs where he will continue his exemplary career and tertiary studies as a public health officer.
Nancy Cowan came to the Northern Territory from a regional area in southwestern New South Wales, with a background in the social welfare sector, and immediately applied her professional and life experience to the job of electorate officer serving a multicultural, regional and remote constituency across a geographic area 1.5 times the size of Victoria.
Nancy quickly and confidently developed a professional approach for dealing with Barkly constituents, especially constituents from disadvantaged backgrounds who needed support structure and discipline. However, her kind and generous nature was the real winner that facilitated the important respect and trust from constituents that delivers real results.
Nancy saw the need to develop a supportive and structured electorate office culture that would eliminate antisocial elements of constituent behaviour, provide a confidential space for interactions, and professional meeting spaces for individuals and community groups. Over the past four years, Nancy designed and implemented infrastructure upgrades and management systems into the electorate office that created a vastly improved office culture and service delivery model, much appreciated by Barkly constituents and visitors. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should be proud of their investment in the Barkly electorate officer, and electorate office minor new works, as resulting infrastructure improvements, operating systems, and office culture is a credit to the Legislative Assembly and Mrs Nancy Cowan, who has worked diligently to effect the changes.
However, it is not all about infrastructure and systems, as Nancy will be missed by hundreds of constituents for the important service delivery, compassion, and friendship she has provided, and by the many constituents she has extended time-consuming case management support to through an array of personal and professional interventions, including fostering community organisations that have come to depend on her fine output as an electorate officer.
As a minister in the previous Labor government, I required considerable additional support that involved liaison with the ministerial staff in Darwin, for which Nancy Cowan acquitted herself admirably, making lots of friends and influencing people, including the Chief Minister.
Nancy Cowan came to the Barkly with a reserved attitude toward politics, yet an open and discerning mind and, after four years working as an electorate officer in Barkly, leaves the position with a clear and decisive understanding of Northern Territory government policy, procedures, and politics at its best and worst; however, with a comparative view of what is truly right, sincere and will work across the diverse community of the Northern Territory.
I can only assume, from Nancy’s dedication, compassion, honesty and integrity that she saw fit to support a Territory Labor agenda, as Nancy Cowan does not suffer fools gladly and would add constructively to the regular political debates, policy development, and implementation strategies. Nancy did not always agree with government policy; however, she exercised a clear and concise position in debate, listening to others and offering new ideas which have been important and valuable for a local member gauging public opinion and formulating policy ideas. I thank Nancy for her honesty and integrity.
It has been an honour to work with Mrs Nancy Cowan in the Barkly electorate, and I know that together we have assisted thousands of constituents, delivered important infrastructure and services, and maintained a clear independence for serving all Barkly constituents, no matter what their social, cultural, economic or political background.
I offer my best wishes to Nancy and Frank for the next stage of their lives and work in the Northern Territory with good health and happiness. Nancy is currently training the new Barkly electorate officer in a formal handover process. I look forward to introducing Ms Ktima Heathcoat to parliamentary colleagues and the Legislative Assembly soon.
Madam Speaker, Nancy Cowan is a fine person and a sensational cook with a great sense of humour, and I sincerely thank her for her support over the past four years. There have been many good memories, including the challenges we have faced as a team. However, the social and cultural event, Taste of Italy, launching the 2012 Barkly election campaign, was certainly a memorable occasion, with Nancy underpinning its success as chef, project manager, and entertainment team leader.
Go well, Nancy, and thank you for the care and concern for all Barkly constituents, and I look forward to hearing of the next chapter with Frank in Central Australia.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, tonight I raise two issues. One is most members in this House would know they get many magazines and newsletters and so forth coming across their desks. I hope many of them try to read those magazines, even if they only have a quick flick through them.
There is one I receive a copy of, the Motor Vehicle Enthusiast Club newsletter called Transmission. I have a connection with car restorations and so forth through my uncle so I read this magazine. In the May edition I was saddened to read about the loss of a well-respected motor vehicle enthusiast, Trevor Feehan. His funeral was held on 10 May. I will not go through the write-up they have in this magazine about Trevor, but it is obvious he was well respected by club members. He was one of the founding members.
The connection I have with motor vehicle enthusiasts is that my uncle was a keen restorer of motor vehicles. I noticed, reading this article about Trevor, he restored a Humber. If I was to show my age, I would have to point out I owned a Humber Vogue Sport. It was not quite an antique when I owned it, but it was a car I owned so I saw the connection there as well. For those people who do not know too much about vintage cars, I am sure they would know what I am saying if I mention a Model T.
The other interesting thing I picked up reading about Trevor was he first started his working career in Darwin working for Civil Aviation. The connection I also saw in Civil Aviation is I have always wanted to fly a plane. I have a pilot’s licence even though I need to boost my hours.
Trevor started his work in the old Qantas hangar. It is interesting that the club now does much of its work in that hangar. He started and finished his working career in the Northern Territory at the same place.
I put on the record what a sad loss, not just to the club but to the Northern Territory, we have had in losing Trevor. For Trevor’s family and friends, please accept my sorrow in reading about his death. In saying that, I also would like them to realise people get a lot out of reading these magazines and I hope they continue.
The second issue I would like to raise is a special thank you. I had a visit today from Patsy Que Noy. Patsy and Arthur live near Knuckey Lagoon and I have known them for a long time; they have some connections at the Daly. Patsy came in today with a friend of hers, Patricia, from Broome, who I also recognised from Batchelor. She said she was from Broome and I said, ‘I know you’. She has been living in Broome for 15 years. Patsy brought in her daughter and granddaughter, Joycie and Mia. They came in and gave me a fantastic painting of a turtle and snake to hang in my office. I place on the record that I am very appreciative of Patsy for taking the time to come all the way in here to do that. It is very much appreciated, beautiful lady. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, first, I will talk about a beautiful woman who passed away a couple of months ago. I did not have a chance to speak of her. Her name was Laurie Madjadilla and she was from Maningrida. She worked hard for her community. She worked for the children, the Night Patrol looking after kids after hours and rounding up kids so they would not get into trouble, and she was one of the representatives on the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. She represented Maningrida and her people.
She was one of those people who was really strong, a hard worker, and on the go the whole time. Even though she had a heart condition, she wanted to ensure the children were protected and kids were safe and had somewhere to stay at night. She made sure every night she would be out with the Night Patrol picking up kids, taking them home, looking after them, and making sure they were all right. It is a sad loss for the Maningrida community and for her family as well. I wanted to ensure she had a heartfelt say for her here in Cabinet and in parliament. She will be missed.
I take this opportunity to talk about an issue that has always been close to my heart. Within the last four months, two more young mothers related to me were killed in Alice Springs Town Camp. One was injured mortally in public, in front of several families. Nobody acted to protect her. Dozens of my female relatives have been killed this way. Convictions usually lead to light sentences. I was told by a senior lawyer that no jury in Alice Springs will convict an Aboriginal person for murder if the victim is also Aboriginal and he or she is only stabbed once.
None of us have done anything effective to stop this from happening. It has been going on for decades. This week we heard outrage from the Stolen Generations association because this government wants to put the safety and wellbeing of our children before their culture. I am not talking about the children of the Stolen Generations; these are our children.
Why has there not been the same outrage over the continued killing of our women and abuse and neglect of our kids? If these women victims were white, we would hear very loud outrage from feminists. If their killers had been white, we would hear outrage from the Indigenous activists. Why is there such a deafening silence when both victim and perpetrator are black? I believe we can blame the politics of the progressive left and its comfortably middle-class urban Indigenous supporters.
Because I have spoken out on this issue and others close to my heart, I have been routinely attacked by the left. Professor Larissa Behrendt claimed that what I say is more offensive than watching a man having sex with a horse. Her white professional protester colleague, Paddy Gibson, told the world that I was only doing it for the money and frequent flyer points. The Queensland educationist, Chris Sarra, said I was a ‘pet Aborigine’ who only said what the government wanted me to say. Chris Graham, the white editor of Tracker magazine called me a ‘grub’. A white woman in Victoria, Leonie Chester, calls herself Nampajinpa Snowy River on the Internet. She tells the world that my people, the Warlpiri, are ‘her mob’. She and her friends have obscenely insulted me on the Internet repeatedly. Marlene Hodder, a white woman from Alice Springs and her protesting friend, Barbara Shaw, have called me a liar several times.
The Crikey blogger, Bob Gosford, who calls himself ‘the Northern Myth’, calls me Bess ‘Gaol is Good for Aboriginal People’ Price and accuses me of:
In Brisbane, Tiga Bayles, using an Indigenous community-owned radio station, told the whole world that I am ‘a head-nodding Jacky-Jacky for the government’ and that I am ‘totally offensive and arrogant’ because I do not want people like Tiga, who know nothing about us, speaking about my people. He and his friends laughed as they told the world that I am only interested in money.
When my daughter went to Sydney for the Deadly Awards, an Aboriginal interviewer for the Koori Radio Station in Redfern advised her not to tell anybody who her mother was. This is how these people show respect for family. In the last month I have watched three of my sisters and a granddaughter being buried. These racist and sexist hypocrites sneer at our grief and care nothing for our suffering, but they are the darlings of the left. I wonder what would happen if Andrew Bolt had used insults like these against any Indigenous Australian. The hypocrisy of these people is incredible.
However, I am in good company. When Mantatjara Wilson, a wonderful strong compassionate women I called mother, told the world about the crimes against her children on national TV in 2007, with tears streaming down her face, the left-wing activist moved to undermine her. They went into the communities not to protect the kids but to find women who would oppose Mantatjara. They talked about outrage and shame, not because of the crimes you all know about, but because somebody was brave enough to tell the world about them and ask for help. That was what they called ‘shameful’.
They worry about the shame felt by perpetrators once they are exposed, not by the agony of their victims and families. It is easy to find women who will support their men even though they are killers and rapists. Families always stand up for their own, and those who call themselves progressive will always find those willing to stand beside them and betray their own women and kids.
Few others have stood up and faced the vicious criticism of the left. I acknowledge the wonderful work of Dr Hannah McGlade in Perth and Professor Marcia Langton in Melbourne. Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson have also spoken out.
A conference of Aboriginal men in Alice Springs publicly apologised to Aboriginal women and kids for the violence and abuse men have inflicted on them. None of those people have received support from the left or from Labor governments.
The left has tried really hard to call us liars and to put us down for speaking the truth and for wanting to stop the killing and the sexual violence. But they have put no effort into protecting our kids and women. The exception to this has been a determination of minister Jenny Macklin, who I acknowledge for her courage in the face of strong criticism from her own party and The Greens.
I recently went to Sydney for the launch of a book called Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence by a wonderful caring friend of mine Dr Stephanie Jarrett. My words are on the cover of her book:
Dr Jarrett does that and she cares, maybe too much for her own good. I have seen the tears in her eyes and heard the passion in her voice when she talks about her murdered and bashed ones. I trust her completely.
However, those who are not interested in the truth are out to bring her down. She has been attacked in The Monthly magazine by its editor, John van Tiggelen in an article called Thinking Backwards.
Dr Jarrett is saying there are elements to our traditional culture that we must change if we are to stop the violence that is destroying us, and she is right. Things are much worse now than the old days because of the grog, the drugs, and the awful welfare dependency that is sucking the life out of us. There are elements of our culture that are really good and should be kept, but we should be prepared to do what everybody else in the world has done: change our ways to solve the new problems we have that our old law has no tools to solve.
Some people call this integration, others call it assimilation because they want us to continue to live in poverty, violence, and ignorance so we can play out their fantasies on what the word ‘culture’ means. I call it problem solving and saving lives. The left has its own agenda, and liberating our people from violence is not part of that agenda.
Van Tiggelen talks about the book Black Death, White Hands written by Paul Wilson in 1982. In that book, Wilson argued that when a man called Alwyn Peters killed his girlfriend in Queensland it was actually because of white colonialism and racism. It was not the killer’s fault, it was the whitefellas’ fault. This argument worked; Peters was only given a short sentence.
Dr Jarrett started to worry about Aboriginal women’s rights when she saw David Bradbury’s film State of Shock. This was made in 1988 and was based on the same case. Bradbury brought the film to Alice Springs and Owen Peters with him. In the film, Bradbury gave only the story of Peters and his family. Nobody from the victim’s family was given a chance to give their point of view. They would not have backed Bradbury’s arguments so they were ignored.
I remember Alwyn Peters telling us, ‘She has ruined my life’. He was talking about the one he killed. He went on to say, ‘She comes to me in dreams’. This made me feel sick. When my husband asked David Bradbury, ‘Why did you not talk to the victim’s family, you would have got a different point of view?’, he said, ‘Alwyn Peters’ family are victims too’. In other words, all our sympathy was meant to be for the one who killed and his family, and not for the one he killed or her family.
In 1991, Audrey Bolger of the ANU’s North Australian Research Unit wrote a wonderful little book called Aboriginal Women and Violence. At last, somebody was taking notice. At last, a white woman was trying to get governments to act. She was ignored and, as far as I know, nobody tried again after that. Her voice was drowned out by the politically correct who took their lead from Wilson and Bradbury: just keep blaming the whitefellas and everything will be fine. When governments says sorry, everything will be fixed.
Audrey Bolger said in her book way back then that in the final analysis the problem of violence against Aboriginal women will only be solved by Aboriginal people themselves. The report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody said the same thing. In a way, she was right; my people need to act now to stop our own violence. However, in another way, this has given governments and the wider community an excuse for the big cop-out. ‘Okay, we whitefellas caused the problem but only blackfellas will solve it’, so we sit around waiting for that to happen.
She also said:
She was right, but in the 22 years since she wrote that there have been no satisfactory solutions found and things are much worse now. It has not happened and I am sick of sitting around seeing my loved ones being killed.
We have had committees and research projects, and advisory councils, and ATSIC, and now we have A National Congress of Australia’s First People. Billions of dollars have been spent. We have had visits from the United Nations special rapporteurs, and Amnesty International Indigenous officers.
Not only have solutions not been found, but the most important issues are not even raised and talked about. I want to work through these issues and find solutions. For the left and for many Aboriginal politicians on the national stage it seemed the only issues worth talking about were the Stolen Generations and Aboriginal deaths in custody. These are real issues that have to be addressed, but they were not the only issues. In the meantime, women still died, children did not go to school, epidemics of renal failure, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease grew worse, suicides increased, young men went to gaol, and we kept killing each other and ourselves. Australians were not told that the death rate amongst our young men was higher outside custody than in, and that more Aboriginal women died at the hands of their menfolk than Aboriginal men died in custody. Since then, so many more women have died and have been sexually abused, assaulted ...
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have to draw your attention to the clock, it is a standing order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In adjournment we do have a bit of leniency. Continue, Member for Stuart …
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We do not actually. I appreciate Bess’s speech and believe this should be normally spoken in full length. I am sure you can do it another time, but there are conventions …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will check with the Clerk, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: Seek leave to table it if you want.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to leave the table my speech.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to speak of the superb efforts of a school in my electorate, Humpty Doo Primary School. This is a school at the heart of Humpty Doo which has been home to so many of our current Territorians in the rural area, given that the school has been around for over 30 years. Students have gone to the school, gone on to high school, grown up, married, had children and sent their children to the school. It is a school of history, culture, and of strong and personal community.
What is good about this school, from what I have seen, is the dedication, enthusiasm and commitment to ensuring all students receive the best possible education and experience. Whether it be assemblies with sombre presentations such as that for Anzac Day, or fun ones where everyone dresses as their favourite space or comic character, they are always entertaining, funny and memorable.
What I like about schools these days is they contact parents to invite them to the school when their child is receiving an award, getting mentioned, or participating so they can watch and enjoy. From memory, this never happened when I went to primary school in Darwin and, being a boarding school student, it never happened in my high school years. Perhaps that is why I enjoy the assemblies so much.
Then, there is the annual graduation of Year 6 students, who look so proud as they receive their certificate, as do their parents or family members present.
Over the years I have come to know the teachers and support staff and they are delightful people and so helpful to me in understanding the school and its issues. Most times I get it, but not always, so I appreciate them taking the time to talk with me, given their busy schedules.
What I find interesting, and have done for many years, are the comments teachers do not do too much and get loads of holidays and time off. From what I have observed this is never and not the case. There are teachers on councils, teachers who organise sports days and participate and dress up in silly outfits, teachers who get sponsorship for their events, teachers who help the students fundraise to go on expeditions, teachers who take students on excursions interstate, and teachers who help with school gardens and special projects. These activities are done out of teaching hours and all that teaching involves.
It is a good and decent school and one I like visiting on any occasion. I feel very much at home when I do. One recent activity I want to highlight is the school’s recent participation in the Mother’s Day fun run. The school entered a team called ‘The Doo’ and had appropriately labelled outfits, and a fun day on the Sunday just past. Even though it was a very early day for many of the 39 competitors on the team made up from staff, parents, children, family and friends, and members of the wider Humpty Doo community, several of them ran the 8 km or 4 km course. Of course, others walked the 4 km, such as the Principal, Susanne Fisher. Indeed, Susanne’s son, who had run a full marathon the week before in 4C, also ran the 8 km along with one of Susanne’s daughters-in-law.
The school won the trophy for having the biggest school team event. It was a very proud moment and this week the school learnt it is currently the highest fundraising team for Darwin, raising over $4000 for breast cancer research. It is quite a feat, if not an amazing achievement. Well done, and congratulations to all from Humpty Doo Primary School and the community, one and all.
This is a school that punches well above its weight, and I extend my congratulations to them for all of their hard work and achievements. I look forward to advice from the minister’s office as to when he is going to visit this school as he needs to see what they do firsthand and how the school could do with some serious infrastructure upgrades. If this school is not on the minister’s agenda it will be next week as I will be knocking on his door.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague and friend, the member for Stuart. I listened with great interest to a number of people who have ridiculed the member for Stuart. One in particular I recall where they referred to her as a ‘Jacky-Jacky for the government’.
I would like to see those people travel to the Northern Territory and sit with us and listen to the member for Stuart when she speaks about all types of issues. I noted tonight she is a woman who speaks from the heart and speaks her mind. I can assure those people she is not a Jacky-Jacky or any of the other things they accused her of being.
I had the pleasure of spending some time with the member for Stuart when doing some economic development work. What really impressed me about the member for Stuart, apart from that she is an intelligent woman, was the passion she displayed in embracing the opportunities of economic development for the people in her electorate. The people in her electorate predominantly are Aboriginal people. She has a passion to improve their lifestyle and all the things that she spoke about in her adjournment debate speech tonight.
I commend the member for Stuart. For one, she speaks her mind and she does it from the heart with a passion. For those who may ridicule her for being a passionate woman for the future and the betterment of the people of her electorate, I say shame on them and that they should come and sit and observe firsthand the passion this woman displays for the future of the people in her electorate.
Madam Speaker, I commend her for telling the real story.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Wanguri Primary School students accompanied by their teacher, Janine Woodroffe. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your tour of Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also welcome to parliament the member for Nhulunbuy’s husband, Lawrence, and her two sons, Harry and Patrick.
Members: Hear, hear!
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Italian Seniors – Centro Italiano Assistenza Scolastica e Sociale - Cesarina Gonzadi, Teresa O’Brien, Anna Barresi, Clelia Maddalozzo, Francesca Pacini, Anna Baronio, Lina Giacoponello, Elena Moretti, Maria Masolin, Maria Lelli, Gay Finocchiaro and Frank Finocchiaro.
If honourable members could bear with me for a few minutes I would like to say a few words to the ladies in Italian.
- Buon giorno,
Grazie per essere venuti al parlamento oggi, per assistere alle procedure.
E' sempre un piacere accogliere in visita in parlamento stimati membri della nostra comunit e voglio ringraziare il vostro giovane membro e membro di Drysdale, la signorina Lia Finocchiaro per aver organizzato la visita. Spero gradirete il tempo con noi oggi.
- Good morning,
Thank you for coming to Parliament House today to view proceedings.
It is a pleasure always to have esteemed members of our community come to visit Parliament House and I thank your young community member and member for Drysdale, Miss Lia Finocchiaro, for organising your visit. Please enjoy your time with us today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: That was my best anglicised Italian. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 8
Message No 8
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table Message No 8 from Her Honour the Administrator recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act that includes provisions authorising payments from revenue received by the Territory for purposes in relation to minimising or rectifying environmental harm caused by mining activities. The message is dated 15 May 2013.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 34)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to clarify the operation of the amendments made by the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013 to Division 6A of the Sentencing Act. Members will recall that on 14 February 2013, this Assembly passed the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013. That amendment act commenced on a date declared by the Administrator in a Gazette notice: namely, 1 May 2013.
Section 6 of the amendment act amended the Sentencing Act to repeal and replace former section 78BA of the Sentencing Act to insert a new Division 6A with five new levels of violent offence and their corresponding mandatory minimum sentences. The amendment act also introduced new mandatory minimum sentences of three or 12 months, depending on the level of the offence.
Since the act commenced operation on 1 May 2013, there have been two issues raised in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction that have come to the government’s attention. I am grateful these issues have been ventilated by the court. I thank the court for its attention to this matter and quick notification to government of its concerns. This shows the relationship between the courts and the executive is healthy and robust. Its forthrightness will enable this House to remove doubt before a question of uncertainty is raised.
However, the government considers there is only one issue that requires clarification in the new mandatory sentencing legislation. The issue requiring clarification involves the transitional provisions in new section 78EA of the Sentencing Act. That section states in respect of the new Division 6A:
- This Division does not apply in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 6 of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences Act 2013.
The term ‘previously convicted of a violent offence’ which is found in a number of other sections - for example, section 78DA - may not be interpreted to include prior convictions predating the commencement of the new mandatory sentencing provisions on 1 May 2013.
Whether the offender has a previous conviction for a violent offence is often a consideration in determining what mandatory minimum sentence is to apply. The main issue is whether the new section 78EA of the Sentencing Act means that prior convictions for the new mandatory sentencing provisions can be convictions for offences committed after 1 May 2013. The intention behind section 78EA was not to limit the scope of the previous convictions the court could take into account. It was intended that the court must take into account any previous conviction for a violent offence committed at any time in the offender’s past and there was to be no limitation on that. This is the effect of the former Division 6A and its predecessors.
It is arguably incorrect to construe section 78EA as having the effect of limiting the scope of prior convictions because the phrase ‘previously convicted of a violence offence’ seems to be quite clear. Also, that phrase relies on the definition of ‘violent offence’ in section 78C which, in turn, includes an offence substantially corresponding to an offence listed in Schedule 2, but which has been repealed.
A reading of section 78EA together with a definition of violent offence in section 78C does not sit well with the construction of 78EA so that it means a previous conviction can only be taken into account if the previous conviction is for an offence committed after 1 May 2013.
Nonetheless, it is recognised that the current worded sections may be read down in favour of limiting the scope of prior convictions. Precedent for this approach can be found in the authority of McMillan v Pryce [1997] Northern Territory Supreme Court Law Reports, in which the majority of the Criminal Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory read down the meaning of the prior conviction in respect to the mandatory sentencing for property offences so it could only include a prior conviction for the offence after the commencement date.
Clauses 3 to 7 of the bill therefore make amendments to individual sections where the phrase, ‘previously convicted of a violent offence’, appears in Division 6A to include the words, ‘whenever committed’, to make it clear the court must consider all prior convictions for violent offences no matter when they occurred: before or after the commencement of the division.
Clause 8 also makes clear that section 78EA only applies to sentencing of an offender for an offence committed prior to the commencement of that section, and is not intended to affect the word ‘offence’ whenever it appears in Division 6A.
As an aside, the court has also raised the issue of whether, by repealing section 78BA, the section no longer applies to the violent offences which were committed but not sentenced prior to the commencement of the new mandatory sentencing provisions on 1 May 2013. The argument was because there was no relevant transitional or savings provision in the act to expressly state section 78BA continues to exist in respect of offences committed prior to the commencement of Division 6A, former section 78BA no longer applies. However, with the greatest respect to the magistrates at the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, I considered that transitional provision was not required for this purpose.
Section 78AE of the Sentencing Act provides the new mandatory minimum sentences introduced by the amendment act apply only to offences committed on or after the date of commencement of the amendment of the act. The purpose sought to be achieved by this section was that of making it clear the new sentencing regime did not have retrospective operation for offences committed prior to commencement. It is not intended to affect the sentencing regime applicable to the offences committed prior to 1 May 2013.
In respect of saving the former section 78BA of the Sentencing Act for relevant assaults committed but not sentenced prior to 1 May 2013, section 12 of the Interpretation Act applies so as to preserve the operation of the former section 78BA in relation to relevant assaults.
Section 12 of the Interpretation Act relevantly states that:
- The repeal of an act or part of an act does not:
…
(b) affect the previous operation of the Act or the part of the Act so repealed, or anything duly done or suffered under the Act or the part of the Act so repealed;
(c) affect a right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under an Act or the part of the Act so repealed, or an investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of that right, privilege, obligation or liability; or
(d) affect a penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of an offence against the Act or part of the Act so repealed, or an investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of that penalty, forfeiture or punishment,
and the investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and a penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not been made.
Advice was sought from the Solicitor-General, Michael Grant QC. The Solicitor-General advised section 12 of the Interpretation Act does not merely preserve a penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed prior to repeal, or in respect of a conviction recorded prior to repeal, but operates to preserve liability to a specified penalty notwithstanding its repeal and substitution by a different penalty. This was the effect of the decision in Samuels v Songalia (1977) 16 SASR 397 in respect of a similar provision in the South Australian interpretation act.
The words at the end of section 12, in particular, make it clear that section 12 operates to preserve the whole of the law so that investigations, legal proceedings or remedies for offences can continue to be enforced as if the law had not been repealed. Based on this as strong evidence, I have no doubt the legislation is clear.
Madam Speaker, I am confident this bill clarifies the interpretation of the phrase ‘previously convicted of a violent offence’ and ensures the full intent of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013, which inserted the new mandatory minimum sentences into the Sentencing Act, is now clear.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MINING MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 30)
(Serial 30)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time on behalf of Hon Willem Westra van Holthe, Minister for Mines and Energy.
I am pleased to present the Mining Management Amendment Bill to honourable members.
When this government was elected it did so with the express intention of developing the Northern Territory economy on a three-hub model. The largest of those three hubs is mining and the industry is critical to the Territory’s future. This government recognises the need to support the industry through an efficient and effective regulatory process for both issuing of tenure and the approval of operations. The government also has a role in ensuring the development of industry through provision of pre-competitive, geoscientific information.
Whilst government strongly supports the industry, it also recognises that environmental expectations of the industry have changed over time. The level of environmental performance expected in 2013 is vastly higher than that which was imposed decades before. The Northern Territory has a significant number of legacy mining operations with ongoing impacts on the environment. Mount Todd is the most well-known, but there are many other sites in former mining provinces which pose ongoing threats to the environment
Legacy mines across the Northern Territory have a combined liability that may total in excess of $1bn. The Territory now has the strongest policy of remediation securities in Australia. Approximately $719m is held for all current mining operations. However, it should be clear that these securities apply to only currently approved activities. The historical disturbances are not covered. The government has taken the decision that strong action is needed to address three key factors: the effectiveness of the regulatory system; the development of the industry; and the action to address legacy mine issues. The challenge has been how to fund these initiatives in the current fiscal climate.
At the centrepiece of this bill is a new approach to funding these initiatives. The Territory currently requires mining securities to cover 100% of the rehabilitation liability of the environmental disturbance caused by the approved operation. Within the calculation of each security is a 15% contingency amount which is added to the total security to be held so the total amount is 115%. The government proposes to reduce the total amount of each security by 10% in return for payment of an annual non-refundable levy of 1% on the remaining amount. It is estimated this will generate $6.45m in revenue in the first full year of operation. It should be noted that the government will continue to hold 100% of the remediation liability, although the contingency amount will have been reduced.
The government is prepared to share a small amount of risk with the operators in order to deliver several initiatives. The approach is intended to be as cost neutral as possible. Operators with cash securities will be financially better off. The situation for operators with bank guarantees or undertakings as security is not clear because the underlying financial arrangements are commercial-in-confidence. However, these operators will receive a benefit by a reduction in the overall servicing fees and the assets that are tied to the guarantees.
A mining remediation fund will be established with the objective of identifying and assessing the environmental risks of legacy sites and undertaking works to address urgent issues. The fund will receive $2m in the first year. A small legacy mines team will be established to conduct this work. This is the first meaningful attempt by any Territory government to address legacy mine issues.
Officers employed within the mining assessment teams, technical support areas and the Environmental Monitoring Unit all work daily on legacy mining and related issues. In addition, there is ongoing work with existing operators to ensure good environmental performance and the mitigation of potential legacy impacts. For this reason, the Mining Environmental Compliance Division will receive the remainder of the funds to boost resources for this valuable work.
It is acknowledged this is a relatively small amount compared to the total liability. However, well-planned works can have a significant beneficial impact on legacy sites. It is also the government’s intention to work closely with operators of the sites where funds can be best applied to obtain maximum value. These initiatives go hand in hand with a review of the current approval system to streamline, simplify and speed up approvals. A key objective is to have mining officers spending less time behind their computers and more time in the field talking to operators.
There may be comments that current operators are being asked to pay for the sins of the past. I acknowledge that point, but the government’s view is that the mining industry bears a collective responsibility for the protection of the environment. The issue is so significant that some portion of funding must be allocated to deal with legacy mine issues. It is in the collective interests of the mining sector to see legacy sites addressed, as the continuing presence of legacy sites serves to reinforce the community opposition to mining, particularly when new developments are being proposed. Dealing with legacy issues is a critical element of a miner’s social licence to operate.
I turn to some of the specific clauses in the bill. In addition to the levy and the fund, there are a number of amendments to improve the administration of the act. There are a number of additions to the definitions of section 4 to include the fund, the levy and unsecured mining activities. Whilst the terms ‘legacy mine’ or ‘abandoned mine’ are in common use, for the purposes of the act it was important to be able to distinguish between the environmental disturbance left unremediated by previous operators and the fully secured activities of current operators. In almost all cases, legacy sites are held under current tenure, mostly by exploration companies but also some current producers. Therefore, the term ‘unsecured mining activities’ has been used as a technical description.
Section 5 has been amended to clarify the act does not apply to Darwin Port Corporation’s activities. This is to avoid potential confusion about whether the Mining Management Act would capture the export of minerals through the port. These activities will continue to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.
Section 30 has been amended to allow for the recovery of the Department of Mines and Energy’s costs in investigating an environmental incident.
Section 37 has been amended to allow for the payment of a levy to be included in an authorisation for mining activities. It should be noted this does not include the Ranger project area where the security is calculated and held by the Commonwealth government. Other changes to this section have the effect of changing the reporting requirements of the environmental mining report. The intention of this section, when introduced last year, was to require the major high-risk mines to publish a report of their environmental performance. It is not intended to remove this requirement.
However, it has been determined that a number of very small operators who are undertaking low disturbance activities would also be captured by the requirement because they were working on historical mining titles. The amendment introduces discretion so the focus of the provision applies where it was originally intended.
Section 42A is inserted to ensure Division 4 of the act, in relation to the security, does not apply to the Ranger project area.
Section 43 is amended to clarify the purpose of the security, and new section 43A is added to specify the amount of the security to be provided relates to the level of environmental disturbance for that operation. It also provides for regulations to prescribe processes around the calculation and application of a security.
Section 44A introduces the requirement to pay the levy and explains its use. New section 44B specifies the rate of the levy. The decision was taken to specify the rate in the act, rather than in a regulation, to ensure transparency about the amount to be obtained from industry.
Part 4A is inserted to establish the fund. Sections 46A to 46D establish the fund, and outline its purpose and how payments are made to and from the fund. The definition of unsecured mining activities is specified and, as I discussed earlier, section 46C also specifies that a minimum amount of the levy must be paid into the fund. That amount will commence at 33%, but my hope is it will increase significantly as the Territory’s mining industry develops. Section 46D outlines the areas on which payments may be made from the fund.
Section 78 is a small but important amendment. It extends the time in which legal proceedings must be commenced for an offence against the act from 12 months to three years. The department’s recent experience with environmental incidents is that some take significantly longer than 12 months to manifest their full environmental impact.
Section 80A is inserted to allow for an order of the DME’s costs and expenses to be reimbursed.
Section 92 is amended to clarify the existing power to make regulations about fees that may be imposed under the act. The proposed section 92(2)(ha) would allow for regulations to be made for the cost recovery of certain activities undertaken by the department.
Section 100 is self-explanatory and contains definitions.
Section 101 sets out the transition arrangements for introduction of the levy to current operations. In essence, DME will reissue existing authorisations with a clause specifying that the levy is payable.
Sections 102 and 103 specify, respectively, that the extended investigation period and the order of costs and expenses apply from the commencement date of the act, including those matters currently being investigated.
This bill represents a significant step in addressing a range of issues critical to the mining industry and the Northern Territory economy. It is acknowledged that the government will be obtaining money from industry, but the reduction in total security is intended to offset the impact. The department has held a number of discussions with industry bodies and individual operators. It is fair to say the prospect of paying a levy to the government was not popular. Notwithstanding, all those consulted have acknowledged the importance of dealing with legacy mining issues.
The government’s intention is to work in partnership with industry on implementing this program. There is no doubt the industry will benefit from improvements to the regulatory process, and the Territory population will benefit from the first meaningful program to address the legacy impacts of mining.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (CHEATING
AT GAMBLING) BILL
(Serial 29)
AT GAMBLING) BILL
(Serial 29)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Legislative Assembly would be well aware of the ongoing government and media scrutiny of the integrity of Australian sports, sports men and women, and sporting teams. The main focus most recently is the deplorable practice of using performance-enhancing drugs in sport.
Another aspect that risks the integrity of Australian sport is ‘match fixing’, as it is commonly known. Improper behaviour that manipulates the outcome of a sporting match or gambling outcome in order to obtain financial advantage has been known to occur internationally and, unfortunately, there have been allegations of it occurring in Australia. The growth of the sports betting industry, particularly the online sports betting industry, provides a new market for criminal groups to exploit.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a number of offences to prohibit cheating or fraud in gambling to enable the prosecution and punishment of those who set out to fix, or be involved in fixing, a betting outcome.
This bill has had its genesis in national agreements, ministerial councils, and working groups over the last two years or so. On 10 June 2011, the National Policy on Match-Fixing was signed by the Sports and Recreation Ministers’ Council with the aim of protecting the integrity of Australian sport. Clause 3.4 of the National Policy states:
- All Australian governments agree to pursue, through Attorneys-General, a consistent approach to criminal offences, including legislation by relevant jurisdictions, in relation to match-fixing that provides an effective deterrent and sufficient penalties to reflect the seriousness of offences.
At the 21 July 2011 meeting of the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Attorneys-General agreed to establish a working group to develop a proposal and timetable for a nationally consistent approach to criminal offences relating to match fixing.
Around this time, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission completed a comprehensive report titled Cheating at Gambling, which was released in August 2011. At the 18 November 2011 meeting of the Standing Council on Law and Justice, Attorneys-General agreed to a set of match-fixing behaviours as a baseline for new criminal offences and agreed that legislation should be developed to implement these offences with significant penalties. The Sports Ministers’ Council has also endorsed the development of legislation.
The agreed prohibited match-fixing behaviours cover the following conduct:
match-fixing behaviour 1: a person intentionally fixes or influences the outcome of a sporting event or contingency for the purposes of causing a financial benefit for themselves or any other person, or for financial detriment for any other person. Examples of this behaviour include deliberate underperformance or an official’s deliberate misapplication of the rules of the contest with the intention of gaining a financial advantage
match-fixing behaviour 2: a person provides or uses insider information about a sporting event or contingency for the purposes of directly or indirectly placing a bet where the person knows or is reckless as to the fact the outcome has been fixed
match-fixing behaviour 3: a person accepts a benefit for the purposes of fixing or influencing an outcome of a sporting event or contingency whether or not that outcome or contingency occurs
match-fixing behaviour 4: a person offers a benefit for the purpose of fixing or influencing an outcome of a sporting event or contingency whether or not that outcome or contingency occurs
match-fixing behaviour 5: a person such as a betting agency or bookmaker accepts a bet on a sporting event or contingency knowing that the outcome has been fixed
match-fixing behaviour 6: a person offers another person a benefit for the purposes of fixing or influencing the outcome of an event or contingency and encourages the other person not to report the approach to relevant authorities.
While the Northern Territory’s existing criminal laws may cover some of the six match-fixing behaviours identified by the Standing Council on Law and Justice, there are gaps in its coverage. Similarly, a survey of jurisdictional arrangements found there were various gaps in existing provisions in jurisdictions across the country.
There were two options available to the Northern Territory government and the other governments to effectively fill these gaps. The first was to create new nationally agreed and specific offences for the six behaviours. The second option was to make necessary amendments to existing criminal law and allied gaming legislation in order to comprehensively cover the six behaviours.
The second option would only have been able to be implemented in the Territory with significant amendment to existing legislation, including the Criminal Code Act, the Gaming Control Act and the Racing and Betting Act.
The Standing Council on Law and Justice Working Group recommended the enactment of specific legislation. The creation of specific offences has a number of benefits. It removes ambiguity within the criminal law and allows enforcement agencies and the courts to deal with match-fixing behaviours in an efficient manner through a clear set of offences. It demonstrates a commitment by governments to preserving integrity in sport, and sends a clear and powerful signal to the community about the criminality of match-fixing behaviours and that such conduct has serious repercussions.
The fundamental nature of match fixing is perpetrating a fraud and is a very serious offence. Therefore, the government has chosen the first option - to introduce comprehensive and targeted offences into the Criminal Code Act and to legislate for significant penalties.
New South Wales has already enacted the Crimes Amendment (Cheating and Gambling) Act 2012 which was based on the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report to which I previously referred. The other jurisdictions have implemented the agreed prohibited match-fixing behaviours also. The South Australian parliament has passed the Criminal Law Consolidation (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Bill 2012 and, more recently, the Victorian parliament passed the Crimes Amendment (Integrity in Sports) Bill 2013.
The bill I present to the Assembly today is based on the New South Wales legislation and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission model bill, with relevant modifications to comply with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act and so the penalties are constant with like NT offences and the Criminal Code Act.
I now turn to the key components of the bill. The bill proposes five new offences directed at identified match-fixing behaviours modelled on the New South Wales legislation. To assist in the interpretation of these offences a number of relevant terms require definition and explanation.
Proposed section 237A deals with definitions and lists the terms and relevant proposed sections at which they are defined.
Importantly, proposed section 237D defines event and event contingency. An ‘event’ means any event, whether it take place in the Northern Territory or elsewhere, on which it is lawful to bet under a law of the Territory, a state, another territory or the Commonwealth. An ‘event contingency’ means any contingency that is connected in any way with an event and on which it is lawful to bet under the law of the Territory, Commonwealth, state or another territory.
These definitions mean that the offences apply not only to betting on sport but to any other event on which it is legal to bet. As I previously stated, the fundamental nature of match fixing is perpetrating a fraud, and there is no sound policy reason not to criminalise corrupt conduct in relation to betting on non-sporting events. The provision for the offences to apply to event contingencies ensures the offences cover the range of bets available in the market, such as betting on a player or team to score first in a contest.
Proposed section 237B contains the definition of conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. The term applies where conduct affects or, if engaged in, would be likely to affect the outcome of any type of betting on the event, and is contrary to the standards of integrity that a reasonable person would expect of persons in a position to affect the outcome of any type of betting on the event. This is a term that is integral to the new offences. It establishes that there must be a link between the conduct and the outcome of the betting. The key risk with match fixing is in relation to betting on events, hence the conduct must be related to the outcome of betting on an event.
Additionally, the conduct must be contrary to the relevant standard of integrity. This will preclude conduct that might affect the outcome of betting, but it is not inappropriate being caught by the offences. For example, strategic or tactical decisions made during an event, honest errors and spontaneous breaches of rules resulting in penalties by players may affect a betting outcome but would not be considered contrary to the standards of integrity that a reasonable person would expect of a person in their position.
Proposed section 237C contains the definition of betting and is deliberately broad to include placing, accepting or withdrawing a bet or causing any of these things to be done.
Proposed sections 237E and 237F deal, respectively, with the definition of obtaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage and matters relating to proof of intention to do these things. The offences are limited to matters where the accused intended to gain a financial advantage, be it for themself or another, or where the accused intended to cause a financial disadvantage to another. Again, this is so the offences do not criminalise actions that may affect betting on events but do not involve any financial gain or detriment.
The person committing the offence need not personally gain the advantage and section 237F provides that it is not necessary to prove that any financial advantage was actually obtained or financial disadvantage actually caused. It is sufficient to prove that the accused meant to obtain a financial advantage or cause a financial disadvantage, or was aware that another person was meant to do so, regardless of whether the financial advantage or disadvantage actually eventuated.
I now turn to the particular offences created by the bill. Proposed section 237H creates the offence of engaging in conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. It requires proof that the person engaged in conduct that corrupts a betting outcome of an event and does so with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage in connection with any betting on the event. This offence covers the most straightforward and obvious examples of match fixing such as deliberate underperformance by a player or an official’s deliberate misapplication of the rules of the contest in order to affect the betting outcome.
More specifically, an example identified by the working group is that of a professional tennis player, strongly favoured to progress to the fourth round of a tournament, deliberately loses his third round match. Prior to the match, he or an associate places a series of bets at a variety of locations on his opponent to win the match.
Proposed section 237J creates the offence of facilitating conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. It is similar to the previous offence but covers scenarios where a person facilitates conduct by offering to engage in conduct, encouraging another to engage in conduct, or entering an agreement about conduct that corrupts a betting outcome rather than actually having engaged in that conduct themselves.
Proposed section 237K creates the offence of concealing conduct or an agreement about conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event from the appropriate authorities.
All of these offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
Proposed offences in sections 237L and 237M create offences relating to the use of corrupt conduct information and inside information. Each of these terms is defined within the respective sections. Corrupt conduct information is information about conduct or proposed conduct that corrupts a betting outcome of an event. Inside information is defined as information about an event that is not generally available and would be likely to influence the betting on the event. The use of corrupt conduct information for betting purposes carries a maximum penalty of seven years, while the use of inside information for betting purposes carries a maximum penalty of two years.
The Standing Council on Law and Justice agreed to standard penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment for the agreed match-fixing behaviours. Members will note the bill presented today deviates from the standard of 10 years in two respects and for good reason. The maximum penalty of 10 years does not accord with the current penalty for the criminal deception in the Criminal Code Act, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment if the value of the benefit defrauded is less than $100 000 or 14 years’ imprisonment if the value of the benefit defrauded is $100 000 or more.
