2016-02-11
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by Danielle Ford and Shaun Andre. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure transparency in the Territory’s automotive fuel retail market and to make automotive fuel retailers more accountable to consumers. The bill will allow for the making of Gazette orders that require automotive fuel retailers and those that supply them to provide details and a full breakdown of their retail and profit margins. It also empowers the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs to publish information about the fuel retail market.
Historically, we know that the Northern Territory and other regional areas in Australia have always had higher automotive fuel prices compared to other capital cities. Territory consumers are right to be concerned about these higher prices and to expect that they can be justified. This concern is not new.
There is a number of factors that contribute to higher prices in the Territory. These factors include lower volumes of sales; less competition; distance; location; higher input costs, including rent and power; lower sales from other sources of income and the lack of a refinery in the Territory.
Up until 2010 the retail fuel price differential for unleaded ULP between Darwin and other capital cities was relatively stable, averaging about 8c per litre. However, from late 2010 the price differential began to increase, coinciding with a concentration of retailers in the Darwin fuel market. This increase became particularly pronounced over the next two years as the price differential increased to a peak of almost 30c per litre in early 2012. Similar price differentials were experienced across the Territory.
At the start of 2013 we spent much time working on solutions to try to drive competition and find solutions. As you and others will be aware, as Chief Minister I convened a fuel price summit on 7 October 2014. The summit was attended by a number of industry representatives, including the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory, or AANT; Puma Energy; Caltex; United; the road transport industry; Vopak; and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. However, the summit did not elicit further information about the structure of the industry and its breakdown of costs other than what was already publicly available.
The summit had the public benefit of discussing and clarifying why it can be expected that petrol prices will be higher in the Territory, but it shed no further light on why the price differential changes or why the cost of automotive fuel in Katherine is consistently lower than the rest of the Territory. What the summit also provided was clarity around the fact that the gap in meaningful public information is in the breakdown of the retail margin. These are issues I think Territorians would like to understand.
Accordingly, following the summit on 22 October 2014 I tabled the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill in this Assembly. At the same time a Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee was established and tasked with the job of scrutinising the bill, including whether it would meet the aims of better informing motorists of the price structure of fuel and promoting price competition. There was a marked decline in the price of unleaded fuel after the summit and after tabling the bill.
It should be noted that following the fuel summit and after a furious lobbying campaign in January 2015 by me and my government, the ACCC announced that it would undertake micro-market investigations into fuel prices in regional markets for the first time in Australia. On 10 March 2015 it announced that Darwin would be the first location to be subject to such an investigation.
On 30 April 2015, after a comprehensive consultation process, the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee tabled its report, which recommended that, amongst other things, in light of the ongoing ACCC investigations and the recent reductions in retail fuel prices, the government should postpone any regulatory intervention. Accordingly, the tabled bill was not progressed for the time being.
The next step in this story came in November 2015 when the ACCC finally published its report on the Darwin petrol market. The report noted that high retail prices in Darwin were reflected in high profits. It recommended increased transparency and the promotion of competition in the market, including the regular publication of the difference between wholesale prices and retail prices, providing current retail prices to help motorists shop around, and regular reporting on market concentration.
In the period between the Fuel Price Summit in October 2014 and the release of the ACCC report over a year later, retail unleaded petrol prices in Darwin fell dramatically, by 45c per litre. Over this period the retail ULP prices in Darwin averaged only 1.7c per litre higher than other capital cities, and, at times, retail unleaded prices in Darwin were well below the national average.
Unfortunately fuel prices again became the subject of concern for Territorians. While prices in other Australian states had been reducing further, the gap between the retail price at the pump in Darwin and the rest of Australia had again widened. This is of particular concern in relation to Darwin’s retail price of diesel, which has not followed the reduction seen in the national average, especially in late 2015 and early 2016. It is also in regard to gas.
The price differentials throughout January 2016 averaged 8c per litre for ULP and 12c per litre for diesel. Despite a recent drop in prices, including this morning when I saw it was about $1.16 for unleaded, this government sees no alternative but to implement this bill and make good our commitment to improve transparency and accountability in the retail fuel market. If fuel companies need to be watched closely to act competitively, then we will watch them.
In developing our response to the Territory’s fuel crises the government considered a number of solutions, including the current regulatory environment in the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions. In the Northern Territory there is currently no regulation of fuel prices and no disclosure requirements directed at fuel retailers, apart from the terminal gate price under what is called the Oilcode.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s role is as the national competition regulator and consumer law advocate. It is primarily a law enforcement body and takes an active role in ensuring all markets, including the fuel market, operate competitively and free of collusion. The ACCC also has a role in monitoring fuel prices, but not in setting them.
Pursuant to a ministerial direction under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in the Commonwealth, the ACCC has monitored prices, costs and profits of unleaded petrol in Australia for the last six years. The Northern Territory Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, does retain an overarching function of collecting, collating and disseminating information in respect of matters affecting the interests of consumers. Therefore, under existing legislation, the NT Commissioner of Consumer Affairs previously established and maintained a website called NT Fuel Watch, which monitored the weekly high, low and mean prices for unleaded petrol, premium unleaded, diesel and LPG for the Territory’s major centres.
The NT Fuel Watch scheme was discontinued due to the high cost, low uptake of service and lack of consumer benefit in a small market such as the Territory; however, the Department of Treasury and Finance continues to publish a monthly economic brief covering Territory fuel prices.
In addition to the commissioner’s power of collecting, collating and disseminating information affecting the interests of consumers, section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act provides the commissioner with power in relation to any of his functions to require any person to furnish him information or to answer any question put by the commissioner. It is an offence to fail to comply with the commissioner’s request or to give false or misleading information.
The commissioner’s existing powers under section 8 of The Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act are somewhat limited. In order to access detailed data about individual retailers, the commissioner would need to give notice under section 8 to each individual retailer from whom details were required, and on each individual occasion, and would have to substantiate the purpose and basis on which the information is required in each instance.
Furthermore, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act is targeted at consumers, which means it would be difficult to use the act to seek information from those at the wholesale or distribution levels of the supply business, even if that information impacted on the retail price. There is a need to strengthen the commissioner’s powers if we are to improve fuel pricing transparency, and this bill is the vehicle to achieve that.
There are already a number of limited disclosure requirements in Australia. At a wholesale level the Oilcode, which is legislative instrument under the Competition and Consumer Act, requires some disclosure. including that the terminal gate price, or TGP, be posted by the wholesale supplier each day. It does not require that the components of the TGP be disclosed; however, much of the information regarding the components is publicly discernible, including via the Australian Institute of Petroleum, or AIP, website.
Interestingly, Western Australia also requires additional disclosure of TGP under a current Petroleum Products Pricing (Maximum Terminal Gate Price) order, which requires wholesalers to notify daily TGP to the WA Commissioner for Consumer Protection. The notified TGP then operates as the maximum price for that product for 24 hours. When notifying of a TGP, a wholesaler must also state each specified component of that price. No other state has similar legislation.
The Western Australian Petroleum Products Pricing Act 1983 also imposes disclosure requirements covering petroleum retailers. This is known as the FuelWatch scheme. Retailers in much of WA are required to notify their next day prices by 2 pm. They must then change that price for the next 24-hour period starting at 6 am the next day. The aim of the FuelWatch scheme in WA is to provide certainty and transparency; however, under FuelWatch, retailers are not required to disclose the components of the retail price to the commissioner.
The Western Australian approach, which focuses on disclosure at the wholesale level and notification of daily retail prices, was considered by the Country Liberal government, but we will not be adopting it in the first instance as it does not address the Territory’s circumstances or needs as identified in the summit, that is, the lack of transparency about what constitutes the retail profit margins.
The government also considered the issue of price setting. The Commonwealth government used to regulate wholesale prices through the Prices Surveillance Act 1983; however, price setting for fuel in Australia ceased as part of the national competition policy reforms. Since then it has generally been accepted that a competitive free market is the best way to ensure that consumers get the best deal.
No Australian jurisdiction currently sets fuel prices by assigning a dollar amount, although most jurisdictions have the power to do so, including in circumstances such as natural or manmade disaster, or failure of other laws to protect consumers from monopolies or to effectively ensure that consumers benefit from the operation of a competitive market.
In The Northern Territory the Price Exploitation Prevention Act fulfils this function; however, circumstances in which the act can be invoked are constrained by its terms, and there must be sufficient evidence of one of the preconditions in order to invoke its powers. In any event, any market intervention to impose artificial prices should always be a last resort.
After consideration of the Territory’s circumstances and recent changes in the market, this government is of the view that the only way to protect Territory consumers is to bring meaningful transparency to the retail market. This will be done by implementing a legislative framework that focuses on obtaining information from automotive fuel retailers and, where necessary, others in the fuel chain supplying those retailers, regarding details and breakdowns of their fuel cost structure.
I will now turn to the structure of the contents of the bill. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will be the regulator and have oversight of the legislation. It is proposed that the commissioner will publish on his website information to consumers about the breakdown of fuel prices and the structure of the fuel industry. This could include the publishing of information disclosed by retailers under this Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016.
It is proposed that the disclosure will be required by retailers to the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. It will not be direct from the retailers to the public. Disclosure to the regulator will allow the regulator to check the data and provide the report in a more consumer-friendly fashion. It will also ensure that the data is available in one easily-accessible place. Importantly, it will reduce both the likelihood of retailers manipulating data and industry concerns about the disclosure of commercial-in-confidence information. The requirements for disclosure will be set out in the proposed Gazette notice or notices, see clauses of the bill for further details, which will be issued by the relevant minister.
These requirements will be focused on obtaining information from retailers on the breakdown of the various components of the retail margins in relation to automotive fuel only.
The Gazette notice will be developed with cross-agency collaboration and in consultation with industry. Although disclosure will initially be aimed at retailers only, clause 5 of the bill is drafted so that disclosure requirements can be extended to other operators in the supply chain. This power is necessary due to the nature of the NT market, where there is a substantial level of market integration.
For businesses also operating across other sectors of the market, the commissioner will be able to require disclosure at other levels in the supply chain to determine if such businesses are transferring profits to other parts of the business in order to lower profits at the retail end.
The commissioner will, in effect, have the flexibility to publish the information in relation to fuel prices in any format he or she considers to be appropriate. It is proposed that it will be published on the commissioner’s website, but he may well choose additional formats, such as flyers, bulletins or a mobile phone application, at his discretion. There will be no restrictions placed upon what the commissioner can publish. It will be up to the commissioner to determine the information subject to any direction from the minister. However, it is proposed that guidelines will be developed to provide industry with a clear expectation of what is to be published. The commissioner may, from time to time, require additional information to assist with determining the breakdown of prices, information which may not be suitable or intended for publication.
Compliance and enforcement are other important aspects of this bill. The commissioner will have the necessary investigative audit and enforcement powers, mainly through linking to his current powers under section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Section 8 allows the commissioner to obtain information relating to his or her functions under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act or any other act. The commissioner can continue to be able to use his power to request specific information for specific purposes under section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, that is if necessary.
It is intended that this legislation will complement rather than replace the commissioner’s existing powers. The commissioner will be assisted by fuel officers who will have the same powers and functions as authorised officers under Part 3 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Fuel officers, which include police officers and the commissioner, have the power to enter and search premises, and inspect and copy documents.
Additionally, clause 8 of the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016 creates an offence provision for failure to comply with disclosure requirements, the maximum penalty for which is 400 penalty units. Currently that is $61 200 and two years’ imprisonment. The existing offences under section 8(4) and section 23(2) of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act will apply to the provision of false or misleading information to the commissioner or fuel officers respectively. Additional compliance and enforcement tools, in the form of infringement notices and the ability to name and shame, if they become necessary, can also be enabled under the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016.
The regulation power in clause 10 allows for the making of regulations relating to infringement notices. The functions of the commissioner in clause 6 are wide enough to allow for the publication of information in the form of naming a recalcitrant retailer.
Clause 5 of the bill is drafted to show that an exemption in a Gazette notice could operate as a blanket exemption or by reference to regions or individual retailers.
The Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016 is designed as a simple framework that is clear, targeted and easy to administer. It will benefit NT consumers by making the retail automotive fuel industry more accountable and more transparent. I commend this bill to honourable members.
The committee report contained a number of recommendations. Part of Recommendation 6 was not to do anything until after the ACCC report. The ACCC report has been handed down. We are working through the other five recommendations to make sure we can provide the necessary changes. It was not the intent to introduce this bill until the proposed changes came through the bill as a whole before entering parliament. However, the Country Liberals, and me as Chief Minister, became so frustrated with the widening gap in the margins from the TGP, or terminal gate price, that we thought it necessary to introduce this.
Although we have not reached the heights of what occurred at the back end of the last term of the Labor government, it got close to those numbers again. Prices have come down in the last two weeks since my intervention, and again today they have come down, particularly unleaded, but also, on a wider basis, diesel.
Introducing this legislation is a sign that we will proceed with this legislation. We may not be able to bring it back at the next sittings for debate because we are still working through some amendments, which will have to be put through this Chamber, as a result of the committee findings. As soon as those amendments are made I will distribute them to all members once they pass through Cabinet, but that is the general timing. This should be a clear message that it should not be left to the Chief Minister to have to engage with fuel companies to try to drive the price down.
I am a supporter of Liberal philosophy, free-market enterprise and of the market responding. The only time governments should intervene is where there is a perceived or real market failure. In the Northern Territory, between 2010 and 2012, there was an escalation in market failure. We have had some ups and downs in that time with government intervention here and there, whether that is the fuel price summit, bills, letters or phone calls, or whatever that may have been. This bill provides a greater degree of certainty about our desire to have to enter the market because we think there has been perceived or real market failure.
I do not anticipate this coming back at the next sittings for debate. It could, depending on the timing of amendments, but it will certainly be coming back. This is a clear message that this bill will be passing through parliament, whether in this form or an amended form, because we are clear with our plan to reduce cost-of-living pressures, which includes reducing fuel prices, not just reducing housing, grocery and power prices. We are serious about fuel and are committed to this legislation.
I commend the bill to the House and I 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.
The main purpose of this bill is to make further amendments consequential to the enactment in 2015 of the Local Court Act. As with the recently introduced Local Courts (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 148), this bill provides for matters consequential to the establishment of a new Local Court that has jurisdiction over both criminal and civil matters, and the consequent abolition of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and for ancillary reforms relating to consistency of proceedings within the Local Court, the Supreme Court, the Youth Justice Court and the Work Health Court.
The consequential amendments have been split between two bills so as to simplify the management of the implementation. The first bill deals with significant policy issues that have been dealt with as part of consequential amendments, along with statute law revision to the acts, for which there are significant amendments. The bill provides for amendments of a statute law revision nature dealing with the more minor amendments to approximately 156 other acts and pieces of subordinate legislation.
These bills and subordinate legislation are listed in the explanatory statement. Changes have been made to update references and terminology resulting from the Local Court Act 2015. These include changing the following references: ‘magistrate’ to ‘Local Court judge’; ‘Court of Summary Jurisdiction’ to ‘Local Court Justices Act’, to ‘Local Court Criminal Procedure Act’; ‘Registrar’ to ‘registrar’ with a little ‘r’; Justice of the Peace with capitals to ‘justice of the peace’ in lower case; ‘crime’ to ‘offence’ or, where appropriate, ‘indictable offence’; ‘justice’ to ‘justice of the peace’; ‘judge’ to ‘Judge of the Supreme Court’; and the current Local Court Act 1989 has been amended, to ‘Local Court Civil Procedure Act’.
The amendments also remove the use of the term ‘clerk’ in any act and, where necessary, replaces it with ‘registrar’. Further, the amendments change any reference to committal proceedings and replace them with a reference to a preliminary examination under Part 5 of the Local Court Criminal Procedure Act.
This bill is an important piece in a set of legislative reforms that will bring greater certainty and clarity to the law, making it easier for courts, lawyers and the public to understand and comply with the legislation concerning the courts. I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 November 2015.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition supported the bill amendment because it came from an independent tribunal, but we do not support the consideration in detail stage amendment proposed by the government.
The opposition received notice of this late last night. There is a current inequity in the legislation, which the Remuneration Tribunal advised of in its 2015 report. It reported:
The purpose of this bill is to provide a resettlement allowance for former members of parliament when they retire to assist them in transitioning from political to private life. The entitlement will not be extended to an MLA who is convicted of an offence resulting in 12 months or more of imprisonment. The entitlement will not be extended to an MLA who exits from their existing seat to stand for another seat in the Legislative Assembly, or in any Australian parliament, and is successful in being elected.
The caveats on the entitlements appear fair and equitable. The opposition supports that the value of the entitlement will not be specified in the legislation and that it will be determined by the independent tribunal. The opposition also supports the provision for the minister to make an interim determination of entitlement for current Assembly members in respect of any additional salary of office and non-salary entitlements if the tribunal has not acted on that aspect.
The government has proposed an amendment whereby the minister has the power to make basic salary an additional salary of office entitlement for current and former members.
As I explained at the outset, the opposition was alerted to this amendment late last night. We received a briefing at the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and we thank the departmental staff for that, but we cannot support this. We must call it out for what it is. The government’s briefing note from last year recommended that the reason it had been amended to remove the basic salary and former member entitlements was because, ‘There are categories of entitlements where there is less likely to be a need for an interim determination, except in an election year when we have impending retiring members’.
The current bill, not the consideration in detail stage amendment, is supported because there was a clear process that supports an equitable determination for current and former members in the form of the Remuneration Tribunal. It was an independent recommendation at arm’s lengths of members of parliament.
The tribunal undertakes its inquiries and makes a report to government which is tabled within six sitting days. Then the Assembly either supports or disallows the determination within 10 sitting days – a clear process at arm’s length. But there are no checks and balances in this proposed consideration in detail stage amendment. The minister makes a determination and within six sitting days it takes effect. There is no transparent process for this decision.
Nobody trusts this government as it is, and this is not the right thing to do. We do not trust the government to make an impartial decision; therefore the opposition does not support this consideration in detail stage amendment to the bill.
The proposed amendments allow the minister to make any decision that currently does not fall within the determination by the tribunal. Territorians want to trust us and they need a process to trust us. We want our community to have trust in us as a parliament. We do not want them to think there is a conflict of interest when we set our own entitlements. As I said, we received the amendment late last night, and our understanding is that the amendment has the potential to allow the minister to determine pay and entitlements for members without appropriate checks and balances. Our community needs to have confidence that our wages are set independently and fairly. We are not comfortable that members’ entitlements can sit with the Chief Minister. The captain of the team is essentially deciding the pay and entitlements of his members without scrutiny and independence.