The maximum penalty of seven years proposed for the majority of offences in this bill accords with the maximum penalty of seven years for criminal deception where the value of the benefit defrauded is less than $100 000. This is a fitting penalty and reflects the seriousness of the match-fixing behaviours proposed to be criminalised by this bill.
It may be asked why the maximum penalties proposed by the bill are not dependent on the level of the financial advantage or disadvantage to be gained or caused as they are for criminal deception in the Criminal Code Act. Apart from the variable nature of gambling and associated odds that may affect the financial advantage to be gained and therefore impact on the calculation of such advantage or disadvantage, the proposed offences do not require proof that a financial advantage was actually obtained. This differs from the criminal deception offence which requires proof that an accused obtained a benefit for themselves or for another.
A 10-year maximum penalty also lies beyond the maximum penalties for various child sex offences including: attempts to procure a child under 16 years, which carries a maximum of five years imprisonment for adult offenders; having a sexual relationship with a child, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for an offence without circumstances of aggravation; and abduction, enticement or detention of a child under 16 years for immoral purposes, which carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment. Therefore, the penalty proposed in this bill is seven years imprisonment which ensures it does not eclipse or disrupt the levelling of penalties for other types of offending in the Northern Territory while still sending a clear message these are serious offences.
Second, the penalty for the proposed offence of using inside information in section 237M, as opposed to use of corrupt information, is two years’ imprisonment and not seven years’ imprisonment as for the other offences. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission originally proposed a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment for the use of inside information; however, this penalty was revised following consultation during which numerous stakeholders expressed concern that the penalty was too high. The revised lower penalty of two years reflects the lower level of culpability and specificity of knowledge associated with possession of inside information. New South Wales has adopted a two-year maximum penalty for the use of inside information, and this is also the proposed penalty in the bills currently before the parliaments of South Australia and Victoria.
This bill reflects the collective thinking and hard work of a number of people around Australia. The new offences will send a clear message to those who intend to use corruption and manipulation in betting in sport and any other event that their behaviour will not be tolerated and, by introducing this legislation in the Northern Territory, we are closing in on the risk of safe havens for this type of criminal behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Appointment of Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Appointment of Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee of the Legislative Assembly for the purposes of examining and reporting on the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the Appropriation (2013-14) Bill 2013 and related budget documents pursuant to the terms circulated yesterday. For the sake of expediency, I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for bringing the motion before the House. Obviously, we need to do this to ensure we can have an Estimates Committee. There has been some debate between both sides around the shape and form of the next Estimates Committee. In some places we have disagreed, and agreed to disagree in some ways. We have got to where we are now which is, in many ways, similar to what we had before, with some important changes.
One of the issues we discussed with the government, both publicly and through the committee, was what kind of access we will have to public servants to answer questions in the Estimates Committee process. I welcome the changes to the draft terms of reference which made it explicit only the CEO was to be present and changed it to officer. We understand the government’s concerns about people bringing in entourages, but it is really within the hands of the minister who they bring. They know who they need present to answer questions.
Obviously, the agenda for an Estimates Committee is the budget outputs. That has been tabled today. The CEOs know their outputs; everyone knows the agenda of Estimates Committee. As a CEO, you know who can best answer the questions in each of those output items. It is quite up-front and straightforward.
Our only issue is ensuring the right officer is present to answer questions to each line item. Obviously, when it was exclusive to a CEO it would have prevented the Chief Financial Officer attending. It makes more sense that the Chief Financial Officer from each department be present to answer questions. In each of those outputs the CEO will know who they need to answer questions of an output. Some of our CEOs are quite new to their departments so it is reasonable that, while they will be across their business in general - to rise to the level of CEO you should be competent - they might not necessarily know, at each output level, some of the specificity within that output and the answers required. I completely understand the desire of the government not to have entourages but that is within their control. The CEOs can be clear about whom they need present for each output level to answer questions. From the opposition side, we want to have those people present at each of the outputs to answer the questions at that time. Obviously, estimates works best when there is free flow of questions and answers and the person present is the one to best answer the questions.
CEOs have a very good general grasp of their agencies, sometimes a quite specific grasp in certain outputs, but there are always different outputs where specific people can best answer the question. That can all be worked out well and truly in advance. We have the budget paper, we know the outputs. The CEOs will know in each output group who they need from the agency to answer the questions.
We have seen, over 11 or so years of the estimates process in operation, it is quite a sensible thing because that is what has happened in the past. CEOs have been there and are often able to answer the question but, on very specific outputs they know it is best, whether it is the Treasury expert or the agency expert on that output, because they can answer the question straightaway and that is the best circumstance.
We welcome the change in the terms of reference making it specific to officer. We had a good chat at the PAC. The letter came back from the Leader of Government Business and that was quite good. All we are asking is for each of those outputs - in a very sensible reasoned way with plenty of notice - you have the outputs here today, they have been tabled, you have plenty of notice, plenty of time for CEOs to talk to their ministers about who they might need at which of those outputs to answer questions so it can all be done well in advance. You do not need entourages, you can ensure each of those output items - you have the people capable of answering the questions. That is what works best for estimates.
At the PAC level, we are not debating this issue through the media and that has been quite a sensible course of action. We have all been quite reasonable on it and that is all we are asking. That is probably the most outstanding item to resolve through the estimates debate and discussions we have - ensuring the people who are going to be present can answer the questions.
I thank the Leader of Government Business for bringing this forward, keeping it away from the media and for being willing to talk. The outstanding question we have is about ensuring the people who can answer the questions are the ones present.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with the member for Fannie Bay in relation to the changes; they are good.
My concern is in relation to the government owned corporations. I remember much debate in various committees about whether the shareholding minister and the Minister for Essential Services should attend hearings. In fact, that was not originally the case but after much debate - I have some Hansard from the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, 18 June 2010, where Mr Tollner, in opposition, was complaining that the Minister for Essential Services was not going to turn up and he could not question him during the government owned corporations process. There was much debate about whether they should or should not, or whether they could be questioned in parliament or questioned in another part of the Estimates Committee.
What came out of that was the 2012 Estimates Committee information manual which said on page 15 under the heading Questions:
- Questions shall be put directly to either the Portfolio Minister, the Shareholding Minister or the Board Chairman. The Managing Director and other officers may assist the Board Chairman …
After all that debate, we brought on a change which allowed the Estimates Committee or other people who attended to directly question the portfolio minister, the shareholding minister or the board chairman.
I am unsure why, after that change which came from pressure from the opposition, now in government, the government now says this on the section for questions on government owned corporations. It says:
- Questions shall be directed to the Board Chairman, who may refer the question to an officer.
The portfolio minister and shareholding minister - something the government, when in opposition pushed time and time again for - has now been removed. That seems a little hypocritical because I heard the debates, and for years and years we did not allow the portfolio minister and the shareholding minister to be part of government owned corporations scrutiny. After all that fuss it was changed and now we have gone back to what it was before.
I am unsure of the logic in that. You are in parliament and you are in charge might be the logic. There was so much debate around this coming from the then opposition. It was changed. It seems peculiar now you are in government you change it to what you did not want in the first place. I am happy with everything else. I am looking forward to the Estimates Committee and agree with the member for Fannie Bay about the changes. It makes good sense allowing officers rather than just the CEO, but I would like an explanation as to why something was good one Estimates Committee ago and now it is not good in the Estimates Committee this year.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps before I respond, seeing as there are only about two minutes to lunch, rather than chop it in half we can go to lunch and pick this up again if that suits members opposite.
Debate suspended.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to Petition No 7 has been received and circulated to honourable members.
- Petition No 7
Bushland in the East Point, Ludmilla Creek and Kulaluk lease area
Date presented: 5 December 2012
Presented by: Mr Tollner
Referred to: Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment
Date response due: 15 May 2013
Date response received: 15 May 2013
Date response presented: 16 May 2013
Response:
I write in response to your letter of 5 December 2012 that forwards the terms of Petition No 7 read in the Legislative Assembly on the same date.
In June 2011, the previous Minister for Lands and Planning rezoned part of 213 Dick Ward Drive to Specific Use Zone Darwin No 37 (SD 37). This Specific Use Zone allows for light industrial and service commercial development.
I am advised that as part of the process prescribed by the Planning Act, residents were given the opportunity to comment on the rezoning proposal.
I am also advised that SD 37 requires a cultural, soil, flora and fauna study from any party seeking to develop this part of 213 Dick Ward Drive. These studies are to demonstrate that the proposed development will not cause detrimental impact on the community and the environment.
The Gwalwa Daraniki Association is operating within the terms of their constitution, as it only requires a quorum of five members to make a decision to deal in its property, for example.
The Gwalwa Daraniki Association holds a Crown Lease in Perpetuity over the subject land which does not prohibit development of the SD 37 zone. In Accordance with the Crown Lands Act the holder of a crown lease must seek consent of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for any dealings on the property, such as a sublease.
MOTION
Appointment of Estimates Committee and
Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Appointment of Estimates Committee and
Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I take from the initial debate that we have support from the members opposite to go to an Estimates Committee. I thank members for their support. I want to deal with a couple of issues.
I will start with the member for Nelson. He specifically asked questions about the decision not to put ministers in with the GOC stuff. I heard what he had to say and can understand his position. However, I also recall having the experience of asking questions about the GOCs - basically a government owned corporation - so there is an extremely limited influence a minister has over it. Nevertheless, there were calls at the time to have ministers appear at the GOC estimates. When ministers started appearing at the GOC estimates the problem was the ministers would, sadly, take a combatant stance even when they did not have to.
From the time we had GOCs where there was only the Chairman of the Board and the CE of the Power and Water Corporation present, which was a really good conversation and much information was gleaned, particularly in the area of technical questions, once ministers were in the room it had the effect of obscuring the operation of the GOCs, which was somewhat frustrating.
From the perspective of this side of the House, when we were in opposition the quality of information we got from the GOC session went backwards once ministers were in the room because of an innate predisposition to combativeness, perhaps because of the political environment. As a consequence and being aware of another truism about GOCs and ministers, the ministers not only took up a combative stance but often would not know the answers to the technical questions. As a consequence, were we getting valuable information out of a GOC with a minister present? I would argue less and, as a consequence, that determination was made.
If the member for Nelson is unhappy with that, which I suspect he might be, so be it. That is the nature of the decision and genuinely what was in my mind’s eye, and the government’s mind’s eye, at the time of making that determination.
Dealing more generally, the problem with estimates as it has run in the past, particularly while we are carrying a $5.5bn projected debt, is we have to save money. There is the ugly truth. The members opposite do not like that truth; however, when you start to ask questions about how we can save money some of the solutions you come up with are curious. I have often wondered as I have been sitting through the estimates process watching it unfold how much it costs.
When there was a change of government one of the first questions I asked was, ‘How much does this exercise cost?’ The answer was $2.4m. That is a lot of dough in tight fiscal times. I go so far as to say vaguely self-indulgent from a parliamentary perspective. You spend $2.4m worth of public money, as well as ask public servants to spend the best part of several weeks compiling a bunch of folders which try to second guess questions that might be asked, of which those folders amount to, if you are lucky, 5% referenced. Remembering the estimates process as I do, the vast majority of questions were either dealt with by the minister, the CE, and, occasionally, the Chief Financial Officer.
The other thing that became apparent is a number of questions are taken on notice and flicked off to the departments because, in spite of all of the preparation and expenditure of $2.4m, there is still not a full coverage of the field of potential questions. So, when you get a curve ball, hence the question on notice. Generally speaking, the departments have been very good in getting answers to questions on notice back quickly.
Bearing in mind the estimates process is a mission of discovery, an interrogation of the budget, there is no problem giving us questions in advance. I recall a time when we used to go through the old estimates process of the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill - some 15 years ago - and the then Labor opposition proudly announced the production of 2000 questions they had ready to go for the committee stage of the Appropriation Bill or the estimates process. It is not beyond the capacity of oppositions to put questions forward. What we have invited the opposition to do is provide us with questions so, if there are areas of particular interest, by all means provide us with written questions in advance and we will prepare for those questions so they can be interrogated properly.
If no questions are forthcoming, which seems to be the indication in a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to government, the answer will be, ‘We will deal with those questions with the minister, the CE and, possibly, one or two other senior officers in the room’. If you go into an area of technicality or difficulty that cannot be answered we will simply take the question on notice and get an answer back to you shortly thereafter.
There will be somebody sitting on the fifth floor of Parliament House monitoring this. As a consequence, we will be able to get questions to the departments quickly. There will be people in departments, I imagine, monitoring their output groups and those people - is that 10 minutes in the sin bin, Kon?
For the purposes of Hansard, the member for Casuarina was just rushing towards the door of the Chamber. I am not reflecting on his presence or otherwise, but he is answering the telephone. It is now on the permanent record of the parliament of the Northern Territory, member for Casuarina.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! No member is allowed to refer to another member’s presence or non-presence in the Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, and I did not refer to his absence or otherwise. I simply said he was in the Chamber and heading to the door. I did not reflect whether he had gone through it, but thank you for pointing out he left in the process.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Getting back to the debate at hand, we will have departmental people monitoring things and as questions come up we will get the answers as quickly as we can. I encourage the opposition to give us written questions in advance because we will genuinely prepare answers.
This government is not prepared to spend nearly $2.5m of taxpayers’ money on guessing what might be in the opposition’s mind. That is not productive. It is disruptive to our government departments for weeks, and we on this side of the House do not believe it is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday complain we are not spending enough then complain our projected debt was too high, despite the fact it was $400m less than hers over the forward estimates. She then takes great umbrage that we have offered a way forward answering as many questions as she cares to ask of the estimates process but, in the process, saving $2.4m or thereabouts.
It is a position you can take from the comfort of opposition. You want this, you want that, you want it all and you want it now. Freddie Mercury, eat your heart out! At the end of the day, this estimates process will be as transparent as any other. There will be other elements to this estimates process which had long since disappeared, not least of which is the capacity to ask questions of ministers to exhaustion. That has not happened for a long time.
How often have we seen ministers filibuster towards the end of their time because they knew if they talked long enough they would reach their time and no further questions could be asked?
We have offered that a minister can be asked questions to the point there are no more questions. It is up to the discipline of the committee to determine how …
Mr Wood: Can I hear another mobile phone ringing?
Mr ELFERINK: You probably can. Who was it?
Mr Styles: It was a cough. Did somebody cough?
Mr ELFERINK: It probably was. I was not listening.
Mr Wood: It was on the government’s side.
Mr ELFERINK: If it was on the government side …
Mr Chandler: It must have been important.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps it was the member for Casuarina ringing somebody on our side.
Mr Chandler: Stop it, Kon!
Mr ELFERINK: I have now lost my train of thought completely.
Members will be able to ask questions to exhaustion. It is up to the discipline of the committee and committee members to determine how they want to spread that out.
Of course we want some of indication, as the thing goes forward, of how much time committees may require of ministers, and that can be negotiated. However, there will not be the habit of dropping the axe simply because an arbitrary time has been reached.
There will be a capacity to continue asking questions of a minister beyond an allotted time, but if that questioning becomes repetitive or some strategy is borne out to keep the minister - perhaps even the Chief Minister - in the chair for a number of days, then it will be up to the commonsense approach of the committee chair and the committee as a whole to determine whether or not those questions are allowed to continue. Boring and repetitive questions, which are a breach of standing orders anyhow - something that reflects a strategy of members or the committee to keep a minister in the chair longer than necessary, or some other form of conduct which is considered unreasonable will drive that commonsense approach. At that stage the committee can determine to release a minister.
There will not be an arbitrary cut-off time as we have seen in the past. That being the case, there is some flexibility built into the estimates process. Once again, it is up to the discipline, particularly of the shadow ministry, to determine who gets how much time with which minister. As long as that remains reasonable and the questions remain within the boundaries of being sensible, we should have an estimates process which is more open than we have been used to.
Preparation is what this is all about. The better prepared members are to ask questions in the estimates process, including giving us questions on notice beforehand, the better the answers will be.
As I said before, this government is not prepared to see massive disruption to the public service on a fishing expedition to fill up a bunch of folders that are barely referred to. It is a waste of time and money, and is not a productive use of taxpayers’ funds or public servants’ time, who have been lined up by the dozens in the rooms around this building when estimates occured.
Various CEs are aware of this issue. Ministers have been put on notice; they know how the system will work. The shadow ministries know how the system will work. The Public Accounts Committee knows how the system will work, so much so that when they invited me to come along I considered it to be a summons and dutifully attended and explained to the committee my intent.
I look forward to an estimates process that will be effective and supported by preparation by all members who seek to ask questions in that environment. I also appreciate the requirement for ministers to prepare. I hope I am sufficiently prepared to be able to deal with the questions opposition members, and other members of the committee, may put to me.
Motion agreed to.
MARINE SAFETY (DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL VESSEL)
(NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 23)
(NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 23)
Continued from 28 March 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this bill. I thank the minister for his open communication, the opportunity for the briefing, and the Department of Transport for providing an excellent brief. It was great to catch up with officers from the Department of Transport and go through this legislation.
This debate is a good opportunity to talk about a bipartisan approach to this legislation from the previous Labor government and, now, the Country Liberal Party government, which is taking over the passage of this national uniform legislation, and also working with all the states and territories at a national ministerial council level. It is good and important legislation, known colloquially as harmonising legislation, in the interest of better efficiencies and operational procedures.
It is also a good opportunity to talk about the previous work of the Territory Labor government in attracting and building the oil and gas sector and those incredible investment opportunities which have come to the Northern Territory. One which relates directly to this legislation is the Marine Supply Base. The Marine Supply Base was visionary government work and very pragmatic in looking at the oil and gas sector and ensuring both opportunities were captured. The onshore opportunities are evidenced by ConocoPhillips and the Ichthys project and those incredible opportunities which are coming online offshore.
The Marine Supply Base will cover that base. It is good to see that project progressing through Budget 2013-14 because it is a very innovative concept for Darwin which, for me, represents the capital of northern Australia. Those opportunities will be brought to Darwin and the Northern Territory from across those exploration sites, representing wells and platforms and all the activity that goes on in the oil and gas sector. That is a jewel in the crown of the Northern Territory, representing a very good construction project going ahead, creating many jobs and, in a very critical time, saving many jobs with that fiscal stimulus approach through the effects of the global financial crisis. Ongoing, it is good to see the extra spending now - the continuation of spending - in Budget 2013-14 which will continue to develop in the maritime sector.
This national law has been developed by the Commonwealth, with the states and the Northern Territory, to implement the Council of Australian Governments Intergovernmental Agreement on Commercial Vessel Safety Reform signed on 19 August 2011. The IGA creates a single national law to regulate the safety of all commercial vessel operations in Australian waters, and to establish a single national regulator for commercial vessel safety.
I asked some questions around the new regulator, which is the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It was good to hear they have a real presence in the Northern Territory, that they are working closely with the Department of Transport and have many plans to work together into the future.
I brought with me to the briefing a perspective of the remote commercial operator in the maritime sector, and used examples such as the crabbing industry in remote areas in the northeastern Barkly. It was good to hear from the departmental officers that there is continual endeavour to engage those operators whether they are big or small, urban, regional or remote, and to continue their education and awareness through the changes, particularly with this national uniform legislation.
I also received other answers to questions I sought. One thing that needs to be mentioned, and I commend the government, is the continual work with the sea ranger programs and their operation. They are a great sector of the industry and will have much more operational capacity in the future. I believe there are more opportunities to explore federal government operations in Customs, the scientific community, and the collection of data and monitoring of the natural environment. It is good to see they are a part of the process, have their accreditation for operations well and truly under control, and are being supported by the department as they move forward creating a great innovative industry and bottom line employment and training for Indigenous people.
I always love to visit the sea rangers in Borroloola and always try, wherever I can, to get some of those younger people out of town and onto the decks of their boats, into traditional country, inspire them, and provide an exciting learning environment. This will offer them an alternative pathway to what some young people see as being a dead end.
This is certainly a gateway into the future and an exciting industry which is important not only for the young people and their families, but also their town and community, and the future safety and security of our country and natural environments.
There were also questions around definitions of vessels which were all answered by the departmental officers.
Finally, the question around the directing of vessels or the regulation of how the Territory is going to deal with it in remote areas - there was a good discussion about how the department is planning and operating in that area.
Madam Speaker, it is good legislation and I thank the minister for bringing it to the House. It is certainly keeping the Territory up there with the big end of town operating on a national perspective with a really positive COAG outcome. The Territory opposition will support this legislation.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and pass on my thanks to the minister and his staff for organising a briefing.
Like the member for Barkly, I take this opportunity to raise a few other things. In the budget brought down on Tuesday, one of the key themes was this government trying to support small business and reducing red tape. This national system complements this so I am glad to see it is fitting in with the projections from this side.
However, much needs to be done in the area of marine safety and registration and I will come to that in a minute. I will talk about the amount of money we are spending in this area over the next 12 months. We have allocated $0.3m towards marine safety, $0.5m to sustainable management of the fishery, $0.3 to a recreational fishing development plan, $0.68m to the ranger program the member for Barkly mentioned, $30 000 for a fisheries advisory board, $20 000 to support AFANT and $5000 for awards.
The national system came from an intergovernmental agreement in 2011 and covers all domestic commercial vehicles. It does not cover recreational vessels. However, it covers vessels that carry passengers and that is the area which needs addressing.
I raised concerns with the previous member for Daly about five years ago and was pretty disappointed when he never got back to me. That is why I am keen to raise these issues today.
The current status with the fishery is that all boats over 5 m need to be surveyed. This creates a problem when we have interstate builders building boats for us. This legislation will overcome that for boats over 7.5 m. However, it does not overcome the problem for our guided fishing boats over 5 m that need to be surveyed.
I will give some examples of the problems we have in this area. I, as the owner of the Daly River Mango Farm, have had two different guided fishing boats built, one locally. The first thing I hit was when we tried to get the locally-built boat put under survey and it was knocked back. Our questioning was that previous boats, exactly the same by the same builder, were currently under survey. We could not get an answer from our marine branch. Our investigations showed there was some litigation going on between the builder and the government over these boats and we felt we were caught in the sandwich.
The second boat was built in New South Wales. There have been some problems with one of the other states in this survey, but that boat was surveyed in New South Wales. They did a submersion test and everything on it - how many people you could put on the boat before it sinks. We brought it up here, took it in and again they said, ‘No, we cannot comply’. In the end they did and issued the survey. They wanted to go through everything again. This is an ongoing problem with our guides and the fishing boats they have built interstate.
Our hire boats do not carry passengers as such, but people hire the boats. I can give you an example of a problem I hit with our hire boats before they were registered. Four boats were purchased, two by me, two by someone else from the Daly. - four identical, brand new boats all complying to an Australian standard. When these boats were inspected we were told we had to put rails down the side. When I contacted the builder - a large company - they said as soon as we did that we were not complying with the compliance plate on them and not complying to the Australian standard. That was a worry, but it seemed someone decided we needed to put rails down the side of the boat.
Also, on the hire boats we had to put lanyards on our paddles and had to have certain length anchor ropes. The Daly is only 12 to 14 foot deep in most places. By the time you put all that extra equipment into 12-foot tinnies they become crowded. In fact, they were more dangerous than many of the boats you see running around.
In subsequent years, different inspectors inspected my two boats than the other two, and every time these boats were inspected we were given different indicators as to what we needed to do to comply with the boat registration. That became worse when I had an inspector rock up out at our place with his father and a boat. The government was paying for his accommodation and his father to be with him while our boats were inspected, and his father was standing with him while our boat was inspected. That was the last straw for me and I no longer hire boats.
Across the industry this has led to – many people may not be aware of this - people either not registering their boats - I know of several companies that do not register their boats as hire boats.
Some hire companies have not registered their boats and have now set up clubs. If you set up a fishing club, are a member of that club, and have a boat, you can hire it to other members without having it inspected. The best trick is guides are hiring boats - I am unsure whether they are hiring them from the clubs or if they are hiring legitimate ones - to get around the guided fishing requirements for boats.
The hire boat side of it raises several issues for me. I am off the track a bit, but I have waited for this opportunity for five years. If we are selling boats at a boat shop, brand new and complying to an Australian standard, yet our marine branch tells us we cannot hire those boats to tourists, why are we allowing Territorians to buy them? If they are not safe, why are we allowing Territorians to buy them?
I also find it unusual that we talk about the maximum motor size on boats. Anyone not in the business of hiring boats for guided fishing, and not having their boat inspected, can put any motor they like on any boat and as many people in the boat as they want. They can also drink as much beer as they like, according to the previous Labor Chief Minister.
The legislation being introduced tries to address certification. There are three types of certification: the competency of the person operating the boat; the operation for business, so we have a certificate of competency and a certificate of operation which applies to the business; and a survey for each boat.
What happens with those three things when you buy a boat privately? This is an issue with more and more boats on the Daly and will become a problem for us.
The member for Barkly talks about a bipartisan approach. I would like a bipartisan approach to look at some of this in the recreational boating area. I am not suggesting registration or anything along those lines. However, there are some controls we need to put in place similar to what we are doing with this legislation, which looks at boats under 7.5 m used in any form of commercial operation.
In summary, this is good legislation. We need to do something for hire boats and review the guided fishing requirements. After the recreational fishing marine safety awareness program is completed perhaps we need to look at how we are regulating our recreational fishing boats.
Do not interpret that as registration. I am saying people can buy any boat with any motor and off they go. About 10 years ago a person who was staying at our place was killed in a boat. That boat had a very large motor, and when you saw the boat you knew it was not safe. The people were thrown out of the boat and the boat went round and round in circles and ran over the top of this person. The person died and I was given the job of knocking on the door of the cabin where his wife was; I had to tell the wife her husband had been killed, so I feel strongly about this.
Minister, I support the legislation. I ask that we, as a parliament, look at other areas affected by marine vessels. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the marine safety legislation. The principal objects of this legislation are:
(a) to form a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, the states, and the Northern Territory that provides a single national framework for ensuring the safe operation, design, construction, and equipping of domestic commercial vehicles
This will have the main effect of promoting the safety of marine operations, the effective management of safety risks in marine operations and the marine operating environment, continuous improvement in marine safety management, public confidence in the safety of marine operations, involvement of relevant stakeholders in marine safety, and a culture of safety among all participants in the marine operating environment.
As a major trading nation and an island, Australia and the Territory are dependent on safe shipping arrangements; 99% of Australia’s international trade is by sea. Coastal shipping is very important for the transportation of Australian freight between states and the Northern Territory. It is essential the Territory join in this uniform approach to national legislation to ensure safer shipping and efficient marine transport system.
Shipping transport has a high level of risk. There has been an increase in the size and speed of ships. There has also been a sharp increase in the value of cargo carried by ships. Unless we move to a regime of uniform legislation there could be major safety problems, with the potential for very serious and costly accidents. There are also likely to be serious ongoing legal problems attempting to sort out who is legally responsible for such accidents. It does not seem sensible that as one nation we have over 50 different laws and eight different legal regimes. This leads to ad hoc standards.
The answer is to modernise maritime legislation to promote maritime safety. This will assist to build Australia’s shipping reputation internationally as well as locally. There will now be one national regulator for all commercial shipping in Australia. This will ensure appropriate safety standards are in place for commercial shipping in Australia and that these standards are not undermined by foreign-flagged vessels, for example.
Uniform maritime safety legislation will lead to confidence and certainty in Australia’s shipping arrangements. It can also be expected to lead to a reduction in the costs of bureaucracy and administration. Its main benefit to the Territory and Australia is it will improve safety outcomes by reducing risks and improvement of maritime safety management systems. This will reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of our products and producers who carry goods by ships.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me a briefing. I had difficulty reading this bill; it is different to other national uniformity bills that come before this parliament. This one is different because we are, more or less, handing over all the power to the Commonwealth – that is the way I understand it - and where you see the clauses in the bill at the beginning under Application of Commonwealth Laws as Laws of the Territory. It is different to a number of other laws where we are trying to get uniform legislation. Thankfully, people at the briefing were able to decipher some of the clauses which are not easy for a lay person to understand.
It is commendable we look at uniformity of legislation as much as possible, certainly in relation to the sea. It is obvious boats, especially those that travel intrastate, cross borders and it makes good sense to have legislation which cuts down on red tape and survey requirements. I wonder if one day we will get to the stage where we only have to have one registration of our vehicle and one licence. It may have the Northern Territory stamped on it, but it does not have to be changed just because you cross a border, and it does not mean you have to change your rego because you cross a border. Perhaps all our road rules, which are pretty well the same, have gone down the path of having, more or less, uniformity across Australia.
The other important area mentioned in the document - the differences will be overcome in this legislation and will remove some of the regulatory burden on operators. It says national standards relating to commercial vessel design, construction, operation and crewing will be adopted in the national law and provide a consistent approach and application across the nation. Other areas mentioned in the second reading:
- The good news for maritime safety operators is that, over time, the move to a national regulator is expected to deliver savings in time and money through improved productivity.
That is very important today, especially with commercial boats and commercial fishing. It is an area where we need to keep costs down but ensure boats are safe.
Thankfully, in the discussions, the Territory has been able to keep some of its peculiar interests - not necessarily peculiar, but existing arrangements are retained for the sea rangers, people working on pearl farms, and inland water tourism. It is good we still have some control and recognition. Even though we support national legislation, we have some areas which need to be looked after as being distinct from other parts of Australia.
I take up some of the issues the member for Daly spoke about. He obviously knows much about the hire boat industry. I used to have a tinnie on the Daly and enjoyed travelling on the river, but in those days there were not many boats and on the weekend you could enjoy fishing there if you were a local. Nowadays I would go bush because so many boats use the Daly and it is a fairly crowded place.
However, he mentioned some fairly interesting issues. Governments have always been scared of registration and the member for Daly said this is not about registration. The previous government got very close to bringing in identification. I am a supporter of identification, whether by the name of the boat or by a number. It makes good sense that boats have some form of identification if the boat is lost, stolen or doing something illegal.
It seems we have an uneven playing field when it comes to fishing. Commercial operators have to have an identification number on the side. People ring the NT News or e-mail a picture saying, ‘This commercial fisherman is doing something wrong and here is the ID number on the side of the boat’. However, if someone in a tinnie is doing something they should not be in regard to netting, crabbing or taking too many fish, it is difficult to identify those people.
You also need identification in case your boat is stolen or lost, and we were very close to that. At Howard Springs fishing club there was agreement they would go along with the principle of identification. It would have cost about $5 and the club would have been willing to put the names on a database. If you had a name like ‘Blue Wing’ you had to have ‘Blue Wing 2’ or ‘Blue Wing 3’, if you had the same number, or you put a number on the side of your boat. That should be looked at.
I am not a great fan of registration because I believe it is impractical. For a small population over a large area the cost of administering registration would probably run at a loss. Whilst it might produce income we could use for more boat ramps etcetera, administering and policing that type of system would be quite expensive.
Alcohol has always been an interesting subject when it comes to boats. If you drive a car with six people in it you will be arrested for being over the limit. You can drive a boat with a fair bit of alcohol in you and you are not necessarily going to have anything happen to you unless there is an accident. They might say you were in charge of the vessel and did not take sufficient care. It seems driving a boat - the boats we are talking about now, as the member for Daly said, have huge engines and are capable of quite high speeds. As far as I know, you do not need a licence to drive a high-powered boat. You buy your boat and, as long as it has all the safety equipment, you can use it around the harbour or in the ocean. In some cases they are probably more powerful than small cars. It seems a bit of an anomaly that there is not some restriction on the person who drives the boat and the amount of alcohol they can consume.
I know the Territory lifestyle keeps coming up, and government sometimes says it does not want to over regulate, but there seems to be a lack of consistency when you can put limitations on people driving a car - the amount of alcohol they can have in their blood - but there is no similar restrictions on people driving boats. That is a gap in legislation and, if it is not going to be looked at by government, it needs to be put out for discussion.
The other area the member for Daly mentioned was uniformity when it comes to safety. The government needs to look at that. From reading this legislation - it does not cover all the little boats - it seems the safety requirements have become uniform. If we need to apply common sense to some of the more inland water operations, then the government could pick that area up as well.
I thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward. I thank the Marine Safety Branch and the people who looked at the complexity of this legislation. It has taken a fair bit of time to get through this and to a stage where it is before parliament. I thank those people for all the hard work.
I guess the proof will be in the pudding. Will this make a difference, because this is what the legislation has claimed? If people are going to say legislation will do this or that, somewhere down the track there is a responsibility of the government to say, ‘We can show you the benefits of this legislation’. If the legislation is passed but does not improve safety or productivity, reduce burdensome regularity processes or save money, then you would have to ask if the legislation is needed or requires upgrading. It would be good of government to review the effectiveness of this type of legislation two or three years after it has been implemented and report to parliament on its usefulness or otherwise.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. The member for Barkly, as the former minister, understands the virtues and importance of national reform. He was the minister working on this previously so I thank him for his support. The member for Daly made a very accurate contribution, particularly on historical issues concerning utilisation of commercial vessels in different jurisdictions and how they can operate in the Northern Territory. The member for Stuart gave a very good presentation about the importance of this legislation, as did the member for Nelson.
I note the comments from the member for Nelson about alcohol consumption. I will continue to think about how that might be considered into the future. It is not on the agenda, but I will think about it. I note your comments about being interested in bringing in licensing for recreational vessels …
Mr Wood: Identification of a boat.
Mr GILES: Boat registration?
Mr Wood: No, just identifying it. You are required to have a number.
Mr GILES: I thought you were talking about licensing. I will have to check the Hansard.
For the Northern Territory, national reform legislation in regard to commercial vessels presents an opportunity to allow the free flow of trade, vessels, and so forth amongst different jurisdictions. It provides a more secure regulatory framework, increases our uniformity, and provides a grandfathering component up until 2016 to allow people to get in line with the new reform agenda.
I thank the department for the work it did, particularly in the consultation phase in coordination with AMSA, and working with the industry so it understands the changes. There will be more people taken up in regard to the safety network of this legislative framework.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Transport) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, after the next bill I move that we go into tabled papers and then ministerial statements. The effect will be to debate the environmental health bill, then there will be a quick tabled paper from one of the committees, then we will move into statements and then go back to the Appropriation Bill to finish off the day.
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 31)
(Serial 31)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the Minister for Health has been called away. I will be running this bill on behalf of the Minister for Health if that is okay.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, there is no problem with this bill. I understand the reason it has to be extended for a period of time. The only comment I make is that in her speech the Minister for Health tried to score some political points by saying the drafting of the legislation was delayed by a significant amount of time: about two years. That was done on purpose. From my previous experience, having worked in the field as the manager of environmental health, I understand that drafting legislation is often not simple, especially legislation to address issues from a number of regulators like public health, shops, boarding houses, barber shops, general sanitation, use and prevention, and noxious trades. The intention was to delay the drafting of the regulations until the industry was consulted so industry was not faced with a new set of regulations it has not been aware of or has not contributed to.
We believe it is better to work with the industry rather than against it. We have not heard any complaints from the industry with regard to the drafting of these regulations. I am quite happy to approve this amendment as put by the minister because it is for the good of the industry and the public.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. I had a briefing from the department this morning and the reasons were explained to me. Generally speaking, I am always concerned about bills going through on urgency. When you consider what happens in other parliaments - as I discovered in my travels - where some legislation has to go to committees, as happens in Queensland, we push legislation through fairly quickly - more than other parts of Australia and Commonwealth countries.
It made sense, when explained, that the department could have come up with regulations in time for this bill to satisfy the calendar requirements, but that would have risked introducing regulations that were not good quality or not been through proper processes and scrutinised. From the point of view of good governance, which is something I have asked the government to reconsider, especially in relation to the alcohol mandatory rehabilitation bill, this makes sense. In other cases, more time - as with the bill I am talking about - putting it through to committee stage would also make good sense. However, as it is, I support the amendments to the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I thank honourable members for their understanding in relation to this. It is quite a sensible approach. It is unfortunate this has been held up in the way it has, but there were two forms of urgency available. First, you urgently sorted out these regulations and, therefore, ran the risk of error and mistake, or alternatively, we move this bill on urgency so we could slow down the process of hurrying up. That sounds counter intuitive, but it is what we are voting for today. As far as we are concerned, and, obviously other members of this House are concerned, this is commonsense legislative change. It is not controversial, and it is sometimes better to hurry up by slowing down.
Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their assistance in the matter.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Pillars of Justice
Pillars of Justice
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this government is taking responsible action to deal with the scourge of criminal and antisocial behaviour in our community, and is developing a comprehensive policing, justice, and corrections strategy which will be integrated across our government departments which tackle repeat offending, violence, and substance abuse. Our strategy is enshrined as pillars of justice.
The lead minister on this task will be the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and Correctional Services, the member for Port Darwin. However, as minister for Police and Chief Minister, I will be responsible for bridging the beginning, the laws of the land, with the middle, the policing and enforcement, and the ending, the actions of the corrections and youth justice systems. In speaking on these important issues, I bring this statement to this House.
This is a whole-of-government priority. It will be a root and branch reassessment of the way in which laws are administered, the scope of the legislation, and a focus on reducing the overall length of crime and antisocial behaviour in our community.
The five fundamental components of this package are police, courts, corrections, youth justice, and victims. We are all integrated and necessary adjuncts to this policy, together with the sixth pillar which identifies some of the legislative changes required. The emphasis we are putting on these aspects does not preclude the need for a continuing focus on prevention or early intervention and correction by addressing offending behaviours. These factors are prominent.
Prevention initiatives will always be more effective than treatment, and we must radically improve our efforts with crime suppression and reduction. Members will already be aware of the work undertaken to implement new laws in the Territory, to strengthen existing laws, and to provide legislative guidance to the judiciary: laws such as the Police Administration Amendment Act, which gives power to police to obtain a sample of saliva from a suspect to test for the presence of dangerous drugs; the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Act; the one punch homicide laws; the Criminal Code Amendment (Assault on Workers) Act, protecting people in their place of work - those just doing their job - the Bail Amendment Act and Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Act, dealing with the powers of police being able to enforce orders or conditions made prohibiting persons from consuming alcohol and other drugs by testing for compliance; the Victims of Crime Assistance Amendment Act which increased the levies on court imposed orders, infringement notices, and enforcement orders; and the Serious Sex Offenders Act which provides for the continuing detention or supervised release of serious sex offenders who are deemed to be such a serious danger to the community that regulation of the offender is warranted post-sentence.
The pillars of justice strategy extends beyond enacting legislation. The government commitment to increasing police numbers has been widely discussed over the last year. The focused deployment of adequate numbers of police officers is critical to any attempt to identify, act on, and reduce criminal activity. The preventative capability of the Northern Territory Police Force is widely recognised. Our plan has been to further improve the responsiveness of the Police Force by giving it the tools and resources it needs. I am committed to ensuring police in the Northern Territory are equipped with the necessary tools to deter criminal behaviour and reduce the occurrence of crime and the consequential impact on victims.
Our decisions have been to make concrete commitments to additional support and call centre staff across the Territory, plus more frontline police and better facilities at stations in urban centres and in the bush. It is important to us that police are given the proper tools with which to do their job. I doubt we will ever reach the stage where police can completely avoid written records; however, we can certainly move much further down this path than the present situation.
The practical impact of the need to satisfy evidentiary and court purposes with onerous written accounts and reports sees police diverted from patrolling our streets into offices and sitting at computers. Early arrest can see police numbers migrate from the front line to the back office for the majority of their shift to do the paper work. It is at this time, particularly on an evening shift, that criminal behaviour escalates. I am convinced we can truncate the recording requirements without sacrificing the protections written orders offer.
Obviously, the courts have a role to play in these matters, but some good work has been done by the police in this area. I can report we have some sound policy options to work with.
This government committed a frontline focus on service delivery across all agencies when we came to government, and over the past nine months this objective has been substantially realised. We committed to an extra 120 police officers across the Northern Territory to strengthen first response, crack down on antisocial behaviour and increase policing activities. Section 128 of the Police Administration Act prescribes circumstances where a member may, without warrant, apprehend a person and take them into custody for the purpose of a protective custody. This provision is intended to be used in circumstances where the person has not, or is not yet, suspected of committing an offence but is placed into custody for his or her own protection due to their level of intoxication, risk of self-harm or harm to others, or where the person is considered likely to commit an offence. Under section 128, the person may be held in custody for as long as it reasonably appears the person remains intoxicated and/or until 7.30 am.
Section 123 of the Police Administration Act describes the powers of the police to make an arrest or take persons into custody where a reasonable belief is held that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence. For a range of minor public order offences, particularly under the Summary Offences Act and the Liquor Act, police issue an infringement notice and/or may seek to place the person in protective custody under section 128 of the Police Administration Act where the person is intoxicated despite evidence of an offence.
While this is permissible under the legislation, it often results in the person being released from custody with no penalty for the original offending behaviour other than spending a period in custody. To put that in perspective, for the current operating year between 1 July 2012 and 28 February 2013 there have been just over 37 000 antisocial incidents across the Northern Territory. While this is a 4.9% reduction on the same period in 2011-12, this remains a significant issue for the Northern Territory Police.
It has been proposed that, where a person is suspected of having engaged in proscribed antisocial behaviour in breach of the Summary Offences Act or the Liquor Act, the police should have the power to apprehend the person into custody for a defined period up to four hours before releasing them with an infringement notice.
When it comes to antisocial behaviour linked to alcohol, there can be no doubt this government is serious about mandatory rehabilitation as a pathway to treatment. We care. Northern Territory Police have been engaged in ongoing meetings with the Department of Health in relation to the introduction of the mandatory treatment health regime. Where trigger is met, police will assist in the transportation of persons taken into protective custody to the health assessment centres. The police are also actively working with the Department of Attorney-General and Justice to ensure the trigger mechanism is automated as much as possible to accurately identify persons meeting the trigger and minimising the impost on frontline policing.
Further to the application of this government’s policy on mandatory treatment, the commissioner has proposed the introduction of police-issued alcohol protection orders under the Liquor Act. This is supported by the announcement by the Deputy Chief Minister last Friday, who has carriage of the issue through Cabinet. The proposal will support the achievement of the government’s target of a 10% reduction in crime and further strengthen the tools available to the police responding to the alcohol-related criminal offending, including family violence.
I used the word ‘scourge’ at the start of this statement in the context of those who abuse alcohol. The word describes one who causes universal affliction or disaster and that is what we witness in the Northern Territory. The physical and emotional effects of violence on victims are well-known. Tragically, we have intolerable levels of violence perpetrated on women in the Northern Territory, most of it alcohol-fuelled. People also die or are injured in road accidents caused by cars driven by drunk drivers. There is also the damage to an individual’s health and wellbeing through excessive alcohol consumption.