We have a well-established RTD process and we will not accept this new lack of transparency, and neither will the community. This is a government whose members love to have their snouts in the trough and who expend excessively on themselves. This is as good as handing a blank cheque to the CLP to burn through public funds to fatten their own payments between now and the election. It is not acceptable. This money should be used for the health and education of Territorians. This process does not happen anywhere else, as I understand, and it certainly should not happen here.
We have an RTD process which is independent and is at arm’s length which allows time for a process to take place that is fair, and which people can see is independent and at arm’s length. This consideration in detail stage amendment, snuck through late at night, asking us to support something on the last day of sittings, is not acceptable. It should never be allowed ...
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: I pick up on the interjections from the members opposite who are laughing. This is a serious matter. We need our community to have trust. We are trying to rebuild that trust because it has been eroded in the last three-and-a-half years. In passing this consideration in detail stage amendment we will be even more of a laughing stock.
Madam Speaker, the opposition, from the outset supported the amendment to the bill because it was set independently by the RTD, but we do not accept this late consideration in detail stage amendment. Therefore, we will not be supporting this legislation.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I should not be surprised – but I am – that the government seeks to lead an amendment to the bill before the House and did not communicate it to me as the Independent member for Karama. I got a heads-up late last night from the opposition Whip, and I thank you for that, member for Nightcliff.
What on earth is this sleight of hand about? If the government has issues with the determination of the independent tribunal, which was the genesis of the bill before the House, then why did you not refer them back to the tribunal for further consideration? All members could then be assured that an independent officer representing the public’s interest will make a determination that could then come forward. That process has not happened.
The opposition received advice last night that the CLP wants its concurrence with an amendment, which is ambiguous as best I can tell. I have not been availed of the same courtesy the opposition had with advice about what it is, what its effect is, the government’s views on why it is in there and what it hopes to achieve.
Members of this parliament are well aware that the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex have announced their retirement at the next election. Is this about speeding forward a payment to them? What would that payment be? Is it about a $150 000 payment to each of those members who have chosen to retire? I do not know. I seek an explanation from the member for Fong Lim. Is this about you, member for Fong Lim? Are you seeing through some proposal here because you were not pre-selected and may not be standing? I do not know.
Explanations are clearly required. This goes to the expenditure of public funds. Who will benefit from the CLP’s proposed changes, dropped late last night to be rushed through on the Thursday morning of this sittings? What is going on?
Yes, there is a trust deficit. I have been a member of parliament for four terms. What used to occur, what was convention, is that the Chief Minister or the minister sponsoring legislation would communicate amendments to all members of parliament, because we are all here to represent the people of our electorates.
What do I say to the people of Karama and Malak about these amendments that I have not been advised of? I got a heads-up last night from the opposition Whip. I have had to ask around for a copy this morning. What is it about? It is pretty broad. There are no explanatory notes to the amendment. The schedule says:
At a glance, what is that? It gives power to the Chief Minister to make decisions on payments to politicians. That is my reading of it. I would be happy to be corrected on that.
There is no explanatory e-mail from the Chief Minister about this. There is no explanatory memorandum being circulated to explain to the members what effect these proposed amendments provide.
Yes, I am cynical because I have seen the consistent behaviour of the CLP, putting their snouts in the trough at the expense of public funds that ought to be used for services to Territorians, such as tackling crime, which the Police minister wants us to believe is okay because it is down across the Territory. Police minister, residents of Karama and Malak cannot believe you have your head buried that far in the sand, and that it is okay that we do not have the additional funding required across our education system that this could go to?
What quantum of dollars are we talking here? Is it about $150 000 each for the members for Port Darwin, Greatorex and Fong Lim? I do not know. There is an explanation required and we do not have it. Is it about some other payment, such as an ex gratia payment? What is it? We do not know because there has been no explanation.
Mr Chandler: Sit down and he will tell you.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Brennan. ‘Sit down and he will tell you.’ Member for Brennan, I am not a big believer in what the member for Fong Lim says. What the member for Fong Lim says in this Chamber is often very far from reality.
I would like to see something in writing. I would like to see some written advice from departmental officers. I would like to be availed of the opportunity to get advice from the Remuneration Tribunal as to the effect of this amendment, because, to my knowledge, nowhere else in Australia does the Chief Minister, Premier or Prime Minister determine payments for politicians, in effect, their own.
This is another new low from the CLP. Yes, I am in a privileged position in this parliament. Yes, I have been here four terms, which means I, and the member for Nelson, do not fall within the remit of this because we are the last two members of this parliament on the old parliamentary superannuation scheme. However, I have every right, on behalf of the residents of Karama and Malak, to question what is going on. What is this payment about? Who will benefit from it? What will be the quantum of that benefit and what is the justification for it? I cannot ask any of those questions of the Remuneration Tribunal, which is independent and would give fair, frank and fearless advice. Instead, I am meant to be satisfied with what the member for Fong Lim says.
You have to be joking. This is outrageous! It will be another – if you needed it after yesterday’s scandal around the member for Katherine – nail in the coffin of the CLP. I hope members of parliament see this for what it is and choose not support the bill because of this last minute amendment. The original bill without the amendment was fair, just and reasonable.
Sleights of hand at the last minute that cannot be properly tested and scrutinised by the independent tribunal are not fair, just or reasonable. It is a shame that the CLP continues to show its arrogance and contempt for Territorians.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support of this bill. The bill has come from recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal and is about creating some fairness and equity in our system.
There has been some debate about the consideration in detail stage amendment we are proposing. Both Labor and the Independent Labor leader seem to have real issues with the amendment. It is a last-minute amendment. The glitch in the bill was identified very late. The glitch is that the bill does not enact what was recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. I suggest that the member for Karama, if she has concerns about this amendment, quickly toddles out of this joint, gets on the phone to one of the members of the Remuneration Tribunal and asks their opinion.
Ms Lawrie: Where is it? Where is their opinion?
Mr TOLLNER: This amendment is supported by the Remuneration Tribunal. You should get out and make a quick phone call.
I apologise, on behalf of everybody, that the member for Karama was not kept completely informed. This bill has zero effect on the member for Karama’s retirement income; that is a fact. The member for Karama, in her own words, has suggested that she is somewhat special in this place because she is on the old parliamentary scheme. That is also a fact; the member for Karama will retire on $1m-plus without a doubt.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that offensive because it is factually incorrect. I ask that he withdraw it.
Mr Tollner: It is not factually incorrect; it is a fact. Member for Karama, you have a life expectancy …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. If the member finds it offensive please withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: It is a matter of fact.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Please withdraw it.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. Let us look at some calculations. The member for Karama, under any assumption, would be suggested to leave somewhere around …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 32: offensive. This is about a bill before the House where you are trying to ram through last minute amendments to benefit yourself.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nightcliff. Minister, keep to the point of the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: This is the point of the bill. It is about restoring equity and fairness …
Ms Fyles: Your snout is in the trough.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: That is offensive.
Ms FYLES: I withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: Let us clarify a couple of things. If the member for Karama lives an average lifespan for a woman, she will probably live to somewhere around 80 years old.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not a level playing field in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause.
Honourable members, this bill is about giving the tribunal and the minister powers. It is not about members’ payouts or what they are doing or not doing. Keep your comments to the bill please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am simply responding to points raised by the member for Karama, who suggested the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex will benefit from this, and that I will benefit from this, and that she is on a different scheme.
Ms Lawrie: Who will benefit, Dave?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Karama, please let the minister speak.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Karama asked questions about who will benefit. I thought it quite interesting that the member for Karama raised that, because this bill is of no benefit whatsoever to the member for Karama; she is on a completely different scheme to the rest of us.
Mrs Lambley: She is well placed.
Mr TOLLNER: She is well placed; that is right. Yet she has the audacity to say this is all clouded in secrecy, but nobody consulted the member for Karama because she is not affected by it.
If the member for Karama was to say, ‘I realise I am on a different arrangement to everybody else. I think it is wholly over the top and parliamentarians should not have pensions. I was one of the people who voted to get rid of the pension. I want to do the right thing by letting the place know I will donate my entire pension to charity’, then she might have some truck in this place, but she does not.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 38: irrelevance and tedious repetition. Debate the bill and the consideration in detail stage amendment that is at hand.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nightcliff. Minister, if you could turn your comments to the bill in.
Mr TOLLNER: We are not actually at the consideration in detail stage amendment yet.
Ms Fyles: We are talking about it.
Mr TOLLNER: We are talking about a range of things which you guys raised. I am summing up, responding to what you raised.
Ms Lawrie: You haven’t yet.
Mr TOLLNER: This consideration in detail stage amendment makes no difference to me personally – zero, nothing ...
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: It does not. Understand this, this consideration in detail stage amendment has nothing to do with me personally. I will not benefit from the amendment one way or the other.
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the member for Karama continues to interject with lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw, please, minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. She continues to interject with mistruths.
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Karama!
Mr TOLLNER: You continually cant on and twist the intent of this bill. This bill was presented to the government by the Remuneration Tribunal. It is a recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal.
Ms Lawrie: What about the amendment?
Mr TOLLNER: The amendment is a recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. Get outside, get on the telephone, ring them up and ask them, member for Karama, if you are so interested, rather than throwing mud at all your parliamentary colleagues. You are a disgrace. You are a disgusting person. Get outside and ring the Remuneration Tribunal …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. What I said may well have been a fact ...
Ms Fyles: We are just telling you to bring it back and go through the process.
Mr TOLLNER: We are going through the process. We intend to go through the process.
In relation to the interim determination, it is a recommendation by the Remuneration Tribunal. Secondly, the next point where you are wrong is the Chief Minister cannot act unilaterally. The Chief Minister can only act upon receiving a recommendation from the Remuneration Tribunal in order to make an interim determination …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This is what we are debating. We are about to pass a bill where all of this stuff will come out, but you seem to have your fingers in your ears and you do not want to hear it ...
Ms Lawrie: Show us.
Mr TOLLNER: Get on the phone and ring the Remuneration Tribunal. I have just told you it is a last-minute amendment …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, opposition members! The minister will be heard while he is responding.
Mr TOLLNER: … recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 241: Table the letter from the RTD saying it is its recommendation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, member for Nightcliff.
Ms Manison: Does it exist?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, opposition members. The members for Casuarina, Wanguri and Nightcliff are all on a warning. The minister will be heard in respectful silence.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just reliably informed that the Remuneration Tribunal Chair has just been on the phone to the Leader of the Opposition explaining this to him.
Ms Fyles: No, that is not …
Mr TOLLNER: Talk to the Opposition Leader before you say, ‘No, it is not true’. Ask him whether he has just talked to the Chair of the Remuneration Tribunal.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say thank you to all of the members who have contributed, as puerile as some of their comments may have been. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the consideration in detail stage amendments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in detail:
Clauses 1 to 6:
Mr WOOD: You are amending section 2 of the act. I have the existing act amended here. Under definitions you have added ‘former member’, see Part 2 section 4AA. Is that correct?
Mr TOLLNER: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: I must now refer to something further on; the amendment is up the front but the discussion about what it means is further down. It says under 4AA, in relation to who a former member is:
Minister, are there limitations on that? For example, the ex-member for Katherine, Fay Miller, retired. Do these payments go back? If they do not, where in the legislation does it say this is only limited to members of this Assembly?
Mr TOLLNER: I draw your attention to the section you quoted, 4AA(a). Fundamentally it is a matter for the tribunal to determine who is an eligible member and who is not. There is a lot of clarity provided in that section of the bill.
Mr WOOD: The clarity is what I am trying to get out. I should not pick on the member for Katherine; it is not fair. If a member has left a previous Assembly due to retiring – we are talking about voluntary retirement. Can any member who has retired since 2005 be included in this payment?
Mr TOLLNER: Technically, yes, but it is my understanding that there are no members in that circumstance, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I am a bit confused. We are talking about voluntary retirement.
Mr TOLLNER: Technically you are right, if that situation existed. I am led to believe that this is not a circumstance. There are no members who were elected after the 2005 election who have voluntarily retired.
You are thinking of the former member for Katherine, but that was an involuntary retirement and there was a payout attached to that. It is separate from this. This bill currently does not apply to former members. Technically, if there was, then it would, but the reality is that there are none.
Clauses 1 to 6 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr GUNNER: I need to ask a question of the Treasurer after the horrific verballing of the Remuneration Tribunal and my conversation with the Remuneration Tribunal. Today I spoke to two members of the Remuneration Tribunal, neither of whom said this consideration in detail stage amendment was a recommendation from them.
We supported the bill as it stands. It was based on a report from the Remuneration Tribunal. The consideration in detail stage amendment circulated last night gives the Chief Minister way too much power and goes beyond the Remuneration Tribunal’s report. That is the point I put to both members of the Remuneration Tribunal, and in our conversation neither of them said this consideration in detail stage amendment was a recommendation from them. If it was, they did not tell me. They said the bill, as it stands, was based on the recommendations. I explained to them exactly why we do not support this amendment, why we believe it gives the Chief Minister too much power and why we believe it goes beyond the bounds of their report.
There was a horrific verballing of the Remuneration Tribunal by the Treasurer, and of a conversation I had with them which he was not privy to. We support the bill as it stands based on the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal. We do not support these amendments.
I want the Treasurer to explain how he can talk about a conversation which he was not privy to, how it applies to this clause, and how this can be a recommendation of the RTD when neither of the members of the RTD said it was.
Mr ELFERINK: I have to declare my interest in this, but moving on from that I advise that I have spoken to Michael Martin, who is on the tribunal. I have deliberately stayed away from this bill as much as I could from the get-go. However, last week Michael Martin from the tribunal contacted me and said there was an expectation in the tribunal that the existing power – the power this amendments deals with is a power that exists now – was anticipated to be used by the tribunal as an interim order to be issued until the next tribunal meets.
I asked a couple of questions about that because of my role as the Leader of the Government Business, and I discovered that the amendment sought to remove that power, which was never the intention of the tribunal. That is the advice I received from Michael Martin.
As a consequence, I have spoken to Michael Martin on a number of occasions and he said he would seek to use the interim power he thought already existed, which it does right now. That power is there right now.
The bill has the effect of removing that power, but because of the timing – this was supposed to pass last year but it did not for whatever reason.
Mr VOWLES: Your stuff up.
Mr ELFERINK: I will not enter into a slanging match; I will just try to explain it. For whatever reason, it did not pass last year. It was always the expectation of the tribunal to be able to write to the Chief Minister and have him exercise that interim power. That is how the conversation started a week ago, and that was the first time I involved myself in this process. I have only done so because I am the Leader of Government Business.
The consequence of that is that the amendment to the bill seeks to restore the power that is in the bill right now. The reason Michael Martin explained to me was so they could make an interim recommendation to the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister could exercise the power he already has. The problem is, because I became involved at such a late stage, this issue only became apparent recently. There is no wickedness or skulduggery. I am comfortable in making this assertion on behalf of the Chief Minister: if the Chief Minister chooses to exercise the power he has now – the bill removes the power and we seek to amend the bill so it restores that power he already has – the Chief Minister will not exercise that power unless he has, in writing, a recommendation from the tribunal to do so.
I am sure the Chief Minister will stand and make that assurance. That places the bill in exactly the same place we, legislatively, are now. There is no skulduggery or wickedness; there is nothing else like that. There is, however, an issue of timing. Under the current rules, if it lies on the table the next tribunal will not meet, and the equitable problem the tribunal was trying to deal with does not manifest.
At every stage this is the tribunal trying to deal with what it considers to be an inequity problem. This is a mechanism for it to be done. It is a mechanism that has existed since this legislation came into the House. I think Paul Henderson was the person who introduced it.
The power has always been there; this is just an attempt to restore it so the tribunal’s recommendation can become subject to an interim order, and that is it; there is nothing more than that. I did not want to engage in this debate, but because of my role as the Leader of Government Business I became involved at a late stage, and so I had to declare my interest.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, we have not received the advice from the independent Remuneration Tribunal which the member for Port Darwin has received. If this advice existed a week ago, attempts could have been made to have this discussion then. I have spoken to members of the Remuneration Tribunal today. Our interpretation, based on the advice we received since this was given to us late last night, is that it goes too far and gives the Chief Minister too much power.
I do not want to verbal the Remuneration Tribunal, but I had two conversations with them today and I did not walk away from those conversations with the understanding that this was a recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. The original bill, which we have had since late last year, was. That is a long time; we have had this bill, based on the recommendations of our independent Remuneration Tribunal, since late last year. Our understanding is based on the report of the Remuneration Tribunal, the bill as it was introduced last year and my conversations with the Remuneration Tribunal today and on previous occasions. We would support the bill as it stands, without the consideration in detail stage amendment. This amendment before us is new to all that process.
The CLP’s understanding of it does not appear to be our understanding, and on that basis we simply cannot support it.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the Opposition Leader if he would be happy to support this amendment, bearing in mind it is about allowing the equitable position this bill creates into the future, and allowing an interim determination to be made by the Chief Minister, if the Chief Minister was to now give an ironclad guarantee that he will not act on this until he has received written advice from the Remuneration Tribunal to make an interim determination.
I understand that you cannot, for whatever reason, trust the words of people on this side of the House. But if you have an ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister – he can only exercise this prior to the election because after the election this will come into force in any case. If he is to make an interim determination prior to the election and does not receive advice from the Remuneration Tribunal, you can make an election issue of it, given that he would have breached his own word. Would that satisfy you as an interim measure until we are past the election?
Member for Fannie Bay, the other thing I should highlight is, yes, you know there are a couple of members retiring at the next election, but we do not know with certainty that they will be the only members. There could well be others in this place who choose to retire before the next election. If we do not make this amendment we will unfairly penalise them. I will not be a beneficiary of this amendment, so one way or the other it is no skin off my nose. It is also no skin off the noses of the members for Karama and Nelson. But other members in this Chamber may, in the next couple of months, choose not to recontest in the election. Some equity should be shown to them, bearing in mind that you agree with the fundamentals of this bill. If there was an ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister, at least you have something to hold him to account to at the election.
Mr GUNNER: I will counter that proposal with an alternative, which is to allow the bill to be adjourned and brought back on for debate in March, to allow me to work with my team and the cross bench to get advice from the independent Remuneration Tribunal.
Mr TOLLNER: Opposition Leader, I am quite prepared to comply with that. There is no skulduggery involved here. We are not trying to twist the system in any way. We would appreciate some bipartisan support on this issue. If there is any possibility of bipartisan support arising from further deliberations with the Remuneration Tribunal, I will be more than happy to put this on hold until we come back in March.