The introduction of alcohol protection orders will complement the government’s mandatory treatment initiative, which targets problem drinkers detected for the defined trigger level of protective custody incidents within a two-month period. We know the scale of the impact of alcohol-related offending, including family and domestic violence on the community. Whilst there are existing tools available for police to target antisocial behaviour and public order offending such as banning notices and other provisions under the Liquor Act, these tools target public order offending. They are not specifically designed for targeting and deterring criminal offending behaviour associated with alcohol, particularly where the offending behaviour does not occur in a public designated, restricted or alcohol-protected area.
I am supportive of the introduction of a law enforcement tool to provide police with the power to issue alcohol protection orders specifically designed to target offenders in alcohol-related crime. The introduction of these orders would act as a deterrent to alcohol-related criminality and reduce the occurrence of crime and the impact on victims. The core elements of the proposed provisions are as follows:
an alcohol protection order can be issued to any person who is charged with an offence carrying a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or more, where alcohol was a factor, including offences under the Traffic Act
As a major element of parole reform, the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services the Attorney-General’s department and the Northern Territory Police are working in partnership to investigate the most suitable product for introduction of electronic monitoring, or EM, to the Northern Territory.
This is a system of monitoring offender behaviour and location using devices attached to a person’s body and a link to a telecommunication system and control centre. EM has the ability to quickly alert monitoring agencies when an offender may be in an unauthorised location. The introduction of EM allows for corrections and the Northern Territory Police to locate and track movements of adult and youth offenders who are subject to supervision orders outside their home, whilst serving as a deterrent against further crime.
EM technology consists of a personal device worn by the offender, a base device placed in the home, place of employment or a court specified location, and a monitoring device which is the personal computer of the supervising community corrections officer. These components are connected to a central server which is the hub for an EM system. A review of the requirements is being conducted and legislation, IT and operational considerations are currently being canvassed to identify and understand the extent of work required to successfully implement EM.
On 22 March 2013, the Attorney-General met with the South Australian Minister for Correctional Services, Hon Michael O’Brien. During the visit, the South Australian Department of Correctional Services demonstrated how their current radio frequency, RF, electronic monitoring technology is used to monitor offenders on back end release orders and bail. At this time they monitor 60 offenders on back end release and approximately 240 defendants on bail.
This model works in remote areas and remote capability will be written into the requirements for the Northern Territory tender. There is an opportunity to explore partnership options with South Australia in respect to future use of electronic monitoring within the Northern Territory. The implementation of 24/7 offender location monitoring through the use of such GPS devices can lead to the swift detection of those who continue to offend and can deliver reductions in crime through changes in behaviour leading to offender desistance. It will enable the close monitoring of domestic violence offenders to provide protection and confidence where an offender is released back into the community.
This is another strategy to be put in place which Northern Territory Police believes will actively contribute to reducing crime by 10% in the Northern Territory.
I turn to the subject of youth offending. Supporting young people is a core function of any government. My mantra is, and always will be, that employment is the issue - the opportunity to qualify for a job, gain a job and keep a job. To walk away from our youth who go off the rails, but have the potential to grow up and mature as responsible members of the community, is not an option. The number of young people in juvenile detention is small but increasing. The age group has also changed in recent years. It is disturbing to see it includes children younger than 15 years of age. Youth justice functions have been transferred to the Youth Justice Division within the Department of Correctional Services in order to create a more streamlined and centralised approach to the delivery of services to young people in, or at risk of, entering the justice system. To reduce the rate of crime and juvenile detainee numbers, the coordinated approach and comprehensive response to young people in or at risk of entering the justice system is needed.
Reforms are required at all levels, as identified in the September 2011 youth justice system review, to enable the strategic targeting and delivery of services to support the reduction in youth crime and juvenile detainee numbers this government is committed to achieving.
The Review of the Northern Territory Youth Justice System identified the requirement for a continuum of services to address the increasing number of young people who offend and reoffend, and the increasing number of young people in detention. This government is committed to ensuring young people who offend are dealt with fairly but firmly and are diverted from a life of crime.
The Department of Correctional Services will be developing an integrated service system for young people in, or at risk of entering, the justice system. This will include effective challenging and targeting programs coupled with therapeutic intervention and follow-up. There will be a review of the family responsibility program; consideration of the introduction of youth justice teams who may perform more roles that may be required during a young person’s involvement with the justice system; the piloting of early intervention and sentenced detainee youth boot camps; discussion with NT Police diversion units about the possibility of expanding the delivery of community-based diversion programs; and development of pilot bail support services to address the high number of young people in detention on remand.
Overwhelming national and international evidence suggests shifting funding from high-cost interventions at the end of the justice system such as detention, to more cost-effective early intervention prevention measures, is an approach to reducing offending and recidivism and moving young people away from the justice system and becoming long-term criminals.
The youth justice strategy is being developed to support a coordinated and comprehensive approach to youth justice services across the Territory. Further information will be advised by the Attorney-General as progress is made.
In conclusion, across all the pillars of justice in this government’s law reform we are committed to introducing effective deterrents, empowering police and the courts, supporting and protecting victims of crime, emphasising training and the route to a more positive future, assisting young people to stay out of the youth justice system, and working towards meeting the expectations of the Northern Territory community.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House and move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement before the House this afternoon. We wonder about this statement, this puff piece - a term the member for Greatorex loved using because he hated ministerial statements. This statement is little more than the government creating and developing policy by Google. The five Pillars of Justice is a lofty-sounding title for a ministerial statement and one stolen from a first year legal studies textbook. However, I concede the Chief Minister has changed a couple of the five pillars around to suit his needs and is using the term ‘victims’ instead of ‘community’.
This is the level of desperation the CLP has sunk to. They whip up a statement on what is, without doubt, a crucial and central issue of importance - law and order, protecting Territorians, families, children, and men and women no matter where they live - and trivialise it, dress it up and fill in time on the floor of this House with little substance behind it. This statement proves all the tough on crime talk I have heard in my four years sitting on the benches on that side of the House, and now sitting in opposition after eight months of the new CLP government, was and it still is just rhetoric. Four years in opposition, eight months in government, and it is still just rhetoric.
This is the kind of statement you give when you know you have failed. The first sentence of the statement says it all, ‘We are developing a strategy’. Really? Is that where we are? On the back of all that tough talk before the election, with baseless election commitments, they get into government and spend eight months fighting amongst one another, reshuffling Cabinet and egos battling to be Chief Minister. Nine months later the CLP tells Territorians they are starting to develop a policy. Is this government serious?
What happened to the bold and boastful commitments contained in the CLP’s post-election action plan? There it is, post-election action plan with action man, the member for Blain, now sitting on the backbenches.
What happened to those commitments? I quote directly from the post-election action plan, to immediately:
- remove drunks from our streets
crackdown on antisocial behaviour
enforce mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers
support two boot camp programs for juvenile offenders, one each in Darwin and Central Australia
Last time I checked a dictionary, ‘immediately’ meant right now, but we are nine months down the road. The Chief Minister stated:
- It is important to us that police are given the proper tools with which to do their job.
Why is it the police told the Chief Minister the Banned Drinker Register was the best tool they had to crack down on alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour and he completely ignored that advice? They were right, he is wrong.
The CLP is not interested in supply of alcohol issues and, worse, is even prepared to see alcohol reintroduced to Aboriginal communities. It was even a platform for one member in a bush electorate that there would be the return of heavy beer to their social club if they voted for him.
There is no recognition from this government that alcohol is at the core of so much crime and subsequent misery in the Territory, including the most vulnerable women and children.
If you restrict access to alcohol you will reduce crime, a truism completely ignored by the CLP. I note the Chief Minister has dropped his claim that crime is coming down. It is curious that is not mentioned anywhere in his statement. Clearly, the Chief Minister has realised no one believes those earlier and incorrect claims that crime was reducing. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
The lack of support for the CLP government’s law and order policy has been deafening. Correct me if I am wrong, but in everything the CLP has said or announced on law and order, not one single person working in the field has supported the government’s law reform. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Many have attacked the government, but I cannot recall any party that has supported the CLP government.
There is any number of media releases from stakeholders and experts like NAAJA and the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory. Not only do they criticise, they also offer support, advice, and the opportunity to consult with the government. Whilst the government may go through the motions of thinking it has consulted and has taken people’s concerns on board, it ignores them completely and goes blindly forward along its own path.
What about members of the judiciary who, in their sentencing remarks for instance, comment about things like the unrestricted flow of alcohol or the harshness of minimum mandatory sentencing and the terrible blurring of those lines between politics and the judiciary from an Attorney-General unable to make those judgments? Someone who, at the end of the day, is a politician hell-bent on telling judiciary about what they can and cannot do in a court of law when it comes to sentencing people.
Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but I bet you London to a brick that for every supporter you could name I can name 10 others who will point out nothing you are doing is working or will work. In fact, experts have said, in relation to most of your policies, they will increase crime, not to mention increase prisoner numbers.
I remind the Chief Minister of remarks he made in this House a few years back which say a good deal about his approach to dealing with offenders and the vision of the model he has, or perhaps had, for corrections.
I quote from the Parliamentary Record of 20 October 2010:
- I would love to be the Corrections minister. It is not the portfolio I really aspire to but, if I was the prisons minister, I would build a big concrete hole and put all the bad criminals in there. ‘Right, you are in the hole, you are not coming out. Start learning about it’. I might break every United Nations’ convention on the rights of the prisoner but, ‘Get in the hole’.
There is no interest in the continuation of the SMART Court, a system implemented by the former Labor government which the Chief Magistrate and others have praised for its effectiveness, and which deals with people with a drinking problem who have offended but have committed non-violent offences. The SMART Court is due to be repealed and, as a result, we will see those people heading straight to prisons. Tragically, this statement is not much more advanced than that ridiculous rhetoric about digging a hole and putting criminals in it.
The Chief Minister referred to electronic monitoring. It is good to see he continues to build on the body of work established by the former Labor government to make this a reality, because it has been worked on for some years. This is not something new the CLP suddenly discovered. I am pleased to hear the member for Port Darwin travelled to South Australia recently to take lessons on electronic monitoring - a very worthwhile trip. I am sure he is listening to the Labor government in South Australia because, clearly, the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister have much to learn from it.
The Chief Minister made a very important point when he said towards the end of his statement:
- Overwhelming national and international evidence suggests shifting funding from high-cost interventions at the end of the justice system such as detention, to more cost-effective early intervention and prevention measures, is an approach to reducing offending and recidivism ...
I could not agree with him more.
Chief Minister, it is called justice re-investment, but it is the exact opposite of everything this government is doing. You are doing nothing to shift funding from the end point of detention to an intervention/prevention mode. Not only is justice re-investment a smart, effective, and proven way to work with those at risk of offending, it is a far cheaper way to work and a better way to spend taxpayer dollars.
The statement also made reference to developing a youth justice strategy. There already is a youth justice strategy - the Attorney-General has grudgingly acknowledged its existence - and you can now find it on the Northern Territory government website. The person who wrote it is now working in your office. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, just implement it and the nine recommendations it contains. It is a very good, thorough review which tackles youth justice issues in the Territory and proposes sound and sensible recommendations based on contemporary best practice recognised around the world. Despite those nine recommendations, the new government insists on putting youth justice within Corrections, a real no-no in best practice terms.
In the CLP’s election television advertisements and printed election propaganda they said serious young offenders will be sent to boot camp. This commitment was to have been implemented immediately not nine months down the track; however, no one has gone to boot camp. No one has been packed off to a military style boot camp, which are also condemned for their punitive nature and not regarded as best practice. While implementing nothing in that sphere, before Christmas, in their wisdom, they scrapped Balunu, an organisation which was having success in dealing with youth at risk and young offenders. That got the chop. Sounds a little like the Banned Drinker Register. Scrap something that is working and replace it with nothing.
All this ministerial statement says is you will pilot boot camps. There is not a scrap of detail about this. According to the Attorney-General, the trial was supposed to have commenced in May. We are halfway through May and still nothing. Noting this strategy is led by the Attorney-General reminds me of when he was leading the alcohol policy. That was a massive failure, was it not? Battling as he was with the member for Fong Lim, who had different ideas about alcohol policy, and next thing we knew the Attorney-General was taken off alcohol policy. I suspect this plan will be exactly the same and the Chief Minister will work out policy direction, based on the weird and wonderful world of the member for Port Darwin, is not heading in the right direction and youth justice and badly named boot camps will be taken off the Attorney-General as well.
This government does not consult; it does not listen to Territorians and breaks promises every step of the way. It is one thing not to listen to Territorians, but to ignore the advice of experts is shameful. To ignore the advice of eminent individuals from the legal fraternity is shameful. To not utilise the expertise and independent non-political advice which flows from the NT Law Reform Committee is sheer arrogance.
This is a government that says it knows what is best for you because the member for Port Darwin not only has a law degree but 20 years of policing experience. The member for Port Darwin says, when asked why he dismisses evidence-based policy and the advice of legal expertise, ‘Because it is my opinion’.
The rhetoric from the government in this statement from a Chief Minister nine months into government shows they do not have a plan and, worse, they do not have a clue.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Wow! There you go, look at that. One of the sad things about that is much is being done in this space and we will roll it out over the next couple of years. Something I have noticed from the members opposite is they have taken the opposition benches to heart and produce levels of bitterness I find astonishing. Exemplified by her interjection today about the Chief Minister’s race and that he was a shame to Aboriginal people, more of that attitude is now being projected.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My comments were definitely not based on race; they were based on his leadership and his failure to deliver to Indigenous Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, the Chief Minister told me he was not offended by those statements.
Mr ELFERINK: I was, Madam Speaker. I found those comments offensive and definitely based on race, but let us get on with it. Unfortunately, unpleasantness is a …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you may wish to make a personal statement at a later stage today in regard to those comments.
Ms WALKER: I may well do that, Madam Speaker, but I wish to make the point of order that the Chief Minister did not ask for a withdrawal of any comments I made. You asked him if he found them offensive and he said no. I would have happily withdrawn had I been asked.
Mr ELFERINK: Unpleasantness has become the hallmark, in the absence of anything else. The shadow minister’s reply was a little more than 10 minutes and was just an angry rant. I will pick up on a couple of points she made. She said this is hollow rhetoric and we are not doing anything. Fifty-three prisoners went to work this morning as part of this government’s hollow rhetoric. That is a damn sight more than those who went to work under former Corrections ministers. It is not hollow rhetoric; those people’s lives are being changed.
Let us get back to what we are talking about. As Attorney-General I have been given an opportunity, by the Chief Minister, to look at law reform, particularly in the area of the criminal justice system, from before arrest to beyond parole. There will be pillars, but between the pillars will be a lattice of communications so we put appropriate policies in place which will work all the way across the pillars. An independent department like police will have paperwork and systems in place which will complement the court system. The court system will have processes in place which will complement a model of swift justice. We will have a corrections system in place which will also complement the courts and the police. The three will complement each other.
Youth justice will be a pillar in its own right. For the first time in history, victims will be seen as a group of people who will be dealt with as a part of the criminal justice system and, under the Country Liberals, will be a pillar in their own right.
This means there are a number of things we can do to enable us to roll out policy that will vastly improve the operation and administration of the criminal justice system in the Northern Territory. Some of the ideas in relation to victims include the right for victims to have input into the parole system. They currently have input into the court system, but there is room for them to make submissions to a parole board. We are looking at a sex offender website to find a way to identify sex offenders in the community.
The paperless arrests referred to by the Chief Minister will never be entirely paperless. If police officers feel they will not be tied up at a police station for an hour-and-a-half or two hours to process somebody for a simple street offence, yet that person needs to be removed from the public domain, then we can find and implement systems to see police officers in the police station no longer than it takes to process a drunk under section 128 of the Police Administration Act, which is a few minutes, and so it should be. Unfortunately, the burden of paperwork that has grown for policing on the streets, particularly under the former government, means police become what I have described in the past as arrest adverse, and for good reason. If you are sitting in a police station doing paperwork your shift sergeant will be poking you on the head on a busy night saying, ‘Get back out on the road; they need you’.
What the police tend to do, by necessity, is move people on rather than apprehend them. However, when you move a person on and do not arrest and take them into custody, you have, essentially, created a situation where you will possibly be arresting them a few hours later, perhaps at 3 am or 4 am. That person will then be arrested for a serious crime such as a serious assault. It is much better to get those people off the streets earlier in the evening. A system of, essentially, paperless arrest for minor offences would be a wonderful way to go. That is one of the processes we want to roll out.
In the area of justice reform, there are a number of issues of concern in our court hearings. Currently, a defence lawyer can walk into the court, as is their right, put their hand up on behalf of their client and say the client pleads not guilty, or the client themselves can plead not guilty. That means a hearing date is set or a contest mention is set aside and, as a consequence, you have a file going back to the police station where the defence simply runs the line, ‘We plead not guilty on all fronts’. This means a file has to be prepared.
As I witnessed recently in Nhulunbuy while sitting in the Court House looking at a matter which was supposed to come to hearing, there was an eleventh hour change of plea to guilty because there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate the offender had committed the crime for which he stood indicted. The police had to run around and collect all the evidence for a guilty plea which should have been made in the first place because of the acknowledgement of the guilt of the offender.
In response to that - and this is not a new problem for the Northern Territory - other jurisdictions have initiated a system of pretrial conferencing, including a system of pretrial disclosure. Where this has been introduced in Victoria, the number of hearings went from 7000 to a little under 3500 in 12 months. What happens in that environment is, essentially - and this is an over simplification - when a not guilty plea is entered the magistrate says, ‘We will not set a hearing date’. The prosecution and defence go into a room and are required to have a conference about the matter. Pretrial disclosure requires that both sides, basically, play with an open hand.
This is already done in law in the civil courts. In a civil dispute, if you walk into a lawyer’s office you have a less that one chance in 10 of ever going to court because lawyers are, by virtue of the civil processes, pretty much required to talk about all aspects of the dispute so there are no surprises in the court case.
Where this can work particularly well is in the lower courts which are, for a lack of a better term - some people describe them as the sausage factory, I refer to them as the meat grinders of the judicial system. They deal with 95% of the matters heard in the Northern Territory. In a process of pretrial conferences and pretrial disclosures, essentially what happens is you have a conversation. The prosecutor says, ‘Okay, you are pleading not guilty’. The defence’s answer is ‘Yes’. The prosecutor then asks, ‘Why are you pleading not guilty?’ The defence responds, ‘Because my client says he was not there’. At that point the prosecutor can open the file and say to the defence, ‘We have CCTV footage, five statements and five photographs of your client on the scene at the time’, at which point the lawyer may want to talk to their client again and there may well be a change of plea.
Alternatively, that same conversation is held, the prosecutor opens the file and suddenly sees the whole prosecution case is predicated on the evidence of a single witness who was drunk at the time. That means there is an opportunity for the prosecution to pull the file because they know they do not have sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute the matter. Either way, the hearing does not go ahead and the result from the pretrial conference would have been exactly the same as the hearing would have been.
That is a substantial change to our system. I have briefly spoken to the Chief Magistrate about the concept of pretrial conferencing. She has nominated a model she is more attracted to and, as we roll this out, we will look at models appropriate to the Northern Territory for some very good outcomes.
I have spoken in a ministerial statement before about what we are doing in the area of Corrections. I heard the submissions by the shadow minister bleating about boot camps. Those boot camps will roll out. In fact, the I-camps - intervention camps - will roll out on time and we will see which model works best because we are going to settle potential winners of the longer-term contracts and trial a few of those. As a result of the trials this month we will report back to the House on how those intervention camps work. The detention camps will also roll out in an appropriate time once I, the government, and the department are satisfied we have an appropriate provider. A number of providers are close and we are in negotiations with them as to how they will run.
That takes me to the corrections environment, which is one of the pillars - Sentenced to a Job, sentenced to a future. A total of 53 prisoners left prison this morning and went to work in full-time jobs. These are low security prisoners who this government has said should not be in gaol during the day because they are healthy people and are of low risk to the community, so the government organised jobs for them. Today there are 53, and by the end of the year we are aiming at 200 and are on track to achieve that.
We are enabling people to leave prison whilst they are serving prisoners, travel to work, do a day’s work, earn a day’s pay, come back to custody that evening, pay $125 a week board, pay 5% of their income to a victim’s assistance fund, and the rest goes into trust, other than a small amount for incidental expenditure in the gaol. When they leave gaol, rather than the door of the gaol house hitting them on the backside and them being unemployed with no future, they have a start-up fund of around $15 000 to $20 000 and a job to go to.
The next step in the pillars and reform process is to create a system of group accommodation for parolees. Conditions of parole will include: you will reside in the group accommodation; you will keep a job; you will pay your rent; and you will follow all the lawful directions of your parole officer or community corrections officer. The effect of that will be not only will we be able to keep people in a job during the last six months of their sentence, we will be able to keep them in a job in a supervised environment for 12 or 18 months after they leave custody.
I heard the member opposite say that 80% of our prison population is Aboriginal, but there is a better correlation to use. If you are looking for a correlation, ask how many people were unemployed and welfare dependent at the time they committed their offence because you end up with a much higher number. I am not dealing with custody as an Aboriginal issue. This government and I are dealing with custody as an employment issue. If people leave prison having had a job, having some dignity and a sense of self-worth and they keep that job in the parole environment, the chances of them returning to custody are sharply reduced. If anybody watched the 7.30 Report a week ago on the Sentenced to a Job program, they would have seen prisoners serving out the last days of their sentences saying, ‘This is terrific. The stress of not knowing what is going to happen has gone away, or largely gone away, because I know I have money in the bank and a job to go to on Monday morning’.
The result of this program has been astonishing to the extraordinary extent one prisoner, who currently works in a full-time job in the private sector, drives the work ute from prison every morning and then comes back to prison at night, parks his car next to the prison officers’ cars, walks back into custody knowing full well he will soon be at liberty with a job to go to. These are good results.
I am unsure where the member opposite was when I spoke about this in the House previously because she knows we are doing this. For her to accuse us of hollow rhetoric - well this is 53 people after I reported to this House some time ago on a trial program. At the end of this year I expect 200 low security prisoners will qualify. How many prisoners have escaped in this process? None. How many prisoners have committed offences whilst at liberty in this process? None. How many positive drug and alcohol tests have we received from prisoners after thousands of days of work? None. The prisoners in this system understand they are being given an opportunity and are taking it with relish.
As this government develops the idea of Sentenced to a Job, let us get jobs into the gaol. We are currently in negotiation with several manufacturers, particularly with the new goal in the Darwin Correctional Precinct, to have manufacturing work done inside the gaol to provide jobs for medium security prisoners not yet in a position to go out.
In Alice Springs we are selling cattle yards manufactured in gaol for $125 a panel, sold at a profit. We hope, as a result of those profits and a littletraining money, we can soon get a galvanising tank inside the workshop to value add the product. Are those prisoners proud of the product they are making? Hell, yes. They have a sense of direction.
The difficulty for many people from remote communities is making those jobs stick. That is a challenge we are facing, hence why we are looking at group accommodation in parole. This is all real, all happening, and will be rolled out in 12 to 18 months because this has become a personal quest for me. I entered politics to make a difference. Frankly, whilst I never expected it would come through the corrections system, a captive audience enables a government to change these people’s lives and I am grateful for the opportunity.
The pillar of justice we are talking about is the pillar in relation to police powers and police systems which make the police far more effective in their capacity to control the streets. It is working in tandem with a court system which is far more effective in processing low-level offences, offences on complaints and low-level indictment. This then transfers into a corrections system in which the process of employment will hit you on Day 1. Once you hit the prison as a high security prisoner you will be expected to work and we will ensure jobs are available and will focus on the rights of victims in the process. Sentenced to a Job means prisoners are literally, in cash, paying their debt back to society. That enables this government to increase the amount of money we spend on victim support.
None of this means a person in the criminal justice system is in any way less responsible for their conduct. I would argue they are even more responsible for their conduct, but when they take up the cudgels of that responsibility they will be given every opportunity to demonstrate their contrition and desire for reformation. If you want to generate a desire for reformation in a prison, you make the prisoner believe they have an opportunity to change and make themselves worthwhile. On every occasion when I have spoken to prisoners in this system, I have been heartened by the fact they seem to see it that way, supported by conduct which demonstrates these people are upright in the work they do. The cost to taxpayers for Sentenced to a Job and group accommodation in subsequent post parole release is zero. Why? Because the prisoners will pay for it because they pay rent. Sentenced to a Job …
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I will try not to use the whole 10 minutes. Sentenced to a Job means we are making a few shekels on the side because we are charging board. It is more a nominal thing; it still costs $214 a day to keep a prisoner in custody in the Northern Territory, but they are used to paying board. When they go into the post-release environment, they will be paying for their accommodation as they would in any other environment. They will get used to that. In that environment, the only expense to the taxpayer is the classrooms we will put in.
I was talking to the federal government in Canberra recently about some Stronger Futures money to build a really good education system in the post-release environment so we can say, as part of the condition, ‘Follow the reasonable instructions of your parole officer - you will go to the following courses: money management, home economics, life skills, as well as training tickets such as chainsaws, forklifts, backhoe, whatever you need’.
In the employment environment today we are value adding the prisoner in their capacity to be attractive to an employer externally. We had a well-attended symposium in Alice Springs. One-hundred-and-ninety-five invitations have gone out to businesses for a symposium in the next few weeks in Darwin to advertise the product we have in prison - good, effective labour. We are increasing the quality of the labour offered to the private sector by educating them in simple things like backhoe tickets and forklift tickets.
The IGA supermarkets in Alice Springs have nine serving prisoners working for them. Recently, the head of IGA in Alice Springs described employment problems with general staff. They employ 120 people in their various stores in Alice Springs. In the last 12 months they have had to employ 700 people. That is the turnover for IGA in Alice Springs.
We can provide prisoners, particularly if we get them into post-parole environments. Currently, we can provide prisoners for months at a time. They will be the longest-serving employees in the IGA stores. The head of IGA in Alice Springs made the observation quite publicly the other day that not only do they serve longer than anybody else, our prisoners, with a few exceptions, turn up with ties on and their deportment is of a particular standard.
These prisoners are serving customers, doing stock control and handling money. Offences committed by these nine prisoners, as they try to lift themselves by their boot straps, are zero. This is heartening, positive, and this is what we are doing in the corrections environment alone.
In the courts environment there is a number of things we can do. There is another thing which goes right across the board, and that is electronic management - bracelets as I will refer to them from now on.
The technology is changing all the time. To my surprise, whilst I was in South Australia I was very careful to note that not only is the technology available through landline as well as GPS, but the technology is now available to drug test. If a person is on bail or at liberty after being sentenced by a court, we can police the condition that they do not consume alcohol and drugs by whacking a bracelet on them. These bracelets work in a number of ways and can work to exclude people from particular areas as well as include them in particular areas. If the same system is being used by police, corrections and the justice system, it makes sense to have one provider.
The reason we continue to talk to the South Australian government is why not work with them? This stuff is monitored, literally, in other countries. The people who run these systems have clients all over the world. They are run centrally through Europe, the United States, or wherever. If a person breaches the condition of their restraint, the bracelet will know where they are. If they try to cut the bracelet off that is an offence in its own right and they can go back to prison.
Ultimately, why would you not work with the South Australian government and the same contract? If we can negotiate it, and we are still working on it, that would work fine. The whole thing could be monitored, run through something in Adelaide and, if there is a problem, a protocol created where the local police receive a phone call saying, ‘Such and such a person is either on bail or a sentenced person under electronic management. That person has now set off an alarm because they have either left the area they are supposed to be in, gone to a place where they are not supposed to be, or there is evidence of alcohol in their system’. All that can be done remotely. Police or community corrections knock on the door and determine the veracity of what the bracelet is transmitting.
That is a good way to keep people out of custody. Is it expensive? I understand it will not be cheap, but it will be much cheaper that $214 a day. If people front up to courts and already have jobs, we can try to punish people with restraints on their liberty whilst they still go to work.
The bracelet technology works in another fashion. Occasionally, where a person is at work with bracelet technology fitted and it would be embarrassing for them, for whatever reason, to have a parole officer run a wand over the bracelet to ensure they are there, this can be done remotely. The prison officer or parole officer can park out the front, type into a screen and there will be confirmation the bracelet of the person who should be in the shop is sending the correct signal, and they can drive off. Nobody goes into the shop, and it is not awkward for the shop owner that they have a convict working in that environment.
This technology can lead to better sentencing outcomes. Through this system we intend to ensure police, the courts, and corrections are all working off the same song sheet. If we can get rid of half the hearings in the lower courts of the Northern Territory, we will save millions of dollars. If we can deal with police not having to be bound up by reams of paperwork every time they arrest a person on a complaint, we can make the police far more effective.
If the police can be more effective there will be better results in that area. If the courts can be more effective there will be better results in that area. If we can marry up the police and the court paperwork effectively, as they have done in Queensland, the police fill out a short prcis and apprehension report which finds its way to the court. Through pretrial conferencing and disclosures there is a complete assessment on that form, which is very quick, saying what the strengths and weaknesses of the case are, and they can determine whether they go to hearing or not if the charges are contested.
If somebody is found guilty through that process they end up in a prison system which says to them, ‘You will work for your own betterment and the betterment of your family’. This is not rhetoric; this is happening now. We have already done some of this. This is not an empty, hollow promise; this is a clear direction aimed at refining the systems of policing, adjudication, and corrections in our community.
I look forward to reporting to this House on a number of occasions over the next few years to let honourable members know how we are going in the area of looking after victims and creating statutes for a safer future, with I-camps and D-camps, the youth justice framework, court facilities, diversion and post-release mentoring, and work programs and training through the prison system. I also look forward to reporting good results from sentencing reform, pretrial conferencing, pretrial disclosures, paperless arrest, extra police on the beat, bracelets, diversion through the police directly into icamps, and a number of other things we will do.
What we will do through this process is change the system of criminal justice in the Northern Territory to keep it effective, make people responsible for their actions, and deliver outcomes, even for offenders, so they have an opportunity to fix themselves.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin. I was very interested in everything he said. I have never heard of pillars of justice, and I wish the person putting this paper together had written it in a better style. There are five headings and it would have been nice to have broken this up into those sections. It is not easy to follow, but I was trying to understand something in a hurry so I looked on the web and found there were five pillars of Islam, seven pillars of Judaism, and five pillars of Christianity. There is a film called Pillars of Justice. I do not believe that was it because I have never heard of this before. I also found five pillars of the criminal justice system from the Philippines. It took me some time to understand what we were talking about. There are the Pillars of Hercules but, obviously, it has nothing to do with that.
In some ways it is great we have this document, but in other ways it is sad we have to rush to have a decent debate about it. You get it late at night, you have other things to do - this is an important document. If, like me, you have not heard about the pillars of justice, you have to get your head around what the government is trying to say. It has been interesting listening to the member for Port Darwin because he made it easy to understand what the government is doing.
In general, whilst I support many things the member for Port Darwin has spoken about, one failing of the government is it tends to look at specific areas it wants to tackle and the bigger issues are left out of the picture. Much of what we are talking about relates to alcohol, yet we say little about why alcohol is a major factor in our society causing problems, whether it is drunkenness, the promotion of alcohol, or alcohol in sport. There is a range of other things where the government has not come into this House and said, ‘We are tackling things from another perspective’. What I see many times is fairly direct action on matters concerning us right now and, if we are to change the culture of drinking in our society - it has been around a long time. I said to people years ago when I was at Bathurst Island, some of the ads on TV in relation to alcohol implied you were not a Territorian if you did not drink. It was a manly thing and promoted in such a way you were a sis if you did not drink. That culture still persists in that society not so much with beer, but other forms of alcohol.
There are broader issues governments need to look at, which are part of the reason we end up having to deal with these matters in this House. The idea of improving police responsiveness, making them more efficient and having less paperwork is good. However, when a policeman goes to court, if the paperwork is not up to standard I imagine cases can be thrown out. Are you going to reduce the amount of paperwork police do? Are there any implications further down the line when an offender goes before court and police are required to provide sufficient documentation for that person to be prosecuted? The member for Port Darwin mentioned that and he has some experience in that area.
I am a great supporter of the Sentenced to a Job process. We have to be careful here; politics comes into it. To be fair, the previous minister for Corrections, the member for Barkly, did much work trying to promote the idea prisoners would go to work. We have the workers camp in Tennant Creek. The member for Port Darwin said one of the reasons he became involved in politics was to do things. I appreciate that, especially when, in his case, he is in government and has the power to do it.
Others, like me, are not going to be a member of government but we hope we can influence government decisions. The work camp came from much work I did after visiting the work camp in Wyndham about five or six years ago. That work camp is quite successful and Western Australia has a number of work camps. More work was done. The new CEO at Corrections, Ken Middlebrook, was keen on the idea and took me on a tour of prisons in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. His influence also turned things around.
The new prison - I become annoyed when I hear the Treasurer call it the Taj Mahal. It is new so it will look good; however, people are locked in cells with no air conditioning and nothing fancy in the cells. There are bars in concrete and steel. You would be locked up from 3 pm until the next morning - not the most pleasant place. One of the good things about that prison which the member for Port Darwin has not promoted - he probably has not had the opportunity - is that it has two large manufacturing sheds to train people and produce goods, as seen in other large prisons in Australia, where people will be trained within the prison surrounds.
For instance, there will be a bakery run by the women in the prison. Men can learn those skills as well. They can do the cooking as well. They are important things and we need to ensure we do not lose sight of the idea, which I support, that if you are sentenced to a job it does not necessarily mean you will be working outside. Hopefully, you will also be working inside.
In this debate you have to give some recognition to the previous minister for Corrections who put much time and effort into ensuring the concepts you are talking about today started. There will be quite modern education facilities at the new prison and the minister spoke about that. As prisoners leave the prison there will perhaps be education afterwards, and that is also a good idea. I congratulate the minister for taking up what the previous government started and going with it wholeheartedly.
The member for Port Darwin said about 58 prisoners are now working outside the prison. That, in itself, is not new, but the numbers seem to be much higher than before. The more prisoners we can have working the better chance we have of good outcomes and of those prisoners not returning to gaol.
There is talk about electronic monitoring. I am interested in that because the government has recently announced, and mentioned in this paper, alcohol protection orders. What I read in the media releases from the minister did not impress me much. That is why I said that issue appeared to be 99% spin and 1% practicality. I would be concerned if you are going to have police popping into the local pubs looking for people who might be on these orders. I am unsure if that is the way to go or if it is a good use of police resources. I am also not happy with the idea that police give banning notices.
I looked up the website for the UK government. They have drinking banning orders. I am not against banning people from drinking, but how do you enforce it? In the UK you can be given a drinking banning order if you break the law or cause problems while drinking alcohol, and you may get a DBO for vandalism, graffiti, antisocial behaviour, violent or threatening behaviour, or urinating in public. You can get a DBO if you are 16 years or over. It is issued by the magistrates court if police or the local authority apply for one for you, the county courts if you are already facing civil legal proceedings, and the criminal courts if you are convicted of an alcohol-related offence.
When you are given a DBO you may not be allowed to do certain things, such as drink or possess alcohol in public, buy alcohol, or enter certain places which serve alcohol. The DBO can last between two months and two years. One of the differences is you may be offered a health and drinking awareness course, which can shorten your DBO. The course is voluntary and you must pay for it. If you breach a DBO it is a criminal offence. You can be taken to court and fined up to 2500.
We are talking about introducing something that, theoretically, has merit, but as Rachel Seabrook of the Institute of Alcohol Studies in the UK said, they were concerned about the practical aspects of the order against Laura Hall, the first person in England and Wales to have a DBO. She said she was not opposed in principle to someone being banned from drinking alcohol in public, but had doubts about whether it is a realistic thing to enforce.
That is my argument. However, if the minister believes there is a chance these bracelets may have some practical use, it is possible they could be used to enforce that. If they have a GPS and are so modern they can tell whether a person has ingested drugs - if we are getting to that type of technology that may be a way around it.
However, I would not want to see the police, who have plenty of other things to do, breathalysing people in a pub or looking for someone in a pub who might have broken one of these orders. That could be a waste of police resources. If they come across them accidently, fair enough.
While the idea of banning people from alcohol is good in theory, whether it can be enforced in practice is yet to be shown. The Attorney-General said things are changing in that area. If the technology is there then perhaps that is the way to go.
I do not know how that would go out bush. If someone living in a remote area has been told not to drink and there is only one licensed club in the community, it would be interesting to see how it could be enforced. There are parole officers out bush; however, we will have to see if the Treasurer - he has control of this because he is also in control of the Licensing Commission.
Police should not be giving out protection orders. It could be done by a magistrate when placing a person on parole by saying, ‘You are on parole, but for the next six months you cannot drink’. That is more the role of magistrates rather than police because it is a form of punishment. Generally speaking, a serious punishment like that would be more appropriate coming from the judiciary rather than the constabulary.
In relation to youth justice, the government is having a go. I was concerned about Balunu being closed down. You spoke about boot camps, but you have softened that slightly and now refer to them as detention camps. Boot camps is the wrong term. We never called Wildman River a boot camp, it was a youth camp. You do not want to stigmatise people. What you do there is one thing, but the name sometimes sends the wrong message. The boot camps most people know about are the ones on television. The youth camp I knew, which, unfortunately, the previous government closed down, after I tried to convince them to leave it open, was Wildman River. There were other youth camps. The CLP closed down the one at Beatrice Hill. They have been around. Unfortunately, we took our eye off the ball and are now cranking up the same thing again. It is funny how life goes around in circles.
The Chief Minister mentioned early intervention in his statement. That is the real key. It is disappointing to hear there were cuts to the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, or NAPCAN. I mentioned it last night. We need early intervention at a very young age. If families do not have parenting skills we need to assist them. If children are not looked after properly in the early stages of their life, it is nearly a certainty they will be in trouble with the law later. I have said previously I visited a prison in Ohio, a therapeutic community. Six men sat in front of me, all had broken families and all started to get into alcohol and drugs at around the age of 10. You could see a similar pattern and they all ended up in prison.
The Chief Minister is right when he said:
- Overwhelming national and international evidence suggests shifting funding from high-cost interventions at the end of the justice system such as detention, to more cost-effective early intervention prevention measures, is an approach to reducing offending and recidivism and moving young people away from the justice system and from becoming long-term criminals.
One of the reasons I was so disappointed that money was pulled out of Freds Pass is I see money being put into facilities - the member for Drysdale knows - such as the soccer club at Palmerston and the upgrade of rugby there. Those things are part of what I call early intervention. Regardless of the reasons the government pulled money out of Freds Pass - whether it was the inability of that board to acquit its money - even a small amount of money into Freds Pass would have been symbolic of the fact they were serious about helping youth.
We need to give opportunities to young people so they are not sitting at home or walking the streets doing nothing, but getting involved in sport, where possible. There can also be dance, arts and music. However, sport has benefits some of the other activities do not, especially when it comes to team work, leadership, respect, and the things young people learn that will carry them through for the rest of their life.
John Kennedy, the famous Hawthorn coach, once said he was not about just making good footballers, he was about making men. He knew if he could train people when they were young they would make good leaders in society. I know the football teams he used to coach, and many of the people who came out of those teams were leaders in society because they had learnt things in sport. The government should look at ensuring it continues to fund youth facilities.
The government is going to upgrade the ANZAC Hill youth precinct, which is well and truly in need of an upgrade. It was built bit by bit over time. They are the things the government needs to look at as well.
I was disappointed NAPCAN, which is about early intervention with children, lost some of its funding. We need to put that money up-front otherwise, as the member for Port Darwin said - he quoted some fairly high figures to keep a person in prison every day …
Mr Elferink: $214.
Mr WOOD: If we can reduce that by half that would be good.
Member for Port Darwin, Sentenced to a Job is great. I am the Independent and sometimes people take as much notice of me as a dead frog on the road, but I support what you are doing. It is good and I am happy to promote that as a positive approach by the government. The previous government was heading in that direction, but your role now is to make that happen. I saw the 7.30 Report and the whole show was fantastic. I meant to write to the ABC ...
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Fannie Bay. The ABC report that night was wonderful. Quite a number of good topics were covered and one was Sentenced to a Job. I congratulate the ABC and the minister for being part of it and I congratulate Foxy. He is rubbished at times for being the big wealthy entrepreneur, but he is doing good things. He was working with the prisoners ...
Mr Elferink: He was one of the first to sign up.
Mr WOOD: He should be congratulated, and I hope other employers see that as a possibility. I umpire football when I can struggle around the ground. Under the previous government, prisoners were umpiring football. That is another area where we can get people involved. Believe it or not, umpiring requires responsibility to make a decision, sometimes under the threat of many insults. Even being a boundary umpire teaches people responsibility. There is another area, especially on weekends, where prisoners could be involved in sport.
I met Trevor Horman on the weekend coming out of Coolalinga Woolworths with two big parcels of lamingtons. He had a big smile on his face and I asked, ‘What are you doing, Trevor?’ He said, ‘I’m taking these lamingtons to the work camp at Adelaide River’. That is another great thing. I believe in work camps. I have been promoting them in this parliament for many years. Trevor was great because he said they are helping to clean up the historic Adelaide River Railway Station.
Minister, I am looking at a community effort - I will not get any money - to extend the bicycle path from Howard Springs to the Arnhem Highway as a gravel rail trail. We could have prisoners working on that project. It ends up being useful, and prisoners see they have done something positive and get a thrill out of it as well. They see they have contributed to the local community. There are many projects. I would like to see more mobile work camps going out to national parks working on trails, weed control, signage and all those things. There is great potential in that area and I appreciate that.
Minister, what disappointed me when you brought in mandatory sentencing was you took away home detention. With your bracelets you could have allowed home detention to continue. You said $214 a day - you could keep a person at home and off the grog. I am not a great fan of alcohol protection orders as described in the media release, but you said these bracelets are starting to get pretty smart and can detect whether someone has been consuming drugs or alcohol. If that is the case, home detention, bracelet - someone is still home with their family, which is important, still earning a dollar for their family, can still be traced and is reducing the cost of being in prison. That was one of the mistakes. Regardless of whether I agree with mandatory sentencing or not, that should have been part of the mandatory sentencing process. Perhaps you will reconsider that at another time. It has options, especially now you are looking at other options. It would make sense.
All in all, this document has some good points and some I am unsure about. It is a pity that issues like this, which require some time to give a well-thought out response, unfortunately, under the system we have - at 8.30 pm, ‘Here’s a statement’ and you do not give it your best. These issues are important for the future of the Northern Territory.
Law and order is, undoubtedly, an issue we continually have to look at. Hopefully, we eventually have a reduction in the number of people who need these types of orders. As I said before, there needs to be a bigger, wider approach to some of these issues because there are some underlying reasons why so many people are in prison. You mentioned some yourself: unemployment, overcrowding, lack of education …
Mr Elferink: Welfare.