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to do that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I put on the record that as an Independent member of parliament in this Chamber I came to work this morning knowing nothing about what we are talking about today. The opposition should feel grateful that it found out something at 10 pm last night, as opposed to an Independent member such as me – and I suspect other Independents might be in the same boat – knowing nothing. This, again, is an issue of respect and recognising that the Independents hold the balance of power in this parliament, theoretically.
I cannot agree to the proposed amendment. I cannot agree to this proceeding because there has been no consultation with me and, I suspect, other Independents. It is unfair to run government like this. It is not critical that this goes through parliament today. It can be put off, as the Opposition Leader just said. An ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister means absolutely nothing. My experience indicates that an ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister is not worth the paper it is written on.
Ms Walker: Worthless.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is absolutely worthless!
This is about golden handshakes for the boys – three so far. It is about tardiness and messing up the tabling of this bill in parliament at the end of last year. The CLP government should have put it to the vote at the end of last year. It was tardy; it messed up again, and here we are having this bizarre conversation about amending this bill and ironclad guarantees from the Chief Minister. This is not an appropriate way to run a government. We are talking about $100 000 golden handshakes to people in the CLP government. That is the crux of what this is about, which I have to question.
To most Territorians, $100 000 is a lot of money. It could mean the difference between their kids going to one school or another, or getting through the year with a car that goes or one that does not. For us to just accept this feeble explanation from a CLP government which, from all accounts, is crumbling, is a train wreck – they could not even organise the latest remuneration determination to go through parliament as it normally would, within the required time frames. It is appalling. I cannot agree to anything to do with this proposal by the government.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. The behaviour of my former CLP colleagues continues to astound me. They have lowered themselves to the lowest, particularly over the last six months. Just when you think it cannot get any worse, it does. Even though it might seem, in the scheme of things, a fairly minor issue, it is an example of a government that is in ruins and cannot organise a standard bill to go through parliament within the required time frames.
I will not be accepting any ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister when it comes to this.
Mr WOOD: After last night I really did not want a morning like this. I was hoping it would be quiet and we would debate normal bills. There is a stack of them that I thought would be debated today.
This one popped up and I looked at my sitting program for yesterday. I think it was down at number seven. I did not even look at it; I was more worried about whether we were going to debate Cash for Containers. I spoke to the department about it. Then out this comes and all of a sudden the rain comes down.
The member for Port Darwin has been negotiating, which is fair enough. I am not knocking him. He has asked me about it. I have been talking to Mick Martin and other people about it, trying to get information on it, and in the end I am totally confused.
I support the principle, but we have to be a bit careful. We have a three-person tribunal which we set up to take our hands off any decisions about our wages. I said to the media the other day that when a politician puts his hand up for a pay rise he can never win. This does not affect me. I am on the old pension system. I am not coming from a point of view of something I will get from this legislation.
Even though some of us are well paid, some members of the public service are well paid. There are school principals on the same wage as I am. They will get long service leave, holiday pay, sick pay and other benefits that we do not get. My argument is that some remuneration is fair. The amount of that remuneration is not for me to decide. That is why we have a tribunal. We also have a set of laws in this act which enable the tribunal to provide a report to the parliament and go through a process of six days, then 10 days disallowance. It also has to go to the Administrator.
I do not want to go through all those technical things; it only makes me more confused. We have a section in the act which gives power to the Chief Minister to do certain things. What has confused me this morning is that on one hand the original change was that ‘an entitlement of a former member’ was to be added to section 5 of the act and the words ‘additional salary of office’ were to be deleted. This then popped up this morning which omits ‘other than the basic salary or additional salary of office’. Then I got an e-mail which said, ‘Looking at the amendments to the act it appears the minister’s power is changing from him now not being able to make a minister’s determination about additional salary of office. The amending bill removes that prohibition but he will be constrained and not be able to make a determination about a former member’s entitlement – see 7, s5 amended.’
I am lost. I know some of these things are difficult, and I do my best to get through legislation that is well beyond me in legal terms, but I get advice. I have been getting advice at a rate of knots, which has not given me a chance to think about this or ring a few more people. I appreciate the comments from Mick Martin, and I appreciate the comments from the member for Port Darwin, but I am at a loss, in some ways, to be able to definitively say that I support this or that I do not. I am not sitting on the fence; I am just a bit confused.
I understand that the Chief Minister can act under this section if the tribunal – and he promised he would not act unless the tribunal gave him support for this change. I know the tribunal supports the change. I would prefer it if the tribunal gave me a letter and the Chief Minister gave me a signed letter saying all the things people have told me verbally. I know there are concerns about guarantees, but if we have it in writing and signed that is good.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it should go to March, but I am concerned that we normally have a disallowance period of 10 days. There should be some disallowance period, even if it a couple of days. For argument’s sake, maybe there was a mistake. That is the whole idea of disallowance. Maybe there was an error or someone had second thoughts. You need a disallowance period. I do not know if you can squeeze that in between March and the last sittings.
The clause we are dealing with is the crux of this debate. I get to you sometimes for not voting this way or that, and usually I do that because I have another opinion. I have always said you can have three or four opinions in this House; you do not have to be on that side or that side, and that is the freedom of being a crossbencher. However, I am having difficulty handling this bill coming up with a reasoned decision. I understand the principles behind what we are trying to do, but I want to make sure the public is satisfied that this decision is not being made by the members of parliament, that it is made by the tribunal and all the Chief Minister does under the act is act as a delegate of the tribunal’s decision.
I would like to see some of that in writing and see some period of disallowance, and maybe something in writing from the Chief Minister saying he will allow a number of days, because that is important. Shortcuts can be dangerous, and 10 days is a fair time for disallowance. It should be a couple of days at least; by that time we will know the bill and it would give us some breathing space. It was a bad move by the government to introduce this in such a hurry. It was number seven on yesterday’s Notice Paper. Usually I can see what is coming up, so I was printing the container deposit legislation, which was number two yesterday. This one came as a shock.
If the government and the opposition believe this can be adjourned until the next sittings it will give me time to pull my thoughts together, ring people, discuss it with the Clerk or with both sides of parliament and then I can make a reasonable decision. At the moment I have not made a decision and am happy for this to be adjourned.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, it important to speak, particularly after the commentary by the member for Araluen. Let us bring things back a little. Last year the tribunal made a determination that should a member of parliament not be elected in a subsequent term, the resettlement allowance, if you want to call it that, would go from three months’ salary to eight months’ salary. It has nothing to do with me and I do not have an opinion on it. When that determination was made, there was an error in the legislation, to bring this back to simple terms.
Ms Fyles: But it took until 10 pm last night to tell us.
Mr GILES: No, the error in the legislation is why this bill is up in the first place. The error is this: if a member’s electorate is discontinued, such as the electorate of Greatorex, which is being discontinued, or if a member chooses to retire voluntarily, they do not receive that settlement allowance. This does not apply to me because I am running for parliament. If I lose my seat the allowance comes to me anyway. This issue does not apply to 21 people in this Chamber. It does not apply to the members for Nelson or Karama because they are on the old superannuation scheme.
It is different for you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am naming you as the member for Greatorex because your electorate is being discontinued. It also affects the member for Port Darwin because he said he will not run again. The legislation before us, putting aside the smaller amendment, will remove that anomaly to say that if your electorate is discontinued or you choose to retire, everybody is the same, apart from the two on the old super scheme. They have the preserved benefit model.
That is all this is about, nothing more, nothing less. Whether it should be a rate of three months’ or eight months’ salary is a different conversation and is for the tribunal to decide; it is independent of government. The tribunal determination always comes to me as Chief Minister because it falls within my portfolio. I then bring it to parliament and it sits there. You can have a disallowance period, and then it goes forward. When we identified the anomaly, through the tribunal, we were going to raise it in the last sittings of last year, but we did not want to do it on urgency and be accused of trying to rush it through. So we introduced it and have brought it forward now.
Since that time it has been identified that there is an error within the bill. The error within the bill, which is what this smaller, late amendment is about, removes the ability for the Chief Minister to make that determination. The approval for the Chief Minister to make the determination is always there, so every time a recommendation has come from the tribunal in the past, it was me who made the determination in parliament, and it sits on the Table.
The amendment that was put forward last year removed that allowance. All we are trying to do with this little amendment is to bring that ability back. That is all it is. I am not getting into the conversation about pay, salary benefits and that sort of thing; I am not talking about that. I am talking about the process of how this works.
Yes, the amendment was brought in to fix an anomaly with two electorates. Currently there are three schemes which operate when a politician leaves parliament. We will not get that down to one scheme until the members for Karama and Nelson are no longer in this Chamber, whenever that may be. By passing this bill with a small amendment we can get it back to two schemes. It is as simple as that.
Whether I sign a letter saying I will not make a determination or otherwise – I did not make one yesterday or the day before. I only make them when recommendations come in from the tribunal. Those of us who have been around long enough know the process and how this works. This is merely …
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: Sorry, member for Nightcliff? That was offensive language.
This is merely trying to move from having three models to two models. That is all it is.
It is bringing back the ability for me to table the determination so it can go through, keeping in mind there is an election on 27 August. Member for Greatorex, you are affected on the third tier because the electorate of Greatorex is being cancelled, so you are not part of the second scheme, and the member for Port Darwin has announced his retirement. Should anybody else wish to retire it will make sense for them, hypothetically, to not announce it but try to run and then have the party not endorse you, because that is a back way of you fitting into the second category rather than the third.
Hypothetically, to explain that further, if I did not want to run again I could ring the party and say, ‘I will put my name up, but do not pick me’, so I fit into category two instead of category three. There is a workaround in the system. We do not want workarounds. We want more of a level playing field, understanding that the members for Karama and Nelson are there until the end of their career. If we fix this today, which I am asking others to support, then we get back to two systems rather than three. It is that simple.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not heard anyone talk against the principle of the bill. The equity of a separation payment was set in an understanding by the tribunal which is independent. The tribunal independently set the period of the separation payment. It has captured the different choices members have in separating as representatives of their electorate. Where the rubber is hitting the road and getting stuck, Chief Minister, is the consideration in detail stage amendment.
We have had one explanation from the Treasurer and a slightly different explanation from the member for Port Darwin. That is my perception; I am allowed to have a perception. I heard you, Chief Minister, explain that the member for Greatorex attracts it because his seat is being redistributed, whereas my recollection is that the member for Greatorex announced his retirement before that. Regardless, it would give effect to a separation payment, which is fair.
What members have expressed a concern about, Chief Minister, is that we have not had the opportunity – I have not had the opportunity as an Independent member of parliament – to scrutinise the consideration in detail stage amendment and seek advice from the independent Remuneration Tribunal about the remit of it. Is the scope too broad? Is the scope bang on? What is it? Is it kosher or is it not? I do not know.
Listening to the debate, I have heard the Treasurer reassure the Chamber that the tribunal recommended this and that the Leader of the Opposition knew that because he spoke to the tribunal this morning. I then heard the Leader of the Opposition say to the Treasurer in the Chamber this morning that he believes he and the members of the tribunal have been verballed, and that was not the conversation he had with the tribunal members this morning.
Chief Minister, there is deep concern with the lack of process to scrutinise it or have anything in writing from the tribunal members on the scope of powers this amendment will give effect to. I am pleased that maturity has been shown in the Chamber this morning as a result of these concerns. The Opposition Leader put forward a sensible suggestion of dealing with this in May, giving every member an opportunity to be satisfied with the Remuneration Tribunal’s views, because it is independent, and the Treasurer showed maturity in accepting that; he thought that was a good thing. The Leader of Government Business also seemed to acquiesce.
We can get on with the rest of the business of today and sort this out by following a process that is fair to every member, sharing the same level of knowledge.
I repeat that I am in support of the intent of a separation payment for members of parliament. Public servants would have accrued annual leave. Public servants may have clocked up enough years to have accrued long service leave. Politicians do not get those conditions of employment; hence, the Remuneration Tribunal has determined access to separation payments. We can sort this out in March.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty the members have had. There has been a bit of interplay on both sides. I did not realise there was an objection to the proposed amendment to the bill until immediately prior to parliament sitting. It had not been signalled. There is no skulduggery here. I have spoken to Michael Martin. This issue did not become enlivened until – in my role as Leader of Government Business it is my job to manage the bill through the House – I spoke to Michael Martin, about a week ago. It was clearly in his mind that the power which exists now – so members are clear, the irony of this bill is that it gets rid of one impediment to the recommendations of the tribunal and creates another because of timing.
This amendment is to remove that second impediment to the current power that exists now. I have spoken to Michael Martin and he indicated that there was always an intention, as far as he is concerned, to exercise this recommendation so the power that exists would be used. The loss of the power in the bill was lost sight of. This amendment seeks to restore the power. As a consequence of that, this all happened at the last moment. I found out last week, and then there was a weekend. You then have to get legal opinions from SFNT and have an amendment drafted. That is why the timings are what they are.
If I had known in advance that this would cause push back from the opposition and other members, I would certainly have – that is why we made a briefing available at least to the Leader of the Opposition – been dealing with that issue. However, it is what it is. The best thing to do at this stage would be to adjourn the consideration in detail debate and come back in March.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, I move that government business be reordered to bring on Order of the Day No 7, which is the continuation of the motion to note the October Business Month statement.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Stuart Park Primary School. Is that correct? Being from Alice Springs I do not recognise the uniforms. They are accompanied by Ros Coggan, Carolyn Gabrielle and Ildiko Sarmanya. I welcome you all to Parliament House.
Continued from 19 November 2015.Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for choosing to bring on this motion. It is a great motion and is certainly worth noting. I pay tribute to the Minister for Business for the fantastic job he and his department did in organising another fantastic October Business Month.
Mr Wood: Have you recharged your batteries from last night, minister for Duracell?
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson wants to pull on the boxing gloves. He cannot help himself. I think he is punch drunk, but he is back here having another go.
Mr Wood: I could not go a day without you, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: Good on you, member for Nelson. It is great to see your zeal for the job has not died.
Mr Wood: I love getting done by you.
Mr TOLLNER: It is interesting that the member for Nelson is interjecting on a business debate. It is not often you hear the member for Nelson talking about business or being pro-business.
Mr Wood: I know. I have knocked on a few doors and they are all going broke.
Mr TOLLNER: You will find, member for Nelson, there are businesses in your electorate that deserve representation as well as all those anti-business people you represent.
You would not want to be a developer in the member for Nelson’s electorate. He was attacking them in debates last night. He attacked that angle of the …
Mr Wood: No, I did not. I am making you stay honest.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, you fundamentally suggested that you cannot trust developers and politicians. He could have said that political parties should not get money from alcohol or cigarette producers, or people who produce firearms, or any number of sins, but for some reason the member for Nelson picked on developers.
He said we have to copy New South Wales. We will pick on developers because they pick on them in New South Wales. I can understand why the member for Nelson is quite prepared to pick on developers because I cannot imagine there would be too many developers in the Northern Territory coughing up political donations to the member for Nelson. He certainly has not made himself a friend of the developers ...
Mr Wood: I do not need the donations, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not suggesting you need donations, member for Nelson, but you point out that you are not a supporter in any way, shape or form of the development sector.
Mr Wood: Rubbish.
Mr TOLLNER: Why would you come into this House and start attacking developers?
Mr Wood: I did not attack them.
Mr TOLLNER: Mate, I saw it as a full-frontal assault on the Territory’s developers, suggesting they should not be able to have any kind of relationship and that we should mirror the New South Wales legislation, which has all come out of the ICAC, which the member for Nelson supports having in the Northern Territory.
I was in New South Wales last year. My sister lives there, and I caught up with her in the middle of Sydney. I happened to be wearing a McArthur River Mining Golf Day shirt and she said, ‘Wow, what are you doing with that shirt on?’ I said, ‘I went to a charity golf day there’. She said, ‘It has that logo on it’. I said, ‘What logo?’ She said, ‘The McArthur River mining logo’. I said, ‘Yes, they’re the ones who hosted the golf day’. She said, ‘I just can’t believe it. You’re the Treasurer of the Northern Territory and you are wearing that shirt. That is illegal in New South Wales.’ Politicians and public servants are not allowed to wear shirts with any company branding on them at all because that, in New South Wales, is deemed to be improper ...
Mr Wood: What does this have to do with my bill?
Mr TOLLNER: It has to do with your attacks on developers. It is all part and parcel of that same thinking in New South Wales where they attack developers. I am trying to think of the developer who wrote a big article in The Australian not so long ago saying how that policy has affected the development sector in New South Wales. It is alarming.
This fellow’s article contended that it is almost impossible for a developer to meet with a politician either in a federal, state or local government area. Because of the ICAC inquiries no politician would be seen dead meeting with a developer in New South Wales. He said it has had a detrimental effect on the development sector in New South Wales. They cannot personally approach a person in local government or be seen to be approaching a politician or, in many cases, a bureaucrat. Under that circumstance …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a statement on October Business Month. It is quite wide-ranging, but, Treasurer, if you can keep to the point.
Mr TOLLNER: It is very wide-ranging, but I will comment on some of the things happening in our immediate environment, that is, this Chamber, and the impact they have on business.
There have been some detrimental impacts from the legislation they have in New South Wales, member for Nelson. I fully understand why you have seized on it because the last thing you want to see in your area is developers and …
Mr Wood: How do you think Coolalinga is going?
Mr TOLLNER: Every time there is a development application you oppose it. Oddly enough, you did not oppose the prison; you supported that.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Would you ask the minister to withdraw that statement? It is not true.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, but without a doubt, you did not want to see the prison development. I think you campaigned for the prison to stay at Berrimah, but then you changed your mind and saw that development go ahead in your electorate. Similar to the workers’ camp – you did not want a workers’ camp anywhere near your electorate, but you changed your mind and allowed INPEX to put one in your electorate.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Not only relevance, but I do not have to listen to this; it is inaccurate – I would like to use a swear word. It is not what this motion is about. I do not have to put up with this tirade of misinformation. You must have written the ice ad.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am simply responding to interjections from the member for Nelson.
You are dead right. You do not have to listen to it. You can up stumps and leave. I am only saying these things because you keep baiting me and throwing out these wild things. You invite debate and discussion, and then you say you do not like what I am saying about you and you should not have to listen to it. My suggestion is this: do not interrupt me when I am making a speech about business. I am pro-business. I think most people, on this side of the Chamber at least, are pro-business. I am warranted in saying that. I am looking around and I do not see any anti-business people. I do not think we have any people here who are anti-development or anti-developers. I do not know whether people on this side want to see a ban on political donations from developers.