Mr WOOD: You have heard me talk on many occasions about why we should not have welfare. We should have people working. We also have external issues such as the promotion of alcohol in our society. It is huge, and now we have the promotion of betting. If you watch the rugby league and the Aussie rules, the fence goes up and down in the background with TAB and another company as well. In your face you continually have gambling promoted. I like a bet, but it is going too far now. It is starting to get into people’s houses, young people are seeing it, the figures come up on the board at half time saying the next goal will be kicked by Fred and it will be $2.50 if he gets it and something else for somebody else. It is becoming invasive and it is the same with alcohol. Alcohol advertising controls our sport, much of the advertising on television, and there is a cultural issue with alcohol we need to look at.
Whilst we look at particular issues, the government should be looking at the broader issues. I would support moves by the government to have welfare in the Northern Territory changed. Recently, the federal government announced some enormous amount of money for jobs in remote areas. I have heard this many times and sometimes I am told, ‘You are an old fuddy-duddy’. I say, ‘Give that money to the councils and they will find the jobs. Do not bring in fancy, you-beaut people who are trying to make jobs out of nothing’. They invent jobs, and you turn up for work and get half-day training, and in the end there will be no jobs available.
Local government can produce jobs if it is given enough capital. The government is making a great mistake because, if we can create jobs in remote communities, as you say, member for Port Darwin, there is a much better chance we will not have people in our prisons because they will want to work, earn a quid, and look after their families. It will not be perfect, you will still have people in prison, but we would put a dent in the numbers.
I thank the government for the statement. There are several things I have my doubts about. I am willing to let the government travel down the path of - I do not call them boot camps - youth camps. I want to see what they are like. I believe it is good for kids to go out bush and have time to clear their head, not make them walk up mountains in shorts, singlet and a pair of thongs. There are times when kids need to go out, do some work, get some education, but have some quiet time. It is the same principle as mandatory alcohol rehabilitation - you allow people to go out bush and have time to sort themselves out. The peace of the bush is much cheaper than some of the other fancy ideas we have to try to overcome these problems.
Thank you, Chief Minister, and thank you for your comments, member for Port Darwin.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s statement. In preparing for this statement I looked through some of my notes from previous sittings and found copious amounts. We seem to have had this statement, or a variation of it, come forward almost every sittings. That is where the frustration of the member from Nhulunbuy, and the frustration the public is feeling, is coming from. The CLP was elected on a promise to take immediate action on a range of things, and we are now nine months in and have another ministerial statement talking about things this government might do.
As an aside, I like the fact the member for Nelson took the end of his speech to local government. I like the way the member for Nelson can often find ways to bring local government into debates. We are talking about the five pillars of justice but the member for Nelson found a very creative and constructive way of bringing local government into the debate.
Again, we are talking about things this government might be doing and the frustration the general public has around things the government has stopped doing since it was elected and before bringing in its own plans. Much of what this government has done is dismantle Labor initiatives purely because they were Labor and then work out ways to bring them back. A great example is income management. Through the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal we were able to income manage problem drunks. That is something we brought in. The CLP scrapped it and is now trying to bring forward ways to manage income.
We had an integrated comprehensive process. We discussed with a range of stakeholders ways to tie income management into the Banned Drinker Register and into rehabilitation. Our process had a purpose. It had a distinct coordinated approach to try to deal with problem drunks. We said, through the BDR and going before the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, repeat problem drunks would have their income managed. The only way they could come off income management was if they went through rehabilitation. We had a series of triggers and consequences, and we had income management.
Several months ago the Attorney-General spoke to the media complaining about problem drunks in Alice Springs spending welfare on alcohol. We had a tribunal in place to stop that but the CLP scrapped it and is now trying to find a way to bring forward income management. Our income management process was to come into effect in October. We were tied into Commonwealth legislation so the timing was out of our hands. It would have been in effect for six months now but the CLP scrapped it. They are now trying to find a way to bring forward income management.
What the CLP has being doing over the last nine months is dismantling some of the things Labor did before trying to find ways of bringing back in themselves - the exact same thing: income management tied into a rehabilitation process. It was there; the CLP could have used it, varied it, but they scrapped it. In the last six months we have not been able to manage the income of problem drunks and tie it into rehabilitation.
One of the reasons the general public is frustrated is because the CLP was elected on a platform of taking immediate action. Instead, they have dismantled Labor programs and put a big pause button on a series of justice reforms and things which were going to make a difference. They have worked out ways to bring those same things back in a slightly different form so they can rebadge them as CLP things. There is great frustration amongst the general public about that.
Income management is a great example of that. Alcohol protection orders, which the member for Nelson just spoke about, is another example. This government was elected on the basis of scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. They said quite clearly they wanted to scrap it. We, obviously, disagree with that, but they were elected on the platform of scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. That meant they had to think of something creative to do so they brought forward alcohol protection orders. The only difference, essentially, between the Banned Drinker Register and the alcohol protection order is no one will know if they are under an alcohol protection order.
People knew who was on the Banned Drinker Register. Under the alcohol protection orders, problem drunks who have been given an APO can walk into any takeaway outlet and buy as much alcohol as they want and no one will know. There will be no measure, at that end, to control the supply of alcohol.
The member for Nelson asked if there would be a wall of wanted posters at takeaway outlets. There is no measure to stop a person on an alcohol protection order walking into a takeaway outlet and buying grog. The member for Nelson called it a gammon policy; we call it the unbanned Banned Drinker Register.
Essentially, they have brought forward something that will have no practical effect around supply. If you breach an alcohol protection order – the Chief Minister’s statement goes to this detail – you get three months for the first offence. If you breach it, they will simply extend the order to six months. A breach of an alcohol protection order will simply lead to a longer alcohol protection order.
Something which has members of the AHA concerned - I am sure the Attorney-General will be having conversations with the AHA and it will be interesting to see how the detail evolves – is the knowingly supply provision. They have no means of knowing who has an alcohol protection order and the police, as the Attorney-General probably knows, in doing their job, often on the beat, might stop in at a takeaway outlet and say, ‘I am just letting you know person X is outside’. Staff at takeaway outlets change regularly. There is turnover, shift changes and so on.
Members of the AHA are concerned about how the knowingly supply provision will be enforced. They are feeling vulnerable on this issue. That is something I am sure the Attorney-General will be looking at and working on, but there are concerns amongst members of the AHA about how knowingly supply will work in practice.
On our side, we cannot complain about comprehensive integrated policy approaches. They are good words and things that should happen. It will be interesting to see the detail which comes from those policies. We had, through the Enough is Enough reform, a comprehensive integrated policy developed with the police, the courts, health, justice, NGOs, and so on. You should have comprehensive integrated policies. This is not a new thing or a fresh concept. It is something governments should do and something that is often in place because these people talk to each other. We have no complaints about the government having a comprehensive integrated policy. It will be interesting to see the detail as it shakes out because, as we have already debated in this House and will debate very soon around the mandatory detention laws, there are details we will disagree with.
Through the Enough is Enough reforms we had a comprehensive integrated approach. We looked at points of intervention where you could bring in rehabilitation, because we believe intervention is important. We had a voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation scheme, but we did not have mandatory detention. There has to be a moment where people opt into rehabilitation because if they do not, it will not work. You might use a point of intervention such as going before the courts, and diversionary programs to get somebody into rehabilitation, but at some stage they have to opt in or it will not work.
If you breached your mandatory rehabilitation order through the process we were talking about - through diversion - then other things would fall on you depending on why you were there. If you were receiving a diversion from a court, then a sentence would fall on you and you might go to gaol. If you were there through the Banned Drinker Register and the income management approaches, then the only way to get off the Banned Drinker Register or income management was to go through rehabilitation. We had points of intervention and processes of rehabilitation all based on conversations with people working in that field. As they said to us and I am sure they are saying to the government, if that person does not opt in to rehabilitation, then rehabilitation will not work. We had measures in place to support that rehabilitation order. We knew, while we were trying to make an intervention to make a difference, it was not always going to work. However, we knew we had to make the effort to help.
We understand where the government is coming from, but we believe they are making a very expensive mistake by going further into the mandatory detention field. All the advice from the experts involved in rehabilitation is that people have to, at some stage, opt in for that rehabilitation effort to work.
There are many problems with this and we will go into this in great detail during the second reading debate so I will not cover all of our concerns today. You will also be holding people who have not committed a crime against their will for three months, and creating a problem internally when you make people part of the system where they are then criminalised.
There are many concerns about this. Other independent parties are, obviously, bringing forward these concerns as well about how the effects of this, which the government is describing as a health solution, will end up being part of the corrections and justice system and, essentially, criminalising the use of alcohol. That will cause many problems and means it will not be achieving the outcome the government is trying to reach.
People struggle with addictions. Addictions are hard. If someone has an addiction it is an incredibly difficult thing to shake, whether it is alcohol, tobacco, some other drug, or whatever it happens to be. Evidence shows you have to go through rehabilitation seven times, and that is voluntarily. You have to go through that process of trying to quit seven times before it works. The CLP is talking about three months of mandatory detention for rehabilitation and that is not going to work. That is the advice we have received from the experts.
The CLP has said it does not have the evidence base for this policy, and we have had the debate in this Chamber many times. The now Attorney-General, then shadow, is on the record prior to the election talking about how there was no evidence base to this policy. Essentially, it is going to cost a lot of money and will not work.
In the last alcohol statement the government brought to this Chamber they quoted from a New Zealand scientific paper trying to justify the lack of evidence with the great quote:
- It is important not to misunderstand the lack of evidence about the relative effectiveness of compulsory and voluntary treatment. Firstly, it does not imply that treatment is not effective.
We should ignore the fact there is no evidence that this works and take on blind faith that the CLP policy is going to work. Also, we should take on blind faith that the alcohol protection orders are going to work because, according to the government when asked about the effect of this, it said people will know they cannot do it, therefore they will not. They will take on individual responsibility. They are given an alcohol protection order, therefore they will not drink. That will not happen.
The studies show for rehabilitation to work it needs to be supported. If you go through supported rehabilitation for one year there will be a two-third drop out. If you go through supported rehab for two years there is a one-third drop out, and if you go through supported rehab for three years you get into the 10% to 15% space for drop out. You are starting to get quite high numbers of success. That is someone who is trying to get genuine support over a three-year period to kick the habit. Rehabilitation is incredibly hard. People are dealing with an addiction. All the evidence shows they need ongoing permanent support to kick the addiction.
To give one example, Alcoholics Anonymous meets in my office after hours. That is one way people will try to find permanent ongoing support amongst peers to try to quit. All the evidence shows you need permanent ongoing support.
Rehabilitation is incredibly expensive, incredibly difficult and requires much support. It requires - this is the critical kicker - the person with the addiction to, at some stage, say, ‘I do not want to be addicted’. People will emerge from three months mandatory detention and return to an environment where their family and friends are drinking and they will return to drinking. This will end up being an incredibly expensive revolving door.
We support rehabilitation. There is no question at all from our side that we support rehabilitation, and efforts towards rehabilitation. However, we cannot support the incredibly expensive option the CLP has taken of mandatory detention.
I have touched the surface today because we have quite an extensive, interesting debate on this coming up. We welcome the statement from the Chief Minister. Again, sharing the member for Nhulunbuy’s frustrations, the CLP promised immediate action on a range of things and now we have a statement which outlines a framework for a strategy. Obviously, there is a great deal of frustration from us and the general public about the lack of action the CLP has taken in putting in place any of their measures while they have been busy taking apart measures we put in place to try to tackle these issues.
We always welcome the chance to debate these issues. There is often a level of common interest, debate, or shared concern in this House. However, in dealing with these issues there are, when you get into the detail, some quite significant differences of opinion about the best way going forward, particularly when the CLP is choosing an incredibly expensive option with no evidence it will work and all the experts are saying it will noto work. We cannot support that.
We welcome the chance to talk in this House on a ministerial statement around justice and alcohol issues. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee –
Public Private Partnership Arrangements
for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
May 2013 Report
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee report titled Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct.
MOTION
Print Paper - Public Accounts Committee –
Public Private Partnership Agreements
for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
May 2013 Report
Print Paper - Public Accounts Committee –
Public Private Partnership Agreements
for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
May 2013 Report
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee –
Public Private Partnership Arrangements
for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
May 2013 Report
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee –
Public Private Partnership Arrangements
for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
May 2013 Report
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present to the Assembly the Public Accounts Committee report on Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct. The inquiry examined the adequacy of the procurement process for the Darwin Correctional Precinct. This included an examination of the costs and risks associated with delivering the project as a PPP and an assessment of whether this procurement method delivered the best value for money.
The inquiry also examined whether public disclosures about the project were adequate. This included both cost disclosures and disclosures about the contractual arrangements between the proponent and the government.
The inquiry assessed the adequacy of the procurement process through an extensive review of project documentation. In addition, it conducted two in camera hearings with key project and departmental personnel. Evidence from these hearings clarified and supplemented the project review. Only two submissions were received.
The inquiry did not explore the merits of the investment decision. For instance, it did not consider whether building a different type of facility or using the money for an entirely different purpose would have been a better use of the Territory’s money. Consequently, the committee did not form any views on these questions.
Major infrastructure projects in Australia today are subject to the national guidelines for PPPs. The inquiry, therefore, included an examination on the national guidelines and an assessment of the procurement process against them. The committee found the procurement process largely conformed to the national guidelines for PPPs. The competitive tendering process was conducted appropriately, and a fair comparison was made between the cost of a traditional design and construct project and a PPP model. Consequently, the committee is satisfied PPP procurement offered the best value for money.
However, the committee also notes the Territory could have secured the agreement with SeNTinel at a lower nett present cost if it had used a payment profile that commenced with higher payments. The documentation indicated this cheaper option was rejected due to concerns about short-term affordability. In evidence to the committee, the present Under Treasurer indicated the flatter payments profile chosen also maintained stronger incentives for the proponent to maintain its commitment to the agreement. Nevertheless, compelling reasons are required for not choosing the lowest nett present cost option, otherwise short-term gains are being obtained at increased long-term expense.
The cost of this project is substantial. The government, and therefore the people of the Territory, will be paying for the design, construction, management and maintenance of this facility for the next 30 years. In 2011, the present value of the full cost to the Territory for the project was $834m. Of this figure, the value of payments to be made for design and construction was $629m. In contrast to these figures but consistent with the applicable disclosure rules, the cost of the project outlined to this Assembly at the time was $495m. This disparity between these figures is not due to inaccuracy but due to the inadequacy of disclosure rules for PPPs in the Northern Territory.
The public expects a higher standard of disclosure for the commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money. In a public private partnership such as the Darwin Correctional Precinct project there are two disclosure issues at stake. The first pertains to private sector involvement in the delivery of public infrastructure. In contrast to the government, which aims to serve the public through capital investment projects, private sector involvement in such projects is motivated by profit. The pursuit of profit is encouraged as it can contribute to more cost-effective projects. However, for the interests of the electorate to be protected and for the electorate to feel confident that private sector involvement is in their best interest, it is essential to ensure a transparent process that is open to public scrutiny.
In this instance, the concept of disclosure is not limited to the cost of the project but also extends to the contractual arrangements between the public and private partners. The second issue is simpler and relates to cost alone. It is just as relevant to a project wholly-funded and managed by the government as it is to a public private partnership.
The public has a right to expect clear disclosure of the extent and nature of the costs involved in a major infrastructure project in which the government is committing to future expenditure well in excess of $0.5bn. The committee considers the disclosure practices in this project have revealed a gap in the Territory’s guidelines for public disclosures for PPPs.
It has noted useful precedents in this regard can be found in jurisdictions with more experience in this area. Accordingly, Recommendation 2 proposes that the Treasurer, in consultation with the Auditor-General, develops guidelines for the disclosure of both the costs and the contractual terms associated with PPPs before the Territory undertakes another such project.
A second finding of the committee relates to the long-term nature of the project and how this might impact on its management and, ultimately, on the realisation of the benefits expected from a PPP procurement method.
One of the perceived strengths of the PPP model is the bundling of the funding, design and construction of the facility with the maintenance and management over the term of the contract. In this instance it is a term of 30 years with the option of a further 10 years.
The integration of these components incorporates incentives for the private sector partner to build the facility to a standard that will last throughout the term of the agreement rather than incentives to cut corners and leave the government with an expensive maintenance bill, which occurs with traditional procurement models. However, realising the benefits of such PPPs requires effective management of the contract over the long term.
The committee shares the concerns raised by the Auditor-General that if the benefits of the PPP model are to be realised it will be essential for the long-term management of the contract to be both active and informed.
This requires a continuity of knowledge about the project which is unlikely to occur without careful planning. The Department of Correctional Services needs to incorporate appropriate succession planning into its management plan and ensure there is adequate and continuing documentation of all stages of the project.
The committee therefore requests the government gives careful consideration to Recommendation 1 which proposes that the Department of Correctional Services develops a contract management plan in consultation with and agreed by Treasury prior to the handover of the facility.
The Department of Correctional Services should also provide an annual report on the performance of the plant to the Minister for Correctional Services, and the plan should be submitted to Treasury for review every three years.
Finally, on behalf of the committee I thank the Treasury and Finance, Infrastructure, and Correctional Services departments for the provision of information. Thanks are also due to the Auditor-General for his advice throughout this inquiry. I also extend my thanks to the members of the committee for their cooperative approach to this inquiry and the former Chair of the committee, Hon Peter Styles MLA, who led the committee through the early stages of this inquiry.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation (2013-14) Bill
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to voice my support for Budget 2013-14 because I know the right decisions have been made for the right reasons. It is, as the Treasurer and others have said, a responsible budget from a government determined to deal with the unsustainable Labor debt we were left when we came to office: grow the economy; deal with unfunded legacy items left by the former Treasurer; harness existing opportunities for growth and pursue new ones; and achieve better outcomes for our fellow Territorians, whether they live in our capital, the bush or in between.
The Treasurer and his Cabinet colleagues had to make some tough decisions. As the Treasurer said, belt tightening is needed. At the same time, the Country Liberal government has delivered increases in many key areas.
I will talk about some of the budgetary allocations which affect the people I represent and whose lives will be improved by Budget 2013-14.
Safer communities: $57m has been allocated to provide fire and emergency services in the Alice Springs region, including nine police stations in Central Australia. That includes Yuendumu. This is a very welcome announcement and will make a real difference to people’s lives.
As outlined in the budget papers, $40.1m has been made available to provide safe, secure, and humane care of adult inmates at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, while offering a range of therapeutic and reintegrated interventions to assist in their rehabilitation. This is a great announcement. Many people will benefit from this, and I thank the Treasurer, and the Attorney-General, in particular, who is highly motivated to provide pathways and change for inmates in our gaols.
Like any member of parliament, I do not know how many of my constituents are in contact with the criminal justice system, but I know there are too many. These people are in gaol because they have been found guilty of committing a crime and they deserve to be there. However, everyone deserves the opportunity to improve themselves, and our government takes seriously its responsibility to assist in their rehabilitation. I am hopeful better outcomes can be achieved for these people and they go on to make valuable contributions to their communities.
The Chief Minister, the Attorney-General, and every member of the County Liberal government is committed to improving the corrections system. I look forward to hearing about a range of initiatives over time.
I also see $4.11m has been provided in Budget 2013-14, as outlined in the budget material, to provide assessment, monitoring, and supervision services to community-based clients in the Alice Springs region, in line with sentences and orders issued by the courts and parole board. I am pleased to see this.
There is another $4.11m for courts to administer justice for regional and remote communities. Our young people in the Alice Springs youth detention centre will benefit from the $2.77m provided in this budget. The $1.1m for the sex offender treatment, Indigenous family violence and elders program is welcomed, as is $0.78m for the Alice Springs integrated response to family and domestic violence project, including the men’s behaviour change program. Members know I want to do whatever I can to make our communities safer for woman and children. I know the importance of this project and am very supportive of it. I also know of good work being done by the project manager, Liz Olle, and the regional manager in the Attorney-General’s department, Fran Whitty. I look forward to learning more about it over time and monitoring progress of the project.
As the Minister for Health outlined very forcefully in Question Time this morning, there is a record spend in the Health area in this budget. This is a good news story, despite the carping and mischief making of the failed former Labor Treasurer, now Opposition Leader.
As a member from Central Australia, I am delighted with the $230m funding for acute care services, including patient travel. I am particularly pleased with the $62.2m for non-acute health and community services in Central Australia. The budget allocates $0.24m for additional consultation space at the Ti Tree Health Centre, and I know many people who will be very happy to hear that. There is $0.9m to provide a grant to the BushMob Youth Residential Rehabilitation Service in Alice Springs. There is also $0.33m for the implementation of important youth suicide report recommendations. I know many young people and their parents in my electorate, and others, who will be delighted to hear about this.
There are also good news stories for regional development and infrastructure. I knew when the Country Liberals came to government that the regions would do better than they did under Labor. This government has many members who are not from the northern suburbs of Darwin, but we are certainly working on getting some more from the northern suburbs for 2016 just to make it more interesting. The diverse geographic membership of our parliamentary members is the strength of our government. It provides a diverse range of experience, passions and needs. We are all able to highlight need in each of our electorates. That is what we did and we have seen our work with the relevant ministers come to fruition in this budget.
There is $3.1m for remote Indigenous housing and related infrastructure. I am very happy to see this because we want to see people who live in remote areas getting jobs and learning new skills. This is a passion of the Chief Minister and one I share. I want to see opportunities created in the bush and, in so many ways, Budget 2013-14 creates them. That is why I am proud to speak in support of it.
The $12.62m to expand the Territory and Commonwealth governments’ transformation plan is welcome. There is much to get through, but I will keep listing some of the highlights in this budget. My constituents will be happy about the $26.6m for remediation and upgrade of Alice Springs Hospital. There is also $0.88m to extend and remodel the stand-alone administration block to provide a new staff preparation area, and ablutions and offices at Yuendumu School. I know many staff and parents will be happy to see that; it is much needed.
I see $10m has been allocated to targeted repairs and maintenance of the regional roads as part of a three-year $30m regional roads maintenance program. Works will be undertaken in Central Desert, MacDonnell, Victoria Daly, Roper Gulf and the Barkly Shires. As any bush member knows, roads are critical in the bush. We need good, well-maintained roads if people are to travel and the distances are long.
Sports and recreation: although it is not in my electorate, many of my constituents will be pleased to hear of the upgrade to the Alice Springs drag strip which is critical if we are to host national and regional events. I thank the Minister for Central Australia for his hard work in this regard. There is also $75 000 to support the Central Australian Redtails Football Club if the AFLNT decides it is to be included in the 2013-14 NTFL season. We will keep our fingers crossed and hope that happens.
Of course, I have to mention the $50 000 allocation to support the delivery of the Imparja Cup. This is enjoyed by some of my constituents and is great for our town. We often talk about our footballers and we are all very proud of their achievements when they hit the big time of AFL football. What I would really like to see one day is the first Aboriginal cricketer from Central Australia selected into the Australian cricket team. That would be great.
Of course, we should not forget the Country Liberals government sports vouchers, a scheme that ensures all young Territorians have access to sporting activities. There is $4m in the budget for this great scheme.
Economic development: I want to put on record how supportive I am of the Treasurer seeking to increase economic development in the Territory. I know the Chief Minister is passionate about this, as is the Treasurer. I share their passion. Economic development is essential to the Territory’s future. It is also essential to the future of the regions. Gaining skills and gaining a job is something many people take for granted; however, many people in my electorate do not. Many people want to gain skills and employment. The problem is that economic opportunities do not exist where many of them live. If we can assist in creating the economic opportunities we will help make an important difference to people’s lives.
Economic development is the only way out for my people. We have had long relationships with pastoral families and the pastoral industry. They have said they want to work together with our people, encourage our people to work, and be part of the economy to change the Territory and make it more viable for everybody to live. These pastoralists are the salt of the earth.
I have seen in the budget there is $2.1m for the Industry Development Program to assist peak industry associations to grow the capability and capacity of local industry, and develop and grow a skilled workforce. There is $0.3m to develop and implement a live export market development strategy together with industry. Also, there is $0.26m to continue the Indigenous Pastoral Program with partner agencies which gives our young blokes an opportunity to be part of the workforce.
I am proud to support Budget 2013-14. It is a responsible budget which takes responsible action and I congratulate the Treasurer. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Treasurer’s Budget 2013-14. I thank him for this budget as it is one that, in many ways, we bring down with a great level of regret because we are unable to funnel as much money as we would have liked into areas that matter to Territorians, thanks to the legacy debt of the former Labor government.
It is now our government’s task to restore the fiscal health of the Territory and balance that with the exceptional service delivery that meets the needs and expectations of Territorians. Despite the high levels of debt as a result of the legacy projects that are chewing up inordinate amounts of money, such as the Asset Management System and the $750 000 in interest repayments every day which the former Labor government left us, there is good news in this budget. It is much better news than the opposition would have you believe. I am going to focus on a few of the key areas I am most excited about for my electorate.
In our budget, Tiger Brennan Drive has been allocated the money it needs so it can finally, after all these years, be duplicated from Palmerston through to the CBD. Tiger Brennan Drive connects and services the growth corridor of Palmerston and rural areas as well as the industrial hub of Berrimah and East Arm and the Buslink port precinct. Every day over 34 000 vehicles use Tiger Brennan Drive as their access point to and from the city and the industrial areas of Winnellie and Berrimah.
The 7.5 km Tiger Brennan Drive extension from the Stuart Highway to Berrimah Road was opened on 20 December 2010. This link has seen traffic growth significantly increase. However, a lack of planning foresight by the previous Labor government sees the road going from four to two lanes at Berrimah Road causing massive traffic bottlenecks in the mornings and afternoons, forcing heavy and light vehicles to compete for the one piece of asphalt heading into the city every morning.
This government recognises this critical arterial link and has heard the cries of the long-suffering Palmerston and rural residents, as well as our transport industry, and has allocated $16m in Budget 2013-14 to get traffic moving. The $16m in Budget 2013-14 will complete Stage 2, which is a duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive between Dinah Beach Road and Woolner Road by the end of the 2013-14 financial year. These works will include signalised intersections at Gonzales Road and Tiger Brennan Drive, duplication of the road in both directions, and consolidation of the mangrove mudflats so the road can be constructed over them. This project will help reduce the urban bottlenecks of Stuart Park, Dinah Beach, Bayview and Woolner and should see the lineup outside the city become a thing of the past.
Budget 2013-14 also allocates funding to commence the planning and prepare some concept designs for the next stage of duplication between Woolner Road and Berrimah Road. This final stage of completing the duplication link will be a major project and will be completed over the following years.
As many of you know, I take a very grassroots approach to being a local member of this parliament and am constantly immersing myself in community organisations and the schools in my electorate. I cannot tell you how excited I am that $870 000 has been allocated to the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre to upgrade its facilities. The Special Education Centre at Palmerston Senior College is beautiful and has the most amazing teachers and staff working there.
These people work tirelessly to deliver quality education and teach life skills to the students who attend to ensure they get the very best opportunity to live full and independent lives. The classroom sizes are naturally small due to the needs and attention required of the teacher. As a result of increases in numbers of students, they are really looking at all opportunities to expand, upgrade and enhance their facilities. I very much enjoy going to see the students at the Special Education Centre, especially at assembly because you get to see the wonderful work they are doing and can follow their achievements and see the exciting activities they have been up to.
Quite often I run into students and teachers at the Palmerston Shopping Centre who are on outings learning how to shop and all sorts of other wonderful things. I commend Frankie and Thevi, fearless women who tirelessly drive the school so the students achieve excellence. It is a tough job, a critical job, a job full of compassion and love, and no amount of money could replace the value of their contribution to these special young Territorians. On behalf of our government and the people of Drysdale, I wholeheartedly thank you and your team.
I will move on to talk about the Palmerston hospital. I do not know why I am surprised at the level of deception the Labor Party will inflict on Palmerston residents to achieve its political point scoring. The Labor Party has always had contempt for the people of Palmerston, which is disgusting. I cannot remember the number of times I have voiced my concern in this Chamber that Labor is causing unnecessary pain and anguish for Palmerston residents by peddling mistruths and creating hysteria. Our government has respect for the people of Palmerston. That is why we made an election commitment in 2008 to deliver a Palmerston hospital.
Labor was in government for 10 years and it was only in the dying months of their tragic election campaign that they thought up the media stunt of sticking a fence around a parcel of bush in a random location and calling it Palmerston hospital. They had funding from Canberra for 16 months, and in 16 months they erected a temporary fence. How stupid does Labor think the people of Palmerston are? How disrespectful can they be to Palmerston residents when 14 000 of them presented the Labor government with a petition for a hospital in the community? That demand, that need, that want was met with a cyclone wire fence and a great big shiny shine, followed by a media stunt where the then Chief Minister arranged a team of backhoes and a shovel to move a bit of rocky dirt around. Boy, was that a wonderful show. Thank goodness your display of showiness resulted in a resounding thump against your administration and all four Palmerston seats were won by the Country Liberals.
Our government will build a hospital, how amazing is that? That is why we took the ridiculous fence down today. Goodbye fence, goodbye sign and goodbye Labor lies!
Today my colleague, the Minister for Health, announced, in the company of me and my colleague, the member for Brennan, that the $5m commitment in the budget will be spent to undertake a thorough and comprehensive scoping study and master plan for the greater Darwin and Palmerston area …
Mr Vatskalis: I will give you two of them for nothing and save you $5m.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: You had your chance, member for Casuarina, and you failed the people of Palmerston. They know it and will forever remember your legacy as the Minister for Health and your government’s failure to deliver. It is imprinted on their minds, make no mistake.
I reiterate, as a member representing a large portion of Palmerston I support our government’s decision. It is the only logical decision to make. It is a wise and prudent decision. Our government must plan properly for the future. We are building a hospital, but you do not just build one on the first piece of land you see. Our study will assess the growth of the Palmerston region and the rural area, the demands of our health system, the role of Royal Darwin Hospital into the future, and the movement of population over time.
The piece of land Labor said it would build a hospital on is quite possibly the worst one they could have chosen. They were blindfolded, spun each other around, and threw a dart at the minister’s map on the wall. It is sandwiched between residential aged care and industrial land use areas. It sits between two major arterial roads. Labor failed to listen to the City of Palmerston, which does not support the proposed site.
We are ending haphazard development. We have a Planning Commission, and a Planning minister, my colleague, the member for Brennan, in whose electorate this ridiculous site sits. The minister is not afraid to make the right decisions for Territorians. You cannot, and we will not, whack bricks and mortar into the ground for the sake of cheap point scoring. We could have taken the Labor approach and muddled through this, poured a bit of concrete, and had a big show, but we are not that type of government and will do what is right for Territorians now and well into the future.
This means at the conclusion of the study Territorian’s can be certain - we are providing certainty to Palmerston residents - there will be a suitable piece of land identified for the Palmerston hospital and the land will be suitable for extensive growth for 50 years, if not further.
We have a commitment from the Coalition to match the federal Labor government’s funding, but we will not stop at that. How many walls we know down will depend on what our scoping study says and we will fight for further funding if that is what Palmerston residents need.
I commend the Minister for Health for setting the record straight on the Palmerston hospital and I hope Labor will finally stop pedlling its mistruths. You can do yourselves a favour and save money on the ridiculous Palmerston hospital letterbox drops currently happening to scaremonger Palmerston residents. It is not wanted; we do not want your rubbish in our letterboxes. It is untrue and unhelpful.
Mr Vatskalis: Says who?
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Everyone in Palmerston.
I thank the Treasurer for presenting this robust and responsible budget in the face of the terrible situation we inherited from the former Labor government. Quite frankly, with the things they have been saying about Palmerston hospital, in my view they are an absolute joke.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I provide my reply to the Treasurer’s Budget 2013-14. I premise my reply with an interesting visual I had the other night watching Emma Alberici interview Andrew Robb, the opposition’s spokesman for Finance. She turned the tables beautifully at the start of the interview and asked the opposition spokesperson, ‘Can you tell me something positive about the budget?’ It was amazing to watch a large old Liberal squirm in his chair in front of a very accomplished journalist. The mouthing of what he hoped to get out was immediately eliminated and he had to go with the flow.
In the interests of the Treasurer, I give credit where credit is due in my reply. The Northern Territory Treasurer delivered Budget 2013-14 this week and described it as ‘more pain and belt tightening with a CLP mining tax’. Budgets comprise income, expenditure, and forward estimates representing the government’s policies and plans for managing finances and growing the economy.
The Country Liberal Party came to government on the back of election promises to cut debt and reduce the cost of living. However, Budget 2013-14 formally breaks that promise with page 4 of the Budget Overview showing the government has increased the debt by $1.1bn, up from $3.278bn this year to $4.417bn next year.
Page 28 of Budget Paper No 2 shows the fiscal balance next year will only be reduced by $12m; however, it confirms $300m will be stripped out of the public sector.
Page 35 of Budget Paper No 2 measures domestic revenue - what is being taken from Northern Territory families in taxes and charges - and shows the CLP government has increased this amount by $84m, up from $55m to $135m, nearly tripling domestic revenue in one year.
Currently, the Northern Territory has the lowest taxes on small business in the country; however, taxes on employers increased by $24m, up from $176m to $200m, representing a 13% tax increase on business.
Page 42 of Budget Paper No 2 outlines the CLP government has only budgeted for a 3% wage growth for public servants, with cuts to the Education budget that will see the loss of 130 teachers as part of the decision to increase class sizes by increasing student/teacher ratios in middle and senior schools. In real terms, Education in the Barkly will see a cut of $4m, which rings alarm bells for managing schools and improving learning outcomes, with the Chief Minister ruling out the additional $300m in funding available to the Northern Territory from the Gonski education reforms.
The Northern Territory infrastructure budget has been cut and will continue to be cut, with page 1 of Budget Paper No 4 listing that total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than in 2012-13 and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates. Power and water prices are going up 30%; however, Power and Water infrastructure spending is cut by $20m. The Tennant Creek power house hung on to most of its infrastructure upgrade funding, receiving $16.725m of Labor’s planned $22m.
The Regional Development budget formally cancels the contracts the CLP signed with bush communities, with funding for health, schools, and infrastructure cut and no money allocated to continue Labor’s Regional Integrated Transport Strategy delivering bus services in remote areas like the Barkly.
Revoted works are capital works initiated in previous budget years and carried over representing big infrastructure projects, with Budget 2013-14 revoting $126.258m in Territory roads funding and $87.354m in Commonwealth roads funding from Labor’s 2011-12 record infrastructure investment.
The Barkly will see some roads infrastructure projects in Budget 2013-14; however, it also sees the loss of the Canteen Creek air strip upgrade and sealing, which has been deleted from the budget by the CLP government. The new Commonwealth-funded health clinics at Elliott and Canteen Creek have been saved with $700 000 allocated to expand the capacity of Tennant Creek’s family support centre. I look forward to further details on that project.
In the weeks and months ahead, the CLP government will see the real results of its economic policies and plan. However, the people of Tennant Creek are denied the chance to hear the details and ask questions as the Treasurer cancelled the budget road show. In a legislation briefing last week, I joked with the Treasurer, Hon David Tollner MLA, using an old line, a gag, ‘I am waiting for Budget 2013-14 to come out on video’, yet never dreamed it would become a reality.
I will go through different output areas commencing with the Department of Transport. I welcome the government’s increased investment in the provision of public transport and school bus services across the Northern Territory. However, there are no dollars for the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy, a Labor initiative for the first time in the Northern Territory to get safe, secure and reliable transport services into the regions and remote areas. The models built over the past four years are working and delivering results.
There were two elements in the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy for bus services: government supplying new infrastructure, and subsidies to put on new routes. The outcomes of safe and secure travel, community safety and people getting to and from town, improving health outcomes with patients having reliable transport to outpatient appointments, and getting to town to access services have been phenomenal.
However, I am disappointed it seems to have dropped right out of the sphere of the Country Liberal Party. I encourage those members who represent bush electorates to do some talking because when we talk about the cake, we in the bush did not get a piece. It is an important part of developing the bush. It has been wiped.
The funding for barge landings also seems to have disappeared. That was also part of the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy. There is no talk about the barge landing upgrades at Ramingining, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku; they have gone. Barge landings provide important efficiency which can deliver outcomes for budget expenditure like reducing the cost of living for people in remote communities on fixed incomes. The upgrade of barge landings was very important in supporting food security, in the delivery of services, and in the increase in efficiencies. It offered opportunities for employment as well.
There is no mention of the port for the Tiwi Islands. That is a big ticket item. It was bandied around in an election campaign but it did not appear in a budget exercising belt tightening.
The Tiwi ferry looks like it might have secured funding. I congratulate the member for Arafura on securing funding to continue the Tiwi ferry. This is one of the only initiatives of the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy still alive in the Country Liberal Party budget.
With regional and remote airstrips, the Utopia strip is completed. I was there recently. Lajamanu and Yarralin will also benefit. These are Labor initiatives, by the way, and represent a massive revote which is normal and part of a budget process. However, I am talking about it in a positive sense, not trying to slag it off as I heard during the last four years of Country Liberal opposition, using that chestnut to try to destabilise a government budget. It is the reality of the Territory; it is the reality of construction. You have your hand on a massive revote. Good on you, because it is stimulating the construction sector, growing the Territory and delivering important social infrastructure. Utopia, Lajamanu and Yarralin - good work. However, Canteen Creek missed out. It is in the Barkly and missed out. There has been no upgrade, no sealing, and the other important work we were going to plan around seems to have gone already.
In Question Time on 14 May 2013, the Chief Minister spoke about the CLP government being focused on investment in regional development, regional areas and regional towns. He needs to revisit the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy urgently.
In transport, the Country Liberal Party government investment in DriveSafe NT, the remote Indigenous driver education and licencing program, and the Motorcyclist Education Training and Licensing is to be commended. It was great to hear the Chief Minister deliver more information on delivering good community safety, not only in the urban areas, but right through the bush. However, it seems that has come at a cost. It seems to be a ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ budget. It comes at the cost of the driver offender training program and the Alcohol Ignition Lock Program. These two programs were related to the new orders introduced through the new era in corrections. They were debated ferociously by the then opposition, and they have finally secured the opportunity to knock both of them off.
The Minister for Correctional Services must be interested in having no planned driver offender training program in his Sentenced to a Job program because he is now going to sentence 60% of the population of Northern Territory prisons to a job without a licence. People would realise fundamental selection criteria requires a licence.
It was unfortunate to see the Alcohol Ignition Lock Program go, although it was a big target. For the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation it represents a fundamental alcohol rehabilitation tool. It represents a person who has made the decision to rehabilitate. They will have a reduced disqualification while they operate an alcohol ignition lock. By having this device fitted, they are making a conscious decision, engaging the psychology around giving up the grog, and showing the community they can do it properly, safely and in a measured way. The take-up rate has been small. The government can have all the arguments it wants, but, minister, this is a very important tool for rehabilitation and delivering community safety, and one that can be used in your rehabilitation plans.
The Minister for Correctional Services has an obsession, which I have noticed in the last few sittings of parliament, of jumping to his feet to conduct a vitriolic, abusive diatribe about how he is a better Corrections minister than I was. I am a teacher by trade. I taught children for 30 years so am qualified to say this. I have examined this a number of times and believe the Minister for Correctional Services has a developing issue he might want to get a handle on. It relates to the fact he is not cutting it with the prison officers. There is an issue going on where he might be using his micromanaging strategies to mess with the classification system which is upsetting the prison officers, and the ghost of the former Labor new era in corrections is haunting the corridors. These abusive diatribes, which are becoming quite regular, are setting an interesting pattern. I am qualified to teach and have taught children for 30 years. I am making that observation based on my qualifications.
What we see in roads infrastructure is massive revotes of the previous Labor government projects. Roll them out. That is the positive in it. Get that work happening because it feeds the economy and delivers important social infrastructure - revoted works to the tune of $106.806m, revoted transport assets opportunities of $19.452m, revoted works on the national network of $30.428m and revoted Territory road projects from 2012-13 of $56.354m. This is important work.
However, the Chief Minister has brought a new initiative into the budget which is celebrated and I commend it:
- The Territory government has also initiated a $30m Regional Roads Maintenance Program for targeted repairs and maintenance of regional roads throughout the Northern Territory, supporting our regions. Budget 2013-14 provides an additional $10m per annum for three years for routine and specific maintenance works for roads within the Central Desert, MacDonnell, Vic/Daly, Roper Gulf and Barkly Shires.
It is interesting to note, but not surprising, there are no upgrades to ensure year-round access from the Daly to Wadeye as stated in the CLP contract with Wadeye. ‘Our commitment to you, fully funded and fully costed.’ I am sure the member for Daly will be explaining that to the constituents in his electorate.
There is $3m to construct new overtaking opportunities at selected sections of the Stuart Highway between Darwin and Katherine - Commonwealth funded. I agree with that; it is a good initiative from the government. I travel the Stuart Highway often and have participated in Labor’s program, now continuing with the original money from the Commonwealth, because that section of the Stuart Highway between Katherine and Darwin is critical to providing more overtaking lanes which will deliver real safety outcomes.
It is a pity the poor old CLP letter writer in Tennant Creek, who was slagging me off in the election campaign and trying to discredited me because I was a minister spending all that money on overtaking lanes between Katherine and Darwin, will now have to turn that venom on the CLP. I will defend the CLP as I defended myself, because the CLP is delivering good outcomes here with overtaking lanes between Katherine and Darwin. The CLP letter writer, so active in the slagging campaign on me during the last election, will not be happy.
The Chief Minister talks so much about the Darwin Port Corporation, and so he should. In opposition, by jingo, did he talk about it! We will have to refer to Hansard for that because it was very creative stuff. However, there is not much new money for the Darwin Port Corporation and that is of real concern. There is $1.1m for environmental management relating to the Marine Supply Base. Of course, there is the revoted ongoing Marine Supply Base construction, with an allocation of $15.4m, which is important for an extremely important project.
I ask the Treasurer to not forget the Darwin Port Corporation because that is very much enabling infrastructure to support development from the regions. The Darwin Port Corporation is well, and there are hard-working people out there hunting customers in the regions every day. It is disappointing not to see more money in the Darwin Port Corporation as part of Budget 2013-14. However, there is the healthy revote of $32.178m incorporating the Marine Supply Base construction project.
The Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment’s new minister is at the wheel. He said ‘new governments invest in new areas’. It is good to see a balance there - revoted works from 2012-13 of $32.286m, but new works in Budget 2013-14 of $37.417m. That is good to see. Well done in the Cabinet room; you certainly got your fair share of the cake. So you should, because this is an important area that you continue to talk about …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present. Continue, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We were on the subject of a cake and the minister for the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment certainly got his share. It related to the cake in the freezer from the previous Labor government: There is $20m for Palmerston East headworks land release - a master plan suburb. Minister, you are in the box seat because you are working with the Land Development Corporation and the joint venture with Urbex, which is delivering a master plan suburb. They needed that extra $20m budgeted for Stage 2. Well done, because that will be a superb suburb exploring many elements of new urbanism. It is great to see the second stage of Zuccoli, a Labor suburb master planned and delivered, is continuing. I am glad it was not cut; it is continuing so it looks good.
I want to challenge you, minister, with an important project you have on the table: $15m for the Middle Arm industrial precinct water supply construction works. That is great. I drove into town recently on Jenkins Road, looked at Finn Road, came up Channel Island Road, went to Wishart Road and then came back on Tiger Brennan; by jingo have I spat out Labor roads infrastructure in that mouthful! The $15m Middle Arm industrial precinct is now water, power and roads going right past Weddell. When you get some dirt on your boots, minister, which I have not seen yet, you will suddenly realise how expensive and challenging it is turning off serviced land. You will find out the hard way because for four years and eight months all it has been is hot air. You will get your boots dirty. When you see power, water and roads going past Weddell, that is your greenfield site.
That will be the place to look if you are serious about pushing out reduced cost land and creating opportunities around more affordable housing. That is the challenge and the reward. However, it does not appear in the budget. Weddell has disappeared. If you look in the department at the amount of work done, and with $15m in your back pocket where Labor started and you are going to deliver - to put the headwork services that are going to go right past, Weddell is the one for you.
There is a $1.1m focus on land release initiatives across the Northern Territory. That is not much. It might all go to Katherine, but it is not mentioned in the budget. That is for the rest of the Territory - $1.1m for land release to deliver serviced lots of land in relation to a regional development agenda from the Country Liberal Party government. We will have to keep a close eye on that. There will not be too many estimates questions on that, minister, when we are only chasing $1.1m.
However, the other one you have in your back pocket, which is a great opportunity, is Kilgariff. The previous Labor government set that up perfectly and had budgeted $3.5m to create the entry statement and spine road, which is what you are finishing off now.
The budget paper talks about $854 000 for Kilgariff. There will be an interesting comparison in Hansard semantics. I drove past the other day and it is finally finishing it off. Your challenge is to get a developer to come in with you. My advice to the minister is go with the Land Development Corporation, go with the opportunities the previous Labor government was setting up around joint ventures to get Kilgariff moving because that will be a difficult space. You do not have a big demographic growth rate in Alice Springs, it is expensive turning out serviced land and you need a creative plan. You will need the Land Development Corporation and their experience. You have that money to try to finally set it up to bring in a developer. You really need a developer.
The Land Development Corporation is on the pad and has a number of really good projects on - revote projects they are carrying over. It is all about creation of the East Arm logistics precinct which is so good for the Northern Territory. That is a really good master-planned project and there is money to back it. It will be a great outcome.
In relation to Regional Development, the minister says not a white way, not a black way, but a right way. I am confused about a paragraph in the budget paper. Page 259 of Budget Paper No 3 says:
- The department promotes accountability in Indigenous affairs and works to improve outcomes for Indigenous people through the effective engagement, coordination of initiatives, well-founded policy and provision of interpreter and translator services.
I am a resident of the regions as well. I am glad the minister made it clear it is about everybody in the regions. However, regional services have been cut, cut, cut; essential services has been cut from $91.782m to $72.206m; remote infrastructure coordination cut from $9.345m to $2.952m; homelands, outstations and town camps cut from $39.712m to $35.898m; and regional development cut from $8.602m to $6.615m. That concerns me. I am sure the minister will have a story on that. I hope it is better than the Question Time responses. Those cuts in Regional Development are most concerning to a Country Liberal Party which puts out it is all about the regions.
The Chief Minister said in Question Time on 14 May 2013 that the CLP government was focused on investment in regional development, regional areas and regional towns. All we have seen in that is cut, cut, cut. Regional areas were definitely better funded under Labor and the CLP government, effectively, has torn up those contracts with the bush. The Borroloola contract is a good one. There are some amazing ideas on this. They need funding but, unfortunately, nothing got up in this budget. The good people of Borroloola will have to wait.
Arts and Museums, well done, minister, there is an increase in the budget. The Defence of Darwin Experience gets support. However, it looks like you are into staff cuts. Cuts in a very sensitive area like preserving our antiquities, our heritage, and our culture do not go down well. They are specialised people.
I do not have time for the Department of Infrastructure unless I get an extension.
Mr VATSKALIS: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member to finish his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Arts and Museums is a sensitive and special area for the Territory. It is great to see the Defence of Darwin getting extra funding, and mention of the Darwin Festival. The Labor government set the Darwin Festival up with $1m each year for three years. Minister, good on you; you did not take it away. I would have been savage if I had seen that money taken away from the Darwin Festival. Let us hope they get it next year as well, because it was a three-year deal by the previous Labor government. Minister, you will love the Darwin Festival. I encourage you to get involved in the Darwin Festival. It is great to see they have been able to keep the money to deliver a high-end cultural festival in the capital.
Establishing the board of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory as a statutory authority is a good move. It creates opportunities for better governance, management, and, importantly, it provides the opportunity to attract funding from the philanthropic sector. That is a really good outcome; however, it is no excuse for reducing Northern Territory government funding. I was shocked when I saw the Country Liberal Party throw politics into a newsletter which appeared from the MAGNT Board. I quote from a media release issued on 16 April 2013 from the Country Liberal Party government Chief Minister. At the end, it stated:
- … unfortunately government cannot contribute as much funding as we would like to our museums.
That was an unfortunate paragraph and, no doubt, you will be taking it up with whoever wrote it. Do not let the statutory authority be an excuse to not fund our museum and art gallery sector in the Northern Territory. You will discover how much support this sector has within the community. Because we are such a small jurisdiction with such a large land mass and so much diversity, it will always need a good balance of government funding and what can be attracted from the philanthropic sector. The work of the Labor government was all about trying to build and educate the philanthropic sector and bringing those funding bodies, funding organisations, and individuals to the Northern Territory to show them our magnificent culture and heritage.
The Department of Infrastructure’s budget has been cut and will continue to be cut. Budget Paper No 4 page 1 says:
- … total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64 million less than 2012-13 and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates ...
The minister said small business is actually the big business and he is right. I enjoyed that statement. My take on that is: it is all about the small- to middle-level subcontractor and contractor. I worked closely with that sector and it survived. We preserved jobs, created jobs and delivered social infrastructure because we used a fiscal stimulus strategy.
The Treasurer says, ‘There is no more money, they cannot use that strategy’. I advise the Minister for Infrastructure that when I left that sector they told me the government was on the right track. It recognised the countercyclical fiscal strategy of pulling back the public spend while the private spend kicks in, but they said it needed about 12 more months to secure those small- to middle-level contractors who were already starting to hurt. The word is coming back that they are already hurting. They needed that bit extra and you are cutting back at your peril and the peril of the Northern Territory.
It really is important that you listen to that sector, minister, and translate that information back to the Cabinet. The Treasurer said, ‘It is all about Labor’s spend, spend, spend. Give me something new. Give me something I can work with.’ I took up the challenge, Treasurer, and did a little number crunching for you. I want to deliver this in a brown paper bag directly to the Minister for Infrastructure. What could be critical in around 12 to 18 months, before the Ichthys project really starts to get grounded and step out of the earth, is the $5m to undertake a study for Palmerston hospital.
The previous Minister for Health offered the Health minister two studies for free. The federal Health minister has also offered those studies for free. It will cost you nothing and you can take the $5m and put it into concrete, rio and projects to stimulate the construction sector. In fiscal stimulus strategy, one of the reasons construction is favoured is because the construction industry puts the bread on the table of the working-class family. That is what makes the world go round. You have $5m. When you see only $1.1m allocated to land release across the whole of the Northern Territory outside of Palmerston East, that master planned suburb of Zuccoli, then you could put $5m into that and all the subbies in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Borroloola can get a piece of the action. That is a lot of cash for those regional areas. You put $5m into consultancies and studies when we can give you two studies for nothing.
There is also $9m going into the Chief Minister’s department. I rattled this government with that last time we were gathered in this House. They took great offence and started to create stories of what that money was for. That is a lot of money going into the Chief Minister’s department. If you add five and nine you get 14. When you are talking about $14m you have some serious capital to add to that infrastructure budget. We are already starting to subtract from that $64m cup.
There is another addition we could look at. About $3.6m is going to a consultation to scrap the shires. We in the regions know the minister is having all types of dramas in this area. The Chief Minister, who really set up the demise of the shires, is, no doubt, having the same pains. I would love to be a fly in the Cabinet room overseeing that operation. It means $3.6m. It does not sound like much money, but it is a hell of a lot of money in Tennant Creek, let me tell you. You can deliver serious infrastructure stimulus for $3.6m in a town like Tennant Creek. However, this money is going to be spent on a consultancy to scrap the shires, which will never happen anyway and that money could be redirected.
Give credit where it is due, but if you guys get it wrong there are serious consequences. When we talk about $5m for this, $9m for that, $3.6m for that - there you go, Treasurer, I did some number crunching, and came back to you with something positive - redirect it.
There is also what the Labor government was doing with department efficiency dividends. That is important, and you guys are using that with a twist. Also, we were doing things with the staffing cap of the public sector. You guys are doing that, but with a twist - you are sacking people. There is also the countercyclical fiscal strategy which you are aware of - I have seen that - but it probably needs some tweaking.
In conclusion, Minister for Infrastructure, listen to that sector because a number of issues are squeezing the economy: tourism and a new mining tax and probably even ramifications for exploration. In the delicate time between when these major projects really kick in you may want to keep your finger on the pulse and watch the infrastructure sector carefully so you do not slip behind. If you lose any ground in that sector it will be very difficult to pick it up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for the opportunity to comment on his budget.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not speaking for or against the budget but will comment on the first budget of the CLP government. There was a great deal of interest in the community to see if it would deliver anything for Territorians.
It was delivered early this week and yesterday my colleague, the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, commented that it was a budget of missed opportunities. I believe it is a budget of broken promises to Territorians on the cost of living, the debt, the drunks, health, and education.
The CLP came to government promising, first of all, to bring down the cost of living. The CLP inherited an inflation figure of 2.1% and, on their own admission this week, the inflation figure now stands at 3.9%. In January it was 4.2%, but because of the change of leadership in the CLP and the reduction of the massive increase from 30% to another massive increase of 20% in power and water, that has now gone to 3.9%. They promised to bring down the debt but, in the first seven months of this government, the debt has gone from $3.2bn to $4.4bn next year. This is a broken promise.
The economy is doing well? No, it is not. People will tell you they had some of the most terrible times in their business. Of course, again, from their own budget, from their own admission, we find the state final demand has plummeted from what we planned of 26%-positive to 15%-negative. Today, the member for Fong Lim said, ‘The state final demand is not a really good indicator of the economy. This is not what the economists say’. Well, I beg to differ. I support my difference with a publication by the Reserve Bank of Australia in 2012. In an article ‘The Recent Economic Performance of the States’ by Kathryn Davis, Kevin Lane and David Orsmond, there is a statement about the final demand. I quote from that article:
- A timely measure of state economic performance is the growth of state final demand, which measures the growth in consumption and investment spending by the household, business and government sectors ...
This is a statement by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which knows more than me about finances and more than the member for Fong Lim. Here we have somebody with authority who says the state’s final demand is a good indicator of how well the economy performs. Obviously, under the CLP, it would not perform very well.
Do I have to talk about the drunks? Since the scrapping of the Banned Drinker Register we have seen an influx of people we had not seen for some time because they could not access alcohol in Darwin and other major cities. The government argued that the Banned Drinker Register was not successful. It was not 100% successful; it was not perfect. Nothing put in place will ever be 100% successful, but it drove the people out of Darwin and out of takeaway liquor stores because they could not access liquor. When I go to liquor stores in my electorate and hear people complaining about the influx of people accessing massive amounts of alcohol I know the BDR had an effect. Members opposite know that and realise the mistake they made but are not game to reinstate it for their own reasons. They now have the register of banned drinkers. Even the local newspaper, which I do not consider to be pro-Labor, commented in the editorial it was an idea probably borrowed from Monty Python. It was not the best idea.
I listened to the Treasurer deliver his speech and could not help but smile at some of the things he said. One thing he said with a straight face was about Power and Water and I quote from his speech, page 4:
- The Country Liberal government started the reform agenda and it was continued for a time by the Martin/Stirling government. They understood the long-term benefits of reform and the danger of not embracing competition in our marketplace. This danger was spectacularly highlighted when NT Power successfully sued the Power and Water Authority for refusing access to distribution infrastructure prior to 2000.
The member opposite neglected to say prior to 2000 the government that restricted access to the distribution lines was a CLP government. He also does not say NT Power successfully sued the Northern Territory government - won the case – and, in 2004, the Northern Territory government had to pay $60m compensation to NT Power and one of the first Chief Ministers of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham.
The other thing that worries me with this budget is the Treasurer said he identified $200m of savings in Power and Water alone. That worries me. The last time they identified savings in Power and Water they left it with a reduced workforce and no equipment in the sheds. This led to the well-known incident at Casuarina substation. It was not only Casuarina substation, there was other infrastructure in the Territory in danger of failing with catastrophic results. That is why Power and Water had to borrow the money and reconstruct some of the substations within the city and the suburbs to avoid another catastrophic event like the Casuarina substation explosion.
Another thing that worries me is the Treasurer stated another company is to put a 60 MW power generator in the Northern Territory to provide energy between Katherine and Darwin. They will bring their own generators and will utilise gas. We have difficulties, at this stage, providing gas to Gove. I wonder where this company will find the extra gas required. Also, I remember the deals done by the CLP government before 2001. The Darwin to Katherine power line is one, a power line, even by their own admission - some of the members opposite say they paid too much at the time, but they made a deal and paid too much.
Of course, my portfolio is not Power and Water but I highlight these issues because I was at the breakfast for the Territory Construction Association and the Treasurer started talking about the previous Labor government, the enormous debt it left, and other things. I thought, ‘If you are here to inform Territorians, at least tell them the truth’. The first is the $5.5bn deficit. The previous Labor government did not leave a $5.5bn deficit. It is recorded in the budget books of 2012 and the PEFO documents. The CLP knew the level of debt the previous Labor government left. It was far below $5.5bn. The figure $5.5bn was the forward estimate if nothing was done to reduce that debt. In the same books a strategy was recorded of what this government would do to reduce the debt.
Yes, there was a debt. I recall the debt to revenue ratio was 34%. I remind members opposite that when the Country Liberal Party was in government before 2001 - I am not criticising; as a matter of fact, I praise them because they put much effort and money into the necessary works in the Northern Territory. The Territory achieved self-government in 1978 and was in the development stage - the debt to revenue ratio in 2001, as per their admission in the budget book, was 69%. We left a debt to revenue ratio of 34% and, because they have pushed the debt to $4.1bn, the debt to revenue ratio now sits around 79% or 80%.
It is very rich for the member opposite to blame the previous Labor government for everything. They will probably blame the previous Labor government for the Wet Season not being very wet, but I will not continue with that.
I will comment on my shadow portfolios. Health is one of the most important portfolios in the Northern Territory because our people demand good quality health services and we have one of the sickest populations in Australia.
The tyranny of distance and the small population, of course, works against us. We are not able to attract doctors and nurses like they do down south and sometimes we have to pay top dollar. That is why the Labor government, in 2012, had a Health budget of $1.25bn which was, at the time, the highest in the Northern Territory. This year the Country Liberal Party has a Health budget of $1.36bn. I congratulate the Minister for Health for managing to get all that money out of Budget Cabinet. I know how hard it is; however, she knows, as do I and many other people who serve as Health ministers, this money is desperately needed in the Northern Territory.
My criticism is that she alleges this is much bigger than the Health budget of the Labor government. Our budget was $1.25bn. To catch up with CPI you have to put in an extra $50m, which brought our budget to $1.275bn. Considering you put an extra $40m in for alcohol rehabilitation, that will bring the budget to what it is today. It is not a budget with growth. It is a budget catching up with CPI and with extra money added to address the alcohol rehabilitation initiative this government is putting in place. It is a very noble idea to address alcoholism in the Northern Territory but the initiative will not work because it is a punitive measure rather than a treatment measure. Correctly, this morning I heard a member opposite say alcoholism is a disease. Yes, it is. You cannot treat people if they do not want to be treated. You can lock them up but, unless you throw the key away and keep them there without access to alcohol, these people will not be treated. Reformed alcoholics are scared to drink a glass of wine because they believe they will start drinking again.
My prediction is money will be spent, a few people will go in, the same people will come out, and the same people will be back time and time again. Meanwhile, lawyers from the Territory or down south will challenge every step of the legislation and the process because of the way it is being framed. People will be detained from 72 hours up to 13 days without being charged of committing a crime. Many people do not agree with that and there will be significant delays and challenges in the courts.
I agree with the members opposite: we have a serious problem in the Territory and have to address it, but this way is not the right way. If the government had consulted with experts to find a solution not based on punishment but on treatment, I would wholeheartedly give bipartisan support in order to resolve these issues. It has to be a combination of measures. There has to be abstinence from alcohol, control of income and controlled supply of alcohol. One measure alone will not achieve what we want. There has to be a combination of measures.
The government is putting much money into Health; however, I have many criticisms. I heard the Treasurer this morning, at the Territory Construction Association breakfast, accuse the previous Labor government of doing many things without thinking about the future. For example, there was no budget to run the Alice Springs Emergency Department. Excuse me? There is an emergency department in Alice Springs receiving money from the Health budget. It is an old emergency department treating people in Alice Springs and Central Australia and there is money to run it. When the new emergency department opens the old one will close. What will happen to the money currently allocated to the emergency department in Alice Springs? Where will this money go? Will it stop all of a sudden? No, it will be transferred to the new emergency department. Because it is bigger and better, there has to be an increase in allocation, which will happen. Do not tell me that in the $1.36bn Health budget some extra money will not be found to be allocated to the emergency department in Alice Springs.
On the other hand, we now have two boards: one in the north and one in Central Australia. These boards will make decisions about the allocation of funding in the different areas. It is for the Central Australian health board to decide how much money goes and where, not the minister or the Health department. That was put in place by the Labor government. The legislation I introduced was to avoid money being wasted here, there and everywhere by bureaucrats in Darwin without any involvement from the local community. Now, quite rightly, there are two budgets - one for the north and one for the south - and the two boards have to decide where this money will go.
The idea of the medi-hotels was not to make the Department of Health a hotelier or to make a hotel for long-grassers, as the member for Fong Lim enjoys saying, but to avoid the bed blockages at Royal Darwin Hospital. Time after time, bed occupancy at Royal Darwin Hospital is so high that people admitted through the emergency department cannot be transferred into a ward.
We have people not sick enough to stay in hospital, not well enough to travel, and we have to let them stay in the hospital, occupying a valuable hospital bed. The member for Fong Lim and Treasurer said: This is going to be a medi-hotel. We are not running medi-hotels’. The idea was never for the Health department to run the medi-hotels. The medi-hotels were to be run by NGOs, the same way Barbara James House for people with cancer is run by the YWCA and people pay with their PATS. That was the idea. I know it makes good publicity and the media loves the member for Fong Lim - Wicking does not, but the media does. That is the idea and, if he was serious about what he was saying and wanted to give the real picture to Territorians, he would immediately admit that medi-hostels were never to be run by the department. The department probably told him that, but he chooses to ignore it.
There is no money in this budget for a super clinic in the northern suburbs. The previous federal Health minister, Ms Nicola Roxon, and the current federal minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek, have steadfastly said there is $5m on the table for a northern suburbs super clinic - nothing in the budget for a super clinic.
The infectious diseases budget is reduced by $8m. My colleague, the member for Nightcliff, highlighted the problems that can be created with Clinic 34 and STDs, especially in young women and men from remote communities.
There is nothing in the budget for health research. In the previous Labor government budget, $7m was allocated for health research programs run by NGOs and medical schools in the Territory. In this budget, the Menzies School of Health Research will receive nothing because this budget does not have a penny, a dollar, for health research.
Let us talk about the Palmerston hospital …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr VATSKALIS: Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak about the Palmerston hospital, let us talk about the money allocated in this budget for infrastructure. This budget has cut new capital works for Canteen Creek, Numbulwar, Kaltukatjara and Maningrida. Apart from the fact Maningrida was announced by us in 2012, as was Canteen Creek, I have in front of me a statement by Hon Tanya Plibersek criticising the CLP for a media release telling people they are going to put new clinics in Numbulwar and Kaltukatjara financed with Commonwealth money, not Northern Territory government money.
That brings me to the hospital. Many times members opposite have criticised Palmerston hospital. Unfortunately for them, people also know the history of Palmerston hospital. They know about the consultation with the public, the City of Palmerston, seniors, and everybody else on Palmerston hospital. We said from the beginning the hospital would start small but would have space for growth. The reason that area was selected was the Ernst & Young study was done two years ago and looked into the health needs of people in the area as it was growing. The Aurora study was done in consultation with medical practitioners, nurses, the Australian Medical Association and other people and looked at the needs of the people in the area, both rural and Palmerston.
It was decided this was the best place to put it because it was close to the Palmerston Super Clinic - yes, the one the CLP opposed but came to accept because it provides a good service to people in Palmerston - and would create a health precinct. Also, that land belonged to the Northern Territory government and we did not have to buy new land. We found the land was big enough to accommodate the possible expansion of the hospital in the future. Not only did we erect a fence, as the member for Drysdale said, we brought the services to that site. Money was spent to service the site so it would be ready for construction immediately.
The members opposite have promised a hospital in 15 years’ time. They want to build a hospital on the model of regional hospitals in New South Wales. One of the models they chose was built and, unfortunately, proven to be substandard and had to be modified before it commenced operation. I believe it was Bathurst Hospital. The hospital in Palmerston was not an election promise; it was a real hospital for the people of Palmerston which would be built with the ability to expand. I remember the polemic against the hospital - the misinformation about being able to give birth at Palmerston hospital. You could; you would.
They also told us it was not going to be a 24-hour hospital. No, it was going to be a 24-hour hospital and would have day surgery. It was not going to have an ICU because you do not want to have ICUs in hospitals 30 km from each other. Also, trying to get practitioners to man ICU can be a big challenge.
Palmerston hospital will be a point of difference between us. Member for Drysdale, the people in Palmerston know about Palmerston hospital. As a matter of fact, you attended one of the briefings we gave about Palmerston hospital. I remember you turned up wearing your pre-election T-shirt, so you were in one of the briefings. You know people attended and you heard their comments. We will differ on Palmerston hospital and I am sure, when the election comes, people in Palmerston will realise who promised the hospital, who delivered it, and who did not.
Another shadow portfolio I have is Primary Industry and Fisheries. If I look at the budget for Primary Industry and Fisheries, also Mines, what can I say? The minister has highlighted things we put in place. We have not yet seen any extra money to buy fishing licences but the minister’s highlights say they are committed to buying the licences for Chambers Bay and Finke Bay. That was the money the Labor government had allocated to buy fishing licences.
The minister has delivered no new fishing licences and fish fingers for dinner. If you ask the fresh seafood traders they will tell you supply of barramundi is low and the price is increasing. Of course, the minister for Fisheries managed, because of his incompetence, to close the Finniss River to amateur fishermen in the Northern Territory.
The minister talks about developing the Northern Territory and developing the Ord. He is allocating money for a group to look after the Ord. We do not need extra money for a specific team. We already had a team of people working with the Western Australian government on the Ord. One thing that scares me about the Ord is the massive demand for infrastructure in the Ord area if it was to be developed by the government. Not only money and resources to be allocated for the commercial sector which would exceed $0.5bn, but also negotiations have never taken place with traditional owners on this side of the border.
It is very easy to throw headlines around about development of the Ord. It would be a good idea to substantiate your headlines and statements with real figures because the minister for Fisheries is not brave enough to ask Territorians to contribute $0.5bn to develop the Ord. On our side, and as a minister, I made it clear to the company that proposed to develop the Ord that we were happy to work with them as long as they were prepared to pay for the infrastructure. We wanted to do that because our priorities at the time were the Katherine, Mataranka, Ti Tree and Alice Springs regions. We could see areas for development.
I also remember the criticisms about not providing money for the abattoir to be constructed at Livingstone. I noticed there is nothing in the budget about providing money for the abattoir. I am not going to argue. I agree with that because a private business has to finance its own affairs. If a private business cannot make a profit without the government putting money in, it should not be in that business. We should help businesses by providing in-kind support rather than putting money in their coffers.
Another example of how unpopular the budget and measures of the government are can be seen by the media releases of the Minerals Council of Australia. One is, ‘NT Government’s Mining Tax Grab’, about the 1% levy. The other is, ‘Another Day, Another New Tax on NT Mining’. I am talking about the levy. I believe the legislation was introduced today by the member opposite on behalf of the Minister for Mines and Energy.
While I support any attempt to rectify some of the legacy mines in the Territory, it should be remembered these are the CLP government legacy mines of the Territory. Since 2001, when we gained government, we demanded and put in place a 100% environmental bond. This is not commercial-in-confidence because, in the past, we always disclosed the bonds we imposed on mining companies. Also, we published on the department’s website the mine management plans of all the mining companies in the Territory. None of the companies opposed or rejected it, and none said anything about it. When the minister refused to disclosed the information about the environmental bond by the ilmenite …
Ms FYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member for Casuarina to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: When the minister claimed commercial-in-confidence in parliament and did not disclose the environmental bond the department had put on the new ilmenite mine, the company had no problem. The next week it disclosed the level of the environmental bond.
While the levy may be a good idea, it is unfair for corporate citizens who do the right thing to be slapped with a levy to fix the mistakes of previous CLP governments. It will cost jobs and discourage other people coming to the Territory. There are a number of questions about who will pay. Are exploration companies going to pay as they have a small footprint in the Territory? Are companies that bought legacy mines and work them going to pay? They are already fixing the problem with that legacy mine. However, this is a discussion for a later date when the legislators debate it in parliament.
The mining companies are very disappointed by the lack of communication from the government. The levy and the tax on royalties and on offices were imposed by this government with no communication or consultation with industry. It is interesting to see the Minister for Mines and Energy, while very active with primary industries and cattle, has completely abandoned mining. I noticed in his budget the amount allocated for travelling overseas to promote the Territory has been cut by $700 000. A sum of $1.7m was previously allocated for departmental staff to promote the Territory four, five and six times a year. That has now reduced to 60% of the previous budget. It looks like the ‘Territory Open for Business’ sign has gone down and a new one has gone up, ‘The Territory May Be Open For Business’.
Overall, the first budget for the CLP was not a good budget. It was a budget not only of missed opportunities but of broken promises. It was a disappointing budget. There are good things in the budget, but there are many things that could be done better and provide better opportunities for Territorians. If we are to see the Territory develop, we have to be brave and make decisions that sometimes will not go the way the Treasurer wants but will help the Territory economy and Territory businesses.
The same Country Liberal government, from 1978 to 2001, went against the Treasurer’s wishes because they knew what needed to be done in the Northern Territory. They borrowed money and invested it in the Northern Territory. I recall something the then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, said when he was criticised because the budget for this building was double the original budget. I will paraphrase, and I apologise to Marshall for that - if he had not spent the money in Darwin at that time thousands of businesses, builders, tilers, framers and cabinetmakers would have been out of a job and, most likely, have left the Northern Territory.
These are the decisions you sometimes have to make. We have been criticised for borrowing money. Yes, we borrowed money to put more teachers in schools, more nurses and doctors in our hospitals, an oncology unit in Darwin, clinics in remote communities, and to build houses and schools in remote communities. We had the first Indigenous students graduating from Year 12 in remote schools. That is what we bought with the money we borrowed, the same way you go to the bank and borrow money to buy a house. You pay back the debt but, at the end of the day, a legacy will be left for your family: a house. We borrowed the money because we knew we would leave a Territory developed and thriving with Territorians who are not leaving because they could not get a job, an education, or proper treatment in our hospitals.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, this budget is not good news for Territorians. It has reduced funding to children services and is not properly supporting our environment. Government speeches in support of this budget have been big on rhetoric and development but light on commitment to protecting our environment, whether it is the bush or urban environments.
The Treasurer, in this House yesterday, made light of the environment and laughed at the importance of environmental impact statements. Living in the Northern Territory is not just about benefiting from economic development. It is about appreciating and enjoying our wonderful lifestyle, living and working in a place where you can avoid the environmental degradation often found down south, and ensuring adequate resourcing and good planning and management for our environment for future Territorians to enjoy. It is about not repeating the mistakes being made in other jurisdictions.
This Country Liberals Giles government seems stuck on making the Northern Territory a difficult place to live with the slashing and burning of services, and by imposing increases on the cost of living and CPI as a result of their budget decisions.
Something that will help keep people here is a quality environment - we retain our natural environment. This is especially so with the government keen to accelerate development and help achieve the Coalition dream of developing the north, yet not focus on protecting the environment along the way. The Treasurer, in his first speech in this Twelfth Assembly spoke about the joy of being in government:
- The best thing government can do … is get out of the way - just let people use their initiative … let them have a go.
It is good to see the budget provides an additional $9m for the monitoring and regulation of mining activities, but government had to make some contribution while imposing a new tax on the mining sector to fund remediation of legacy mining issues. Many of these legacies are from previous Country Liberal Party administrations. I was pleased to hear COOLmob, such an important and valuable program aimed at not only helping Territorians reduce their energy consumption and live sustainably but also helping them save on their power and water bills, was not hurt in this budget. This program is so important with the huge increases to power and water bills we have seen. We need to support programs like this, and I was pleased to see that this funding, as I understand, is untouched.
It was also good to see ongoing commitment to our ecoBiz NT program encouraging better environmental practise within business. Similarly, it was good to see some support for weed management in the Katherine and Tennant Creek regions, as well as continuing support for our bush firefighters - important programs.
It is a great pity our noisiest minister, the member for Greatorex, has not been able to convince his colleagues to support our treasured national park estate. Our parks are our greatest asset, something we can all enjoy and something to leave for our children. However, the minister, who talks so lovingly of his tourism brolga logo, sadly has not had the same affection for the Parks and Wildlife eagle. The budget sees a measly $1.35m for improving cycling and walking tracks within our parks, and only a modest increase in funding for visitor management, yet our parks continue to expand. Anyone who visits Litchfield regularly will know visitor management is a pressing issue at peak times, and funds could easily go into work on improving and planning across all our parks.
Earlier this year the government disallowed the joint management plan, citing the need for further work due to the busyness of the park. This is not recognised in this budget. That is worrying. When we are looking for savings to redirect other functions, the first point of call seems to be the conservation management component of the Parks and Wildlife budget. We have seen that cut from around $31m across the Territory, down to $23m in this budget. That is very concerning.
We will soon see the removal of two Parks and Wildlife rangers from the Indigenous ranger groups on the Gove Peninsula. These positions will be gone. They currently provide vital support to the local community, particularly in assisting with the removal of nuisance wildlife such as feral dogs, buffaloes, and crocodiles. Often, these rangers are the first on the scene to search and rescue or retrieve in the event of a fatal crocodile attack. I urge the minister to look at this decision again regarding the Gove Peninsula.
It is also concerning that support for our marine ranger groups is declining. Our marine ranger groups have been a wonderful initiative, helping to protect our coastlines and manage our marine resources. The development of these ranger groups has been a great example of new activity bringing value-adding benefits to some of our most disadvantaged communities. New opportunities for them to contribute to environmental services, opportunities for jobs, community leadership, enterprise - gone. These programs should be encouraged and supported, as the experience tends to be that where local people can see there are local management and protection systems in place they support the environment, more enterprise development and access for visitors whilst, at the same time, protecting our natural resources.
In Budget Paper No 3, Budget Highlights for 2013-14 for the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, it says there is $680 000 to support the Marine Ranger Program, but the Regional Highlights for Budget 2013-14 say there is $200 000 to support the Marine Ranger Program Territory-wide. The Regional Highlights for last year said there was $460 000 for the Marine Ranger Program. It would appear there are significant cuts to those programs. In any case, there is uncertainty about the real budget allocation, and I look forward to the explanation from the minister on the real story for support of marine ranger groups.
As I said last night, the Northern Territory budget handed down this week was not good news for child protection in the Territory. I am still wondering where child protection - the Office of Children and Families - sits within government. Nobody has clarified that. I understand the Treasurer believes it is still within the Department of Education. Page 253 of Budget Paper No 3 shows a real budget cut of nearly $9m to the Office of Children and Families - $9m less to provide essential services to Territory children.
Budget Paper No 3, page 254, shows 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation. The budget anticipates reports of child abuse and neglect will increase from 8000 to 10 000 in just one year. However, investigations will drop from 5400 to 4000. Those figures cause alarm and concern - an increase in notifications but less funding, fewer resources, and fewer investigations. I have already mentioned the 44 vacancies in the Alice Springs office. Child abuse must be being swept under the carpet. You cannot have a third of your positions in an office unfilled and provide acceptable levels of support to Territory children.
We know since the CLP came to government frontline staff in child protection have been sacked, contracts not renewed, positions left vacant, and senior executive staff have all been sacked. From this, children suffer. At the same time we will see child protection notifications increase, but will see a decrease in these notifications being investigated. Alarm bells are beginning to ring. There are 10 000 child protection notifications but only 4000 being completed. What is the criterion for investigating some cases and not others? This raises more questions than answers and, from the budget papers, we have been told child protection investigations being finalised this year are tracking below the estimated figure. This must be a reflection of the chaos the Office of Children and Families is in.
It is hard not to look at these cuts and worry that they are directly relating to children’s services being affected. The budget paper talks about strengthening the child protection system but there is no evidence to this. In fact, everything is to the contrary.
Since coming to power, the CLP has decimated child protection resources. It has scrapped the independent oversight, the Coordinator General, moved child protection in and out and we are not sure where it is sitting. It has cut the family support budget by 24%, a $4.8m cut to child protection and youth services, slashed the NGO funding, sacked the CEO, then said she was doing a good job, paid her out and reemployed her in Transport. It sacked the child protection executive team and the independent external monitoring committee. It is chaos. The increased funding to the sector under the previous Labor government must be reinstated and the Giles CLP government must start to take child protection seriously.
Like all Territorians, people in my electorate are very concerned about hospital and health services. This budget confirms the planned children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital has been scrapped. This is scrapping a facility anyone who has ever taken their child to Royal Darwin Hospital insists is needed. The staff are wonderful, the medical care is wonderful, but the facilities need to be improved. The children’s wing needs to be built. I do not know what I can do to convince the Minister for Health she needs to listen to this. She ignores the comments and this budget backs up that the children’s wing will not go ahead.
Not opening the medi-hotel to free up acute bed space is appalling. These beds are for patients who do not need to be in the acute care area of the hospital but are not well enough to travel home. The first question they ask at the hospital when you are looking at leaving is, ‘Where do you live?’ It is okay if you live in the northern suburbs or Palmerston, but if you live further afield you need to stay in town. You need to have an affordable safe place to stay and the medi-hotel was the answer, run by NGOs to support patients leaving Royal Darwin Hospital and freeing up bed space so other patients can be seen to.
Cuts to our hospitals are just the start of the CLP funding cuts to health. This budget rips $8m out of vital disease control funding used to reduce the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the Territory. The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control shows there were 841 sexually transmitted disease notifications in six months in children aged between 15 and 19, 90% being Indigenous, two-thirds of them girls. You cannot take $8m out of a budget and pretend the number of STIs will not increase. The budget confirms the funding cut will result in the number of treatments at Clinic 34 in Darwin and Alice Springs will drop from 14 000 to 12 000. It is a disgrace that any member of the CLP can sit in Budget Cabinet and let this happen to children and families. It is a budget of dysfunction with no support for our most vulnerable, our health system or Territory families.
The CLP promised boot camps but has scrapped Balunu. We still do not have anything in place resembling their promise. I was extremely disappointed, as was my electorate, to see no funding in this budget for Nightcliff Police Station. This was promised; it was an election commitment. You had a contract signed with the Nightcliff community - torn up, no funding. A commitment to deliver a 24/7 police station to an area that is growing, becoming denser, already dealing with antisocial behaviour issues but no, nothing in this budget for Nightcliff Police Station.
This government has allowed 2500 people to start drinking again and children to be the victims of this alcohol abuse. The level of antisocial behaviour in our community is unacceptable. Police are being called daily, sometimes twice a day, and shopkeepers were being assaulted just down from my office only a few weeks ago. People do not feel safe even visiting the local playground. They are stepping over broken glass and witnessing things they should not. You promised to clean up the streets immediately. You have not done so and this budget does not deliver. The Nightcliff area needs a police station and we are not seeing that. It completely fails to support police to support the community.
I am passionate about education, a massive loser in this budget. In real terms, the education budget has been cut by $51m. This budget confirms that changes to the student/teacher ratio will result in 130 fewer teachers. Some schools will lose as many as 23 teachers. The middle school in my area will be affected by this, looking to lose four teachers. How can we support education if you are cutting teachers? This is why the Country Liberal Party has not signed up to the $300m under Gonski. Gonski is about more teachers, but the Country Liberal Party is cutting teacher numbers. The response from the Country Liberal Party is, ‘Our teachers do not work hard enough’. This is a disgrace and a clear indication they are out of touch with the priorities and concerns of Territory families.
The Country Liberal Party has hit businesses in every way possible. Power price rises went through the roof, and rates and charges. Businesses in my electorate say they cannot handle it. Thousands of dollars have been added to their power and water bills. This is not a good budget for Territorians, for health, for education, for children’s services, or for the people of Nightcliff. Thank you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, these budget bills will enshrine in legislation that the Country Liberal Party is breaking election promises. It is breaking a promise to cut the cost of living, to cut debt, and its promise that frontline workers are safe. These are election promises the public took on faith and trusted the Country Liberal Party to keep. These are simple promises that are easily understood and easily kept. The Country Liberal Party has brazenly broken them.
The former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, broke these promises in the mini-budget. There was some hope from the optimistic in the community that our new Chief Minister, Adam Giles, might keep the Country Liberal Party’s election promises. That has not happened. There may have been a change of leader, but there has been no change in the actions of this government. They continue to break promises and faith with the people who elected them. They have broken trust with people by increasing the cost of living rather than cutting it. They have done this despite knowing the state of the books before being elected. They made all their promises before they were elected, knowing the state of the books, yet still made promises they knew they were not going to keep.
Their decision to increase the cost of power and water has doubled the cost of living pressures on households in the Northern Territory. Budget Paper No 2, page 25, says the CPI is forecast to increase from 2% to 3.9% due to the Territory government’s utility price increases.
The Country Liberal Party made a clear promise to cut debt. It was straightforward; the Country Liberal Party would cut debt. Those were the words but what are the actions? In this budget they have borrowed an extra $1.1bn. They have taken debt from $3.278bn to $4.417bn. This is a broken promise. By their own actions the Country Liberal Party has shown all the rhetoric around debt is just political grandstanding. This government borrows. The Country Liberal Party knew the books before being elected and made a promise to cut debt. Instead, they have borrowed $1.1bn. They did not say they were going to borrow less than the Labor government; they said they were going to cut debt and, instead, have borrowed $1.1bn. They are borrowing because they know debt is manageable and is essential to building the Territory’s future.
The Country Liberal Party is brazen when it comes to breaking promises. It has increased debt, not cut it. It has increased the cost of living, not cut it. Frontline staff are being sacked. In education, the Territory government is cutting funds to schools for the first time since 1992. Teacher numbers are being cut and resources supporting schools are being reduced. It is the most backward step for schools in more than 20 years. In real terms, the Education budget has been cut by $51m and payments to teachers and support staff are being cut by $34m. The 2012-13 budget was $863m. Based on the CPI forecast in this budget of 3.9%, for that department to keep operating as usual it would need an increase to $897m just to maintain current services. Instead, Budget 2013-14 shows $846m - a nominal cut of $17m, a real cut of $51m.
Budget Paper No 2, page 82, also lays it out: a $17m cut to education. However, the critical cut is in Budget Paper No 3, page 198, with employee expenses going from $451m to $417m, a $34m saving by employing less teachers. That is a broken election promise that frontline staff will be safe. We have amazing teachers who do an incredible job, often work late hours, take work home and volunteer for school community events. They should be congratulated for the extra work they do ...
Mr Chandler: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER: The minister calls, ‘Hear, hear’. I am sure he believes that but he will have a great deal of trouble walking away from his down time comments. He has tried to clarify them, put them into context, explain them away but, at the end of the day, what the minister said about there being quite a bit of down time for teachers, ‘If there are 27 students in the class and one teacher when you have a teacher/student ratio of 14:1, what are all the other teachers doing?’ To the minister’s great regret, that comment will follow him for the rest of his career in Education. He lost many teachers that day. It went through the education community immediately. That comment cut to the heart of many teachers because it is something they are very sensitive about. It is an accusation they know is made and know is not true. If you have any involvement with a school you will know teachers do not have down time. Teachers are constantly working in their schools and often work after hours. As I said, you often see teachers volunteering at community events at schools.
The minister is trying to walk away from those comments. He is trying to put them into a broader context; however, tragically, he made them, teachers heard them, and they will remember them for a long time. That went to the heart of many of the vulnerabilities of teachers. They want a minister who will defend them from those accusations, not make the accusation. That hurt many teachers.
This budget confirms we will be losing 127 teachers. Our maths said - we did the ratio changes - 130. The minister has confirmed 127 teachers will be cut as part of the decision to increase classroom sizes by increasing student/teacher ratios in our middle and senior schools.
Middle schooling was introduced by the previous government to ensure students were given support in their critical and turbulent years. It was designed to nurture students and provide them with a strong framework of teaching, learning and engagement. This has been damaged by these changes. Middle schools will now only have one teacher for every 20 students instead of one for 17. Some of our middle schools, for example, Rosebery Middle School, will lose around eight teachers, five next year and three the year after. A maximum of five will leave the school in one year. They are still going to lose around eight teachers over two years.
Sanderson Middle School will lose around seven teachers. All of our middle schools will lose a significant number of teachers over the next few years, which will mean reduced programs. The classes that parents and teachers are most worried about and which are the most vulnerable, and which most people have raised with me, are those around alternative education for students who need extra attention: students who are not learning or are disrupting the learning of others in mainstream classrooms. These are the classes that parents and teachers see as most vulnerable with a reduced number of teachers in the school. Catering for subjects will be at risk with fewer teachers for the students you have.