Some people on this side might agree on a ban of political donations from cigarette companies, alcohol companies or whatever, but what is the issue with developers? Why do you specifically target them, member for Nelson? They are part of our business community. I know that in many circles developers do not enjoy a very good reputation, but I have always admired people who are prepared to build things and achieve something. One man’s rubbish is another man’s treasure; it is true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that sort of stuff.
Many people protest about small blocks, but there are also many people who like to buy small blocks. Horses for courses and each to their own. Fundamentally, whether it is small blocks or big blocks, most of it would not happen without the ingenuity, entrepreneurship and enterprise of developers. The member for Nelson abhors the idea of developers who make money, for some reason.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. We are going nowhere near October Business Month and what he is saying is simply untrue. He thinks if he repeats something time and time again people will believe it. Get on with the subject. Mr Deputy Speaker, could you ask the member to talk about October Business Month? The rest is diatribe.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you feel you have been wronged you can make a personal explanation later. Treasurer, I ask you to bring it back to somewhere between September and November.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, of course. I am probably unduly singling out the member for Nelson for criticism, but I get constant interjections coming across the Chamber. Barely do I get two words out and the member for Nelson is diving at me, hitting me with a cricket bat …
Mr Styles: Figuratively speaking.
Mr TOLLNER: Figuratively speaking, of course …
Mr Wood: The minister for Duracell – he goes on and on.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, please desist from interjecting. I will try to steer my comments away from you specifically and look at the greater issue.
October Business Month has been a rip-roaring success for the last two decades. Is it 21 years?
Mr Styles: Yes, 21 years last year.
Mr TOLLNER: Last year it was 21 years. I have always said, even when I was the Minister for Business, when you put on an event like October Business Month, it lasts through several Country Liberal governments, through several Labor governments and then through another Country Liberal government. It has to be something worth supporting. It is supported by both sides of politics, fundamentally because of its popularity amongst business people.
Business people tend to get an enormous amount of quality information from October Business Month. It allows them to network and focus more on the mechanics of their business. The Business minister said that, for that period of time, it allows business people to focus on their business rather than being involved in their business. They can get out and get the helicopter view of their business, make strategic decisions and get some good intellectual information about how they might adapt their business to changing environments.
That is important because we are going through an economic transition, not just in the Northern Territory but globally. I must stress that we have some troubling economic headwinds coming our way. A casual observer could tell you that people are very nervous all around the world with what the future holds. We see the turmoil in Europe and the turmoil created by the Greek meltdown and that it is overburdened with debt and deficit. We see problems in Italy, Portugal, Spain and virtually every part of Europe. Even the economic power house of Germany is now struggling under the weight of the refugee crisis in Europe. I read last night that there are uprisings in the streets because of refugee and Syrian issues emerging in Europe.
All that obviously has an impact on the economy and on business. These days, more than ever at any time in history, we are more connected globally. We see the problems in the US, which is coming up to a presidential election. There is a lot of turmoil in the US. We have seen the US come out of recession and it seems to be heading in the right direction, but the future is still quite shaky for American citizens as well.
China is moving from a manufacturing base to a service base. We have seen reductions in its economic growth, which has had a major impact in Australia, particularly on our resources industry. The world glut of oil and gas, on one hand, is fantastic as it has brought down fuel prices and energy costs around the world. But that is a double-edged sword because it impacts us in the Northern Territory. The Territory, which sees much of its future being based around energy-based industries, is now having to deal with the problem of low commodity prices for oil and gas. We are on the horns of a dilemma in the Northern Territory.
The federal government is still coping with those years of Rudd and Gillard, where they blew every asset belonging to government. Every fund that had been put away has been spent, and we now see ourselves heading for a $600bn debt and a $50bn budget deficit, numbers that are almost too high to imagine.
The Northern Territory budget derives 80% of its income from the federal government and Australian taxes, so we know there is a bumpy ride in store for us. The government has tried to diversify our economy and business. We are not a one-trick pony like the previous government, which put all its time, energy and focus into the INPEX project. Good on them; it was a good project. The problem with the previous government was that it took its eye off the ball in so many areas.
The previous government had the view that the Northern Territory should be one big national park. They did everything they could to kill our agricultural and pastoral industries, and to get in the way of mining. It was impossible to clear land. It was impossible to extract water. They did their level best to close down agricultural research facilities and the like. They gutted that entire industry, putting all of their eggs in the oil and gas basket. Interestingly enough they allowed 95% of the Northern Territory to have onshore gas exploration applications on it.
Interestingly, in the last couple of days we have learnt that the Labor Party in the Northern Territory has done a 180 degree turn on that policy. They have recently suggested they will have a moratorium. Many people are waiting to see what happens this weekend at the Labor conference. We all believe they will demand a five-year moratorium. A five-year moratorium will basically tell our onshore oil and gas industry to pack up and leave the Northern Territory.
These are very worrying times for business in the Northern Territory, particularly those in remote and regional areas which depend on industries like mining, agriculture and tourism to see development in their areas. Infrastructure is critical. Mining companies, gas exploration companies and the pastoral sector all do their bit in building a case for infrastructure, roads and bridges to connect the Territory. To say there are industries we do not want in the Northern Territory just makes it that much harder to create infrastructure opportunities.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Fong Lim concerning the application of Standing Order 31 in the context of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in Question Time about media reports relating to the actions of the Deputy Chief Minister.
It is a long-standing practice in this Assembly that a member cannot allege another member has misled the Assembly or lied about a matter unless the member’s conduct is dealt with by way of substantive motion.
Standing Order 31, however, does not prohibit the asking of questions during Question Time about allegations of behaviour and matters reported in the media. Members may not impute that another member is lying when asking their question. I have reviewed the record as I said I would.
On a number of occasions yesterday during Question Time the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Deputy Chief Minister and asked, through points of order, when the Chief Minister knew about the Deputy Chief Minister’s conflict of interest. These, I understand, are the words the Treasurer brought to my attention and sought a ruling on.
Honourable members, in the context of the questions asked and the matters raised, the Leader of the Opposition was relying upon media reports. However, the point was made by the Treasurer that these are allegations and the occurrence of a conflict of interest has not been determined. Therefore I request that members couch their language in the context of the matter being considered.
If it is an alleged event please use the word ‘alleged’. Unless the member has agreed, admitted or been factually found to have done something, it should not be imputed that they have done it.
Yesterday in his question to the Deputy Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition said:
The Leader of the Opposition was depending upon an admission he considered had been made. Members will recall I sought advice, and after consideration I ruled the question in order. The minister in his answer said:
After considering the standing orders and the decorum of the Assembly, I ask members to use caution and context when commenting in this House about other members. This applies across the board; therefore, when I hear imputations about the conduct and character of any member made by any other member at any time during debates, I will apply the same rule.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, whose behaviour in pursuing his personal business interests has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct, specifically sections 3.1 and 8.8; potentially breached the Criminal Code, specifically section 77; and brought the reputation of the Northern Territory into disrepute locally, nationally and internationally, and further damaged business confidence.
The Deputy Chief Minister has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The Deputy Chief Minister has potentially breached the Criminal Code. These are serious and grave allegations. The Code of Conduct the Deputy Chief Minister should be living by provides a very commonsense guide to individual responsibility, Cabinet confidentiality and conflicts of interest. The minister has breached all these codes in his actions and his words:
I will quote from the preamble to the code:
A minister’s actions are held to a higher level of scrutiny. The Deputy Chief Minister’s defence is that he did nothing, when actually he did do things. That is the problem, and the cause of the breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and potential breaches of the Criminal Code.
The Deputy Chief Minister met the CT Group to pursue a personal business interest at the same time he was pursuing a government agenda with it. He took out a bank loan, signed a contract, met the CT Group and briefed it on a tender. All these actions of the Deputy Chief Minister are critical.
None of these actions are in dispute as they are all agreed events. They matter because, according to section 3.1 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, as soon as there is a conflict of personal and professional interest you are meant to:
Yet for eight months the minister pursued both a personal agenda and a government agenda with the CT Group. The bank loan and the signing of the contract are critical because they show how far this pursuit of private dealings had advanced when there is meant to be no seeking of advantage, as per section 8.8:
Let us be very clear about this because this is the point the minister fails to understand. You are not allowed to seek or attempt to seek personal gain. This is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and a potential breach of the Criminal Code Act. It is not about whether you gained; it is about the attempt, and we know you attempted to gain. You took out a bank loan and signed a contract which you did not send in.
These were deliberate, considered actions after eight months of discussion. During the eight months of discussion and undeclared conflict, you sat down with the CT Group on 15 August to discuss an upcoming government tender. This was eight days before the Chief Minister’s media release advising of the tender. This was a meeting between you, as a minister, with the CT Group at a time when you were also, in a personal capacity, in negotiations to procure a share in Space Ship One mega mall. You were discussing a future government tender.
Section 8.8 of the ministerial code states very clearly:
This conversation went beyond the bounds. It breached Cabinet confidentiality. Section 2.3 of the code says:
This conversation breached any measure of integrity. This is betrayal of common sense, good judgment, community expectations, prudence, the Ministerial Code of Conduct and, potentially, the Criminal Code Act. While acting in your capacity as a minister of the Crown you were stimultalously negotiating a personal business interest and providing a briefing on government work. There is no separation of the personal and private here. The rules are clear in section 3.1 of the code:
That occurred six months prior to this meeting. The Criminal Code Act is clear. A public officer must not seek a benefit in their public duties.
Let us work through the sequence of events which occurred so we can make sure the order of events is on the public record.
We know the minister travelled to Vietnam in May 2013 and March 2014. On 9 May 2014 the minister and Mr Chung, President of the CT Group, signed a project facilitation agreement to support the CT Group in its quest for 10 000 ha of land for cultivation for the production of dragon fruit over a 10-year period. The minister put out a press release to this effect. The minister took a trade delegation to Vietnam in December 2014.
As a result of a document tabled in the House yesterday, it is revealed that the minister received a brief of information by e-mail about the Space Ship One mega mall as early as 6 February 2015. The minister responded to this e-mail, asking if there was an end date for expressions of interest in investing in the mega mall. In May 2015 the minister sent Mr Chung from the CT Group an e-mail from his private e-mail address which stated:
The response from Mr Chung was:
On 7 August last year the minister participated in a bilateral trade mission to Indonesia to support the live cattle trade. The press release issued that day stated that the minister would be continuing on to Thailand for official duties.
The minister has confirmed that he changed his itinerary in the days before travelling, with the Chief Minister’s verbal approval, to include a courtesy call to the CT Group’s operations in Ho Chi Minh City for an update on the dragon fruit project. The NT News has stated this trip resulted in an additional $2300 in taxpayer expenses for the trip.
On 16 August the minister received a formal shareholder offer from the CT Group in an e-mail stating the following:
On 22 August the government issued a press release announcing its intention to establish a luxury hotel in Darwin. On 30 August the minister sent another e-mail to Mr Chung from his private e-mail stating:
This e-mail references their meeting on 15 August 2015. The minister has confirmed that it was:
Yesterday the Deputy Chief Minister made a personal explanation to the effect that because a transaction was not completed there was no conflict of interest. That the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister believe this is the case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of their roles as public officials. Their view goes to the heart of what everybody knows about the CLP: they are in it for themselves, their mates and their favourites. That is not on. We all deserve so much better.
The Northern Territory Cabinet Handbook was updated just on a year ago amidst government scandals about ministerial travel, the pensioner concession scheme and former Police Commissioner McRoberts, coups and counter coups, and breaches of Cabinet confidentiality. The Ministerial Code of Conduct is attached to this handbook. The preamble to the code of conduct is very clear. As I have read out, it states that:
The Deputy Chief Minister’s statement in this House perfectly captures his misunderstanding of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
He stated in this House yesterday:
Unfortunately it is not the end of the story. It remains Territory Labor’s view that the Deputy Chief Minister has breached numerous sections of the ministerial code, and possibly the Criminal Code Act.
Section 3.1 of the code outlines conflict of interest in general terms. I quote:
The Deputy Chief Minister has had a professional relationship with the CT Group since at least May 2014, maybe earlier, as that was the date of the first media announcement about the project collaboration with the NT government. The Deputy Chief Minister had been deliberating investing in the CT Group since at least February 2015, when he reached out to the CT Group shortly after his own failed coup to ask whether there was a time frame to invest in the Space Ship One mega mall.
The Deputy Chief Minister had eight months to declare his potential or perceived conflict of interest because he undertook official government business with the CT Group on at least three occasions – in July, August and December – and the, in the meantime, pursued private interests with a company he met with through his officials for personal gain on at least five occasions before deciding not to invest in the company.
He has breached the code of conduct because he did not disclose his potential or perceived conflict of interest at all, or seek advice about whether his actions constituted a conflict of interest and a breach of his duties as a public official. He reached out to a business offer, got a bank loan for more than $500 000, and he signed a contract. While he did not follow through with the transaction, he did everything but.
Where is the breach? Section 3.2 provides confirmation in this regard. It states:
The Deputy Chief Minister made no attempt in the 12 months he was actively considering investing in the CT Group project to declare his interest or seek advice from the Chief Minister. Or did he advise the Chief Minister and was told everything was okay?
That is why knowing when the Chief Minister knew about this is crucial. As we know from the Deputy Chief Minister’s testimony, he, on several occasions, asked the Chief Minister for permission and was granted it.
The Deputy Chief Minister’s actions also constitute a breach of section 8.8:
The Deputy Chief Minister, in the course of his official duties, was presented with a private opportunity not available to the general public to invest in a significant project in Vietnam. He did not seek advice or proceed with caution. Instead he took out a sizeable bank loan and all but sealed the deal. We do not know why the transaction was not concluded. We do not know where the advice came from or where the sudden intervention occurred, but the intent was certainly there. The Deputy Chief Minister, in the House yesterday, asked the opposition to check its facts about his communications with Mr Chung and the CT Group about the impending EOI for the five-star luxury resort, and we have.
The government announced its intention to proceed with an EOI on its newsroom website on 22 August 2015. According to the e-mails obtained by the NT News, the minister communicated with the CT Group on 30 August to give the heads up about the EOI. The minister failed to mention that his e-mail on 30 August, as per the NT News, stated:
According to the time line of events already established, the minister had last met with Mr Chung on 15 August 2015, seven days before the government released its statement announcing its intentions for a five-star luxury hotel in Darwin. On radio yesterday morning the minister admitted sending aerial pictures on the e-mail communication advising of the potential site for the hotel. Whether this breached Cabinet confidentiality, and whether it was a breach of the minister’s collective responsibility of the government, needs to be further scrutinised. What was discussed in that meeting on 15 August? What information did the Deputy Chief Minister provide to the CT Group about the thinking of government before the announcement, information that is not available to the general public? The minister at the very least breached section 2.3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which states:
What makes the matter worse is that this breach of Cabinet confidentiality appears to have occurred with the permission and support of the Chief Minister, and to have been standard practice. The Chief Minister and the minister did not acknowledge in the House yesterday that the minister had advised the company of the EOI seven days before there was a public announcement. This is a worrying scenario. Did the Chief Minister know the minister was engaging in private business with this company before approving the divulging of Cabinet information, or was the Chief Minister misled about the minister’s relationship with the CT Group? Did he know the Deputy Chief Minister had divulged the information before the public announcement of the EOI?
Yesterday and today, in the House, the opposition asked a series of questions to get to the bottom of yet another scandal and another distraction from prosecuting the government on the delivery of government services. Yesterday the Chief Minister told us that the Deputy Chief Minister has his full support, but he would not tell us when he first became aware that the minister was contemplating investing in a company with which he had a personal and professional relationship, if he was aware of the conflict when he approved the provision of tender information to the CT Group ahead of public release, or whether at any stage he advised his Deputy that he may be in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Criminal Code.
Yesterday the minister refused to resign and said he believed there was no conflict, but he could not tell us whether he had discussed potential shares in the CT Group’s Space Ship One mega mall project at any time on the one-day taxpayer-funded trip to Vietnam on 15 August, the day before he received a formal offer of shares. Today he again refused to rule out whether he discussed the personal purchase of those shares at any stage on that taxpayer-funded trip to Vietnam.
We have asked questions yesterday and today to address the serious questions that remain about what the minister said and when, what the Chief Minister did and when. There are too many unknowns in this woeful tale. The opposition has sought advice from the police because no matter what the Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister say, we have a situation where a public official has attempted to receive a personal benefit through the course of his official duties. This may constitute a breach of the Criminal Code under official corruption. At the very least it is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct for failing to avoid a situation where the minister is perceived to be or is placed in a situation which may give rise to a conflict of interest.
A responsible minister for the Crown would stand aside while investigations take place. A responsible Chief Minister would take immediate action and make the necessary inquiries and investigations into the matter, as Prime Minister Turnbull is doing in a not dissimilar situation. But we do not have a responsible government in the Northern Territory. We have not had one for three-and-a-half years. We have a government which condones the use of public office for private gain. We have another scandal which the CLP is trying to sweep under the carpet while the CLP attempts to survive another day in minority government. The minister must take personal responsibility for his actions and resign.
I disagree with the Chief Minister on many things, but he may have been right when he said the Deputy Chief Minister did not have the ticker or integrity for the job. We believe this minister must resign, and if he will not resign the Chief Minister should sack him. What is the point of a code of conduct when you see behaviour like this go completely undisciplined by a CLP government and Chief Minister?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this censure motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you start to see why there are still schisms between the members opposite when this is the quality of leadership the Leader of the Opposition brings.
The issues he raises here are in a hierarchy. Let us deal with the most serious issue first, which is the proposal before this House that the minister has engaged in what might be a breach of section 77 of the Criminal Code Act.
I remind honourable members that the second-last time this section of the Criminal Code Act made public notoriety was when a gentleman by the name of John Lawler was overseeing the Stella Maris inquiry, which found that improper conduct had effectively been engaged in by making sure benefits flowed directly to a union at the hands of a Labor government which did not in any way go to any expression of interest process.
The problem Mr Lawler had with section 77, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to, is that it refers to the word ‘corruptly’. Mr Lawler said there was no particular definition of ‘corruption’, per se, in the Northern Territory, and as a consequence he was unable to infer actual corruption out of that section. If it did not apply in the Stella Maris case, it certainly will not apply in this instance, so at the first hurdle the Leader of the Opposition has fallen over.
I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that if he chooses to quote sections he must quote them understanding that every section, at law, creates points of proof. To commit an offence you have to commit all the elements of the offence, not just some. You cannot cherry pick a couple of elements and say the offence has been committed. The first hurdle he runs into is the word ‘corruptly’. There is no evidence of corruption here, none whatsoever. Moreover, it then goes on to say in section 77:
That is, kickbacks.