The change to the staffing formula for senior schools is also very significant. It has been slashed from one teacher for every 14 students to one teacher for every 18 students. At Darwin High School, which is, in my opinion, the best school in the Territory, you are looking at losing around 20 teachers: five a year every year for four years. I feel for that principal. I do not know how they will work out which five they lose each year. Who will decide which teachers will not be employed? We are talking about specialist senior schools; you cannot rely on natural attrition to sort this out. What if you lose all your maths teachers in one year? You will need a maths teacher, a science teacher or a specialist teacher. This is not a natural attrition question. Somehow they will have to work out which teachers they will lose from the school each year.
Senior schools will be making decisions about what support they will cut to students in these critical senior years as they determine the direction of their life in the workforce or higher education. Around 127 teacher positions are gone - fewer teachers, larger classes, fewer subjects. This is what the CLP is delivering in education.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 37, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
There is a quorum.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, in the media release from the minister on 15 May, he talked about there being …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: I would like to say I called attention to the state of the House to have you join me, Dave, but I did not. You are welcome to stay; I would love to have the Treasurer in the Chamber.
Sorry, Madam Speaker, I should not reflect on the presence or absence of members from the Chamber.
From the media release the minister issued yesterday - getting my days straight - he said of those 127 teachers lost in senior schools, 61 would return to early childhood teaching. That is not going to happen. Senior secondary teachers want to teach in senior secondary schools. They are not going to leave a Year 12 class at the end of Term 4, and start in a Year 1 class at the start of Term 1 next year. Therefore, we will be losing 127 senior secondary or middle school teachers from our system; they are going. Separately, the minister is talking about there being, because of the change of ratio in Transition to Year 2, extra teachers. He has pegged a number at 61.
What the minister did not refer to in his media release or his speech in this House during budget is how they will count students. This is quite critical. The number of students the school has determines how many teachers it needs. At primary schools you will see one teacher for every 20 students in years Transition to Year 2, and one teacher for every 22 students in Year 3 to Year 6. How students are counted is critical. This is what the minister has been silent on.
In the past, the staffing allocation was based on an average attendance plus a 10% margin. If you had 50 students attend in Term 1, you were staffed for 55 students in Term 2. This meant schools had enough teachers to deliver a quality education for our students and schools should be planning for improved attendance. The new government has scrapped this; there is now no 10% buffer. Schools will be staffed on the best two non-consecutive weeks attendance in a term, averaged over a year. If your attendance is 90% you will be staffed at 90%. In most urban primary schools, often you are staffed at 100% because your attendance is around 90%. Now, you are not going to get that 10% buffer. For every teacher a primary school thought it might be getting extra because of the change of ratio in the early childhood years, it will lose because of the changed method of counting attendance …
A member: You are drawing a long bow.
Mr GUNNER: There is no long bow. This is an extreme concern to primary schools. By changing the method by which you count your students, which is obviously critical to how ratios are determined, there will be fewer teachers in schools. This is an extreme concern amongst primary schools. If the minister has not heard or been aware of this it is something he needs to look into urgently. Changing the method of counting at schools will drastically affect ratios. This means senior and middle schools will cop a double hit because not only has their teacher ratio changed, but the counting method for attendance and student numbers will change as well. This is of extreme concern to schools and has been reflected in the savings in the budget paper.
Budget Paper No 3, page 189, says $6m cut to primary schools, $5m cut to middle schools and $7m cut to senior schools. It is concerning that Indigenous senior student enrolments are going to drop from 1850 students to 1635. That is 215 fewer Indigenous students in senior school next year. That is an immediate return to the days when the CLP did not invest in senior schools in the bush.
The first students to graduate in the bush happened under a Labor government, and the number of students graduating each year has grown. That has been reversed by a CLP government returning to the bad old ways. There will be 215 fewer Indigenous students in senior schools - extremely concerning. That is straight from the budget books; your number in your budget books. It has gone from 1850 students to 1635 - Budget Paper No 3, page 195.
A strong education with vibrant schools is the best hope for all our children. By cutting into schools the CLP government is being short-sighted and reckless with our future. That is reflected in how we deal with Gonski. This budget confirms the extra $300m from Gonski will not be flowing through to our schools. Gonski required extra teachers and resources and the CLP is cutting them.
There is no way they could sign up to Gonski because Gonski required the CLP to not cut education for six years. The CLP has cut funding, not just to primary schools, middle schools and senior schools, but also to CDU. One reason given - there have been many - for not signing up to Gonski is they were worried about the federal government cutting funding to universities. The federal government is giving them less next year. The university is getting more next year, just less than what was originally planned.
What is the CLP doing? At the bottom of Budget Paper No 3, page 195, they are cutting the operating grant to CDU from $9.6m to $6.8m – a 30% cut. Federal funding for Charles Darwin University has gone up by 90% from $62.5m in 2007 to $119m in 2012. Federal funding will increase in 2013. What is the CLP doing? It is cutting funding to CDU by 30%. That is a nonsense reason for not signing up to Gonski. The reason they could not sign up to Gonski is they had to guarantee no cuts to education - they made a $51m cut in real terms - and had to increase Gonski by at least CPI every year for six years. They cannot do that. They are cutting education and therefore cannot sign up to Gonski.
In Budget Paper No 2, page 74, there has been a $20m cut in the capital works budget for education. They are cutting education all over the place. That is extremely concerning and is the approach the CLP has taken to education. It is short-sighted. You have to invest in our children for the Northern Territory’s future. Instead, the CLP is doing the opposite. It is a concern of mine that extends into the business portfolio regarding short-term decisions.
The Northern Territory was the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small business and the CLP is flagging, in Budget Paper No 2, page 18, that by 2016-17 our tax will be on par with the national average. We have already lost 3600 jobs and the CLP is flagging, instead of providing an environment conducive to small business in a highly difficult business environment with the costs we have, it will be increasing the tax base on small business to take it up to the national average. This is extremely concerning.
The infrastructure budget has been cut by $64m and will continue to be cut. Page 1 of Budget Paper No 4 says total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than 2012-13 and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates. At the moment we are facing a business environment where you have the haves and the have-nots. Some people have contracts with the big private sector projects like Ichthys, some have not. The NT government provides a lot of work in the Northern Territory. At the moment, while we are still stepping out from the global financial crisis - the reason we are $3.2bn in debt at the moment – some businesses are relying on the Northern Territory government to make sensible asset decisions in our infrastructure budget. Instead, the CLP is cutting it by $64m and will continue to cut it. We have a number of businesses in the Northern Territory that are reliant on the NT government making sensible infrastructure decisions and, instead, we are cutting our infrastructure budget. That is concerning.
To the police portfolio - I started my speech talking about broken CLP promises. They are all over the place in decisions in the police budget for the next financial year. The people of Nightcliff were promised their police station would be upgraded and would be 24/7. That is not in here - not happening. However, the people of Nightcliff should not feel persecuted because Alice Springs - where the Chief Minister comes from in regard to representation; his seat is in Alice Springs - has been done over more than anyone else when it comes to police decisions. They were promised a call centre; that is not going to happen. The Chief Minister promised if you called the police in Alice Springs you would talk to a local - not happening. They were promised an extra police beat; they closed the existing police beat. These are broken promises to the people of Alice Springs.
We were meant to have a safe streets audit for the Northern Territory completed and acted on by December last year. Instead, it has been pushed into next financial year. This was one of the immediate promises from the CLP - there would be a safe streets audit done by police, completed and acted on by December. This is not happening until next year. The only increase in the police budget comes from the Commonwealth government, which has increased its funding to the NT government from $7m to $23m to fund an extra 90 police at the detention centre. The CLP is being cheeky trying to claim them as the extra 120 it promised. Those 90 were negotiated before the CLP came to government. When the CLP promised an extra 120 police, it was meant to be on top of those numbers. That was our understanding. It was a promise made to the people of the Northern Territory and the understanding of the NT Police Association. That was the promise the CLP made around police, and they are not keeping it.
This government breaks promises. These budget bills will become acts and will be enshrined in legislation - the CLP breaking promises to cut the cost of living and cut debt, and breaking promises that frontline workers are safe. Those were simple, easy to keep promises. In this budget the CLP is brazenly breaking them. This is not a good budget, especially not for a government which said it would keep election promises.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the first budget of a new government is always a significant one. A budget demonstrates what a new administration stands for, what its priorities are, how it will allocate and use the wealth entrusted to it by the people it represents, and whether it will do good or, at the very least, do no harm. Importantly, it demonstrates what is not a priority.
Since coming to office in August last year, the Country Liberals have shown us who they really are. This is an important distinction because there are two Country Liberal parties: the Country Liberal Party that says one thing during an election campaign and the Country Liberal Party that does another once the election is over. Let me remind the House of the things they said they stood for during the election campaign.
The Country Liberals said they stood for lowering the cost of living. Terry Mills and his not-so-team-orientated team went out on the stump declaring loud and wide across the great expanse that they would put you, the voter, first. ‘Trust us’, they said, ‘and life will be better.’ The people of the Northern Territory put their trust in the CLP. Instead of delivering, they brought working Territorians pain, debt and cuts. Instead of lowering prices and improving living standards, they have hiked up nearly every charge they could get their hands on. Power and water prices are up, as are rego fees. The CLP is driving down our living standards. It inherited an inflation rate of 2.1%, which has now blown out to 3.9%.
Under the CLP, the cost of living in the Northern Territory is rising much faster than the rest of Australia. This is not just about numbers, this is about people who are feeling the financial squeeze of the Country Liberals’ debt cuts and price hikes, and it is all across all walks of life: our seniors, who are enduring cuts to their entitlements; families with young children paying mortgages; and young people trying to pay their rent and put themselves through study. We have learnt one thing since August last year: the CLP costs you.
Against the backdrop of broken promises which have cost Territory households thousands of dollars a year in new costs, we have the first CLP budget - a chance for the Country Liberals to formalise their policies of pain, debt and cuts. This budget does it all. It is impressive in the scale of the devastation it causes. It cuts frontline services, destroys jobs and investment, breaks election commitments, cuts investment in our infrastructure and increases debt.
The economy is central to everything. A strong economy means opportunity for all Territorians and more jobs and investments. A strong economy means we can invest more in social services to help those in our community most in need. Budgets should support a strong economy. This budget takes our economy backwards. It is a jobs and investment destroyer. It is an attack on our living standards. The budget paper forecasts a massive decline in our economy. The CLP inherited state final demand of 26% this financial year; next year it plummets to 15% and stays negative throughout the forward estimates.
The CLP inherited from the former Labor government a flourishing economy. It has taken less than a year to ruin it. An amount of $300m is to be ripped out of the public service. Infrastructure spending will be cut by $64m.
What we can say about the Country Liberals? We know they cannot be trusted to keep their promises. We know they have raised the cost of living for Territorians, and we know their budget will impact negatively on our growth, and drive down our living standards.
This budget is bad for people who rely on services. Hospital funding has been cut. The Palmerston hospital project has been scrapped. We have heard tonight there is $5m for a third study, further delaying the hospital being built in Palmerston. The children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital is not to go ahead.
This budget delivers deep cuts that will affect people and their families. If you want your children to succeed in the world of work, would you not invest resources into the people who could make that happen? You would think so.
With the world increasingly more globalised, is it not true the best asset we have to be competitive in the world today is a well-educated population? You would think so, wouldn’t you? The CLP does not seem to think so. It has cut the Education budget by $17m and will cut 127 teachers from our schools. If you are a government about the future you should be investing in the future. This CLP government only invests in the past. It will not invest in our schools but has wasted millions of taxpayers’ funds employing old CLP mates.
An extra $300m could be in our education system now as part of the Gonski reforms. These reforms will deliver more funding for every student in the Northern Territory, but the Chief Minister said no. Apparently, it is more important for him to put his Liberal leaders in Canberra first rather than his real employer, the people of the Northern Territory. Pleasing Tony Abbott means more to him than standing up for disadvantaged students in the remotest parts of our country. It shows us he really is a political opportunist. Faced with an opportunity to improve the education of young Territorians for generations to come or the opportunity to play politics with his mates down south, he chooses to play politics.
The same opportunities led him to conduct a vicious execution of his own party leader only a few weeks ago. He waited until his leader was thousands of kilometres away before he took the opportunity to knife him. I want to touch on that briefly. I cannot help but ask whose budget was this supposed to be? I cannot help but think just 10 weeks ago a different man was in charge of this government. Just 10 weeks ago, the CLP had a leader who had led them to an election victory in August last year. Ten weeks ago he was leader and had his own Treasurer. I have spoken to many people about what happened to the member for Blain - how he was knifed in the back while representing the interests of all Territorians overseas in Japan. I know none of those on the other side are allowed to talk about it in this Chamber or publicly, but many Territorians feel that no matter what happened, what was done to the member for Blain was wrong and undignified.
The reality is, on Tuesday it should have been the person the member for Blain chose to be his Treasurer delivering this budget. They cut off at the knees the man who led them to victory in August 2012, even before he had brought down his government’s first real budget.
I now turn to some of my portfolio areas and matters within my local electorate of Johnston.
I welcome the investment in tourism, it is one of the most important parts of our economy and we, on this side, support the industry wholeheartedly. I note a few areas of interest with this budget. It is difficult to see what changes have been made to the business development side of tourism: a consequence of that important element being ripped out of Tourism NT and dropped into the Department of Business. I can only hope the Minister for Business is treating this area of tourism with the attention it deserves.
In a similar vein, Indigenous tourism development now sits with Regional Development and, again, no new initiatives are reported there. There was a concern that, given this market area is one where we can excel, there is so much opportunity in this area. After all, we are all about action and commitment - not words – which will count in the long run.
What is clear from this budget is there is no good news for tourism in the regions outside Darwin and Alice Springs. For instance, there is no good news for tourism anywhere in Arnhem, Katherine, or the Barkly region. This is a shame as there are so many interesting and diverse tourism opportunities in these regions. Tourism NT is not the Tourism Commission we were promised. Whilst we know the CLP’s appalling track record on accountability so far, I hope this will not extend to the commission.
We are yet to hear what is coming out of the Tourism NT Board. There are no reports of their deliberations and priorities publicly available. We only get to hear what the minister thinks. Of course, we all know he is a bit of a liability, and the CLP does not like to wheel him out in front of the media too often. There is no greater example than when, in this Chamber last sittings, he embarrassingly banned me from talking, visiting, and meeting anyone or anything to do with tourism. I must thank him, though, because I received an overwhelming response from tourism operators and staff who contacted me to pass on their support. We remain in the dark about the activities and achievements of the board and I hope that will come to light soon.
In marketing dollars, of course we need to market the Territory, but we need to ensure we have a well-thought-out and systematic approach that delivers real results, not just makes us feel good. In using taxpayers’ money to market the Territory, we must be accountable. We need to see that marketing delivers real results, particularly in our share of inbound international tourism, including new and developing overseas tourism. Territory taxpayers want confidence that in tough times and rising costs of living under the CLP, their dollars - money that could easily be spent in other areas of need – are realising a result, delivering more tourism expenditure in the Northern Territory, more visitor days, more happy customers, and more returning customers. We do not want to see our marketing dollar result in no visits, only some happy thoughts of someone, somewhere, thinking the Northern Territory must be a nice place and that is it.
We cannot mention tourism without also pointing out the cost of running a business in the Northern Territory, and how the CLP is making it harder. Tourism businesses are hurting just like everyone else because of the CLP’s drastic price hikes. The cost of conducting business is skyrocketing and, with many Territorians deciding to move out of the Territory because of the high cost of living, many businesses are also experiencing difficulties retaining labour. This budget does nothing for the pain experienced by those businesses.
I mention, on behalf of many tourism businesses affected by the removal of the Banned Drinker Register, it is downright reckless what the CLP has done in removing the BDR and putting nothing in its place. The CLP keeps saying the BDR was not working. Ask tourism businesses and they will tell you otherwise. They will tell you how drunks are affecting their ability to do business in Darwin.
This is an extract from a letter I received from a tourism business in a state of despair when it came to problem drunks affecting the business, particularly in February and March this year. It reads:
- This is reaching crisis point. I have lived and operated tourism businesses in Darwin for 13 years. I understand as well as anybody the hardship and realities that we face in business and I love the industry. I love the Territory and I am very proud of our motel and our tourism industry, but I find myself questioning why I am banging my head repeatedly against a brick wall trying to provide quality four-star accommodation to guests who seek out the Territory as a destination for their business, holidaying and travelling activities, while battling the most appalling examples of human behaviour which appears to be getting worse and more prevalent.
We need solutions to deal with this issue. It is a major issue. It is affecting my business and many other businesses within Darwin.
The CLP policies have increased public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour. Pure pride and politics guided the CLP to remove the BDR and refuse to bring it back in its entirety. In this budget, things are no better.
I turn to Sport and Recreation. Seven weeks ago, the Tourism minister announced a long-term partnership with a Melbourne football club. He said the Northern Territory government was excited to be aligned with a club climbing up the ladder. One of these organisations is a dysfunctional basket case which has let down everyone who believed in it and become a complete laughing stock, and the other is a footy club.
In footy they say you make your own luck. The incompetence of this government has made its own bad luck. I note with interest an investment of $710 000 for the lead-up and promotion of the Masters Games, a fantastic bipartisan event. I wish I could say the same for the Arafura Games. As the Leader of the Opposition so rightly put it yesterday and I quote, ‘This budget has the wrong priorities’.
Right now this town should be enjoying the Arafura Games and the $10m in economic benefits it would bring. However, the CLP scrapped it and spent more money on giving former candidates and members high paying jobs - more than the entire cost of the Arafura Games. That is a crying shame. Many accommodation, hospitality and retail businesses are doing it tough at the moment. If the Arafura Games were on now the opening ceremony would have been last Saturday and there would be a $10m boost to the Darwin economy.
The Chief Minister said the government is serious about bringing the Arafura Games back ‘bigger and better’. The CLP certainly has not put a dollar figure to that commitment or a date or time frame. This incompetent government has no idea about the long-term damage it has done by pulling the Arafura Games. They think they can snap their fingers and bring something bigger and better. The sporting community does not work like that. Planning is done well in advance, even years in advance when you consider elite athlete program schedules. There is not a single dollar in this budget to plan for the next Arafura Games. The Chief Minister has it all wrong if he thinks he can do something bigger and better.
I welcome the $8.22m for Major Events. However, I note a few matters of interest. Of the events listed, none include rugby league or rugby union for future matches. I recall earlier this year the minister spouting a rugby event to the Northern Territory public. Later, he was forced to confess it would be the last of its kind.
The CLP government is cutting ties with the Brumbies, who were playing annual union matches in the Northern Territory, to the delight of union and Territory sports fans. The minister said it was not bang for buck. Perhaps I missed it somewhere in the budget paraphernalia, but there seems to be no mention of rugby union or rugby league games in the future.
The minister may want to phone the heads of rugby in Darwin and Palmerston to reassure them there are some matches coming, although they are not mentioned anywhere. Perhaps it was an oversight. I am happy to be wrong.
We are thankful the CLP has come through on the sports vouchers - $4m. Families with school kids welcome the vouchers but recognise this does not go far enough to lessen the enormous burden the CLP government has inflicted on them and the cost of living. Also, $75 will not cut it for the increase in power, water, sewerage and rego. In fact, some sporting groups have had to raise their fees by around the $75 mark because of the increase in running costs when watering the ground. This has meant parents are no better off with the $75 voucher.
I congratulate the minister on extending the scheme to include ballet and other organisations across the Northern Territory, honouring the election commitment. The CLP said ballet and Scouts would be covered by the voucher system. It is good to see the minister come through with this, albeit nine months later. Although those activities are not recognised as a sport by the Australian Sports Commission, if you have a scheme like the sports voucher you have to open it up to all activities involving children.
I welcome the increase to peak sport and recreation funding, but would like to know more about another grant to the Alice Springs Golf Club and how much it is.
I turn to seniors. The Labor government had the very best Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. We cared for our senior Territorians who have contributed to the Northern Territory and built what we call our home. Unfortunately, the CLP felt this was an abundance of money for the taking, putting an axe to the travel entitlements of our seniors. This budget will see a massive $664 cut every four years to the current generous scheme levels Labor had in place to look after seniors, carers and veterans. Why does the CLP feel the need to target senior Territorians? To date, many seniors are confused about the changes. I had a briefing over three weeks ago and am still waiting for a number of answers from the Minister for Senior Territorians.
One of my major concerns was that on 1 July all seniors will start at zero and it will be another two years before they are eligible for their first travel entitlements. That means even if they were almost up to their four years on the scheme at 1 July, the slate is wiped clean and they have to start again. That would be unfair. I hope I am wrong and I hope the minister’s office will get back to me as soon as possible. It has been over three weeks and many seniors are contacting my office confused and concerned. The travel scheme comes under the Minister for Health’s portfolio; however, the Minister for Senior Territorians has carriage as well.
I call on the minister to come clean with seniors about these changes. It is time to get communications out because seniors are very nervous about what is going on, very confused, and want to know what is happening with their travel scheme.
Finally, when I started I said there were two Country Liberal parties: the Country Liberal Party that says one thing during an election campaign, and the Country Liberal Party that does another once the election is over. There is no better example of this than in my electorate of Johnston and the situation at Rapid Creek, which I spoke about in adjournment last night. The mini-budget last year halved the CLP pre-election commitment of $1.5m. This new budget does not set aside a single dollar for what needs to be done at Rapid Creek and the people of Rapid Creek deserve better from this government. This budget is a failure. The CLP cannot be trusted to do the right thing by Territorians or keep promises. This budget causes pain; it causes cuts to frontline services and increases debt. The budget reflects its owner - an incompetent budget by an incompetent government.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I comment on Budget 2013-14. Sadly, it is not a budget to support Territorians at a time when we should be poised to jump at every opportunity. This budget cuts jobs and services for Territorians, throws money back at the federal government for improved health and education, puts more pressure on the cost of living for Territorians, and may be the last straw for many families.
This budget comes at a time when we have seen CPI increase to 3.9%. We keep hearing businesses have been doing it tough in the wake of a government which spent the first eight months in power in-fighting and trying to find its feet. We are also seeing a growing divide - the haves and have nots. Some of this is driven by those benefitting from major projects or people who have already secured home ownership or permanent employment. On the other hand, we have people struggling to make ends meet. They are faced with high rents, higher cost of living pressures, and no security if they do not have a permanent job. We are seeing people in the bush still faced with the challenges of overcoming major deficits in housing, education and health. Many Territorians are at the crossroads and the decisions being made by the government in Budget 2013-14 will help determine the future of many of those people.
I turn to my shadow portfolio of Housing. We all know housing is one of the most critical portfolios in the Territory. Everyone wants to have a roof over their head. People desire to have safe, secure, and affordable housing. Most Territorians aspire to become homeowners at some stage of their life to help build their long-term financial security and have a place to call their own. We have seen for too long now in the Territory the devastating impacts of homelessness and overcrowding. This flows on to health and personal safety issues. We have all seen that it directly affects a child’s schooling as well. The public housing wait list grows and the divide between the haves and have nots in home ownership has been a national issue for some time. However, we are also seeing a growing divide in the rental sector and a significant gap between public and private market rents. Private market rents are a steep option for many, and push them well beyond 30% of their income.
It is in this setting and background that I will address my budget remarks. In the area of home ownership, it has been made so much harder under a CLP government for first homebuyers and low- to middle-income earners to get into the housing market. With the average house price nudging at $600 000 in Darwin, there needs to be practical and effective help for first homebuyers. This government has made some decisions that will stop many Territorians from realising the dream of home ownership.
Backward steps have been taken in several different ways, first by the scrapping of HOMESTART NT. The HOMESTART NT scheme assisted low- to middle-income earners to purchase a home with a low deposit, which included a flexible shared equity option with up to 35 years to repay the loan. In other words, the government can take a certain percentage of the loan up front to allow people to get into a home more appropriate to their circumstances than they otherwise may have been unable to afford. For example, someone could have the borrowing capacity of $300 000 and have found a suitable property for $400 000. The government would purchase 25%, or $100 000, and as the HOMESTART client built equity over time, they could refinance the property and buy the Territory government’s share at market rates. It worked. Territorian’s got into a home and paid loan repayments comparable to rent until they were ready to own the property outright and purchase the government’s share. It was a great initiative helping first homebuyers wanting to get into a home. It applied to existing and new properties. This no longer exists under the CLP because they scrapped it. Limiting home ownership options and programs to only new houses built after 1 January 2013 is not making it easier for Territorians; you are making it harder.
The CLP government has also scrapped the first homeowner stamp duty concession. This provided first homebuyers with a stamp duty concession of up to $26 730 on a property up to the value of $540 000. This was first scrapped in the mini-budget, and the decision remains in Budget 2013-14. Instead, we have seen promotion of your changes to the First Home Owners Grant, which still leaves the majority of first homebuyers worse off. You replaced the $7000 payment with a $12 000 payment for someone who buys an existing property in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area. You also granted $25 000 for people who buy a new property across the Territory or an established property in the regional areas. They have very limited land options to buy something new.
Looking at the scenarios a few different ways, your incentives still make it much harder for first homebuyers. For example, based on an existing property purchased in Darwin for the price of $540 000, a first homeowner would have saved $33 730 after Budget 2012-13. Under your changes, a first homebuyer now saves $12 000. That is almost $22 000 a first homeowner needs to find.
Buying a new home in Darwin for $540 000 after Budget 2012-13 would have also included $10 000 under the BuildBonus scheme in place at the time, and a first homebuyer would have saved up to $43 730. After 1 January, under changes introduced by the CLP government, a first homebuyer would have only saved $25 000. That is almost $19 000 extra they now have to find to buy a home. First homebuyers find it much harder under the CLP.
After your first changes in the mini-budget, you destroyed the dreams of so many families. I have met three so far who have told stories about what happened to them after the 4 December mini-budget. The first is a co-worker who was going through the process of buying a property. Her husband is a police officer, and they have one gorgeous child and a baby on the way. They found their dream family property in Leanyer and were going through with the purchase. On that day, 4 December, they had not exchanged contracts. At the end of that day, they had to find an extra $37 000. That home deal fell through. They have not bought their family dream home in Darwin or Palmerston and are still renting. It was devastating for them as a family, and they are good people who make a fantastic contribution to the Territory.
Another person I met was a cleaner, an incredibly hard-working woman. Her husband was a cleaner and her daughter was also working to support the family. They had scrimped, saved, and worked very hard over many years to save money to buy a property. They had secured approval for a bank loan and were about to move out of their sister’s overcrowded home and buy a property in Moil to fit their budget. They could see it was going to become their family home of the future. Unfortunately, after the mini-budget they had to find an extra $15 000. Their house deal also fell through and they are still living with her sister, with her daughter working very hard to help them out and deferring going to university to help the family put extra money together to get a property as housing prices continue to grow.
I met a family in my electorate which shared with me the consequences of the mini-budget and the removal of the first homeowner stamp duty concession. They were public housing clients, had been given permission to buy their home and were going through with the sale. It was an older property and they were looking to use money approved to do renovations to bring that home up to scratch so they could raise their children there. Fortunately, they were able to purchase their property. Unfortunately, the renovations are now a long way off.
Those changes directly impacted families and have made it much harder for Territory singles, couples, and families trying to get into the housing market. Budget 2013-14 fails to reinstate what were effective home ownership measures. They are now gone and it is much harder for many Territorians.
It is also disappointing to see no real vision or wins in public housing. In fact, it appears to be going backwards. At a time when the minister stated he is selling 50 public housing dwellings, there appears to be no new money in Budget 2013-14 for public housing construction. All the money for new construction of public housing is revote and carryover from commitments made under Labor. There are no plans for new urban public housing beyond the revote projects in Labor’s last budget. That is $13.7m of revote funding for new urban public housing in the northern suburbs and Palmerston which was already under way. It appears there will to be less public housing under this government, especially when they are reverting to sell-off.
Will the government be reinvesting every cent generated from the sale of 50 properties earmarked back into public housing dwellings? The list to get into public housing is not getting any shorter; demand is growing and it is tough. At the moment, if you are waiting to get into a three-bedroom property in Darwin or Alice Springs, you wait 67 months in Darwin or 65 months in Alice Springs. That is well over five years. I acknowledge this is not a new issue; this has been going on for some time. However, the answer is not to start selling off public housing or to go backwards in public housing stock numbers. It is important at this time to look at this stock and look at reinvesting every cent generated from the sale of those properties back into public housing. I understand there is a need for regeneration; there is a need to look at the older stock and how you turn it over. However, what is vitally important at this time is that there is no nett loss of public housing stock at a time where pressure on housing is immense, especially for families doing it tough. We should not be making it any tougher
It was also disappointing in Budget 2013-14 to see for some of our oldest public housing complexes - Kurringal, Tomaris Court, Shiers Street - we do not see any firm plans. Going into the last election, Labor outlined some very firm plans for the redevelopment of these prime public housing sites. The opportunity for mixed development with some affordable, private and public housing is immense, particularly in Tomaris Court. That is a fantastic site where you can incorporate business and retail in the heart of the city. There are amazing development opportunities for those sites with a bit of innovative work. However, we have not seen anything come forward in the budget.
Runge Street has been decanted and sits vacant, adding more pressure to the public housing wait list. I understand it is tough when you do that, but I have not seen any firm plans in the budget for what might happen with that site. As I said, the public housing wait list is not getting any shorter.
There is $3.38m invested in the redevelopment of older complexes in this year’s budget. This is below the $5.4m mark in the previous financial year. The repairs and maintenance budget remains almost identical to the previous financial year, and the minor new works and targeted upgrade money seems to be on par with the previous financial year. Again, I am disappointed there are no new public housing construction initiatives in the budget.
We all know the demand for public housing is growing, and we are seeing a further divide between those who do not qualify for public housing yet are struggling to keep pace with market rents. I acknowledge a need for more affordable housing and to fill that space in the affordable rental market. It is essential for people, particularly key workers in our economy - people in retail, tourism, hairdressers - people who earn a bit too much to get into the public housing system and probably do not have time to wait five-and-a-half years, but also find it incredibly tough to make ends meet affording rent in the private market. There is definitely much work there.
The Northern Territory’s own affordable rental company, Venture Housing, was established under the Labor government and gives the new government great opportunities. In the last budget, there was $47.6m for the construction of 140 new dwellings in Zuccoli, Johnston and Maluka Drive. They were to be managed by Venture. I am keen to find out what has happened to these properties since the CLP took government.
I acknowledge that the minister understands the importance of affordable rental properties and is working in that area. The challenge is to ensure these homes are delivered. More affordable rental properties will be a positive thing for the Northern Territory. However, dropping the ball on public housing and treating affordable housing as a substitution is not the answer. I fear this is what we are seeing in Budget 2013-14 under the CLP government - a real decline in urban public housing.
I welcome the continued investment in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. This year we are seeing $139m under NPARIH in joint Territory and Commonwealth funding, and $32m for repairs and maintenance grants under the Stronger Futures funding. We are also seeing $60m going into property and tenancy management and repairs and maintenance. The challenge the government has is ensuring the works continue and targets are met. The program delivers life-changing opportunities and so far we have seen almost 3500 in new or improved housing: 780 new homes built and 2633 refurbishments and rebuilds completed as of January. We are in May and that is still firing along.
I note you now have Allan McGill as Chief Executive for the Housing department. He ran the Territory Alliance which delivered much of this work. I appreciate the understanding he will bring.
I also pay tribute to the former Housing Chief Executive, Mr Ken Davies, and the Remote Housing Executive Director, Mr Andrew Kirkman and his Remote Housing team. They have done a remarkable job with NPARIH. There is a long way to go, but I have seen them put in much hard work - many hard hours - and they should be very proud of the difference they will make to people’s lives. I will keep a keen interest in NPARIH, and an eye on the construction and employment targets and the quality of works being met going forward.
It is also vital to have a continued focus on the delivery of supported accommodation. I am referring to crisis accommodation, transitional accommodation and medium-term accommodation. It is important to ensure we have effective programs to break the cycle of homelessness and to support people to find more permanent accommodation. It is important the government works hand-in-hand with non-government organisations and the experts in delivering this type of care and support for Territorians. It is good to see money in the budget to support this line of work.
I now move to my shadow portfolio of Public Employment. We know the CLP slashed 600 jobs after the mini-budget. The government went out on the second day of the August election campaign with A4 flyers saying to the public sector, ‘Your job is safe’. That was not the case. You said frontline services were safe. That has not happened. You have broken the trust of many Territory public servants and many Territory families through these moves - slashing the public sector and the damage it has caused to many families.
On budget day, the Treasurer gave public servants no further reassurance about their future. He stated on ABC radio to Julia Christensen:
- We are looking to reduce the size of the public service over time. We are not talking about sacking people. We are much more interested in waiting for people, you know, for turnover to occur without replacing jobs.
We know 600 jobs have been slashed from the public sector. Although no new number has been given for job cuts, it is clear the new government intends to continue down the path of seeing jobs disappear. People will not see their co-workers replaced when they leave and will carry a heavier load. We have already seen people with significant ability, dedication and skills lose their jobs for no reason other than to get rid of people on temporary contracts. Things are already tough and staff morale in the Territory public sector is at an all-time low. You only need to talk to your friends, family, old work colleagues around the traps, go to training or chat to people in the public sector. They will tell you things are the worst they have seen in the public sector and they are not enjoying it; they are not having a good time.
We are hearing this right across the public sector - teachers, people in Children and Families, staff at Power and Water getting a mouthful wherever they go, lawyers, communication staff. The list goes on. The personal misery and stress I have seen people suffer because of this uncertainty is what upsets me most. People have left the Territory or resigned from the public sector because of this uncertainty. We are losing good people. I have heard of cases of people who are not used to dealing with this type of stress as a result of uncertainty and have seen the impact it has on their health. It is quite tough on them. Some public servants who have had a passion for serving the Territory for a long time are losing their fire and drive. The CLP government has not treated public servants with respect for their hard work and commitment.
Sadly, I still remain pessimistic about the future of this area after Budget 2013-14. The first offer has been put on the table as part of the EBA for public servants. However, given the level of distrust the public service has for the government, the unions will be carefully combing through it to ensure their workers do not suffer any further at the hands of a government which has already put them through so much.
I turn to what is in the budget for the Wanguri electorate. First, I acknowledge there are many important works happening in the electorate as we cater for growth. We have seen Lyons come on board and Muirhead coming out of the ground very quickly. Catering for increased growth will be a theme in the electorate for some time and it is critical we do this. I acknowledge that this government has included $5m for the City of Darwin to complete its Lee Point Road upgrade, assisting growth in the electorate. I have been doorknocking and have made very clear to the council the main concerns of residents: to deliver this project properly. That includes looking at parking requirements for residents along Lee Point Road, noise abatement to minimise impact on people, smooth traffic flow, safety, landscaping and ensuring people keep the fabulous exercise path along Lee Point Road which we all use.
Unfortunately, I see a few lost opportunities in the budget. One I am particularly disappointed to see, which I am sure you are all well aware of, is Henbury School. We all know Henbury School caters for children with special needs going through middle and senior years of schooling. It is at capacity; it is bursting at the seams. Many kids do outreach programs and go to other schools; however, enrolment continues to grow as the population grows. The forecast for enrolments next year puts it well out of its capacity. It is getting to the point where it is ridiculous. It is tough for them to deal with having so many children there. The teachers are fantastic. The school council is an extremely dedicated group of parents working towards ensuring their children and staff have the best possible facilities. Unfortunately, it has reached the stage where work needs to be done and the answer is building a new school - a commitment Labor gave at the last election, not matched by the new government. It is really disappointing to see no money in the budget for additional classroom space and capacity when it is bursting at the seams. I am disappointed there is no money for planning for a new school or no announcement to build a new school.
I will keep working on that. Something has to happen; it needs to be done. Things are tough but the staff have to keep working through it because they love working with the kids and giving them the best opportunities and care they can.
That leads to the special school for Palmerston. There is also an immense need there. There is $2m for additional classroom space at Woodroffe, but there is a need for more special schooling capacity in Palmerston. It is also bursting at its seams.
Another school that did not receive any funding through Budget 2013-14 was Wanguri Primary School. A couple of classrooms were recently finished at that school and it looks pretty busy. Muirhead is coming online and you can see the additional pressure that will put on it. That is something to keep an eye on. The children would definitely benefit from having a few more classrooms to move around in. It is pretty tight.
There are several local issues with the Wanguri electorate and Budget 2013-14. There is no doubt, with the CPI at 3.9% the cost of living - power and water bills are an issue. People struggle with it day to day and it is not getting any easier. Budget 2013-14 does not make it easier for them.
I have been overwhelmed by the number of inquiries from seniors since the changes to the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. You have cut $600 from travel entitlements previously due every four years. Communication at the time could have been much better, particularly with travel agents and seniors. Many seniors have come to my office with mixed messages. We have tried to help resolve their issues so they could book their holidays and make their plans as quickly as possible. It is disappointing to see money cut in this area. The scheme should continue because we want to keep our seniors in the Territory and we should be taking care of them.
The children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital – I am disappointed to see money going back to the Commonwealth government. There are many families in my electorate and parents want to know when their kids get sick they have access to the best possible care. The Star Ball is happening on Friday. I am sure many people will support the great Starlight Foundation cause. There was to be a Starlight Room - another missed opportunity.
Many public servants in my electorate are disappointed with job cuts. Many people have been telling me it is just a job to them now. It is just money in their pocket and security because the way things are being restructured and the services that have been cut make it really hard for them. They need job security; they need to buy time to find something that really gets them fired up, but it is tough.
The government is investing significant funds in this budget into alcohol issues in the community. However, mandatory rehabilitation is not the answer and the alcohol protection orders will not have the same impact as the BDR. People struggle to understand how there will be any enforcement around it.
I recently met several small business owners who told me things have been very quiet since the change of government. Local businesses, small business in particular, do not have contracts with the big projects but have enough work ticking over, enough government contracts, to mean they have a healthy business. Businesses tell me they have to do small jobs they would never generally look at it in order to keep staff on because they want to ensure everybody has a job. Things have been pretty tough since the change of government, and it is really important that money flows through to local businesses, particularly the smaller ones.
Casuarina Senior College - we have already seen fewer teachers at the school, and the government is signalling more will go. It disappoints me, particularly as an ex-student of the school. The school had a huge impact on my life. I would like to think students going through today still have access to an extensive subject selection list and to as many teachers as possible as they go through their education. It is a real concern to see changes happening under the new government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2013-14 misses opportunities and makes life harder for many Territorians doing it tough. I look forward to going into the budget books for further detail at estimates.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Well done, member for Wanguri. She has only been a member of this House for three months and has delivered a comprehensive dissection of the budget and the negative impacts it is having on her shadow portfolios of housing and public employment. It is clear she is entirely across the matters that affect her constituents in the electorate of Wanguri.
I am speaking on the budget handed down by the Treasurer on Tuesday - the third CLP Treasurer we have seen in eight months. This is a terrible budget from a terrible government so consumed with clashing egos in its own ranks and fighting amongst themselves as to who would be Chief Minister that they have forgotten about the job they were elected to do: govern the Northern Territory and look after the interest of Territorians ahead of their own personal interests and ambitions.
A revisit to the CLP election material with a message from the now deposed leader of the CLP says, ‘Our candidates will fight for you’. The reality is the only fighting has been amongst themselves. It is a government which has forgotten about the election commitments to Territorians and the promises they said they would deliver on. It has broken every one of those election commitments. The commitments were enshrined in signed contracts with Territorians in the bush and campaign material rammed into our mailboxes boasting a five-point plan which was cut and pasted straight out of Queensland and which the CLP has failed to deliver on.
Territorians are angry because they have been duped by this deceitful and incompetent new government which, far from reducing the cost of living as promised, has jacked it up. A 30% increase in utilities is making it incredibly hard for Territorians to make ends meet – for families across the Northern Territory, businesses as well, which have no choice but to increase prices and to pass these hikes on to their customers.
Even the new Chief Minister, installed on 13 March after doing the numbers and the deals with bush members to oust the member for Blain, admitted the CLP was hurting Territorians. Will he admit with this budget that the CLP continues to hurt Territorians? Will he admit accountability and transparency are not part of the way the CLP does business? Will he admit so many of the decisions made on coming to government were bad decisions, not the least of which was the decision to sack the Under Treasurer, ignore Treasury advice, deny Treasury figures and bring out of retirement CLP old mates on whacking big consultancy fees and lucrative contracts, which included luxury apartments, all on the taxpayer purse?
It is even tougher for people living in our remote communities where the cost of living - the cost of accessing goods and services - is already much higher and people are really hurting.
Exactly where does this new government think these people will find the extra money to, quite literally, keep their lights on? Sadly for many Territorians, they have had to make the decision to pack up and leave the Territory and the lifestyle which was second to none because they cannot afford to live here anymore. For Indigenous Territorians, this is their land, their country, and leaving is not an option. It is these disadvantaged people who are hit hard by this new government and this budget.
A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 36: a quorum. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Ms WALKER: Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is worse is this new government has come to power on the back of winning seats in the bush. Its four members from bush seats have accepted decisions from this new government, and have not challenged some of the terrible decisions made to cut jobs and services in education, child protection and health, perhaps because they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. However, they must remember they are answerable to their electorates and the people they represent.
In addressing the shortcomings of Budget 2013-14, I reflected on some words from the newly elected member for Arafura in his first speech in this Assembly:
- My dream for Aboriginal people of Arafura and elsewhere in Australia is to listen closely to their needs and to see Aboriginal people grow strong through education and training, to work in proper jobs and businesses, and to have strong, happy, healthy lives.
Nobody would disagree with the sentiments of the member for Arafura. It is a great dream shared by many. However, Indigenous Territorians will be waiting a little longer to see that dream realised thanks to the first budget of the Giles CLP government.
The budget is big on clearing the decks for fast-tracking land development, speculative business opportunities, and funding a new regime for locking up people with grog problems. It also continues the pattern of trashing people and resources focused on regional community development in the Northern Territory, hard-working Territorians in the public sector and NGOs working to deliver services out bush, and trashing those worthless contracts signed with people in Borroloola and Wadeye.
Let me turn to arguably the most important of those services: education. The member for Namatjira, then Minister for Indigenous Advancement, a portfolio which no longer exists, built many of her early speeches as a minister of this government around education. She talked about not accepting second-class education for Indigenous kids living in the bush. This budget does nothing to build on the incredible investment Labor put into the bush and our remote communities over 10 years, including delivering the first Year 12 graduates in the Northern Territory. That never happened under a CLP government over the previous 20 years. The contrary is true, with cuts to school budgets out bush.