That is what the section talks about; it does not talk about some vague link. To make out a criminal offence you have to make out exactly what the offence suggests. In what I have heard, no suggestion has been made that there is any causal link between any duty the minister has been asked to engage with, or, alternatively, is obliged to engage with.
Regarding the flirtation the minister made with buying shares in the company, the Leader of the Opposition, in all the 25 minutes he was on his feet, did not establish any causal link whatsoever. That is the reason he failed, in the very first instance, in trying to prosecute the notion that some sort of criminality has been involved in, because it has not.
The first question he asked about attempting to do something also attracts a second hurdle, because at no stage has he said that he has done this. Even the Labor Party acknowledges that this never occurred. The minister involved certainly said, ‘I thought about it. I did something but desisted of my own motion.’ That is the word he used. That comes from section 4 of the Criminal Code.
Let us talk about the nature of attempts. If you are to prosecute the notion of criminality in this place, then you must do it to the standard the courts expect. You cannot just pull some item out of legislation and run a pre-criminal prosecution without making out all the elements of criminality to which you are making the assertion. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has not come close.
There are a number of places I would take honourable members to in relation to disposing of the matter of criminality. I draw honourable members to page 157 of Ross on Crime, the Lawbook Co 2009, where it deals with the idea of attempts. No dispute in this House exists as to anything actually occurring. What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make out is that there was an attempt. That then begs the question, what is an attempt to do something?
I draw honourable members’ attention to page 990 in Crown and Donnelly 1970 New Zealand Law Reports. Justice Turner makes a number of observations in relation to attempts. I will not read the whole quote; I will read the sections that matter first:
I suggest to honourable members that the Deputy Chief Minister could comfortably settle in that place and say, ‘I simply changed my mind before committing any act which is sufficiently overt to amount to an attempt’. However, Justice Turner goes on and says:
Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the Deputy Chief Minister actually met that second measure, and I suspect that he would not. It is then up to the prosecutor, in this case the Leader of the Opposition, to be able to demonstrate to the people of this House, the Northern Territory and the court to which he would send the Deputy Chief Minister that he got so far as to meet the second tier outlined by Justice Turner.
Let us turn our minds to exactly what that means. It is important to go down this path because it disposes very quickly of the errant, excruciating nonsense we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition. I point whoever wrote that torrid little speech, in an attempt to suggest any form of criminality on the part of the Deputy Chief Minister, to the Crown against Borinelli 1962 SASR at 214 and 218. Similarly, preparation will not be considered an attempt if not sufficiently proximate to the crime.
I turn to the matters of DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55. This is a quote worth listening to. Lord Diplock said:
Lord Diplock’s words from that case ‘a fixed irrevocable intention’ – in order words, let us explore the crime of intent. In this case the fact scenario was that Mr Stonehouse took out – in England if memory serves me correctly – a number of insurance policies and then set about faking his own death so he might become the beneficiary of those insurance policies through an intermediary.
The effect of that was he then travelled to – I think it was Miami. He crossed the Rubicon in Miami, to paraphrase another law lord, and then faked his own death. For various reasons in the case that I will not go into, the issue of the law of intent arose and the idea of proximity was written down and described very tightly indeed.
Let us then examine an example. If I say I am going to rob a bank and do nothing else, I have done nothing close to committing a crime or even attempting to commit a crime. If I say I going to rob a bank and I put a shotgun on the table in front of me in my kitchen, am I robbing a bank? Have I attempted to rob the bank? Of course not. There is no sufficient proximity and anybody can see that.
If I am say I am going to rob a bank, put a shotgun in my car, jump in the car and drive towards town, have I attempted to rob the bank? No, of course not. There is still insufficient proximity. If I say I am going to rob a bank and I stick the shotgun in my car, drive the car into town and park in front of a National Australia Bank, have I done it yet? Of course not. If I go through all of those steps then grab the shotgun and walk into the bank with a balaclava on my head, at that point I think you have satisfied the proximity test outlined in Stonehouse.
Let us compare that to the so-called attempt with which the Leader of the Opposition sought to slander the Deputy Chief Minister in relation to section 77 of the Criminal Code Act. What was the preparatory work? By the Deputy Chief Minister’s own admission his preparation was simply that he took out a bank loan and obtained some forms, which he signed. Then what? What is the allegation? He stopped. He did not walk into the bank. He did not even drive to the bank. He was still at the stage where the tools of the so-called attempt were sitting on his kitchen table at home. That is as far as he got. That is it.
You failed at the first hurdle by not even remotely understanding how section 77 operates and that every element of a case has to be made out, not just some elements, before you can have a successful prosecution. You have fallen over there.
The second place you have fallen over is that you are not even in the ballpark when it comes to the crime of intent, based on the admissions the Deputy Chief Minister made in relation to the steps he took. Yet you would bandy around his good name and section 77 of the Criminal Code, and use the word ‘corruption’ when you do not come close to meeting any of the requisite benchmarks even on a most superficial examination of the operation of law in this jurisdiction and every other common law country I know of.
The member for Barkly came a lot closer in the Stella Maris inquiry than the Deputy Chief Minister has ever done in this place. His contribution to that process is still a matter for consideration inside this House, and potentially in the Privileges Committee, but for the fact there is currently a criminal investigation in relation to conduct by the member for Karama, which as far as I know is still on foot.
These are the sorts of things that are overlooked by the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition, using the benchmarks he relied upon in the Ministerial Code of Conduct, has at any time recently broken the law – let us say within the last six months – and whether or not he wishes to declare that so the people of Northern Territory know what laws he broke. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would choose to do such a thing.
That is an interesting question. If he was asked that simple question, no matter what the law is, his interpretation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct means he has to fess up because people have a right to know.
That has disposed of, successfully and completely, the shallowness of the issues surrounding the criminality of this motion. Any person who has even fleetingly considered this does not have to be legally trained; they only have to read two pages in a law book and read the code to realise they are not even close.
You say ‘potentially’ in the same way that, potentially, hell will freeze over if a snowflake appears there for more than two seconds. That is an untenable situation.
Here comes the second component, his breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct in the Cabinet Handbook. You will find the Ministerial Code of Conduct at Appendix A in the Cabinet Handbook. The Leader of the Opposition quoted at some length from section 8.8:
The minister did not breach that section. He started to go down that path and, as the Chief Minister said yesterday, indeed in travelling down that path he may have been unwise, but he then stopped. Why did he stop? Somewhere in his mind, I imagine, his sense of duty towards his ministerial portfolio and the people he serves clicked in, as it should. As he said, he desisted by his own motion; he signed the form and what did he do? He left it in his desk drawer. That is as far as it went.
In regard to the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Cabinet Handbook, he started down a pathway and then stopped. Unwise perhaps, but surely in the age of reasonableness, rather than the shrill barkings of the members opposite in relation to this matter, the decision to desist from a process like this should stand in stark mitigation of the conduct. He realised he was making a mistake. He did not have to tell anybody else. He realised that even these initial steps were errant and so guided by, I presume, his own ethics, but certainly by the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Cabinet Handbook, he ceased and desisted.
What is his crime? Probably a bit of poor judgment to start with, but he acknowledged that. He said it in his explanation to the House. ‘I should not have done that, but I stopped long before I got there’. For that, these members opposite would see this minister resign, be cast into the courts and persecuted in this place and in the public arena for his own unfortunate circumstances. I cannot bring myself to consider that he has done anything other than set down a path, perhaps unwisely, but he got to the point very quickly where he realised that to pursue the matter would be a genuine breach of this Cabinet Handbook and the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
I understand the opposition is raising an issue in relation to the timing for seeking expressions of interest to build a five-star hotel. I have to be careful with my memory, but it was my understanding – and I remember the Deputy Chief Minister saying it was widely known. I recall that, over the last couple of years, it was discussed in a number of quarters, even in the public domain, prior to the call for expressions of interest going out.
I am not quite sure of the date of the release of the expression of interest. The EOI was to be released, I think, on 30 August 2015, but if that is true, was there not a newspaper article on 22 August 2015?
Mr Styles: Ashley Manicaros.
Mr ELFERINK: A week earlier – Ashley Manicaros. Here is the secret information that was released by the Deputy Chief Minister to the CT Group. The secret information can be located hidden away in the very dark recesses of page one of the NT News of 22 August 2015.
So dishonest in his prosecution of this matter is the Leader of the Opposition that he deserves his own censure.
Here comes the crux of it; this is the real issue. It is as simple as this. I understand that the members opposite have seen a political opportunity, and if I was in their shoes I would pursue that political opportunity too. However, let us take a step back from this place and look at the real world.
Here is a question. If you were the CT Group, seeing your name bandied around in the public domain as it is, how confident or comfortable would you be investing in the Northern Territory with the faux scandal being driven by the Labor Party? The answer is, I imagine, that their confidence would be somewhat diminished, for the sake of the opposition winning a political point, because that is really what is happening here.
The outrage is not real. If it was, you would be hearing a lot more than you are now. The silence of Question Time, the mild indifference of the members opposite and the many seat backs I can clearly see demonstrate to me that there is no rage; this is just something we do. In the process we might be chasing away an investor who wants to bring, potentially, hundreds of jobs to the people of the Northern Territory. That is what will play out in the real world, not this ethereal and strange place we occupy where we try to find points to score against each other, clutching desperately for each gotcha moment to demonstrate how wretched the other side is. No, we will not consider anything beyond that.
I remind honourable members that there was a time when the former Labor government wanted to bring the INPEX facility to Australia. The INPEX facility was something we, as an opposition at the time, supported, in spite of the fact we could have raised a number of issues about the arrangements between INPEX and the Northern Territory government.
We could have found some trip that was taken or a conversation that was had. We could have said, ‘It is all bad. It is all jobs between INPEX and the Labor Party and it is all a very sweet deal.’ There came a point where we decided not to pursue the political goal. We realised the ambition for the Northern Territory that the government was pursuing. That is entirely forgotten by the opposition. When Gino was trying to run the Leader of the Opposition’s media conferences it demonstrated that there are people upstairs who can only see the world through the lens of opportunities in the media and in parliament.
It is clear to me that this is a manufactured rage. It is not real. Everybody knows what has happened. It has come down to this. The Deputy Chief Minister thought about buying some shares, borrowed some money, filled out a share form and thought, ‘No I’m not going to do that’. He buried the whole thing and had nothing more to do with it. If the circumstances of the Deputy Chief Minister had been otherwise it would have stayed buried and nobody would have known. Unfortunately they did not stay buried. Information has leaked out and, as a consequence of that, members opposite have had an opportunity to prosecute this faux rage at the potential expense of Territory jobs. That is the part that irritates me about this.
I get the political point scoring, but what I am worried about is that it might scare away investment. One of the things an opposition has to be mindful of is that, through their conduct, they can diminish the quality of a jurisdiction’s reputation to the point where people will step away from investing here. That is reckless, stupid and unwelcome. I would not countenance that for one second.
I will not pursue this any further. This is genuinely a faux scandal. It is faux outrage. It was badly prosecuted, and even the most superficial investigation by a reasonable person similarly circumstanced would come to the conclusion that he had taken some unwise steps and then stopped. He acknowledges that; bully for him. There is no reason for a censure and, quite frankly, the opposition is being reckless in its pursuit of these matters, potentially at the expense of Territory jobs.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): I thank the Opposition Leader for bringing this very important censure motion before this parliament. I thank the Attorney-General for his contribution to this debate. I could not help but wonder where the government will be without the member for Port Darwin to defend everybody on his side on anything.
The essence of the opposition’s argument is quite simple. The member for Katherine blurred the conduct of private financial business and government business. He did so over many months, through the end of 2014 until the end of 2015. That is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. It is probably a breach of the Criminal Code. Therefore he has no choice; he must resign, and if he does not resign then he must be sacked.
The Ministerial Code of Conduct is written in a way so as to caution and guide the behaviour of ministers. It is designed to deal with the dilemma of ministers of the Crown being ministers and private people.
Clause 3.1 is very clear in the way the Ministerial Code of Conduct resolves these issues. It says:
What this section says is obvious. If an action of a minister is likely to give rise to even a potential conflict of interest, he or she must report it to the Chief Minister immediately.
The Deputy Chief Minister conducted a private financial relationship with a major Vietnamese company, CT Group, regarding investment in that company at the exact time he was conducting negotiations and discussions with it on major investment issues in the Territory. If this does not arise as a potential conflict of interest then I am not sure what does.
We know from the e-mails between the minister and Ms Phan, tabled by the member for Araluen, that the financial discussions were occurring as early as February 2015 and probably before that time. As soon as those financial discussions began, the minister placed himself in a potential conflict of interest situation with the Ministerial Code of Conduct, section 3.1, which has now been breached.
There is no question about this. This is a breach, and as such the minister was required to report it. Chief Minister, he was required to report it to you. Did he, Chief Minister? If he did, when did he report it? We have clear evidence that he needed to report it in February. We believe he probably needed to report it earlier than that, but, by his own statement, he did not make a decision until September 2015. That is eight months after the e-mails between him and Ms Phan. What did the minister do in that time? He undertook a number of trips to Vietnam, including one which was allegedly private; he conducted discussions with the CT Group about a major investment in land in the Territory; and he conducted a relationship of a personal nature with a CT Group employee.
If the minister has not reported a conflict of interest to the Chief Minister by this stage then all his actions, everything he is doing, are miring him more deeply into his conflict of interest.
There is a test that crops up every now and then in politics, the law and life, which is called the person in the street test. The question posed by this test is: would the person in the street, given the facts we have heard, judge that the minister has a conflict of interest? The answer is obviously yes. You only have to listen to talkback radio and read the media and social media to see that.
The Ministerial Code of Conduct is much harsher than that. It errs on the conservative side of reporting even a potential conflict of interest. By the ministers own comments, he clearly identified he has a conflict of interest. He did not report it in February.
He has to resign, surely. This is not rocket science; this is simple and straightforward, and far from the convoluted contribution we had from the Attorney-General.
The Deputy Chief Minister, and minister for Primary Industry, no matter how he positions himself or what he says, is always the Deputy Chief Minister and minister for Primary Industry. Sadly, the reality of life in politics is he is never a private citizen and never not a minister until the day when his commission is withdrawn. No matter what the minister says, you cannot set up artificial walls and make yourself not a minister.
The minister seems to think that if he uses his private e-mail address, he is not the minister. Hillary Clinton would be interested in that defence. He said that he takes off his ministerial hat and puts on his private hat, and magically he is no longer conflicted, even though he was talking to the same people about the same issues as he did as a minister. That, I am afraid, is a joke.
I do not give two hoots about the minister’s private life. I understand that relationship breakdown can happen. But the average person in the street would say that no matter how you feel about each other, being in a relationship with a person employed by a company you are doing government business with means you have to step away from all discussions with that group. Frankly, it screams common sense that if you wish to pursue your relationship, you cannot pursue your business dealings. People would expect that. The minister did not do that. He placed himself in a potential conflict of interest the minute that relationship began. I ask him again, did he report that to the Chief Minister?
Chief Minister – should he respond in this debate – did he, and if so, when? I doubt it somehow. Once again we have a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is to be punished by dismissal.
I now turn to section 8.8 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The section of the code goes to the issue of improper advantage:
It could not be clearer. The opposition contends that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has also breached this section of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Let me tell you how. The minister, regardless of whether he thinks he is acting as Willem Westra van Holthe or as the minister, is always, in the eyes of this code, a minister. The minister proceeded to develop a relationship with the CT Group.
In developing that relationship at both a personal and professional level, he developed knowledge of CT Group operations not available to the ordinary person in the street. He started to use that knowledge to position himself into a major – we are talking about more than $0.5m – purchase of shares, investing in a shopping mall. He carried on engaging with the CT Group for the next eight months, all the time positioning himself with greater knowledge, closer personal relationships and an intimate relationship.
He conducted official business with businesses and government officials in Vietnam, and took the opportunity afforded by that official business to continue to cultivate his relationship with the CT Group. The question members must ask themselves is, if the minister was Mr Westra van Holthe, police officer from Katherine, what opportunity would he get to put himself in front of the senior figures of a major Vietnamese company? What opportunity would he have to get an understanding of a business deal and an opportunity like the Space Ship One mega mall? What chance would he have to conduct business in Vietnam at someone else’s expense, and then conduct his own business as Mr Westra van Holthe, police officer from Katherine? None.
Mr Westra van Holthe from Katherine would have had none of those opportunities, so he is without doubt placed in a position of knowledge by virtue of his position. Therefore it is a breach and a sackable offence.
As the Opposition Leader has pointed out, section 77 of the Criminal Code Act of the Northern Territory deals with this issue. The Deputy Chief Minister has probably breached that as well. It is all adding up to a massive problem for the Deputy Chief Minister. I suggest it also adds up to a massive problem for the Chief Minister and the CLP government. There is one way to lance this boil, Chief Minister. You could and you must sack your deputy.
The further problem the Deputy Chief Minister has is that he has form on this sort of behaviour. The minister, in the seven years he has been a member, has had to provide a personal explanation to this House defending his actions three times.
The first was for the juvenile behaviour of this member of parliament for placing stickers on toilet walls in the Convention Centre in Alice Springs when parliament was sitting there – pathetic behaviour from a member of parliament, who was caught red-handed in the act. But wait, there is more. In 2011 the member was investigated by the Professional Responsibility Division of the Northern Territory Police and the Ombudsman under the auspices of the Joint Review Committee. The Joint Review Committee found, in point one, that then Senior Constable Westra van Holthe had engaged in improper conduct, being a breach of the code of conduct.
The Joint Review Committee also found, in point two, in relation to an allegation that Senior Constable Westra van Holthe had deliberately altered the documents in an attempt to avoid payment of transfer fees, penalties for late lodgement and/or stamp duty. The Joint Review Committee found that he had altered the documents twice and it was:
Point three of the Joint Review Committee report says:
The Joint Review Committee also found that Constable Westra van Holthe had unauthorised access to documentation because of his position and stated that:
I have taken quotes directly from the Ombudsman’s report that was tabled in this parliament on 3 May 2011, outlining the case I have just referred. Do I need to go on?
Senior statutory officers of the Northern Territory, in the form of the Ombudsman and senior police, have found that this man, the member for Katherine, when he was a police constable, did four things. He breached codes of conduct, deliberately altered documents, used his position to influence and committed conflict of interest and improper conduct. He has done it once before and he was caught. He is now doing it again.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister has no choice. He needs to sack his Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond in part to this censure motion. What a pathetic effort it is by Labor to bring down the Deputy Chief Minister. There is no evidence whatsoever. My friend and colleague, the member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General, did an admirable job in very carefully, and in a most detailed way, destroying any argument you had. He pulled you guys to bits like a clock. There is no smoking gun. There is nothing the Deputy Chief Minister needs to answer to here.
This is fundamentally about the Labor Party trying to win at all costs. They have taken a leaf out of Graham Richardson’s book, their federal elder – I think his line was, ‘You need to win at all costs whatever it takes’, or that sort of attitude – to the point where they are quite prepared to tell porkies.
I am reliably informed that no report was handed to the police by the Opposition Leader. His suggestion that he has reported this matter to police – he may have, but to my understanding they have not received a report. It seems he has taken a leaf out of the member for Goyder’s book, where she says she requests documents under FOI on the Minister for Lands and Planning on a range of things in the rural area to find out about developments. Neither my office or the Department of Lands and Planning have received freedom of information requests from the member for Goyder. It simply has not happened, but it seems to suit the member for Goyder’s argument to say she has done that. Likewise the Leader of the Opposition, in the same vein, likes to say he has reported this to the police, yet police have no record of any report in relation to the member for Katherine from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay.
That aside, the opposition’s argument just does not stack up, as was very ably demonstrated and articulated by the Attorney-General.
My real concern with this censure motion, this win at all costs style motion, is the issue of cost and what the opposition is prepared to do to win. The fact is the CT Group, as has often been talked about, is looking at major investments in the Northern Territory in relation to dragon fruit. Government has gone to considerable expense travelling into Asia and building the Asian relations portfolio. My colleague, the member for Sanderson, often talks about the importance of engagement with Asia, attracting investment and creating jobs and opportunity. It is outrageous that the opposition will kill that in one fell swoop.
They are quite happy to not only denigrate the Deputy Chief Minister – I am sure he is used to it as it is part and parcel of politics – but to allow the CT Group to become collateral damage is outrageous, and it demonstrates the opposition’s desire to win at all costs.
Labor never worries about costs. When it comes to spending, they do not worry. It is not something that concerns them. It is an addiction. Get out there and spend – rack up the costs. Last week we saw Labor’s cheapjack political stunt in relation to the moratorium on onshore gas. They seem to think that, electorally, it is quite popular, that people do not want this industry, and to hell with the jobs and investment that onshore gas is creating, and to hell with the Tennant Creek to Mount Isa pipeline. Those things do not matter as far as Labor is concerned. The only thing that matters is that we get a Labor government. That is shameful.
The previous Labor government, whilst they did not give a toss about debt and deficit, at least had an eye for the opportunity onshore oil and gas presented for the Northern Territory. The previous Labor government allowed 95% of the Northern Territory land mass to be explored for oil and gas. In one fell swoop the Opposition Leader can undo that work and all of this government’s work to create an onshore oil and gas industry. It beggars belief that this mob can come here with such pathetic information and try to pull the Deputy Chief Minister down with such a feeble argument when that argument is so easily dismissed and dismantled by the Attorney-General. I have seen the Attorney-General have put his mind to things and work out puzzles and problems, but in this case he did not. He walked in without notes and pulled you guys to bits like a clock. He demonstrated from every angle why your argument had no content whatsoever.
Surely as an opposition you must have understood you had an extraordinarily flimsy argument. To use that flimsy argument and be prepared to destroy another potential investment opportunity shows how bereft you are of morality, vision and any other bit of decency most people possess. When you see someone twirling away, working hard to build and create something, regardless of whether you like, it, there are very few people who would kick it over. It is like little kids on a beach. One kid spends hours building a sand castle and the other kid, for whatever reason, does not like it and kicks it over.
That is the attitude the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory has. Why can you not say, ‘We don’t particularly like the way you are driving economic growth, although we believe in it’. That is interesting because Labor does believe in everything we are doing. Almost every policy announcement we have made Labor has copied. That includes the jobs package, the procurement package, the Buy Local campaign, the North East Gas Interconnector, the Infrastructure Development Fund, and the list goes on of government policy that Labor has stolen. The procurement stuff is amazing. It is a straight take. We said we would weight Territory businesses at 25% – lift them from 20% to 25%. You could not even say 30%, 22% or 27%; you did a direct grab. It is all about copying our policy, but then not following through with it.
I always say about Labor, ‘Do not listen to what they say; look at what they do.’ You cannot listen to them when they say they will create 14 000 jobs, then in the very next breath they destroy 6000 jobs in the oil and gas industry. You cannot listen to them when they say they want to create jobs when they hound an investor out of the Northern Territory who wants to grow dragon fruit. It is disgraceful base politics that you guys are trying to run. I do not think the Opposition Leader understands how pathetic he looks when he makes these bald statements.
We have seen the Deputy Chief Minister cop it on the chin. He made a personal explanation; he admitted readily to the fact he was contemplating this …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate has been civil; we will not let it become uncivil now. If anyone plays that game they will be on a warning.
Mr TOLLNER: The Deputy Chief Minister fessed up and said, ‘Yes, I did contemplate this. I even got to the point where I signed the document.’ But then he had a revelation that proceeding any further might create him some problems and rightly made the decision to go no further with it.
I loved the Attorney-General’s scenario of a potential bank robber; to say you will rob a bank is one thing, but to actually do it is another. You cannot be charged with bank robbery if you do not rob the bank.
Mr Elferink: Or if you are still sitting at home.
Mr TOLLNER: Or if you are still sitting at home. The Deputy Chief Minister cannot be accused of finding himself in a conflict of interest, because he did not. It never happened; it just did not eventuate. As much as jilted wives, members of the Labor Party and other members of this place might like to see the downfall of the Deputy Chief Minister, you will have to find something else because there is nothing to see here. Nothing has occurred.
The member for Nhulunbuy sits there and giggles, but you are trying to construct something from nothing. Did he purchase the shares and send through a money order? Did he complete it and send it in? Was the paperwork processed? No, he did not; none of those things occurred.
The Deputy Chief Minister is without fault in this. He actually deserves credit because he thought about it and said, ‘If I proceed with this I might find myself in a position of conflict’. That is a selling point.
I was listening to ABC radio the other day when the Deputy Chief Minister was being interviewed, and Adam Steer was the radio journalist. The Deputy Chief Minister did an admirable job of explaining the circumstances the found himself in. The thing that surprised me most was the calls that came afterwards. All of the callers asked, ‘What does this have to do with his job? He did not make any transaction or commit any crime or misdemeanour. In fact, he has been a very good minister.’ I thought, ‘Goodness me, finally there are people cutting through the chaff and understanding what is going on’.
We have a damn fine Primary Industry minister. I think what is driving the opposition is that they see we have a Primary Industry minister who restored the live cattle trade to Indonesia – a remarkable achievement after the damage the previous Territory and federal Labor governments did to our live cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Restoring the live cattle trade to Indonesia at the speed and with the effectiveness our Primary Industry minister did deserves credit. And he has not just restored that trade to Indonesia; he has opened new markets in Vietnam and Cambodia. He is also working on buffalo and is working hard with our seafood industries. He is doing a fantastic job, and that is at the heart of what galls Labor most.
They want to see this government fail. They want to see industries fall over. They want to see the economy tank. They want to scare away investors. Every opportunity you get you talk the Territory down. Hallelujah, in December the first indicator that we have seen in probably two years said there has been a dip in business confidence, and all of a sudden Labor is vindicated. ‘The place is going to hell in a hand basket.’
That is not the way any responsible opposition should act. Making personal attacks and smears, trying to drag somebody down for no reason apart from their own base political desire, is an outrage. That you are prepared to destroy investment and jobs is immoral.
You guys are the ultimate economic vandals, destroying jobs and investment, driving investors and people away. Then the next minute you have the audacity to stand up in parliament and say, ‘No one wants to come to the Territory’. Why? Because you make a farce of the place.
Everything you pull up is guttersniping. It is a disgrace. Attack us on policy, on what we stand for and when you think we are managing finances wrongly. But, no, we hear none of that. All we hear is this pathetic focus on personalities. It is appalling.
I have played a bit of footy. The member for Barkly will relate to this. I used to say, ‘Play the ball, not the man’. That is, play the game, play it hard, smash the bloke if you can, but do not aim at him. You are trying to play a team game, and if everybody does their job we all benefit.
I have always believed in a strong and questioning opposition. It is good for democracy. At times even my old mate over there, the member for Nelson, has some good points to add to this place – rarely, but at times. I say from the bottom of my heart – and I admire the man for it – that the member for Nelson has never resorted to petty personal attacks; it is not in his nature.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is what this place seems to have devolved into, particularly in the last four years. It is fundamentally driven by an opposition devoid of ideas and policy, doing anything it can to win at all costs. They do not care how much they destroy. The main thing is that they somehow or other win.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, people know that, generally speaking, I do not vote on censure motions because sometimes they have aspects to them which I do not agree with. But they do give me an opportunity to at least give a point of view.
I have been in this House as long as the member for Katherine. I remember the times when he was in trouble before, even the issue in Alice Springs that was just raised. That was not the brightest thing that ever happened. It might have got a laugh from some members, but it was not very smart. He was also condemned for some of his actions in Katherine. There was a censure motion and I supported the member for Katherine. People were being judgmental. He had been punished for what he had done, and that was the end of the issue.
I am always concerned about condemning people when I have my own faults. You have to be careful of throwing stones in the glasshouse. I put on record that I believe, even though the member for Katherine and I do not always agree, especially on things like water, that he has been an outstanding minister for Primary Industry. Be that as it may, I read the preamble to the Ministerial Code of Conduct and it says:
Many people have quoted that book. I will quote from something else. People might remember the Stella Maris inquiry; I do not think they would have forgotten it. There was an important recommendation. The government accepted all the recommendations bar one. That is recommendation 18, which runs into recommendation 19. The preamble to that was:
Recommendation 18, from the commissioner who dealt with the Stella Maris inquiry, says:
Recommendation 19:
Surprise! The government did not accept that recommendation.
Here is a classic example of where we need an integrity commissioner. I am not making a judgment on the minister, but there are certainly issues that raise questions. I do not believe all the questions have been answered, not as fulsomely as they could have been. I do not know any more than that. I do not know what has been said in this parliament. I do not have access to the e-mails, bank accounts, letter, or whatever has been sent around.
If there is some doubt as to whether the minister’s activities in relation to this company in Vietnam have breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct, if we had an integrity commissioner he could look at this immediately. We would not need a big inquiry. The integrity commissioner could call the minister in, or the minister could visit the integrity commissioner, as happens in Nunavut in Canada. Members of parliament there can visit the integrity commissioner, a person who has judicial standing, probably a retired judge, for advice, and vice versa.
The government has left itself open to a position that could have been looked at by an integrity commissioner, who could have reported to this parliament as an independent arbiter. It is hard to get independents into this debate, especially in the last six months before an election. That would have enabled a report to come to parliament which we could debate based on the facts from an independent assessor.
I do not know whether the minister did the right thing or not, but an integrity commissioner would be able to find out. It would not be tainted with the politics we have in this House. It is a legitimate issue to discuss because ministerial codes of conduct are part of what happens in this House and should be referred back to this House.
For the sake of natural justice and fairness, and for this parliament to find out exactly what the truth is in this matter, an integrity commissioner would have been the way to go. We do not have one so how am I to know the truth? How am I to judge whether the minister has broken the code of conduct? My only suggestion – the Chief Minister does not have to listen to it – is to ask the minister to step aside and perhaps get someone to conduct an independent inquiry just to clear the air.
It is only a suggestion, because the document says if a minister engages in conduct which constitutes a breach of this code the Chief Minister shall decide upon an appropriate course of action. I put that suggestion, because I am not sure we will get to the truth via a censure motion, the media or Facebook.
We need an independent assessment of this issue. It raises questions, there is no doubt about it. I do not want to get into the personal life of the minister, but if his personal life is possibly conflicting with his duties in his role as minister for Primary Industry then the best way to clear the air is for him to step aside, allow someone to investigate the situation and report to parliament. If there are no issues the minister can continue as the minster for Primary Industry and we get on with life. Thank you.
The Assembly divided:
Motion not agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am thrilled I can continue the comments I was making prior to lunch. Having said that, I pretty well said everything I needed to say …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move that an extension of time be granted for the member for Fong Lim.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am thrilled that the Chief Minister has such a desire to listen to me speak some more. I am thrilled that my colleagues opposite are so keen for me to talk. I know my best mate forever, the member for Nelson, is keen to hear me talk, but I have to apologise to the Chamber because I have said everything I needed to say in relation to October Business Month.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided:
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I find it rather ironic that I stand to deliver this paper today.
On 26 October 2015 the Administrator issued a notice under the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act requesting that the Remuneration Tribunal conduct an inquiry and issue a report and determination on the entitlements of Assembly members. The inquiry was commissioned to look at the costs incurred by members in serving their electorates and the extent to which the 2015 redistribution of electorate boundaries may affect these costs.
The tribunal has completed its inquiry and provided me with a copy of its report and determination. I table the Remuneration Tribunal report and Determination 1 of 2016 on the entitlements of Assembly members.
In general terms, the Remuneration Tribunal found that, with the exception of the Arafura electorate, current electorate allowances were adequate to enable members to serve their electorates. Key aspects of the 2016 Remuneration Tribunal’s determinations are: removing reference to the electorate of Greatorex, which will no longer exist from the time of the 2016 Northern Territory general election; including the new electorate of Spillett, which will receive the standard urban electorate allowance rate of $50 500; and increasing the electorate allowance for the seat of Arafura from $75 000 to $100 500. This increase better reflects the cost of travel required to adequately service the electorate. As required by the act, the determination is now subject to a 10-day sitting disallowance period. Subject to this, the determination will take effect as from the date of the next Northern Territory general election.
I acknowledge the extensive consultation conducted by tribunal members John Flynn and Michael Martin with MLAs and electorate staff, and thank them for their thorough assessment of electorate allowances following the revision of electorate boundaries in the Northern Territory.
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 27 August 2015.
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak on a fantastic achievement by a lady who worked for 40 years in the Northern Territory public service named Julie Renard. On 18 September 2015 Julie Renard was officially recognised for completing 40 years of service in the Northern Territory Public Sector. I recognise and thank Julie Renard for her 40 years of service.
Julie commenced her career with the Northern Territory public service on 10 June 1975 with the then Department of Housing and Construction as a wages clerk. She had to sit and pass the clerical entrance exam to be eligible for the public service.
Julie has travelled extensively throughout the Northern Territory, has worked in various departments during her 40 years of employment and has gained numerous qualifications. From 1980 to 2005 Julie performed in a number of roles with the Department of Education, Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment, Department of Transport and Works, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and Territory Housing.
Julie won her first executive contract role in 2005. She rewarded herself by buying a fishing boat and named it Fish and Chicks. What an appropriate name. Julie continued to draw upon her corporate knowledge of government and her expertise in stakeholder engagement and relationship management skills in Territory Housing and the Department of Justice.
Julie was a regular motivational speaker at the Discovery Program for young and upcoming women in the public sector where she forged many mentoring relationships over the years.
Julie left the Northern Territory public service on 20 September 2013 to commence a new career in the private sector.
In January 2014 Julie returned to the Northern Territory public service and is now the Director of Central Australia with the Department of Business. I am told Julie has often said that she knows she has been very fortunate to have worked with and been mentored by some amazing people over the years, some of whom recognised the potential in her and helped and encouraged her to study and achieve tertiary qualifications.
Julie, I join your colleagues, past and present, in thanking you for your contribution to the Northern Territory Public Sector. I hope you continue to share your knowledge, experience, passion and drive to inspire the next generation of strong women in the Northern Territory public service for years to come.
That is a testament to a woman who is a leader in her own right, not only in the public service but in our community. For those who have studied leadership, the first thing you learn is that a leader’s role is to develop other leaders. That short story about a remarkable journey through the public service gives testament to a woman who has shown true leadership in that she has helped develop other leaders, having gained the mentorship of many previous leaders. It is one of those encouraging stories I hope people who read about Julie take into our community and make sure they join those in the ranks of leaders in our community whose main goal is to ensure that we develop other strong leaders so they too can contribute to our community in the way Julie Renard has done.
I again congratulate her for 40 years of service and wish her well because she is still a member of the public service, still giving to the people of the Northern Territory. To Julie Renard, on behalf of not only the government and all members in this House, but from the public service and the people of the Northern Territory, thank you very much for your great contribution.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about an activity associated with Taminmin College, in my electorate. I have spoken before about Taminmin, which is par for the course because there is so much happening at that college. It continues to astound me how many varied activities the college is involved with. It is nothing like I was involved with when I was at high school and boarding school.
I want to read about a group of students and their teachers who participated in the World Challenge, which occurs on an annual basis. They go to different countries to our north mostly. I will read into Hansard …
Mr Wood: Are there countries to our south?
Ms PURICK: No countries to the south except for New Zealand, but that is another story.
I am assuming this has been written by one of the teachers. It is good reading and shows exactly what that college does, the support they get from the families and teachers and how engaged the students are:
Which would have been quite an eye opener for students from Humpty Doo and the surrounds:
That is a huge adventure, coming from the Northern Territory, Australia, and going to these countries. Not only were they going to a different country, but were going into parts of the country where tourists normally would not go.
That was Team one:
Not much different to the rural area:
Which I am sure they would have really loved:
Presumably, it was very wet:
That is a sample, and I am sure the students have much more to write about their experiences going through those countries in northern Asia. It is wonderful that a college like Taminmin College not only has the capacity to take students with the teachers – and let us remember that many teachers go on these expeditions with the students. The students fundraise. The member for Nelson knows about this because I am sure he gets his door knocked on to assist with their fundraising.
When I was at high school at boarding school in Perth, the best I recalled when I was reading this was I went to a metal fabrication factory in about Year 11. That was it. The boys wrote sexy messages on the metal things with pieces of chalk.
Then you have these students in 2015 and 2016 going to countries like Laos, Cambodia, China and places like that experiencing wonderful cultures, food, smells and also learning about each other. Previous expeditions from Taminmin College went to Mongolia. I cannot remember which side of Mongolia they went to.
At the ages of 14, 15 and 16, not only do they see a wonderful array of different things to what they have experienced at home in the rural area, but it also teaches things about themselves – about leadership, companionship and how to get up each day when you are not feeling well as you are a bit crook, scared or homesick.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the teachers deserve huge credit because they are there to guide and help the students and enjoy this wonderful experience. Congratulations to Taminmin College, the teachers who went with these students and the students and their families who support them. Well done and congratulations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I need to apologise to you. The agenda today concerned me because it had gone all over the place since yesterday. I would have expected you or the Clerks to have noted that I had already spoken on October Business Month. That would have tested if people were wide awake.