The member for Namatjira likes to quote Helen Hughes from the Centre of Independent Studies as an authority on this subject, and has quoted Ms Hughes as saying the problem is the quality of the schools. In her early speeches as minister, the member for Namatjira committed to making education normal for all children no matter where they lived. ‘Real education for real jobs’, she said. More specifically, on 1 November last year she said:
- There will be more boarding school places, more School of the Air, and more experienced teachers everywhere.
Well, not in this budget. The CLP is cutting the budget for Indigenous enrolment in senior schools by 215 places for students in just one year. What a terrible shame. There are deep cuts to school funding across the Barkly. It makes you wonder if that electorate is being punished for returning a Labor member at the last election, and a very good one at that. They have done nothing to support boarding schools for remote Indigenous students. The government has pulled out of support for a federally-funded boarding facility at Garrthalala, yet when asked recently at a meeting at GanGan when they launched their homelands policy in a non-announcement, the Chief Minister was less than honest about the boarding facility when he said the federal government had pulled out. Not at all - the federal government has not pulled out. The federal government remains fully committed. The Northern Territory government has withdrawn support for the aspirations and wishes of the Laynhapuy Homelands people to host a secondary boarding facility on one of their homelands which has had successful secondary boarding operating for a number of years.
I have no doubt the member for Stuart is taking it to the Chief Minister to ensure they do not let the federal dollars slip away for a facility planned in the Warlpiri which is yet to materialise because of difficulties to agree upon a location in the region. Let us not see this federal government money handed back by an incompetent Northern Territory government that cannot get things sorted and make the best use of federal resources handed our way.
There is $500 000 for new activities at the School of the Air. There is a trial to reach out further to remote Indigenous kids. What is happening to support this new medium for delivering education? Who is supporting the technology on these small remote places? Is there the infrastructure to get the technology in there? What support is there for adults to support the kids who would be joining the School of the Air in the trial program? How will deep cuts to small schools assist their engagement with parents and activities to improve school attendance?
This budget provides very little for the bush. In fact, half the capital works expenditure for this year is simply revote from last year. It is the former Labor government’s budget and the 10-year funding package with Strong Futures, which Labor bush Caucus members pushed hard and negotiated with the federal government to deliver. I do not recall seeing or hearing the member for Namatjira proactively working with the federal government to get that money delivered for funding homelands for the next 10 years.
Some of those revoted works have disappeared - barge landings for Millingimbi, Gapuwiyak and Ramingining. I bet the member for Arnhem is furious about that, knowing how challenging freight services are in current conditions in remote locations, how unhappy her constituents must be that they have waited for these barge landings which would make a huge difference to freight services, and now they have been pulled out from her electorate. Lord knows where that money is being spent - probably in the electorate of Namatjira.
Indigenous Essential Services capital works expenditure was $37.7m. This year’s budget shows a disappointing $16.78m. How will that improve and advance the lives of people in remote locations? What about improvements to water, sewerage and power out bush? The budget for services to 72 communities provided by Indigenous Essential Services has been slashed from around $90m to just over $70m. Where are the savings of $20m being made and why are you cutting the safe and reliable supply of power, water and sewerage to these communities? Do not get me started about power cards and the 30% increase in the bush, not to mention the woeful campaign advising people their power prices were increasing. From time to time we would see brochures in English, which do not make much sense to Indigenous people, about power hikes. On the front they said, ‘Use less power’. These have been renamed by many people to ‘useless power’. We might add, ‘useless CLP government’ as well.
The budget paper reveal that MNW capital works are reduced by $1m, from $5m down to $4m. That is appalling. This is for town camps and homelands. What about power for residents at places like One Mile Dam and other homeland essential services upgrade?. Where is the money for that?
There is $14m on offer for HOMESTART Extra grants for more than 500 homeland and outstation dwellings across the Territory. However, if you look into the fine print you will see access to the $5200 has means tested eligibility criteria, and, coupled with the cumbersome and costly administrative process, will see most people miss out on access to this funding.
On the Local Government front, while the budget for just over $2m to consult on the regional governance options paper across the Territory is positive, it is money poorly spent because there are no options. It is simply a rebadging exercise of the shires which the CLP says it is not getting rid of, contrary to promises made to people in the bush and contrary, once again on 2 May, to the Chief Minister saying to people at GanGan - 100 or so homelands people - ‘We are getting rid of the shires’, not once but twice. How are people to believe what this Chief Minister is on about when he says one thing and then something completely different?
The consultation meetings, with more than $2m dedicated to them, are so poorly advertised and promoted that no one goes to them. Word is getting around they are not of much use to anybody. There is a very small attendance and I have not heard of the Minister for Local Government getting along to any of them, which is incredibly disappointing. She needs to be listening to people. She is full of rhetoric but never follows up with any action.
We also see $5m in the budget to support operation of the shires. It is a plus, but not the $10m needed or what the Chief Minister, as the former Local Government minister, asked for in Cabinet documents leaked to us. Now the member for Namatjira is minister, he has revised that figure down to $5m, and I am sure she is really unhappy about that.
A quick look at the budget papers for the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice reveals little on offer there. There is certainly no extra money. In fact, there is $13m less to support courts facing a huge increase in their workloads with more people finding themselves in the justice and corrections system and courts and police being bogged down with more not guilty pleas in the face of minimum mandatory sentencing. There is no money for legal aid. How are all the people who will go through this dreadful mandatory rehabilitation, who have a right to representation - they may be taken in for 72 hours or longer, having done nothing wrong, having been charged with nothing. They are not criminals but have been taken into custody for an assessment to be made. How do these people have access to representation and where is it in the Northern Territory CLP budget that there is additional funding for legal aid through agencies like NAAJA? From what I can see, the $13m ripped out of the Attorney-General and Justice department has simply been shifted over to corrections to meet the escalating cost in the number of people we are about to see locked up in prison.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no good news in this budget. It is a terrible budget which will hurt Territorians everywhere and will, no doubt, take the Territory backwards.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I nearly missed the jump there. I was not really paying attention. I was watching something on the video. That was one of the most uninspiring budget speeches. She had a three-minute break while she called a quorum and still could not get to 15 minutes. It is a good way to burn up the time.
It has been interesting listening to some of the comments across the Chamber over the last few days, particularly today, from the opposition about their position and their thoughts on the budget. There is much negativity from the opposition. We have not spent money here, we have not done this, we have not put money into this program or that program or what have you. The budget could have, potentially, been better too. No one in this Chamber would have liked to deliver a better budget than the Treasurer. In fact, we all sat around Cabinet, the whole Country Liberal wing, saying, ‘Wish we could deliver a stronger budget for the Northern Territory’. However, we cannot. We have done the best with what we have. There are many references to what we said at the election and where we are today. It is like Lord of the Rings. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, you start off with wonderful lofty ideas about what you are going to do, and what seems like a simple task turns out to be something quite different.
At the election, we did not know the state of play. We did not know what we were in for. We were unaware of what we were up against until the 27th, the Monday morning when the then Chief Minister and the Treasurer looked at the books. It was a different story then. We learnt, not long after that, we were tracking rapidly to a $5.5bn debt.
We had to make some changes. As an opposition you are not privy to the state of play. You go into an election saying, ‘Aspirationally, this is what we want to do; this is what we are going to do. We are going to do some of this; we are going to try some of this. We would like to do some of this.’ However, it is very difficult to do that when you are tracking toward a $5.5bn debt, and that is exactly what this government has inherited.
I would love to have seen much more money poured into Sport and Recreation, Health, and Education. I am sure the Minister for Education …
Mr Elferink: I would love to have paved the streets with gold!
Mr CONLAN: Absolutely! I would have loved to. I would love to have started a Northern Territory space research program in the middle of the Northern Territory! It would be wonderful to do those types of things but we cannot. There is not one minister or one member in the Country Liberal side of the Chamber saying they do not want any more money or, ‘Boy, this is enough! Gee, thanks very much, Treasurer. I am more than happy with my lot in life. Please do not give me any more.’ Of course we want more - absolutely. We need more; there should be more.
I agree with every member on the opposite side of the Chamber; it is not good enough. Unfortunately, it is where you left us. We are tracking toward a $5.5bn debt if we continue at the rate of spending you lumped on us. Of course, we cannot. Sadly, we do not have any more money. We have to make the most of what we have. We have done an extraordinary job. Hats off to the Treasurer, everyone in Cabinet, and our members for saying, ‘Okay, this is what we have. This is what is left. Let us do the best we can with what we have.’
If the Labor Party, after 11 years in government, had squirrelled away some of the GST receipts - Holy Cow! - could you imagine where we would be today? They might even still be in government; you never know. Hopefully not. If we had been elected in August under different circumstances where they had put some money away for a rainy day and had delivered a budget surplus, imagine where we would be today. No, they did not save one cent! They have saddled the Northern Territory with a $5.5bn debt.
We have done everything we possibly can to not only continue spending where we need to grow the Northern Territory, but also to rein in that debt and deficit. It is huge. All in all, it is an extraordinary job. It is not a job I could have necessarily done. There are probably a few over there nodding their heads, but it is a job for a better man than me. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for putting together a very difficult budget; a tough budget under such circumstances. It is about building on our economy, continuing the Northern Territory lifestyle we dearly love, preserving community safety, and also about, member for Namatjira, regional development. It is about ensuring the whole of the Northern Territory counts in this story.
Let us look at some of the areas. There is so much to comment on, so much to respond to, there is not enough time in the day. I have 40 minutes including a 10 minute extension so let us see how we go.
I will touch on my portfolios. I am in a fortunate position with the portfolio of Central Australia which allows me to touch on areas such as health and education, infrastructure and regional development. I do not necessarily have carriage of that, but it allows me to be a spokesperson on areas in the region of Central Australia. However, let us talk about tourism.
As I said during Question Time this morning, it is fantastic. It is an exciting part of government. There is at least one former Tourism minister in this Chamber, the member for Casuarina. For all intents and purposes he did not do a bad job. He is not a bad bloke. He goes okay half the time. He is the best guy on the paddock. He is the Bobby Simpson of a pretty defunct Australian cricket team but he is okay. He did a reasonable job in tourism. If we map the decline in tourism and where this industry, essentially, started to haemorrhage, if you take international visitation for example, 2007 was where things started to go pear-shaped. I was new to this Chamber then. I am pretty sure the member for Casuarina was the Minister for Tourism and moved on from there, but I cannot be sure.
His departure from the portfolio started the acute decline we have seen in international visitation to the Northern Territory from about 2007. Perhaps I am wrong, maybe his hands were all over it as well, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. We see subsequent Tourism ministers in this Chamber - not any here - I do not believe the member for Karama was in Tourism. I believe she was Sports minister or something. Nevertheless, subsequent Tourism ministers dropped the ball. The story leads to our immediate predecessor, the former member for Arnhem, a really sad story - her capacity to deliver on the job when it came to tourism. That is why we have a problem with our tourism industry and our tourism dollar - tourism expenditure in the Northern Territory.
It is critical that the government invests in our tourism industry. By way of doing that, we have given an $8m boost to Tourism NT which brings their complete budget to $54.2m for Tourism and Major Events. That is significant and we are the only jurisdiction - I am sure but could stand corrected - in Australia to have invested in tourism. Everyone else, including the great powerhouse of Queensland which has owned tourism in Australia for so long, is taking money out of tourism. They are in a similar situation to us. Queensland inherited a huge amount of debt and has serious problems with social and public service infrastructure - enormous problems. The people of Queensland were lining up to rid themselves of such a disastrous long-term Labor government. You saw what happened; it is completely the other way. The LNP picked up something like 78 seats as a result of Labor’s failure in Queensland.
We also saw it in New South Wales. Take our three core tourism products in Australia: Sydney, the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru, broadened out to the Northern Territory. Then you see a powerhouse like Queensland. Our biggest tourism player in Australia is Sydney. New South Wales is taking money out of the tourism budget. Yes, there is a Liberal government in New South Wales. There is an LNP government in Queensland. Do I agree with it? No, I would love to see them put more money into tourism. They are doing what they can through a partnership with Tourism Australia to ensure that investment. In fact, they have struck up a significant deal in New South Wales with Qantas to boost that tourism spend in New South Wales. Nevertheless, the government’s investment has decreased. Western Australia is also reducing expenditure in tourism.
The Northern Territory pretty much stands alone with regard to investment in tourism. That is how seriously we take it. We campaigned on it, having recognised it. We recognised it at the time of self-government, and the rest of Australia recognised the Northern Territory as this shining light of tourism. Tourism began in the Centre. Uluru and Ayers Rock was it for Australian tourism. That is where it began; there was no Cairns, no Barrier Reef. There was a bit happening in Surfers Paradise. There was no Broome and nothing happening in Darwin. We are talking 40, 50 and 60 years ago, even longer. Tourism in Australia began in the Centre.
The rest of Australia looks to us and recognises the product we have. The rest of the world does, so it is incumbent on us to ensure we protect that product and invest in and grow it. That is exactly what we have done - $54.2m into tourism. An extra $8m boost to grow our tourism industry. I can break some of that down: $15m has been allocated to extend the Northern Territory’s international marketing activities. Our international visitation is suffering. Our domestic visitation is not too bad. As a result of the global financial crisis, the high Australian dollar, some increased air capacity in and out of the Northern Territory, and a love affair with our country all over again, we are starting to see some good inroads into domestic visitation to the Northern Territory.
The international market is in trouble and the previous government did not do much about it. I can tell you because I have been there. I have seen it, heard it and we are witnessing it. So, $15m has been allocated to grow the international sector and increase international visitation. Of that, $12m will go towards marketing partnerships, including partnerships with airlines, which is so important. Air access in and out of the Territory is vital to us. It includes partnerships with online travel agents and traditional trade partners: the huge international travel agencies or wholesalers, such as Trailfinders; there are a number of them.
These huge international wholesalers are bigger than anything you can possibly imagine in Australia. In Europe these guys are enormous and are selling tours to the rest of the world. When someone wants to buy a stack of holidays to sell to a client base we want them to say, ‘I know you want a desert experience, an outback experience, well instead of considering South Africa’ - one of our biggest competitors - ‘how about the Northern Territory? Why don’t you go to Australia and while you are there, go to the Northern Territory? You can have a wonderful outback experience, high-end adventure tourism - the luxury side of it - and you can have soft adventure; you can have the works.’ We need to ensure the Northern Territory is front and centre for our international trade partners.
When someone walks into a wholesaler - it is not just wholesale, it is retail too. When a German couple say, ’I would like to go on a holiday. Let’s go somewhere. We will walk into a travel agent or dial up something online’, which is where it is all done now. The traditional travel agents where you take a brochure off the shelf – it no longer works like that.
That the NT is front and centre is what this is all about. The $12m is about partnering with our wholesalers, retailers, online travel agents and, of course, our airlines.
Digital marketing is so important - digital awareness campaigns across all government agencies and encouraging our tourism operators to be active in the digital online arena. With the greatest respect to our tourism operators, and they would be the first to admit it, we have not been really good at that. Some are fantastic but, overall, we are not that great. We need to encourage them to be active in the digital online space. If you did not know what I was talking about you might ask, ‘What the hell is that guy on about?’ When you start to explore it and dig deeper you see how vital online exposure is to our tourism product. If you are not in that digital space, if you are not online, if you are not part of social media then you are not in business; it is very difficult. Money is going towards bringing our tourism operators into the digital age.
We also have $1.9m for regional marketing and visitor information services across the Northern Territory. It was interesting listening to the shadow minister. I made a few notes. I ran out of ink because there was so much baloney. What I find amazing about the member for Johnston is what he says after a briefing. He had a briefing, by the way. After the briefing he said, ‘I did not get a briefing. He refused to give me one.’ That is baloney. The briefing went okay, from all accounts. Just as he was going he said, ‘You know, I reckon Conlan’s doing okay. I reckon you are doing okay with digital tourism. As long as he starts bringing tourists to the Territory, I am happy.’ He says that behind closed doors but comes in here and pontificates about how terrible everything is; the sky is going to fall in and there is not one ounce of recognition of what is happening.
He made a claim about regional tourism. ‘No good news in the budget for the regions’, he said. Where do we start? There is $1.9m for regional marketing and visitor information services across the Territory, which includes Tourism Top End and Tourism Central Australia. There is $1.7m to market and promote business events across the Northern Territory. That does not only include Darwin, it includes the whole of the Northern Territory. This is where the member for Johnston needs to take a deep breath and understand what we are trying to do. It is not about Darwin and Alice Springs, Kakadu and Uluru, Barunga or Yuendumu. It is not about playing one off against the other; it is the whole Northern Territory story. We have fallen over in the last 10 or so years because we have been concentrating on particular pockets of the Territory, and that is why we are starting to see while one is going up - what goes up must come down. That is why we are seeing declines in some areas and boosts in others - peaks and troughs across the Territory. We need a peak across the whole of the NT not just pockets, whether that is Darwin, Alice Springs or wherever. It is not the regions versus Darwin; it is about the Northern Territory. That is what we are doing.
Nevertheless, there is $1.9m going into regional tourism organisations such as Tourism Central Australia, a vital organisation that drives and pulls. Using the marketing phrase correctly, Tourism NT’s job is to pull visitors - pull people into the Northern Territory. As a marketing organisation, that is what we do. We pull people in then rely on the regional tourism organisations to push their product onto the consumer. That is how it works - push, pull, push, pull. I have used the phrase before, ‘above the line, below the line’. It is about not only ensuring our product is out there, but we are making noise above the line. The only way you can do that is to market; it is all about marketing. Marketing is not just about a logo, member for Johnston. We need to ensure we are pushing people to the Territory and pulling them into the tourism products available through our tourism operators.
I attended the Tourism Top End cocktail party tonight. I went for half-an-hour with Trevor Cox and the gang. It was a launch to welcome the Dry Season. It has not been very dry lately; nevertheless, they had a launch to welcome in the Dry Season. Cheers and good luck with the season. They are all excited and very pleased to see the government’s investment into tourism. It is a bit unfair, but it is okay. I have been in this Chamber long enough to know how it works. Sometimes I wonder, ‘Holy cow! Were we as bad as them; that poor old government?’ However, I know how it works.
I know your modus operandi and what you have to do. Much is smoke and mirrors because I know, member for Johnston, what you say behind closed doors. We all heard it. I know you do not mean it; you have only been here a short time. You have to puff yourself up. Everyone is jockeying for a position and you want to be the guy who delivered the killer blow. Well, it did not quite work. It has not worked so far but we know where you are coming from. We can see you coming a mile off.
I know people are genuinely pumped about the investment we are making into tourism. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you are pleased to know this government is doing just that.
Major Events has $8.2m to bring big name entertainment acts to the Northern Territory. There have been a few swipes about that. I almost do not have enough energy to respond to some of the rubbish coming from the opposition. Let them be the whingeing, moaning, carping from the sideline outfit, we will just get on with what is important. I was in opposition for five long years, and it stood me in pretty good stead. When in opposition, I would look over to this side of the Chamber and say to my colleagues, ‘I cannot believe how obsessed they are with the Country Liberals; how obsessed they are with the opposition’. It was not just in the lead-up to the election. During my five years in opposition all I heard was how bad the CLP was. I thought, ‘Is this what it is like in government?’ You become obsessed with the opposition for some reason.
Are you not the government? Should you not be governing and getting on with it? I thought, ‘If I ever get into government I am not going to obsess and become so strung out by what happens, or the opposition, its stunts, or what it says because it is not worth it’. One thing I learnt in opposition is once this parliament is over and we go back to our burrows and fox holes, start doing the job because no one really cares about you. In fact, you are so irrelevant that no one even knows you exist. People are focused on the government of the day and you have 36-odd days a year to strike a pose, be noticed, and try to demonstrate some relevance or desperately search for some relevance in the landscape of the political scene of the Northern Territory. It is a tough gig and it is hard to be noticed. I am not going to be one of those ministers, and we are not going to spend all our time obsessing over an outfit that really is not playing much of a role, if any, in what is good for the Northern Territory. I have already spent a minute-and-a-half talking about that. One-and-a-half minutes I have given the opposition and that is one-and-a-half minutes of my life I will never get back.
Let us continue talking about some of the great work the Northern Territory government has done in this budget. Treasurer, hats off to you because I could never have done this with what we had to work with. We are tracking towards $5.5bn in debt and still have to ensure we provide for Territorians; we spend on essential services and leave some money aside to invest in those very important areas of agriculture, mining and tourism.
Major Events is another important area. There is $380 000 for BASSINTHEGRASS; $1.3m for AFL games to the NT; $500 000 to host the Australian Superbike and Supercross Championships at Hidden Valley; and $710 000 for preliminary activity and promotion in the lead-up to the Alice Springs Masters Games in 2014. That does not take long to come around. There is $1.81m to meet contractual commitments to support the V8 Supercars and V8 Superbikes. There has also been some huge investment through Sport and Recreation to resurface the track at Hidden Valley. There is $5m this year and another $4m next year for some changes around turn 1. Overall, it is close to about $10m, an enormous amount of money we faced some criticism about. I will not be the minister who says, ‘Guess what, the V8s are cancelled because we cannot afford to resurface the track. They will not come back next year, it is over.’ I will not make that announcement.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker and honourable members for the extension of time. The money for Hidden Valley is vital to the economic story of the Top End particularly, but also for the Northern Territory. That money flows right through the NT. We see tens of millions of dollars in return by hosting this premier event every year and we see close to 50 000 people through the gates. It is like the Darwin Cup Carnival - huge amounts of money.
I will waste another minute of my life responding to something the member for Johnston mentioned. He talked about the Arafura Games and issued a media release saying the sky would fall in because we put the brakes on it. The whole thing was pretty much thanks to his handiwork; he was senior sports advisor at the time. It was on its knees and not achieving its objective. It was an Asian engagement strategy, something lost on many people, particularly the opposition. The Arafura Games was not about a mini-Olympics in Darwin, it was about Asian engagement. We used sport to engage with Asia. That was the vision of the former Country Liberals government 20 years ago. Marshall Perron, the then Chief Minister, brought the Arafura Games on board as a way to engage with Asia because, in those days, Asia was lacking in sport. They turned to Australia and Darwin for leadership to play competition utilising good infrastructure, including fields, ovals, and facilities. They came to us.
It is a vastly different world now. Our budget for the Arafura Games was close to $2m. The budget for the Asia Pacific Games is $1.2bn, and that is a small one. The Pacific Games has a $3bn-plus budget. They do not need our help with sport. They have picked up the ball - pardon the pun - and run with it, but they look to us for diplomatic engagement. That is what the Arafura Games was about. By the time we came to government, diplomatic Asian engagement was not there. It became a mini-Olympics for Darwin and put strain and stress on sporting facilities. Some of the peak sporting bodies were bummed about it; that is okay. Some people will be put off by the decision but, largely, there was some relief.
The member for Johnston said $10m is no longer coming into the economy. People coming from Timor and the BIMP-EAGA region to compete were not buying $15 hamburgers. These are very low socioeconomic countries; they do not have the wealth we do in Australia. They do not have the disposable income. They are not coming here spending money. They are largely non-drinkers so they are not going to the pub. It is nothing. It could not be further from the social activities surrounding the Alice Springs Masters Games; it is almost completely the opposite. They are not spending money. We believe they spend millions of dollars but they do not. Hotels at the moment, contrary to what the opposition claims, are chock-a-block and some will remain that way right through the dry.
The money we are supposedly missing out on is already being spent by tourists throughout the Northern Territory economy. They are going to restaurants, hotels, bars and on tours. They are embarking on these activities and spending money. While we are not getting the $10m, we are getting $10m-plus as a result. Otherwise, all those hotel rooms would be booked out by Arafura Games competitors who were not spending money on the ground. They would spend some money, of course. The opposition likes to take things literally sometimes and might throw that back. Of course, they are spending some money but not the tens of millions you believe. The people who go on tours, spend time in our restaurants and enjoy the night life on Mitchell Street are the ones injecting significant amounts of money into our economy.
We need to say, ‘Thank you, Arafura Games. You have served the region well. We now need to rethink our Asian engagement strategy.’ That is what we are doing because it is about diplomatic engagement. We used sport previously because that was the mechanism to engage with the region. We no longer need to use sport because they are off and running. We need to look at other ways to engage with the region.
I have mentioned other areas of Sport and Recreation but will not get anywhere near Central Australia. I will go through some of the other portfolios in the last few minutes.
An amount of $132m is provided to fund major events. The $4m Sports Voucher Scheme, which has been really well-received, has been tweaked a little. Ballet is now on board. This is an important scheme to get kids into physical activity and assist families to encourage kids to stay in sport through their school life. You can play netball, cricket, hockey, footy or basketball throughout your school life. The Sports Voucher Scheme encourages kids to get outdoors and be active. It seems to have, thus far, worked well. Hats off to the Minister for Education because it was hard - you promise something before an election then realise you have to deliver it. It was not an easy program to deliver. How do you marry sport with schools? The department of Education and the Sports and Recreation department did a fabulous job to pull this together and have just about nailed it. It has been very well received.
There is $14.7m to assist the thoroughbred racing industry. That is a healthy investment considering the tough situation we have with our budget position. It shows the confidence the Northern Territory government has in our racing carnivals. These things generate huge amounts of money, as I said, much like the V8s. There is nothing much bigger than the Darwin Cup Carnival, then couple that with the Alice Springs Cup Carnival and our country race meets. I have an economic impact statement, something I recommend everyone looks at. It is from the thoroughbred racing industry in the Northern Territory and mentions the economic impact racing brings to the Northern Territory.
There is no capacity for me to continue talking other than about 35 seconds, which is a shame because I had much more. Again, hats off to the Treasurer and Treasury for putting something tremendous together. It is a vote of confidence in the right areas. We would love to have seen more. Not one bloke in this Chamber would have said more than the Treasurer, ‘I would love to have delivered a budget with more outcomes or more investment in certain areas’. However, thanks to Labor’s $5.5bn projected debt, this is the situation. We did a great job with what we had.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, we have done a great job with what we have. I will pick up exactly where the Minister for Tourism and Major Events left off. We have ourselves a problem. As the former shadow Treasurer, I bleated it endlessly: day in, day out, sittings in, sittings out, month in, month out, year in, year out saying we will have problems. One of my greatest frustrations is I sat here for years and watched the rivers of gold, the goods and services tax, particularly after 2001, pour into this jurisdiction and watched Labor repeatedly determine to hardly squirrel away any money in savings.
At one stage they were doing okay, but they never made a dedicated attempt to get rid of the debt they had. I have said a thousand times in this House but will say again, John Howard managed to get debt down to zero. To be fair, the Labor government in Western Australia, under Mr Gallop, managed to get the state’s debt down to zero. How did they manage that? They suddenly realised they had more income than they were spending and, what was better, every year they were getting more money than expected. When you get more money than you expect you can do one of two things. You can (a) save it or (b) spend it. The solution from the government of the day was to spend it. The member for Barkly has mentioned ‘countercyclical’ several times in the last few days. If he is an adherent to the countercyclical argument, he would have understood his government was working counter to the countercyclical environment.
Bad luck has not visited this government, it is bad judgment. Bad luck is bananas on a boat. Bad judgment is the poor management of the budget, which is exactly what occurred year in, year out. I find it frustrating to be the recipient of their legacy in this environment.
Clearly, members on the other side of the House believe in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus does not exist. I can evidence it by one truism. If Santa Claus existed, every time an election finished the new government would start with a clean slate, have their own source of income, and the debt would magically disappear. That does not happen because we carry forward the debt and decisions of former governments.
The member for Wanguri racked up about $200m in thought bubbles while saying, ‘We need a new school here, a new school there, new public housing; we need all these things’. I would love to do all that, member for Wanguri. It would delight me to build everybody in the Northern Territory a house for free, pave the roads with gold and prepare, with a large committee, for the zombie apocalypse. However, it will not happen.
We have to determine what it is worthwhile spending money on and what it is not. You cannot trot out a wish list and say how bad the government is because they have not spent $200m-odd on thought bubbles. I would love to do all those things but, in the real world, the non-Santa Claus world, we do not operate that way. We try to keep the books on track. We also have to deliver services. It frustrates me that we, because of the legacy of the former government and its failure to plan, have to continue to raise the debt of the Northern Territory. That is something we are going to do for the next four or five years. I do not like that.
However, if we were to balance the books this year, we would have to spend most of our budget on paying off debt. We would have three public servants, one police car and perhaps a rickshaw left. You cannot do that.
The original intention was to balance the books or get rid of the deficit cycle within the forward estimates. However, because of the Grants Review Commission and the foibles of the disability surrounding indigeneity, we suddenly lose $400m over the next few years. Despite that $400m shortfall in the forward projections, the Treasurer still manages to deliver a budget which, in the forward projections, delivers an outcome of $400m less debt than the former government would have done with the extra amount from the Grants Review Commission.
In essence, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory has said, ‘Taking those two factors into consideration, we are in an $800m better position than we would have been under a Labor government’. What would we have been doing? We would have been paying for all that Labor expenditure we have seen in the past.
We have evidence of the way a Labor government thinks. I draw members’ attention, at the risk of anticipating debate, to a recent tabled paper. I am referring to paragraphs 10.25, 10.26 and 10.27 on page 62 of the Public Accounts Committee Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct. Paragraph 10.25 says:
- Under the agreement with SeNTinel, the price charged for the design and construction of the Facility …
This is the goal:
- … is $495 million ...
The telling comments are in the parenthesis which follow:
- (the figure quoted by the then Government in Hansard and press releases).
That is the figure the government convinced itself, and told the public of the Northern Territory, was the price of the new prison. Of course, by the time the Auditor-General looked at it - we know this from his Auditor-General’s report earlier this year - in paragraph 10.26:
- For accounting purposes, the fair value of the Facility when constructed (SeNTinel’s design and construction and other capitalised costs) will be $521 million.
That is already substantially more than the $495m the former government was talking about. Here is the actual cost to the Territory of the payments for the design and construction.
The first paragraph was about design and construction, the second one is fair value of the design and construction - whoops, add an extra $30m there. Now let us talk about the payments for design and construction. Paragraph 10.27 says:
- Discounted as at 30 June 2011 at the discount rate for the PPP, the present value to the Territory of the future payments for design and construction was $629 million.
That is the point. You operate in this ethereal space where you believe $495m and $629m are the same amount of money. It is small wonder you start to run into trouble.
The former government had its spending habit and it borrowed money to, believe it or not, pay wages. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘Oh no, that is a hideous thing to say. We never borrowed money to pay wages. That would be a hideous misrepresentation of what we did.’ However, today the member for Casuarina said in his budget reply:
- These are the decisions you sometimes have to make.
referring to the accumulation of debt. Continuing the quote:
- We have been criticised for borrowing money. Yes, we borrowed money to put more teachers in schools, more nurses and doctors in our hospitals …
Really! What was the borrowing for? The price of a cab charge to get to work? No, it was about borrowing to pay the wages of doctors, nurses and teachers.
Mr Tollner: Operational costs.
Mr ELFERINK: Borrowing to pay operational costs and recurrent expenditure means you are borrowing money which generates no collateral, no assets, and, if you run any business in that fashion, you will be broke in about 10 minutes flat. Borrowing money to pay wages is fiscal irresponsibility at its highest order. However, the former government had developed a spending habit on building a public service which had spiralled out of control. When you try to bring a modicum of constraint into that environment the shrill hysteria from the Labor Party, the comrades opposite, is almost intolerable.
The member for Wanguri made the accusation that all we are providing for public servants when we pay them is security and an income as if it were insufficient. The purpose of paying people wages is to provide them with security and an income; the purpose of being an employer is to expect work from people. We certainly get that from many of our public servants. However, from a fiscal management point of view, borrowing to pay them means eventually you have more debt than money for wages. That means if you believe restraint in the public service is a problem now, wait until you have more debt than money for wages and see what happens to the public service.
We are attempting to do what the Labor government failed to, that is, inflict, sadly, frustratingly, some pain now to avoid a horrible pain in the future. If you want to see the final result of that type of fiscal management, go to Europe. Ask the people in Cyprus how they feel about the government rummaging around in their bank accounts. Ask the people of Greece, who are throwing rocks at the front of the Greek parliament, what that is all about. Ask the people of Italy, or Ireland, how good it is to have all of this debt and no reasonable outcome.
I also listened to the shadow minister for Mines, the member for Casuarina, and he repeated in his budget reply something he said on Facebook at 10.18 am recently. He was banging on about the dreadful truth about the mining levy and said:
- According to the Australian Mining magazine (the mining industry magazine) the CLP is proposing to reduce the value of the NT’s environmental bonds by 10 per cent, and an annual 1 per cent tax would be levied on the remaining 90 per cent.
Really? The CLP is proposing to reduce the value of the NT’s environmental bonds by 10%. Yes, correct. I said that in the second reading speech today. A 1% levy - that is true - on the remaining 90%. No, that is wrong. I explained it in this House and this is a former minister for Mines. He should know the bond is 115% under current arrangements. This man was in charge of mining in the Northern Territory for the best part of five or six years and does not know the value of bonds on mines. He went on to say:
- That means that a mining company that now has an environmental bond, let’s say $100M, … now will only have to pay a rehab bond of $90M only! and it will have to pay 1% of the remaining bond, so in this case $900 000.
The inaccuracies from members opposite are magnificent. The member for Wanguri will spend $200m on thought bubbles and good ideas. They are noble in their intent, but she cannot describe how she will pay for all this. The member for Casuarina, a former minister, has no idea how his ministry used to work, and the psychological review by the member for Barkly into - God knows what he was banging on about – countercyclical expenditure was quite excruciating to listen to. There are times when I feel embarrassment rising on his behalf when he opens his mouth because it is problematic and I have trouble listening to it sometimes. As for the Opposition Leader, she is now articulating so many of the arguments she denied ever existed, one after the other. She talks about government debt going up as though it was something hideous. She accuses this side of the House of raising debt. Well, we are. I do not want to, but we are doing much less than she ever was going to and in an environment of a shrinking projected income.
It is astonishing how quickly they have become a cynical, embittered opposition. It is no more pronounced than in the member for Nhulunbuy, sadly.
I congratulate the Treasurer for his efforts in this area. He has done, under the circumstances, a responsible job. In the area of corrections we will expend $637m in Budget 2013-14 to create a safer community for Territorians. I want to use that money wisely but for all the purposes I described. It is a problem we have such a high recidivism rate, which was acknowledged by the previous minister for Corrections in the former government. The only difference is he acknowledged it often, said he was going to do something about it, but on coming to government we discovered not much had been done at all, sadly.
Shortly, in the current financial year, we will be rolling out the first of the trial program for boot camps and looking at various operators to see which one delivers the best product. We will be making more announcements in due course. Next year we will be spending $2m, not only for intervention camps but also what I call D-camps or detention camps. These are for kids who are currently serving time in detention in places like Don Dale and the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. Hopefully we can bring about some changes.
The opposition is all bent out of shape at the expression ‘boot camp’. As I have described publicly on a number of occasions, this is not military style. Whilst it still creates physical pressure on these kids, as well as emotional pressure, it is not just the regimental sergeant major yelling at children. This is about challenging these kids in a number of ways and getting them to make better decisions into the future.
We are also spending money on work parties. They continue to perform enormous amounts of work in our community. The in-kind work from prison work parties and the contribution they have made to Territorians has been in the order of $3.5m or the equivalent of 250 000 hours of community work. Work parties have been used for a range of community organisations and events, not least of which are the Garma Festival, the Finke Desert Race, the Hidden Valley drags, the V8 events, the Henley-on-Todd Regatta and numerous other functions.
I recently visited the Adelaide River site where we have 30 prisoners working. I am grateful to the local Adelaide River community for coming around to the idea. I know they were a little unnerved to start with, but the feedback I have had over the last few days has been heartening. When the Ghan stopped in Adelaide River on Anzac Day the prisoners spontaneously decided, out of respect to some of the old Diggers who came along, to do a dance of welcome. I understand it became quite a moving, spontaneous event which touched the hearts of many of the Diggers. The prisoners did the warriors welcome several times in deference and to show respect to the old Diggers and their fallen comrades. I find it uplifting, being Minister for Correctional Services, when you have people in the custodial environment who understand, when they are not on the booze and those types of things, some of the contributions other people have made to their community and do a warrior dance to show respect for the Diggers. My only complaint is I was not there. It would have been an amazing thing to see. I understand some of the Diggers were quite choked up by what they experienced. It was utterly spontaneous. I spoke to the Administrator earlier today, who was in Adelaide River at the time, and she described the scene to me as being quite extraordinary. She also commented that many of the people in the work camp were ones she put there when she was a judge. She was pleased to see some of these people were coming along. I have given the Administrator a commitment that I will do everything in my power to make certain none of those people see the inside of a court room again, certainly not in the role of the accused or the defendant.
We remain committed, through the systems I described in my response to the Pillars of Justice statement today, to work with our corrections system to advance the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
As Attorney-General, I also have carriage of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. I hope at some point to drop the Justice title. I believe the Department of Justice is called a court. It is my job to administer and oversee the administration of the justice system of the Northern Territory, not to sit in judgment as a trial judge.
There are seven output groups for the department: Solicitor for the Northern Territory, Courts Support and Independent Officers; Northern Territory Correctional Services - whoops, that is the old department; Policy Coordination; Licensing and Regulation; Alcohol Strategy; Youth Justice; and WorkSafe. New administrative arrangements were issued on 4 September 2012 which saw the department being restructured and the creation of a new department which, of course, was the department of Corrections, giving the commissioner for Corrections a direct line of contact with the minister. I believe that has been part of the reason we have seen such good results in corrections advances in recent times. The momentum in that department has substantially increased.
One of the areas I want to touch on is savings. Whilst I might be a villainous, hideous, nasty liberal who believes in fiscal responsibility, I not only believe it in government, I believe it applies to my departments. It was no secret I determined there was room for trimming in the number of lawyers. That has been done. Some of those lawyers will be touched on in the mini-budget savings I am about to describe, which include the community justice policy.
This division was responsible for the payment of grants to non-government organisations for the intervention, in-case management services, Night Patrol, and other referential services. Staff in non-governmental organisations affected by this decision were advised, and practical steps were required to disband the unit within the Attorney-General’s department. This was completed and the savings were between $2.8m and $3m.
The Community Court was also an area we sought savings in, which saved $200 000 and $420 000 ongoing per year. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal and the SMART Court saved $118m in 2013-14, and will save another $3.5m ongoing. Court clinicians saw a saving of $275 000 a year, and in-house government lawyers a saving of $2.438m, which is recurrent.
There is generation of anticipated revenue of $4.9m a year through increased fees and charges from the following services provided or administered by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice: land titles lodgement fees and levies; land title search fees; enforcement fees; local court fees; birth, deaths, and marriage fees and levies; Public Trustee fees and charges; criminal court fees; Public Trustee commissions; Supreme Court fees; criminal infringement fees; and court charges. The effect of these changes brings the Territory in line with national averages.
There are a number of highlights in the budget which include: $170 000 for domestic violence services; another $1.29m for Court Support Services; $770 000 to continue the operation of expanded court facilities in Alice Springs, etcetera; and $6.5m to provide increased support to the DPP.
I have tried to bring some imagination to the job I do. The former government had a problem with the cells for juveniles in the lower court in Darwin. I believe I have found a way to get through that problem spending less than the former government intended to. Whilst there is $1m in the budget set aside for dealing with the problem, I will probably be able to report to the Treasurer that we can do it for less if a couple of solutions I am working on at the moment come to fruition.
We have commitments to do a great deal of work in the justice precinct in Alice Springs. To advance the justice precinct, once again, I have tried to bring some imagination to it. There will be a justice precinct, but there may be a way to do it less expensively than is provided for. If, as ministers and a government we use imaginations, we can find a number of savings by doing things better.
It is unusual for ministers to talk about where they have made savings, how they have raised revenue, and where they are continuing to find savings. It is my personal philosophy that government can be done more cheaply and effectively in a number of ways, and I try to do that all the time. Whilst the Corrections budget has increased, it is largely the position of corrections to start generating income for itself in a number of ways. As I mentioned before, we are starting manufacturing in the prisons. The Alice Springs prison has a proto-manufacturing process building trailers and cattle yards. We are looking at getting into the wholesale market for fruit and vegetables at the gaol in Alice Springs. Whilst the gaol will never, I suspect, make money as a profitmaking concern, we can take pressure off future budgets by having it at least contribute to its ongoing operation. I see gaols as a source of labour which can then be used to lift people out of poverty, give them training, give them opportunities and, in the process, lighten the burden on the taxpayer.
It is for that reason I want parole group housing to cost the taxpayer nothing. That is why Sentenced to a Job is costing people nothing. The moment it starts costing us, we are missing the point of what we are trying to do. People responsible for themselves pay their own way, and that is what I believe should occur in the management of departments. Yes, we shed lawyers. Yes, we put up fines not only as a revenue raising measure, but for their deterrent effect as well. Yes, we have put up fees and charges, particularly through the mini-budget process and all of that was well-known. However, I am part of a government that tries to be responsible, I like governments that are responsible, and I believe people respect responsible governments. As a person who takes that duty of responsibility seriously, I will make whatever contribution I can so the pressure is off the budget into the future, not increasing. The answer is not always spend more, it is get clever and, hopefully, within the next few months or weeks I will be in a position to make some really good announcements as to how we can still get all the outcomes we want for less.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the Attorney-General often inspires me and I am very proud to work beside him because he comes up with inspirational ideas. I appreciate many of the things he does for government and the true welfare of Territorians, and good on him.
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a lot of inspirational stuff and, on the other hand, a lot of nonsensical stuff. Some of the things I have heard in the last day or two have knocked me for six. I am amazed some people can think the way they do.
I read the Opposition Leader’s budget reply speech a couple of times. Talk about nonsensical statements. That would have to be one of the most nonsensical statements. This is the person who almost single-handedly raised the Northern Territory government debt to a level of unprecedented proportions, projected to be $5.5bn in 2015-16, equating to $1.1m a day in interest payments and 98% revenue to debt ratio. That is almost 100%. This is coming from a base when she first became Treasurer of around 60%. Over the preceding two decades or so, the rate was around 29%. In effect, in a few short years she has managed to triple the Territory’s debt to earnings ratio. That is quite alarming. Not a backward step, not an apology, no recognition she borrowed too much or put the Territory in a precarious financial situation. In fact, she has railed against every savings measure this government has had to find. On this side of the Chamber we have a desire for fiscal integrity and, in every instance where we have tried to right the budget, the Opposition Leader has criticised us.