Be that as it may, I must admit that today was a bit of a disaster when it came to having a Daily Agenda which was sprung on us to the point that an item way down the Notice Paper the day before got stuck up in the front, then we debated something down at No 7 or 8. I wonder whether the Daily Agenda is worth reading. Someone can let me know as it happens and I will change speeches.
The reason I was trying to speak was simply – I know that Mr Tollner enjoys baiting me – because I wanted to give him a few facts. Facts are not something he knows about. He is good at fairy tales, rumours, and imaginary facts – put it that way. He should have starred in Alice in Wonderland because that is where he lives sometimes.
He tends to have a go. I know why he has a go because he tells people many of these things. He told me that I do not promote business. I produce a Sporting and Community Directory which has quite a number of small businesses listed. I seek leave to table a black-and-white copy of my Nelson Notes.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I promote local business in my newsletter. There are three local businesses on this page. I describe who the owner is, the phone number and what they sell. This goes out to 3000 or 4000 people now that I have a slightly expanded area.
There are new businesses at Coolalinga. There is Coolalinga Collectables and Secondhand NT, along with Coolalinga Outdoor Power Equipment, NT Power Sports, Outback Batteries, Snap Fitness, TYREPLUS Coolalinga, a new tyre company, Supero Pizza – I must admit, without knocking all my other pizza people around the place, they make a very nice pizza – and Territory Stock Feed and Saddlery, which has been around a long time and has moved a few places but now has a permanent home. The member for Goyder will know Territory Stockfeed. There is also Big Mower, which has moved into the Coolalinga area and BD Homewares. The member for Fong Lim might be interested in Northern Territory Fasteners, another Territory company owned by a Territory family. There is Kabayan Caf and Takeaway, which makes really good fish and chips. If the member for Barkly happens to be going down the track, on the left-hand side of Coolalinga in the older Stavri shops is a little place which used to be the Coolalinga Diner and is now called the Kabayan Caf and Takeaway.
I include things like the long-awaited Coolalinga Shopping Centre taking shape. The foundations are being poured so the change is now obvious there. According to Gwelo, the centre should be finished by the end of 2016, just in time for Christmas. This goes out to many people, along with other news.
Does the member for Fong Lim really think that I sit in a hole and do nothing? It is important that you promote your local businesses, and some of these businesses thank me as, all of a sudden, people knew they could get power tools, fasteners and materials that are used for building at Coolalinga instead of having to go into Palmerston or the industrial area.
I do not mind the member for Fong Lim having a bit of a joke, but he likes to do it often. It gets to a stage where it is not really funny. He also said, ‘Gerry Wood is anti-development’. He does not look at the facts. I do not know what other members do, but I look at every development in the rural area, in Litchfield and sometimes further out. If I think it is an important development to a subdivision or some other development, I look at the area and put in a submission, not necessarily rejecting it, but I sometimes raise issues I believe need to be looked at. I might support it if this or that happened. It is fairly rare that I not support a subdivision straightaway. I did not support one recently – as I told the minister the other day – because it is in slop country; it is not suitable. I took photos when I walked the area and it is not suitable.
Ernie Chin has invited me to one of his subdivisions on the Cox Peninsula Road. I went there about two years ago, after it had been raining and took photos. This is a big subdivision and many people will live there. One of the reasons I go to those subdivisions is to make sure that when young families buy a piece of land it is land that is high and dry, and they are not buying something that is not suitable to live on. That is an important issue; it is not just about whether the roads are in the right place. I am going out there because Ernie has developed that subdivision. Because of the comments I made, the Lands Resource Management team was there as well. Areas that were not suitable for subdivision drainage areas have been removed and put into one block. That is good. I promised him I would come out after these sittings and have a look and put something in my newsletter.
Is that anti-development? Is that anti-subdivision? No, it is not. I can name at least 20 major subdivisions I have supported. I rarely do not support a subdivision. If I have not supported them it is for very good reason – they have been on unsuitable land or the blocks have been too small. He talks about blocks being too small as if it is a flippant statement. He is the minister for Planning. ‘Plan’ means to do things in an organised and planned way. It is not to do things just because someone knocked on your door or you though it was a good idea. As a minister you have a plan and should stick to it. The problem is we had a plan and you are changing it and do not really care.
Then the minister had a go at the legislation I was trying to introduce last night. I apologise to members for not being clear in what I was trying to do. In trying to work through this different way of bringing that legislation through yesterday, I probably did not communicate well with other members. I apologise for that, but sometimes my brain is operating at the speed of light and I forget to do things that should be bleeding obvious, but I did not do that.
That legislation was not just about developers and is not knocking developers. It is also about the alcohol industry, which by the way gave both parties here $150 000 for the last election. It is also about the pokies industry and the tobacco industry. It is not saying those industries are necessarily bad at all. That is what the member for Fong Lim will try to do; that is how he twists things around. It is saying, from a government point of view, we should not accept donations from those groups because we need to be seen to be squeaky clean when we make decisions about them. We need to be seen to have not possibly been influenced by $150 000 for the last election.
That is what it is about. It is not saying the alcohol industry or developers cannot lobby the government. I am saying they cannot lobby the government with money. They need to lobby the government with a good reason for what they want to do. What is wrong with that? That is not anti-development, that is making sure we have good governance in the Northern Territory and that the government is making decisions based on the rules which are not influenced by donations.
The main reason the member for Fong Lim did not like it is because he is a bit worried he might lose some money. There might be a big hole in the election fund ...
Ms Fyles: They will have to hold a chook raffle.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that would not hurt.
He is worried that if this legislation goes through then the money the CLP normally uses for elections would be down quite a bit. However, it should not be like that. Raise the money yourself.
I was in Nunavut, Canada. They have a maximum of $30 000 per person to spend and that is it. Everyone is on the same level playing field and you have to raise that money yourself. If you have a long way to go in your electorate you can get some adjustments, but basically you have to sort the money out yourself. That is something we ought to look at, but obviously not today.
I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the member for Fong Lim. I wish him well in his pursuits in whatever it is when he retires at the next election.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I adjourn tonight requesting the assistance of the Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, with an important regional and remote telecommunications issue at Barrow Creek in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory government, with Commonwealth black spot communications funding, partnered with Telstra in the construction of a mobile phone tower at Barrow Creek in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, this resulted in a signal which was inaccessible for the majority of local residents located 7 km away at Neutral Junction Station and the Tara community.
Telstra’s regional manager Northern Territory advised the mobile phone tower was located adjacent to the Barrow Creek Hotel to reduce costs, acknowledging its position at the base of the ranges significantly limits its signal footprint, disadvantaging the majority of local residents representing health and education service providers, an Aboriginal community and a pastoral property business.
Telstra’s regional manager Northern Territory advised of available supporting mobile phone technology such as small cell towers which, if installed at the community and station, would enhance the Barrow Creek tower signal providing mobile phone coverage for Aboriginal community and cattle station residents in addition to the school and health clinic.
Chief Minister, I seek your support in relation to your government’s declared $49m Telstra communications partnership program for such supporting infrastructure addressing the significant deficit affecting Northern Territory constituents living, working and conducting business in the area, yet denied mobile phone access from the Barrow Creek infrastructure reflecting poor planning, cost cutting and inequitable use of taxpayer funds.
I thank you for your consideration of this request, Chief Minister, on behalf of our constituents. I would be honoured to make further comment if requested by your office. It is a significant issue, and I acknowledge and support your government’s program in rolling out modern telecommunications into the regional and remote areas.
When I was first advised of this issue at Barrow Creek, I went about trying to find a solution through Telstra. Telstra explored a number of technological innovations that they thought might be suitable. Unfortunately, nothing was suitable. The latest advice – now we are talking about eight or nine months down the track – is the small cell towers. But Telstra advise they will need the funding to support this infrastructure.
I have also written to the federal Communications minister about this issue. It would be good, Chief Minister, if you look at retrofitting these technologies for the communities of Tara and the Neutral Junction Cattle Station, including the Neutral Junction School and the Neutral Junction health clinic. It would be good if you could fund these new initiatives out of your declared $49m partnership with Telstra. The retrofitting is rather disappointing; however, it will solve the problem. It is a little embarrassing in a program where infrastructure was provided and unfortunately hijacked in a cost-cutting agenda and, therefore, did not deliver to the majority of the population living in that area.
We are talking about an Aboriginal community with a health clinic on-site, the potential to conduct business, the safety angles of mobile phone coverage, the educational opportunities of young people accessing the Internet and ICT through mobile phone technology, the local school and those critical bus runs that happen each day, getting kids back and forward to school on rough rural roads, and the road safety aspect.
The Neutral Junction Station, which is now under new management, has embarked on a number of business opportunities. The store is progressing. The Neutral Junction Station is also a representative for Centrelink and has taken over that incredible fodder production project.
There are considerable business interests taking place that need support. You cannot get mobile phone coverage even though you are within a radius of 7 km of very expensive infrastructure that was planned and constructed under your watch as part of your telecommunications program.
It would be great for you to step up to the mark and address this issue. I encourage you to contact the management at Neutral Junction Station and any of the residents at Tara community. We hope between the business provider, Telstra, and the Northern Territory government’s $49m telecommunications partnership, you can see fit to provide this retrofit for small cell towers that would enhance telecommunications in that area.
We will continue to conduct this campaign. The next stage is that the management at Neutral Junction Station is organising a petition. We will continue to communicate with the federal Communications minister, the member for Lingiari, and you, Chief Minister. Solving this as soon as possible would be a great outcome. This would be quite easy if the Northern Territory government is prepared to provide funding support within its Telstra partnership.
This is just one issue in regard to supporting our regional and remote areas. I acknowledge the Black Spot Program and the recent announcements you made about new infrastructure in new regional and remote areas. As the local member in Barkly I have also worked with the member for Lingiari, and we have put in a comprehensive submission targeting other areas. Cape Crawford in the gulf country and Alpurrurulam, a very strategic remote town, could possibly be quite easy solutions in relation to their proximity to Mount Isa and those telecommunications footprints.
Larrimah recently requested mobile phone technology. In relation to the original agenda of providing road safety across our national networks, Larrimah would complement those footprints travelling on the Stuart Highway linking coverage between Daly Waters and Mataranka and providing the potential of saving lives, as well as supporting the business community of which the debate this week has been very intense.
We have challenged the government about getting stuck into improving business confidence across the Northern Territory. We provided very strategic policy ideas and voiced our concerns as an opposition on behalf of Territory business.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this program will continue. I ask for the Chief Minister’s support on behalf of our constituents. He is most welcome in the Barkly at any time. Any of his ministers are most welcome. We look forward to receiving his support. He will be hearing from our constituents about this matter and others as we continue towards the 2016 Northern Territory general election.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity this evening to speak about some travel I undertook recently to India as a participant of the Australia India Youth Dialogue program. The experience was amazing and enlightening regarding the India-Australia relationship, and in learning about the people and the other delegates who were part of that program.
It took place between 27 and 30 January, and we covered quite a lot of ground. We participated in the program in New Delhi, Mohali and Bangalore across the four days of the program. It was quite intense, but it was fantastic to see the different areas and what they offer.
Bangalore is a start-up capital. Given that innovation is definitely on the agenda nationally, it is something we in Territory Labor have been talking about – how we encourage enterprise and innovation and back local ideas. It was fantastic to be in a place where it is quite well-established and to talk to people about start-ups, innovation and how we can encourage that.
The Australia India Youth Dialogue brought together 15 delegates from Australia and 15 delegates from India who represented a range of sectors including but not limited to the arts, business, sports, politics, innovation and media and community services. There were representatives from Asialink, for example, from the University of Melbourne. There was a former Wallaby there who is now an architect designing sports infrastructure and an Indian Paralympian swimmer. It was fantastic to have such a range of perspectives and stakeholders and an acknowledgement of the importance of all of those stakeholders in the India-Australia relationship. It made for very interesting conversations.
The panel sessions included: encouraging entrepreneurship; sustainable resource management and development, including water management; strengthening the bilateral relationship; cultural identity and the involvement of the public – and particularly the involvement of young people – in the public policy process; and a range of other conversations throughout the four days.
I will touch on some of the speakers. There were many very high-quality speakers who participated in the program including the Acting High Commissioner for Australia at the time, Mr Chris Elstoft. I acknowledge that the High Commissioner finished his posting the day before we arrived, and the new commissioner, Ms Harinder Sidhu, was announced today. We spoke to Mr Chris Elstoft;Mr Amit Dasgupta, the former India Consul General who was based in Sydney and is retired; Mr AS Harinath, who was the senior environmental specialist with the World Bank, and Mr Suhit Anantula, from Business Models Incorporated in Australia. That is just a taste of some of the people we had conversations and panel sessions with.
There was also a session with Dr Michele Ackroyd from the Goyder Institute for Water Research, which was interesting. The Goyder research centre is based in Adelaide and does a lot of interesting work. Some work happening between South Australia and India within the water management space is definitely worth watching.
During the dialogue, I participated in a panel session with politicians from Australia and India in relation to young leaders and public engagement in policy making. They included Tim Watts, who is the federal Labor member for Gellibrand, Mr Harsh Sanghavi and Mr Hanuman Ram Farroda, the president of a small village in India who had interesting stories. It was an interesting way to look at the differences and similarities.
The India-Australia relationship is one that warrants deeper focus and strategic connection. The India-Northern Territory relationship is one that also warrants deeper connection. We have a very well-established Indian community in the Territory which is growing, certainly in my electorate. We celebrate Holi and Deepavali festivals and India@Mindil. We enjoy celebrating that culture.
I thank stakeholders across our associations who have spoken to me about this trip and provided their thoughts on opportunities within this relationship. Some of those opportunities in strengthening bilateral relationship are around tourism in particular. We have an opportunity to capitalise not only on tourism opportunities when it comes to the Indian market, but also innovation opportunities. There is a growing discussion about innovation and start-ups in Australia.
In August, there was announcement of Start-up India. It is a conversation that is on the agenda. The opportunity for businesses to scale up their operations is very real and one that is being investigated by many creative and smart thinkers across the Territory. There is an opportunity for us to have a deeper look.
In October Business Month, there was a session on entering the Indian market that was focused on local businesses. We can do a lot more of that and look at how we can connect innovation initiatives and bring them in as part of the bilateral relationship we have.
Regarding cultural exchange, it was fantastic to see so many representatives from the arts and sports on this trip. We have great opportunities to foster relationships in cultural exchange around sports, food and the arts, particularly Indigenous art. The Australian men’s and women’s cricket teams will both be in India shortly for T20. Those opportunities with India will continue to grow.
It was a positive trip. I had an opportunity to speak to many different people,. It was eye opening on the last day in one of the panel sessions when we talked about what we can learn from each other in addressing innovation in community services and social issues. In that session one of the panellists talked about child protection in the Northern Territory. It was quite a bizarre experience to be sitting in a room in Bangalore hearing about child protection in the Northern Territory. He was talking about an innovative program that is occurring in South Australia called Family by Family. It is one I have looked at and believe is fantastic. There are many opportunities for us to look at the innovative responses of different places in dealing with social issues. We can learn from each other and share.
I am excited about the potential for us to strengthen our relationships with India as a trading partner. I believe Australia is the second-biggest overseas education provider to India. At the moment we are discussing international education and engagement. CDU is in my electorate and has a huge population of international students, so we can explore that. We are respected as an education provider, and that is a fantastic connection we share.
It is definitely different doing a media conference in India than in Darwin. It was an interesting, fantastic and eye-opening experience, but a good opportunity to hear about the different ways in which people are communicating about local policy issues.
One of the issues we share is the feeling of engagement by locals in the public policy decision-making process, which is something we can all improve on. We can talk about initiatives, start-ups and encouraging innovation, but we have to have the partnership and buy-in from all stakeholders and partners – whether it is media, business, government, the local community or local universities – for these programs to work. I am excited to continue to follow-up on the relationships I have now built with 15 Indian delegates, 14 Australian delegates plus the speakers who were part of that program.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Australia India Youth Dialogue very much for involving me, and all the partners – mainly the Victorian government, Macquarie University and UTS:INSEARCH – for providing the backing for such a great program that is important to the future dialogue between our two countries.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I adjourn this evening on a matter in my electorate that concerns me and which I have only received news of over the last few days.
Last year the government and the Minister for Health made numerous commitments to mental health. The minister started the year in February with a firm commitment to place mental health on the government’s agenda particularly – and I quote from his media release:
The minister released his suicide prevention strategy in April and a mental health plan in August 2015. Last year’s budget committed to enhancing mental health services by $3m recurrently with a focus upon youth mental health, and this was to be commended.
Mental health services were devolved to the health services as part of the department’s restructure in the last year to support improve localised services. Last week the minister opened a long-overdue youth inpatient facility in the Northern Territory, along with Professor Patrick McGorry, one of our foremost experts in youth mental health in the country. I commend the opening of that inpatient facility.
However, following that announcement I was surprised when I was advised last week that with all of the increased funding in mental health for the rural and remote child and adolescent mental health service, the Top End Mental Health Service in Nhulunbuy has stopped for a period of time. Nobody seems to know whether it is indefinitely or permanently. The reasons cited were personnel and resource constraints, excessive caseloads and resource reallocation to the youth inpatient services and loss of Commonwealth funding.
This comes as a shock to our community in northeast Arnhem Land. There are people who rely upon this service, not the least of whom are children, adolescents and their families. It was a service where visiting psychologists and social workers came to the community and stayed for up to a week. By all accounts it was a fantastic service that made an enormous difference in the lives of kids with mental health issues and their families.
Never did we imagine that the opening of a youth inpatient facility in Darwin would have meant services in our region would cease. Worse still is that our community was not told of this decision; it happened with no notice. We only found out when an NGO provider followed up with the health services to find out what was happening. It was confirmed through our local schools that, yes, the service has ceased. That advice only came through last week.
Apparently our local GP visited my electorate office yesterday to ask my electorate officer if I knew if this had occurred. He was gravely concerned about the removal of this service.
The service has advised that the service gap will be filled by school counsellors, local health centres, student support services, remote disability services, private psychologists – not too many of those in Nhulunbuy; none actually – Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations, paediatricians, youth support services, MOS Plus, which is the Mobile Outreach Service, the Department of Children and Families and other providers.
This is simply not possible. These services cannot replace the specialist service of a child and adolescent mental health service, for which there is clearly a demonstrated need and has been operating well. Surely any withdrawal of support is an issue, especially in a remote region which can least afford these cuts and the cessation of such an important service.