I commented today that not one savings measure was proposed anywhere in the Opposition Leader’s reply to the budget. The interesting thing is the Opposition Leader contradicted me on that saying she had proposed savings measures. I asked, ‘What?’ She said, ‘We will not implement the mandatory alcohol treatment policy’. That is not a savings measure; it is a $35m spending measure. It is one of the very few spending measures this budget has where we have created a new policy. Okay, she does not want that. Well, that is not a savings measure; that is a new measure she is not taking on board. Show us where you are going to find savings throughout the budget to alleviate this debt burden you have left us. Where? There is nowhere.
I have accused the Opposition Leader of going into debt to meet operational costs. ‘Oh, no, no, no’, she said. However, as the member for Casuarina revealed tonight, they were borrowing money to pay wages. The member said they were the kind of decisions sometimes you had to make. ‘We have been criticised for borrowing money. Yes, we did. We borrowed the money. We put more teachers in schools. We put more nurses in our hospitals. We hired more doctors in our hospitals.’ That is borrowing to pay wages. It is bizarre. Later on in his speech, he said, ‘We borrowed the money because we knew we were going to leave a legacy behind’. Goodness me! He belled the cat on that one, didn’t he? They left a legacy behind!
A range of things have happened over the last few days. The Opposition Leader said, ‘Power and Water Corporation is not a business, it is an essential service’, like it is a charity. It is not a business but it was her Labor government which created the Government Owned Corporations Act which turned the Power and Water Authority into a business …
Mr Elferink: A corporation no less, not just a business.
Mr TOLLNER: A corporation, exactly, and well on the way to being a fully privatised company. Lo and behold, they are opposed to privatisation of a corporation. Goodness me. It was the Opposition Leader’s government which corporatised the Power and Water Authority and created an act and rules that determined how that corporation would act. I remind the House again that the GOC Act states that the Power and Water Corporation must:
- (a) operate at least as efficiently as any comparable business …
It is a business according to the Government Owned Corporations Act:
- (b) maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment in the corporation.
I spoke in Question Time about the weighted average cost of capital which, for the Power and Water Corporation, is 6.8%. The weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, as it is known, is generally understood to be what it takes for an organisation to break even. It is what they call normal profit. You would not find an investor in a private world investing in a company making a normal profit or achieving the weighted average cost of capital because it means you are not getting a return; the company is just breaking even.
The weighted average cost of capital for the Power and Water Corporation at the moment is 6.8%, but the Opposition Leader said, ‘Oh no, that is wrong. We should be feeding the Power and Water Corporation with more taxpayer-funded subsidies to make sure tariffs stay low.’ It is voodoo economics - drongo economics I think I called it today in Question Time - that says taxpayer subsidies are not costing the taxpayer. These subsidies should be paying for better roads, schools, health systems and those types of things. This is taxpayers’ money we are putting into the Power and Water Corporation so they can enjoy lower costs …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: It is bizarre how these people think. To suggest it is an essential service, therefore, we should not be paying for it. Who pays?
Mr Elferink: Santa Claus.
Mr TOLLNER: Santa Claus, as the member for Port Darwin said. Most of us in the real world have grown up and realised Santa Claus does not exist, but he clearly exists in the minds of the opposition.
In 2001, the then Territory Labor government, under the leadership of Clare Martin and Syd Stirling, and which the member for Karama was a part of, instigated the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, or FITA. FITA has five principles of sound financial management contained within it.
- (1) The following principles are the principles of sound fiscal management:
- (a) the Government must formulate and apply spending and taxing policies with consideration to the effect of these policies on employment and the economic prosperity and development of the Territory;
- (b) the Government must formulate and apply spending and taxing policies so as to give rise to a reasonable degree of stability and predictability;
- (c) the Government must ensure that funding for current services is to be provided by the current generation;
- (c) the Government must ensure that funding for current services is to be provided by the current generation;
In fact, Budget Paper No 2 on page 19 makes reference to these principals. It says:
- The third of FITA’s current fiscal management principles is that funding for current services is to be provided by the current generation.
While cyclical (as opposed to structural) deficits may have some role to play for their automatic stabiliser effects during an economic downturn and to ensure that tax smoothing occurs for taxpayers, structural operating deficits should be avoided at all times.
Persistent operating deficits indicate that operating revenue is insufficient to finance current operations. In effect, future generations are being asked to fund public goods and services consumed by the current generation. Operating deficits also provide no capacity for investment in infrastructure beyond depreciation levels which, in the case of the Territory, will be detrimental due to its high infrastructure needs.
That is, fundamentally, saying what the member for Casuarina outlined in his speech; that the borrowing to pay the operational costs of government – that is wages of teachers, nurses and doctors - should be avoided at all times. It was a complete acknowledgement that the former Treasurer was in breach of her own Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The other principal:
- (d) the Government must manage financial risks faced by the Northern Territory prudently …
- … (having regard to economic circumstances), including by maintaining Territory debt at prudent levels.
- (2) The financial risks referred to in paragraph (1)(d) …
Which I just read out:
- … include the following risks:
- (a) risks … from excessive debt;
The risks associated with excessive debt are numerous. They not only restrict the fiscal capacity of governments to maintain an appropriate level of services to Territorians, due to increased borrowing cost, but also result in a legacy issue for future generations.
Well, $1.1m in interest every day would have to be considered a legacy issue for future Territorians. Again …
Mr Elferink: The member said as much.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely. The member for Port Darwin is right; he said as much in his speech; they have left a legacy for future Territorians.
- In addition, excessive debt will send negative signals to a wide range of investors in the Territory.
Hence, Moody’s put us on a negative outlook with our credit rating. Further from the act when it comes to risk:
- (b) commercial risks arising from ownership of public trading enterprises and public financial enterprises;
It says, again on page 20 of Budget Paper No 2:
- Commercial entities by their very nature are meant to be self-supporting and largely autonomous.
Goodness me, does this sound like the Power and Water Corporation the Opposition Leader described - an organisation that is supposed to be self-supporting? No, she says it is an essential service and taxpayers should continue to fund it in order to maintain very low tariffs.
Again, the former Treasurer was in breach of her own act, the FITA – her government’s act of parliament designed to ensure the fiscal integrity and transparency of government finances. From the act:
- (c) risks arising from erosion of the Northern Territory’s revenue base;
Well, we all know about that, federal Labor just ripped $120m out of the Territory’s GST share. Watching the federal Treasurer on Tuesday night deliver the federal budget, and the projections he put forward, the debt he is sending the Australian government into, and the reduced size of the GST pool, sends me into shock. Not only are we now belt tightening for the deeds of the former Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the member for Karama, we have to start thinking about the deeds of the federal Treasurer, who is sending Australia into a downward financial spiral and is going to cripple many states and jurisdictions across Australia. Further belt tightening is clearly required.
Again from the act:
- (d) risks arising from the management of assets and liabilities.
Madam Speaker, I put to you that the former fiscally irresponsible Labor government was in breach of its own act of parliament on several different counts. I look at the FITA and think, ‘Goodness me. What does it mean when you break the law?’ It is an act of parliament; it is law. I will read that. This is what Labor proposes as the penalty in the framework of the act:
- (2) Nothing in the fiscal integrity and transparency framework creates rights or duties that are enforceable in judicial or other proceedings.
They make up a law they want to apply to themselves, they knowingly breach it, and they know they cannot be penalised for breaching the law.
They put debt on to future generations. They racked up enormous amounts of debt. They put the Northern Territory into an enormously financially precarious situation. They come here and rail about spending cuts and savings measures. They say, ‘Spend, spend, spend, spend’. The member for Casuarina willingly said, ‘We borrowed money to spend on wages, the operational costs of government’. He was, basically, confessing to this parliament in this Chamber that they have broken the law, but they know it is a law that carries no penalty.
It is a bit like the Banned Drinking Register. You get picked up for drinking and they issue you with a BAT notice - a Banning Alcohol and Treatment Notice. Gee whizz, you would not want to get one of those because what happens if you get picked up the next time? Well, you get another BAT notice! Some joker got 114 BAT notices. And they want to bring this law back!
Here we have the fiscal integrity and transparency framework, as put forward by the Labor government, very similar in penalty to the Banned Drinker Register. ‘Let us break the law and see what happens. We will get a BAT notice’. Break the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, what happens? Nothing! Goodness me! What a government they were! They set a bunch of rules for themselves and knowingly breached them.
It all sounds quite funny but this is a very serious matter we are dealing with because we are not just talking about penalising ourselves and our future. I have children. I look around the Chamber here and I see the number of members who have children. This is a serious matter because it is our children who have to pay for the irresponsibility of this mob.
We made an election commitment that we would return to fiscal balance by 2015-16. We found out we have had a heap of money stripped out of our revenue and we have a whole lot of unfunded liabilities left to us. We pushed that out to 2017-18. That is when we will achieve fiscal balance, all going right. Let us hope there are no other external factors like another Wayne Swan coming along. However, that is not paying off the debt. In 2017-18 we can finally say we are paying for what we use. That is all we are doing. This is serious stuff. The debt is still there; it is just that we will have reached a stage where we have enough income to pay for our expenses. We just balance the budget.
This was the enormous task that John Howard and Peter Costello faced. It took them a long time to pay off the debt. It took them a long time to stop the boats. When they did, it was a massive saving to Australia. When they paid off the debt, we started having surplus budgets; we had 11 surplus budgets. We started putting things away for the future with the creation of the Future Fund, the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and a range of other savings measures that were put in place by that federal government.
Have a look now. Many people are still stunned. We are talking about 2007 when Australians saw the back of the Howard government, and here we are in 2013, just a few short years later. Look at where we are and where federal Labor has left us. This will take decades to pay off. It will take an enormous amount of work and discipline to get back in the black. You know why? Because – hallelujah! - the global financial crisis came and that was an excuse to throw around money everywhere. It blew me away, Kevin Rudd saying, ‘We have to stimulate the economy, so let us send out $900 cheques to everyone’, including dead people and people who have never lived in Australia - $10bn just gone like that. What do you get for it? Joe Hockey said, ‘We spent $10bn in order to get a $300m bounce in retail sales’. $300m for the cost of $10bn ...
Mr Elferink: Everyone else was paying off their bank card.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. The normal person thought, ‘$900 comes in, I can put a bit of money on the Mastercard or the Amex or the bank card’. No, Kevin could not see that. Kevin had to spend it. Once Kevin started this prolific spending, all the Labor mates around the country had to start as well, because it was crucial that they spent money and as much as they could. On what? What do we have to show for $5.5bn worth of debt? We have an amazing problem because they employed more public servants. We saw the public service numbers explode, and then revenue dried up. So, they had a bunch of people and a lot of operational costs. Then they had to start borrowing money to pay the people they just employed. How irresponsible! These people say they are good economic managers. The hide of them, the ignorance of them, if they truly believe that. Absolutely appalling.
They are in breach of their own act, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. There is no penalty for breaking their own laws. They made sure there was no penalty; they enshrined that in legislation too, similar to the Banned Drinker Register. ‘Oh well, I have ended up on the Banned Drinker Register’. What happens? ‘I get a sanction - a BAT notice. Goodness me, I would not want to do that again. Well, actually, I just did.’ What happens? ‘Oh, I got another BAT notice’. It is appalling. The Opposition Leader asked in her speech, castigating us, ‘What about the teachers you are sacking? What about the frontline workers?’ The fact is, we have managed to preserve these jobs ...
Mr Elferink: And we did not sack anyone.
Mr TOLLNER: And we have not sacked anyone. In fact, we have managed to screw out a whole heap of savings and efficiencies in the public service in our first budget that amount to more than $200m. This is just the rats and mice looking across the agencies. When you add all that little stuff up, we get $200m, which is amazing. This work has to continue, which is why we have created the Budget Management Subcommittee of Cabinet and will continue to look at ways to drive efficiencies within the public service. We will continue to try to find ways to cut waste and slash red tape.
Why do we talk about slashing red tape? To encourage business. But slashing red tape is about cutting expenditure as well. All these silly needless laws and regulations which have been put in place by the former government cost a lot of money. When you start slashing red tape, not only do you get a whole lot of obstacles out of the way for business, private enterprise and people going about their daily business, you save government money.
We have a job to do over the next few years - quite a few years, until at least 2017-18, because at this rate that is how long it will take to balance this budget. We will meet regularly. There are a number of people on that Budget Management Subcommittee. We will be talking regularly to chief executives and chief financial officers of government departments and agencies. The intention is to get them on performance packages and have it as part of their contracts that they constantly look for efficiencies and savings within their agencies because, ultimately, the money which has been racked up by the former government has to be repaid.
I thank, in particular, my Cabinet colleagues. This has been a very difficult time for the government. It has been a difficult time for all members on this side of the Chamber; there is some pain, we acknowledge that. I acknowledge that my Cabinet colleagues have worked very proactively to look at how we can reduce spending in their agencies. I thank them for that and I remind them this is not over. This is very much the start because this work will have to continue; we have to continue to tighten our belts and cut spending further.
I thank all members, even the fiscally irresponsible opposition, because they have highlighted exactly how we got into this problem during this debate. I thank members for their contributions. After the Clerk reads the long title of the bill at the second reading, I will move that the committee stage be later taken.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage be later taken.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I had a conversation earlier today with the member for Namatjira, in her role as the minister in charge of the Office of Children and Families, in relation to some assertions which were made by the member for Nightcliff regarding slashing the child protection resources in the Northern Territory budget by $9m, and the member for Nightcliff made reference to slashing that budget when she referred to page 253 of Budget Paper No 3.
Today, as a result of those conversations with the minister, the tame member for Nightcliff, basically, revealed what I, the department, and the minister thinks she is talking about. In truth, what Territorians have to understand is there is no $9m cut in OCF funding in the budget, and she must know this. She is either being mischievous or deliberately misleading.
There is something wrong with somebody else’s sums when you turn to the professional accountants in the Northern Territory public service and try to get them to cobble together the same structure the member for Nightcliff is talking about. When they struggled to cobble that together, I find that concerning. The best number crunchers we can lay our hands on could not get the result she got because the numbers she is relying on are simply not there.
I have spoken, as I said, to the minister who, in turn, has spoken to her chief executive. There is no cut of that magnitude in the budget for OCF. It is as it is printed on page 253 of the budget.
This morning, of course, the member for Nightcliff let slip that one of the concerns about the Centre for Disease Control in the budget was that, in her mind, it meant that vulnerable children with sexually transmitted diseases would not be treated. That sent alarm bells off in my mind because I am concerned about that sort of thing, because I know how serious those issues are in our community. I also know the Minister for Health is pretty much the expert in this area.
Accusing government of failing to treat children with sexually transmitted diseases because the member for Nightcliff has misread or misunderstood the budget is not something I ascribe to as laughable; it is something I take very seriously indeed. This is a highly emotive subject she has strayed on to. Cloaking herself in the mantle of caring for children, she is using that cloak to then drive a political argument.
That is fine because I do not doubt the member for Nightcliff cares very much about kids. However, it is irresponsible to then wade into these debates ill-informed with ill-considered accounting practices. The reason it is irresponsible is because this is the stuff that drives a great deal of passion in the community. It is irresponsible to do what she is doing. If she is going to run arguments in this space - and trust me, I am sure there will be arguments that can be run in this space - she does not have to manufacture these issues simply to pursue these matters. Do not let passion get in the way of standards and integrity when it comes to arguing these types of points.
I bring the House’s attention to the fact the member for Nightcliff is not reading the Health budget numbers correctly. She is not reading them correctly either because she is being deliberately mischievous or her lack of expertise in reading these numbers is leading to this misunderstanding. For some inexplicable reason, she seems to be adding Health budget numbers to the OCF budget. That is the only way we can come to her conclusions.
This is not a good way to perform, I suggest to the member for Nightcliff, because once you start stirring up public irritation in this area, people will expect a standard from you and, if you do not meet that standard, they will be still aware of your passion, but it will seriously diminish your integrity in the public imagination. It is an astonishing way to approach this issue, and I find it reckless and careless. It is not something I would do if I was in the member for Nightcliff’s shoes.
She is also casting a grim light upon the people who work in the organisation she is purporting to defend. She is complaining that 4000 notifications will not be investigated – that 4000 notifications should be investigated but will not be. She is saying the fine professional people - some of the finest in our specialist units, the central intake - will ignore 4000 cases they should refer to investigation. Really? Health professionals dedicated to the protection of children deliberately ignoring 4000 cases of child neglect and abuse? That sounds like a pretty long bow to draw and casts a poor and grim light upon those professionals. I ask, once again, that the member for Nightcliff tread softly in this space because, in her enthusiasm to attack the government on either perceived or real shortcomings, she cannot allow that enthusiasm to intrude upon the sensibilities of people who would justifiably feel aggrieved at assertions they are, somehow, ignoring 4000 cases of abuse.
It appears the member for Nightcliff believes a family which does not have an allegation of sufficient concern should have us knocking at the door, stressing them out and intruding upon their lives. One of the things you have to be very careful of in child protection is when you receive a complaint you access it effectively before you start changing people’s lives. This is a dreadful thing to do and get wrong if you are a government. Professionals in this area understand that, know that, and that is why they work carefully in these spaces. It does not mean we have abandoned these people or children, we are just being very careful.
The staff average of 50% in the numbers of notifications that are converted into investigations is reflective of this truism and of a proportion that has been operational in this field for a long time. The investigators receive complaints and about half of them lead to actual investigation beyond the summary overview of the original complaint. This has been around for a long time; it operated under the former government and continues to operate in this space.
This is what the budget says. Frankly, the member for Nightcliff should be very mindful of what she is saying. I believe she is in a position where she should apologise to the staff for her careless use of the budget papers to drive a political point. I trust the judgment of the professionals in this field, as I know the Health minister and many of the very senior public servants who work with these professionals do.
Madam Speaker, whilst I will not go so far as to accuse the member for Nightcliff of engaging in deliberate mischief at this stage, I believe her assertions are simply a misunderstanding and we will give her the benefit of the doubt. I urge her in the strongest possible terms to restrain herself until such time as she has a clear understanding of how this system operates and of the sensibilities involved in this area before her crusade, righteous as it might be, hurts and upsets people deeply.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to address the House on my budget reply for Budget 2013-14 from the Country Liberal government and how this budget will help my people in the Arnhem electorate.
However, first I will make a statement on the opposition’s member for Nhulunbuy and how grubby she is at trying to make personal attacks on us all the time in this House. Two-thirds of us are probably new members in this House and I find it disgusting that she carries out all these little grubby attacks towards us, always behind our backs. That is such a low standard. I have integrity and I am a loyal, honest person. If I had to say something to her, I would do it in Question Time directly to her face. I find that disgusting. I am sitting in there and have to watch her on television; I have to listen to how she is trying to attack me and say that I am a liar, that I do not do my job in the electorate.
Of course, I know the priorities in my electorate. I know there is a high demand for the road, even to the barge landing on Ramingining. I know how bad it is. My great-grandfather is from Ramingining. That is what she does not know. I know the high demands of a barge landing in Milingimbi. They are the same people; Ramingining people came from Milingimbi. I know that; I have been there campaigning. Even before I got into this House I knew about the demands on that.
I have raised it with the former Treasurer and the current Treasurer, but because of the state the former Labor government left us in, it is impossible to make promises we cannot keep at the moment. We have a dire financial problem we have to take care of before we can even think about fixing, promising or doing things we really want to.
There is much I can say now that is in budget that really does contribute to my electorate, and I am proud of that. However, the most important thing in this budget is that this government has an unquestionable commitment to homelands of $27.3m. Where was the heart from the former Labor government in the homelands? Look at my homeland. We had to build it up on our own; my family had to contribute and work hard on a day-to-day basis. My seven sisters and I, my five brothers, and my mum and dad, worked very hard to pay for our own homeland because the government would not contribute, and that was the Labor government. I am very sorry but that is in my outstation. That is shocking and that is everywhere. You go to some of the other homelands, they are just left there. They are still being funded but no one lives there anymore because they were ignored by the former government.
Now we are making the effort to give the people the opportunity to go back to their country and be connected to their land. It is the best place to be. When I come up to Darwin, all I hear is cars driving past every night, screaming, horns blowing. You go out in the bush; there is such peace and quiet. All you listen to is birds singing and that is the life my people desire. They are comfortable in that life; they like it and I support them on that. This Country Liberal Party government supports them on it. We are going in the right direction.
I congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister for what they have done. They made a valuable, unquestionable commitment in favour of supporting the people in the bush. We are not only looking at homelands. The Northern Territory government has also kicked in $14m over four years for Homelands Plus where eligible houses on homelands and outstations can access $5200 in works to develop basic services that are enjoyed by all Territorians, especially the people in the bush electorates: people who live in homelands. The Country Liberal government respects Indigenous Australians’ right to live on homelands and actively supports them to do so.
There are many other exciting inclusions in this budget for Arnhem, including $6.17m to construct a new health centre in Numbulwar, which is much needed. The health centre they have there now is a corrugated iron building, which was probably built 30 to 40 years ago. The numbers in the place are growing every year and the only thing that stands out is the health centre. It was poorly recognised by the former government. I do not believe that it was even in their budget to fix the health centre there. Go there and look at the standards of the old one. There are many things I can outline. The way the SIHIP houses were built was shocking!
There was not only that amount, but $5.9m to construct a new health centre in Ngukurr, and $5.4m for training centres in Ngukurr, Groote Eylandt and the West Arnhem College, which the member for Nhulunbuy should be praising because it will also benefit her electorate.
All I heard from her was the negative things. She never spoke about anything good in the budget that contributes to the people in the Nhulunbuy electorate, and that is shocking. The low standards she has; she walked in here the other day and talked about two non-Indigenous people working in the ranger group. Not for one minute did she encourage, or show leadership as a member in parliament, to the Indigenous people to take control of Caring for Country incentives. She did not even say that. She was very sorry about the two non-Indigenous people leaving. She was empathising about the whole thing. She thought it was bad and that those people would be lost without them.
Well, in my region, the Jawoyn region, it is our own who are doing Caring for Country and are the managers. We have to encourage our own people to get into management roles, higher levels, and higher education. All we hear from the member from Nhulunbuy is it is better that Indigenous people be directed for the rest of their lives. Well, that is not me. I am not here to stand in this House and represent that. I am here to represent my people in their best interests and give them the opportunities we never had in the bush. That is what they need. That is the only way they are going to move forward - education around everything.
What is wrong with Indigenous people taking control over their country? There is nothing wrong with that. That is the best way to go about things; that is the right direction. The Country Liberal government supports that and that is the best direction. This government is one of the best examples of economic development. We have the best business people in this House. Yet, we have our opposition which just wants to direct and tell Aboriginal people what to do for the rest of their lives. I have been listening to that. I am 29 now, going on to 30. I have been listening to that for almost 30 years and I have had enough. I am here to tell you that stuff does not work on me and it will not work on my generation. It sure as hell will not work on the people out there because that is the whole reason you are over there.
Look at $420 000 for a new transportable middle classroom at Milyakburra – a beautiful little island - and $1.3m of upgrades to Angurugu, which is for a new admin building that was needed. These are just a few of the exciting outcomes of yesterday’s budget.
What is most exciting in the Northern Territory is that it now has a responsible government. We are fighting for the best for the Northern Territory. Yesterday was the first step in getting the Territory back on track after a decade of mismanagement under Delia Lawrie and her Labor administration.
The people of the Northern Territory responded to the utter incompetence of the last government by voting them out. The NT was heading down a dark hole towards a $5.5bn debt and the Country Liberal government has inherited a huge responsibility, with our first task being to re-establish the NT’s financial credibility.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for his budget. My electorate will benefit from this hugely. There are millions of things I would like to say but I only have 25 seconds left on the clock. Thank you very much for listening to me everybody. Goodnight!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I express my thanks and appreciation to Mrs Nancy Cowan, Barkly electorate officer, who is resigning on Friday, 17 May 2013, from the position to accompany her partner, Frank O’Donoghue, to Alice Springs where he will continue his exemplary career and tertiary studies as a public health officer.
Nancy Cowan came to the Northern Territory from a regional area in southwestern New South Wales, with a background in the social welfare sector, and immediately applied her professional and life experience to the job of electorate officer serving a multicultural, regional and remote constituency across a geographic area 1.5 times the size of Victoria.
Nancy quickly and confidently developed a professional approach for dealing with Barkly constituents, especially constituents from disadvantaged backgrounds who needed support structure and discipline. However, her kind and generous nature was the real winner that facilitated the important respect and trust from constituents that delivers real results.
Nancy saw the need to develop a supportive and structured electorate office culture that would eliminate antisocial elements of constituent behaviour, provide a confidential space for interactions, and professional meeting spaces for individuals and community groups. Over the past four years, Nancy designed and implemented infrastructure upgrades and management systems into the electorate office that created a vastly improved office culture and service delivery model, much appreciated by Barkly constituents and visitors. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should be proud of their investment in the Barkly electorate officer, and electorate office minor new works, as resulting infrastructure improvements, operating systems, and office culture is a credit to the Legislative Assembly and Mrs Nancy Cowan, who has worked diligently to effect the changes.
However, it is not all about infrastructure and systems, as Nancy will be missed by hundreds of constituents for the important service delivery, compassion, and friendship she has provided, and by the many constituents she has extended time-consuming case management support to through an array of personal and professional interventions, including fostering community organisations that have come to depend on her fine output as an electorate officer.
As a minister in the previous Labor government, I required considerable additional support that involved liaison with the ministerial staff in Darwin, for which Nancy Cowan acquitted herself admirably, making lots of friends and influencing people, including the Chief Minister.
Nancy Cowan came to the Barkly with a reserved attitude toward politics, yet an open and discerning mind and, after four years working as an electorate officer in Barkly, leaves the position with a clear and decisive understanding of Northern Territory government policy, procedures, and politics at its best and worst; however, with a comparative view of what is truly right, sincere and will work across the diverse community of the Northern Territory.
I can only assume, from Nancy’s dedication, compassion, honesty and integrity that she saw fit to support a Territory Labor agenda, as Nancy Cowan does not suffer fools gladly and would add constructively to the regular political debates, policy development, and implementation strategies. Nancy did not always agree with government policy; however, she exercised a clear and concise position in debate, listening to others and offering new ideas which have been important and valuable for a local member gauging public opinion and formulating policy ideas. I thank Nancy for her honesty and integrity.
It has been an honour to work with Mrs Nancy Cowan in the Barkly electorate, and I know that together we have assisted thousands of constituents, delivered important infrastructure and services, and maintained a clear independence for serving all Barkly constituents, no matter what their social, cultural, economic or political background.
I offer my best wishes to Nancy and Frank for the next stage of their lives and work in the Northern Territory with good health and happiness. Nancy is currently training the new Barkly electorate officer in a formal handover process. I look forward to introducing Ms Ktima Heathcoat to parliamentary colleagues and the Legislative Assembly soon.
Madam Speaker, Nancy Cowan is a fine person and a sensational cook with a great sense of humour, and I sincerely thank her for her support over the past four years. There have been many good memories, including the challenges we have faced as a team. However, the social and cultural event, Taste of Italy, launching the 2012 Barkly election campaign, was certainly a memorable occasion, with Nancy underpinning its success as chef, project manager, and entertainment team leader.
Go well, Nancy, and thank you for the care and concern for all Barkly constituents, and I look forward to hearing of the next chapter with Frank in Central Australia.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, tonight I raise two issues. One is most members in this House would know they get many magazines and newsletters and so forth coming across their desks. I hope many of them try to read those magazines, even if they only have a quick flick through them.
There is one I receive a copy of, the Motor Vehicle Enthusiast Club newsletter called Transmission. I have a connection with car restorations and so forth through my uncle so I read this magazine. In the May edition I was saddened to read about the loss of a well-respected motor vehicle enthusiast, Trevor Feehan. His funeral was held on 10 May. I will not go through the write-up they have in this magazine about Trevor, but it is obvious he was well respected by club members. He was one of the founding members.
The connection I have with motor vehicle enthusiasts is that my uncle was a keen restorer of motor vehicles. I noticed, reading this article about Trevor, he restored a Humber. If I was to show my age, I would have to point out I owned a Humber Vogue Sport. It was not quite an antique when I owned it, but it was a car I owned so I saw the connection there as well. For those people who do not know too much about vintage cars, I am sure they would know what I am saying if I mention a Model T.
The other interesting thing I picked up reading about Trevor was he first started his working career in Darwin working for Civil Aviation. The connection I also saw in Civil Aviation is I have always wanted to fly a plane. I have a pilot’s licence even though I need to boost my hours.
Trevor started his work in the old Qantas hangar. It is interesting that the club now does much of its work in that hangar. He started and finished his working career in the Northern Territory at the same place.
I put on the record what a sad loss, not just to the club but to the Northern Territory, we have had in losing Trevor. For Trevor’s family and friends, please accept my sorrow in reading about his death. In saying that, I also would like them to realise people get a lot out of reading these magazines and I hope they continue.
The second issue I would like to raise is a special thank you. I had a visit today from Patsy Que Noy. Patsy and Arthur live near Knuckey Lagoon and I have known them for a long time; they have some connections at the Daly. Patsy came in today with a friend of hers, Patricia, from Broome, who I also recognised from Batchelor. She said she was from Broome and I said, ‘I know you’. She has been living in Broome for 15 years. Patsy brought in her daughter and granddaughter, Joycie and Mia. They came in and gave me a fantastic painting of a turtle and snake to hang in my office. I place on the record that I am very appreciative of Patsy for taking the time to come all the way in here to do that. It is very much appreciated, beautiful lady. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, first, I will talk about a beautiful woman who passed away a couple of months ago. I did not have a chance to speak of her. Her name was Laurie Madjadilla and she was from Maningrida. She worked hard for her community. She worked for the children, the Night Patrol looking after kids after hours and rounding up kids so they would not get into trouble, and she was one of the representatives on the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. She represented Maningrida and her people.
She was one of those people who was really strong, a hard worker, and on the go the whole time. Even though she had a heart condition, she wanted to ensure the children were protected and kids were safe and had somewhere to stay at night. She made sure every night she would be out with the Night Patrol picking up kids, taking them home, looking after them, and making sure they were all right. It is a sad loss for the Maningrida community and for her family as well. I wanted to ensure she had a heartfelt say for her here in Cabinet and in parliament. She will be missed.
I take this opportunity to talk about an issue that has always been close to my heart. Within the last four months, two more young mothers related to me were killed in Alice Springs Town Camp. One was injured mortally in public, in front of several families. Nobody acted to protect her. Dozens of my female relatives have been killed this way. Convictions usually lead to light sentences. I was told by a senior lawyer that no jury in Alice Springs will convict an Aboriginal person for murder if the victim is also Aboriginal and he or she is only stabbed once.
None of us have done anything effective to stop this from happening. It has been going on for decades. This week we heard outrage from the Stolen Generations association because this government wants to put the safety and wellbeing of our children before their culture. I am not talking about the children of the Stolen Generations; these are our children.
Why has there not been the same outrage over the continued killing of our women and abuse and neglect of our kids? If these women victims were white, we would hear very loud outrage from feminists. If their killers had been white, we would hear outrage from the Indigenous activists. Why is there such a deafening silence when both victim and perpetrator are black? I believe we can blame the politics of the progressive left and its comfortably middle-class urban Indigenous supporters.
Because I have spoken out on this issue and others close to my heart, I have been routinely attacked by the left. Professor Larissa Behrendt claimed that what I say is more offensive than watching a man having sex with a horse. Her white professional protester colleague, Paddy Gibson, told the world that I was only doing it for the money and frequent flyer points. The Queensland educationist, Chris Sarra, said I was a ‘pet Aborigine’ who only said what the government wanted me to say. Chris Graham, the white editor of Tracker magazine called me a ‘grub’. A white woman in Victoria, Leonie Chester, calls herself Nampajinpa Snowy River on the Internet. She tells the world that my people, the Warlpiri, are ‘her mob’. She and her friends have obscenely insulted me on the Internet repeatedly. Marlene Hodder, a white woman from Alice Springs and her protesting friend, Barbara Shaw, have called me a liar several times.
The Crikey blogger, Bob Gosford, who calls himself ‘the Northern Myth’, calls me Bess ‘Gaol is Good for Aboriginal People’ Price and accuses me of:
- …vaguely malevolent and populist buffoonery that is designed to capture the attention of the tutt-tutterers and spouted by politicians that inevitably have a short tenure in power.
In Brisbane, Tiga Bayles, using an Indigenous community-owned radio station, told the whole world that I am ‘a head-nodding Jacky-Jacky for the government’ and that I am ‘totally offensive and arrogant’ because I do not want people like Tiga, who know nothing about us, speaking about my people. He and his friends laughed as they told the world that I am only interested in money.
When my daughter went to Sydney for the Deadly Awards, an Aboriginal interviewer for the Koori Radio Station in Redfern advised her not to tell anybody who her mother was. This is how these people show respect for family. In the last month I have watched three of my sisters and a granddaughter being buried. These racist and sexist hypocrites sneer at our grief and care nothing for our suffering, but they are the darlings of the left. I wonder what would happen if Andrew Bolt had used insults like these against any Indigenous Australian. The hypocrisy of these people is incredible.
However, I am in good company. When Mantatjara Wilson, a wonderful strong compassionate women I called mother, told the world about the crimes against her children on national TV in 2007, with tears streaming down her face, the left-wing activist moved to undermine her. They went into the communities not to protect the kids but to find women who would oppose Mantatjara. They talked about outrage and shame, not because of the crimes you all know about, but because somebody was brave enough to tell the world about them and ask for help. That was what they called ‘shameful’.
They worry about the shame felt by perpetrators once they are exposed, not by the agony of their victims and families. It is easy to find women who will support their men even though they are killers and rapists. Families always stand up for their own, and those who call themselves progressive will always find those willing to stand beside them and betray their own women and kids.
Few others have stood up and faced the vicious criticism of the left. I acknowledge the wonderful work of Dr Hannah McGlade in Perth and Professor Marcia Langton in Melbourne. Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson have also spoken out.
A conference of Aboriginal men in Alice Springs publicly apologised to Aboriginal women and kids for the violence and abuse men have inflicted on them. None of those people have received support from the left or from Labor governments.
The left has tried really hard to call us liars and to put us down for speaking the truth and for wanting to stop the killing and the sexual violence. But they have put no effort into protecting our kids and women. The exception to this has been a determination of minister Jenny Macklin, who I acknowledge for her courage in the face of strong criticism from her own party and The Greens.
I recently went to Sydney for the launch of a book called Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence by a wonderful caring friend of mine Dr Stephanie Jarrett. My words are on the cover of her book:
- We need to support those who tell the truth.
Dr Jarrett does that and she cares, maybe too much for her own good. I have seen the tears in her eyes and heard the passion in her voice when she talks about her murdered and bashed ones. I trust her completely.
However, those who are not interested in the truth are out to bring her down. She has been attacked in The Monthly magazine by its editor, John van Tiggelen in an article called Thinking Backwards.
Dr Jarrett is saying there are elements to our traditional culture that we must change if we are to stop the violence that is destroying us, and she is right. Things are much worse now than the old days because of the grog, the drugs, and the awful welfare dependency that is sucking the life out of us. There are elements of our culture that are really good and should be kept, but we should be prepared to do what everybody else in the world has done: change our ways to solve the new problems we have that our old law has no tools to solve.
Some people call this integration, others call it assimilation because they want us to continue to live in poverty, violence, and ignorance so we can play out their fantasies on what the word ‘culture’ means. I call it problem solving and saving lives. The left has its own agenda, and liberating our people from violence is not part of that agenda.
Van Tiggelen talks about the book Black Death, White Hands written by Paul Wilson in 1982. In that book, Wilson argued that when a man called Alwyn Peters killed his girlfriend in Queensland it was actually because of white colonialism and racism. It was not the killer’s fault, it was the whitefellas’ fault. This argument worked; Peters was only given a short sentence.
Dr Jarrett started to worry about Aboriginal women’s rights when she saw David Bradbury’s film State of Shock. This was made in 1988 and was based on the same case. Bradbury brought the film to Alice Springs and Owen Peters with him. In the film, Bradbury gave only the story of Peters and his family. Nobody from the victim’s family was given a chance to give their point of view. They would not have backed Bradbury’s arguments so they were ignored.
I remember Alwyn Peters telling us, ‘She has ruined my life’. He was talking about the one he killed. He went on to say, ‘She comes to me in dreams’. This made me feel sick. When my husband asked David Bradbury, ‘Why did you not talk to the victim’s family, you would have got a different point of view?’, he said, ‘Alwyn Peters’ family are victims too’. In other words, all our sympathy was meant to be for the one who killed and his family, and not for the one he killed or her family.
In 1991, Audrey Bolger of the ANU’s North Australian Research Unit wrote a wonderful little book called Aboriginal Women and Violence. At last, somebody was taking notice. At last, a white woman was trying to get governments to act. She was ignored and, as far as I know, nobody tried again after that. Her voice was drowned out by the politically correct who took their lead from Wilson and Bradbury: just keep blaming the whitefellas and everything will be fine. When governments says sorry, everything will be fixed.
Audrey Bolger said in her book way back then that in the final analysis the problem of violence against Aboriginal women will only be solved by Aboriginal people themselves. The report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody said the same thing. In a way, she was right; my people need to act now to stop our own violence. However, in another way, this has given governments and the wider community an excuse for the big cop-out. ‘Okay, we whitefellas caused the problem but only blackfellas will solve it’, so we sit around waiting for that to happen.
She also said:
- … the problem is a complicated one, bound up as it is with other issues connected with changing lifestyles. Working through these issues towards satisfactory solutions is crucial to the future wellbeing of all Aboriginal people.
She was right, but in the 22 years since she wrote that there have been no satisfactory solutions found and things are much worse now. It has not happened and I am sick of sitting around seeing my loved ones being killed.
We have had committees and research projects, and advisory councils, and ATSIC, and now we have A National Congress of Australia’s First People. Billions of dollars have been spent. We have had visits from the United Nations special rapporteurs, and Amnesty International Indigenous officers.
Not only have solutions not been found, but the most important issues are not even raised and talked about. I want to work through these issues and find solutions. For the left and for many Aboriginal politicians on the national stage it seemed the only issues worth talking about were the Stolen Generations and Aboriginal deaths in custody. These are real issues that have to be addressed, but they were not the only issues. In the meantime, women still died, children did not go to school, epidemics of renal failure, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease grew worse, suicides increased, young men went to gaol, and we kept killing each other and ourselves. Australians were not told that the death rate amongst our young men was higher outside custody than in, and that more Aboriginal women died at the hands of their menfolk than Aboriginal men died in custody. Since then, so many more women have died and have been sexually abused, assaulted ...
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have to draw your attention to the clock, it is a standing order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In adjournment we do have a bit of leniency. Continue, Member for Stuart …
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We do not actually. I appreciate Bess’s speech and believe this should be normally spoken in full length. I am sure you can do it another time, but there are conventions …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will check with the Clerk, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: Seek leave to table it if you want.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to leave the table my speech.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to speak of the superb efforts of a school in my electorate, Humpty Doo Primary School. This is a school at the heart of Humpty Doo which has been home to so many of our current Territorians in the rural area, given that the school has been around for over 30 years. Students have gone to the school, gone on to high school, grown up, married, had children and sent their children to the school. It is a school of history, culture, and of strong and personal community.
What is good about this school, from what I have seen, is the dedication, enthusiasm and commitment to ensuring all students receive the best possible education and experience. Whether it be assemblies with sombre presentations such as that for Anzac Day, or fun ones where everyone dresses as their favourite space or comic character, they are always entertaining, funny and memorable.
What I like about schools these days is they contact parents to invite them to the school when their child is receiving an award, getting mentioned, or participating so they can watch and enjoy. From memory, this never happened when I went to primary school in Darwin and, being a boarding school student, it never happened in my high school years. Perhaps that is why I enjoy the assemblies so much.
Then, there is the annual graduation of Year 6 students, who look so proud as they receive their certificate, as do their parents or family members present.
Over the years I have come to know the teachers and support staff and they are delightful people and so helpful to me in understanding the school and its issues. Most times I get it, but not always, so I appreciate them taking the time to talk with me, given their busy schedules.
What I find interesting, and have done for many years, are the comments teachers do not do too much and get loads of holidays and time off. From what I have observed this is never and not the case. There are teachers on councils, teachers who organise sports days and participate and dress up in silly outfits, teachers who get sponsorship for their events, teachers who help the students fundraise to go on expeditions, teachers who take students on excursions interstate, and teachers who help with school gardens and special projects. These activities are done out of teaching hours and all that teaching involves.
It is a good and decent school and one I like visiting on any occasion. I feel very much at home when I do. One recent activity I want to highlight is the school’s recent participation in the Mother’s Day fun run. The school entered a team called ‘The Doo’ and had appropriately labelled outfits, and a fun day on the Sunday just past. Even though it was a very early day for many of the 39 competitors on the team made up from staff, parents, children, family and friends, and members of the wider Humpty Doo community, several of them ran the 8 km or 4 km course. Of course, others walked the 4 km, such as the Principal, Susanne Fisher. Indeed, Susanne’s son, who had run a full marathon the week before in 4C, also ran the 8 km along with one of Susanne’s daughters-in-law.
The school won the trophy for having the biggest school team event. It was a very proud moment and this week the school learnt it is currently the highest fundraising team for Darwin, raising over $4000 for breast cancer research. It is quite a feat, if not an amazing achievement. Well done, and congratulations to all from Humpty Doo Primary School and the community, one and all.
This is a school that punches well above its weight, and I extend my congratulations to them for all of their hard work and achievements. I look forward to advice from the minister’s office as to when he is going to visit this school as he needs to see what they do firsthand and how the school could do with some serious infrastructure upgrades. If this school is not on the minister’s agenda it will be next week as I will be knocking on his door.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague and friend, the member for Stuart. I listened with great interest to a number of people who have ridiculed the member for Stuart. One in particular I recall where they referred to her as a ‘Jacky-Jacky for the government’.
I would like to see those people travel to the Northern Territory and sit with us and listen to the member for Stuart when she speaks about all types of issues. I noted tonight she is a woman who speaks from the heart and speaks her mind. I can assure those people she is not a Jacky-Jacky or any of the other things they accused her of being.
I had the pleasure of spending some time with the member for Stuart when doing some economic development work. What really impressed me about the member for Stuart, apart from that she is an intelligent woman, was the passion she displayed in embracing the opportunities of economic development for the people in her electorate. The people in her electorate predominantly are Aboriginal people. She has a passion to improve their lifestyle and all the things that she spoke about in her adjournment debate speech tonight.
I commend the member for Stuart. For one, she speaks her mind and she does it from the heart with a passion. For those who may ridicule her for being a passionate woman for the future and the betterment of the people of her electorate, I say shame on them and that they should come and sit and observe firsthand the passion this woman displays for the future of the people in her electorate.
Madam Speaker, I commend her for telling the real story.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016