In reality, when you are in a remote region, reliant upon a visiting service, where else do you go? The services that exist in Nhulunbuy and which people are referred to are already stretched to the limit. They rely on the referral support of these outreach specialist services which have been cut.
To add insult to injury, I have been advised through one source that the Mobile Outreach Service, or MOS Plus, counselling service in our region is also under threat. I am most concerned about this information. I remember when MOS Plus started. It is critical in providing therapeutic counselling for children who have suffered trauma. Any threat to that would be deeply concerning to all of us who live in northeast Arnhem Land, especially me as their elected representative. This service is funded by the Commonwealth through the Department of Children and Families. It is my understanding it secured 10 years of funding in 2012.
This additional service cut comes on top of the Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner position ceasing in Yirrkala in June 2015, along with the remote Aboriginal community worker position being taken out of the community. I brought a petition before this parliament last year on behalf of people in the community of Yirrkala who were petitioning the minister to keep those positions within Yirrkala, especially the Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner. The response I received from the minister was that the position had not been cut but somebody had chosen to leave that position – that is not entirely true; she was told she needed to take a job on the Tiwi Islands – and that the position was actively being recruited and they hoped to fill the position.
I have looked, watched and never seen an advertisement for that position. The furnished accommodation for that position has been vacant for eight months, so the department is still paying rent on it. I know this for a fact because it is in my street. I find that unacceptable.
We need the minister to provide some advice about the reduction in specialist mental health counselling and child protection services from East Arnhem Land. Our current circumstances are simply unacceptable.
I seek the minister’s support in reinstating these services. They are vital to providing treatment and prevention services locally, preventing the escalation of trauma or illness and supporting our young adolescents with their general mental health and wellbeing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a serious matter and I hope to see the Minister for Health address this as soon as possible.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by Danielle Ford and Shaun Andre. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
FUEL PRICE DISCLOSURE BILL
(Serial 153)
(Serial 153)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure transparency in the Territory’s automotive fuel retail market and to make automotive fuel retailers more accountable to consumers. The bill will allow for the making of Gazette orders that require automotive fuel retailers and those that supply them to provide details and a full breakdown of their retail and profit margins. It also empowers the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs to publish information about the fuel retail market.
Historically, we know that the Northern Territory and other regional areas in Australia have always had higher automotive fuel prices compared to other capital cities. Territory consumers are right to be concerned about these higher prices and to expect that they can be justified. This concern is not new.
There is a number of factors that contribute to higher prices in the Territory. These factors include lower volumes of sales; less competition; distance; location; higher input costs, including rent and power; lower sales from other sources of income and the lack of a refinery in the Territory.
Up until 2010 the retail fuel price differential for unleaded ULP between Darwin and other capital cities was relatively stable, averaging about 8c per litre. However, from late 2010 the price differential began to increase, coinciding with a concentration of retailers in the Darwin fuel market. This increase became particularly pronounced over the next two years as the price differential increased to a peak of almost 30c per litre in early 2012. Similar price differentials were experienced across the Territory.
At the start of 2013 we spent much time working on solutions to try to drive competition and find solutions. As you and others will be aware, as Chief Minister I convened a fuel price summit on 7 October 2014. The summit was attended by a number of industry representatives, including the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory, or AANT; Puma Energy; Caltex; United; the road transport industry; Vopak; and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. However, the summit did not elicit further information about the structure of the industry and its breakdown of costs other than what was already publicly available.
The summit had the public benefit of discussing and clarifying why it can be expected that petrol prices will be higher in the Territory, but it shed no further light on why the price differential changes or why the cost of automotive fuel in Katherine is consistently lower than the rest of the Territory. What the summit also provided was clarity around the fact that the gap in meaningful public information is in the breakdown of the retail margin. These are issues I think Territorians would like to understand.
Accordingly, following the summit on 22 October 2014 I tabled the Draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill in this Assembly. At the same time a Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee was established and tasked with the job of scrutinising the bill, including whether it would meet the aims of better informing motorists of the price structure of fuel and promoting price competition. There was a marked decline in the price of unleaded fuel after the summit and after tabling the bill.
It should be noted that following the fuel summit and after a furious lobbying campaign in January 2015 by me and my government, the ACCC announced that it would undertake micro-market investigations into fuel prices in regional markets for the first time in Australia. On 10 March 2015 it announced that Darwin would be the first location to be subject to such an investigation.
On 30 April 2015, after a comprehensive consultation process, the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee tabled its report, which recommended that, amongst other things, in light of the ongoing ACCC investigations and the recent reductions in retail fuel prices, the government should postpone any regulatory intervention. Accordingly, the tabled bill was not progressed for the time being.
The next step in this story came in November 2015 when the ACCC finally published its report on the Darwin petrol market. The report noted that high retail prices in Darwin were reflected in high profits. It recommended increased transparency and the promotion of competition in the market, including the regular publication of the difference between wholesale prices and retail prices, providing current retail prices to help motorists shop around, and regular reporting on market concentration.
In the period between the Fuel Price Summit in October 2014 and the release of the ACCC report over a year later, retail unleaded petrol prices in Darwin fell dramatically, by 45c per litre. Over this period the retail ULP prices in Darwin averaged only 1.7c per litre higher than other capital cities, and, at times, retail unleaded prices in Darwin were well below the national average.
Unfortunately fuel prices again became the subject of concern for Territorians. While prices in other Australian states had been reducing further, the gap between the retail price at the pump in Darwin and the rest of Australia had again widened. This is of particular concern in relation to Darwin’s retail price of diesel, which has not followed the reduction seen in the national average, especially in late 2015 and early 2016. It is also in regard to gas.
The price differentials throughout January 2016 averaged 8c per litre for ULP and 12c per litre for diesel. Despite a recent drop in prices, including this morning when I saw it was about $1.16 for unleaded, this government sees no alternative but to implement this bill and make good our commitment to improve transparency and accountability in the retail fuel market. If fuel companies need to be watched closely to act competitively, then we will watch them.
In developing our response to the Territory’s fuel crises the government considered a number of solutions, including the current regulatory environment in the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions. In the Northern Territory there is currently no regulation of fuel prices and no disclosure requirements directed at fuel retailers, apart from the terminal gate price under what is called the Oilcode.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s role is as the national competition regulator and consumer law advocate. It is primarily a law enforcement body and takes an active role in ensuring all markets, including the fuel market, operate competitively and free of collusion. The ACCC also has a role in monitoring fuel prices, but not in setting them.
Pursuant to a ministerial direction under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in the Commonwealth, the ACCC has monitored prices, costs and profits of unleaded petrol in Australia for the last six years. The Northern Territory Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, does retain an overarching function of collecting, collating and disseminating information in respect of matters affecting the interests of consumers. Therefore, under existing legislation, the NT Commissioner of Consumer Affairs previously established and maintained a website called NT Fuel Watch, which monitored the weekly high, low and mean prices for unleaded petrol, premium unleaded, diesel and LPG for the Territory’s major centres.
The NT Fuel Watch scheme was discontinued due to the high cost, low uptake of service and lack of consumer benefit in a small market such as the Territory; however, the Department of Treasury and Finance continues to publish a monthly economic brief covering Territory fuel prices.
In addition to the commissioner’s power of collecting, collating and disseminating information affecting the interests of consumers, section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act provides the commissioner with power in relation to any of his functions to require any person to furnish him information or to answer any question put by the commissioner. It is an offence to fail to comply with the commissioner’s request or to give false or misleading information.
The commissioner’s existing powers under section 8 of The Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act are somewhat limited. In order to access detailed data about individual retailers, the commissioner would need to give notice under section 8 to each individual retailer from whom details were required, and on each individual occasion, and would have to substantiate the purpose and basis on which the information is required in each instance.
Furthermore, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act is targeted at consumers, which means it would be difficult to use the act to seek information from those at the wholesale or distribution levels of the supply business, even if that information impacted on the retail price. There is a need to strengthen the commissioner’s powers if we are to improve fuel pricing transparency, and this bill is the vehicle to achieve that.
There are already a number of limited disclosure requirements in Australia. At a wholesale level the Oilcode, which is legislative instrument under the Competition and Consumer Act, requires some disclosure. including that the terminal gate price, or TGP, be posted by the wholesale supplier each day. It does not require that the components of the TGP be disclosed; however, much of the information regarding the components is publicly discernible, including via the Australian Institute of Petroleum, or AIP, website.
Interestingly, Western Australia also requires additional disclosure of TGP under a current Petroleum Products Pricing (Maximum Terminal Gate Price) order, which requires wholesalers to notify daily TGP to the WA Commissioner for Consumer Protection. The notified TGP then operates as the maximum price for that product for 24 hours. When notifying of a TGP, a wholesaler must also state each specified component of that price. No other state has similar legislation.
The Western Australian Petroleum Products Pricing Act 1983 also imposes disclosure requirements covering petroleum retailers. This is known as the FuelWatch scheme. Retailers in much of WA are required to notify their next day prices by 2 pm. They must then change that price for the next 24-hour period starting at 6 am the next day. The aim of the FuelWatch scheme in WA is to provide certainty and transparency; however, under FuelWatch, retailers are not required to disclose the components of the retail price to the commissioner.
The Western Australian approach, which focuses on disclosure at the wholesale level and notification of daily retail prices, was considered by the Country Liberal government, but we will not be adopting it in the first instance as it does not address the Territory’s circumstances or needs as identified in the summit, that is, the lack of transparency about what constitutes the retail profit margins.
The government also considered the issue of price setting. The Commonwealth government used to regulate wholesale prices through the Prices Surveillance Act 1983; however, price setting for fuel in Australia ceased as part of the national competition policy reforms. Since then it has generally been accepted that a competitive free market is the best way to ensure that consumers get the best deal.
No Australian jurisdiction currently sets fuel prices by assigning a dollar amount, although most jurisdictions have the power to do so, including in circumstances such as natural or manmade disaster, or failure of other laws to protect consumers from monopolies or to effectively ensure that consumers benefit from the operation of a competitive market.
In The Northern Territory the Price Exploitation Prevention Act fulfils this function; however, circumstances in which the act can be invoked are constrained by its terms, and there must be sufficient evidence of one of the preconditions in order to invoke its powers. In any event, any market intervention to impose artificial prices should always be a last resort.
After consideration of the Territory’s circumstances and recent changes in the market, this government is of the view that the only way to protect Territory consumers is to bring meaningful transparency to the retail market. This will be done by implementing a legislative framework that focuses on obtaining information from automotive fuel retailers and, where necessary, others in the fuel chain supplying those retailers, regarding details and breakdowns of their fuel cost structure.
I will now turn to the structure of the contents of the bill. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will be the regulator and have oversight of the legislation. It is proposed that the commissioner will publish on his website information to consumers about the breakdown of fuel prices and the structure of the fuel industry. This could include the publishing of information disclosed by retailers under this Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016.
It is proposed that the disclosure will be required by retailers to the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. It will not be direct from the retailers to the public. Disclosure to the regulator will allow the regulator to check the data and provide the report in a more consumer-friendly fashion. It will also ensure that the data is available in one easily-accessible place. Importantly, it will reduce both the likelihood of retailers manipulating data and industry concerns about the disclosure of commercial-in-confidence information. The requirements for disclosure will be set out in the proposed Gazette notice or notices, see clauses of the bill for further details, which will be issued by the relevant minister.
These requirements will be focused on obtaining information from retailers on the breakdown of the various components of the retail margins in relation to automotive fuel only.
The Gazette notice will be developed with cross-agency collaboration and in consultation with industry. Although disclosure will initially be aimed at retailers only, clause 5 of the bill is drafted so that disclosure requirements can be extended to other operators in the supply chain. This power is necessary due to the nature of the NT market, where there is a substantial level of market integration.
For businesses also operating across other sectors of the market, the commissioner will be able to require disclosure at other levels in the supply chain to determine if such businesses are transferring profits to other parts of the business in order to lower profits at the retail end.
The commissioner will, in effect, have the flexibility to publish the information in relation to fuel prices in any format he or she considers to be appropriate. It is proposed that it will be published on the commissioner’s website, but he may well choose additional formats, such as flyers, bulletins or a mobile phone application, at his discretion. There will be no restrictions placed upon what the commissioner can publish. It will be up to the commissioner to determine the information subject to any direction from the minister. However, it is proposed that guidelines will be developed to provide industry with a clear expectation of what is to be published. The commissioner may, from time to time, require additional information to assist with determining the breakdown of prices, information which may not be suitable or intended for publication.
Compliance and enforcement are other important aspects of this bill. The commissioner will have the necessary investigative audit and enforcement powers, mainly through linking to his current powers under section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Section 8 allows the commissioner to obtain information relating to his or her functions under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act or any other act. The commissioner can continue to be able to use his power to request specific information for specific purposes under section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, that is if necessary.
It is intended that this legislation will complement rather than replace the commissioner’s existing powers. The commissioner will be assisted by fuel officers who will have the same powers and functions as authorised officers under Part 3 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Fuel officers, which include police officers and the commissioner, have the power to enter and search premises, and inspect and copy documents.
Additionally, clause 8 of the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016 creates an offence provision for failure to comply with disclosure requirements, the maximum penalty for which is 400 penalty units. Currently that is $61 200 and two years’ imprisonment. The existing offences under section 8(4) and section 23(2) of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act will apply to the provision of false or misleading information to the commissioner or fuel officers respectively. Additional compliance and enforcement tools, in the form of infringement notices and the ability to name and shame, if they become necessary, can also be enabled under the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016.
The regulation power in clause 10 allows for the making of regulations relating to infringement notices. The functions of the commissioner in clause 6 are wide enough to allow for the publication of information in the form of naming a recalcitrant retailer.
Clause 5 of the bill is drafted to show that an exemption in a Gazette notice could operate as a blanket exemption or by reference to regions or individual retailers.
The Fuel Price Disclosure Bill 2016 is designed as a simple framework that is clear, targeted and easy to administer. It will benefit NT consumers by making the retail automotive fuel industry more accountable and more transparent. I commend this bill to honourable members.
The committee report contained a number of recommendations. Part of Recommendation 6 was not to do anything until after the ACCC report. The ACCC report has been handed down. We are working through the other five recommendations to make sure we can provide the necessary changes. It was not the intent to introduce this bill until the proposed changes came through the bill as a whole before entering parliament. However, the Country Liberals, and me as Chief Minister, became so frustrated with the widening gap in the margins from the TGP, or terminal gate price, that we thought it necessary to introduce this.
Although we have not reached the heights of what occurred at the back end of the last term of the Labor government, it got close to those numbers again. Prices have come down in the last two weeks since my intervention, and again today they have come down, particularly unleaded, but also, on a wider basis, diesel.
Introducing this legislation is a sign that we will proceed with this legislation. We may not be able to bring it back at the next sittings for debate because we are still working through some amendments, which will have to be put through this Chamber, as a result of the committee findings. As soon as those amendments are made I will distribute them to all members once they pass through Cabinet, but that is the general timing. This should be a clear message that it should not be left to the Chief Minister to have to engage with fuel companies to try to drive the price down.
I am a supporter of Liberal philosophy, free-market enterprise and of the market responding. The only time governments should intervene is where there is a perceived or real market failure. In the Northern Territory, between 2010 and 2012, there was an escalation in market failure. We have had some ups and downs in that time with government intervention here and there, whether that is the fuel price summit, bills, letters or phone calls, or whatever that may have been. This bill provides a greater degree of certainty about our desire to have to enter the market because we think there has been perceived or real market failure.
I do not anticipate this coming back at the next sittings for debate. It could, depending on the timing of amendments, but it will certainly be coming back. This is a clear message that this bill will be passing through parliament, whether in this form or an amended form, because we are clear with our plan to reduce cost-of-living pressures, which includes reducing fuel prices, not just reducing housing, grocery and power prices. We are serious about fuel and are committed to this legislation.
I commend the bill to the House and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LOCAL COURT (RELATED AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 154)
(Serial 154)
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 main purpose of this bill is to make further amendments consequential to the enactment in 2015 of the Local Court Act. As with the recently introduced Local Courts (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 148), this bill provides for matters consequential to the establishment of a new Local Court that has jurisdiction over both criminal and civil matters, and the consequent abolition of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and for ancillary reforms relating to consistency of proceedings within the Local Court, the Supreme Court, the Youth Justice Court and the Work Health Court.
The consequential amendments have been split between two bills so as to simplify the management of the implementation. The first bill deals with significant policy issues that have been dealt with as part of consequential amendments, along with statute law revision to the acts, for which there are significant amendments. The bill provides for amendments of a statute law revision nature dealing with the more minor amendments to approximately 156 other acts and pieces of subordinate legislation.
These bills and subordinate legislation are listed in the explanatory statement. Changes have been made to update references and terminology resulting from the Local Court Act 2015. These include changing the following references: ‘magistrate’ to ‘Local Court judge’; ‘Court of Summary Jurisdiction’ to ‘Local Court Justices Act’, to ‘Local Court Criminal Procedure Act’; ‘Registrar’ to ‘registrar’ with a little ‘r’; Justice of the Peace with capitals to ‘justice of the peace’ in lower case; ‘crime’ to ‘offence’ or, where appropriate, ‘indictable offence’; ‘justice’ to ‘justice of the peace’; ‘judge’ to ‘Judge of the Supreme Court’; and the current Local Court Act 1989 has been amended, to ‘Local Court Civil Procedure Act’.
The amendments also remove the use of the term ‘clerk’ in any act and, where necessary, replaces it with ‘registrar’. Further, the amendments change any reference to committal proceedings and replace them with a reference to a preliminary examination under Part 5 of the Local Court Criminal Procedure Act.
This bill is an important piece in a set of legislative reforms that will bring greater certainty and clarity to the law, making it easier for courts, lawyers and the public to understand and comply with the legislation concerning the courts. I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 141)
(Serial 141)
Continued from 18 November 2015.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition supported the bill amendment because it came from an independent tribunal, but we do not support the consideration in detail stage amendment proposed by the government.
The opposition received notice of this late last night. There is a current inequity in the legislation, which the Remuneration Tribunal advised of in its 2015 report. It reported:
- Under the Act and Regulations, the Tribunal is only able to provide a benefit where a Member loses the endorsement of their political party or where they are defeated at the election. There could often be very good reasons for a Member's retirement, such as poor health, and the Tribunal believes the benefit should be extended to include voluntary retirement and recommends that the Assembly Members and Statutory Office (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act be amended accordingly.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a resettlement allowance for former members of parliament when they retire to assist them in transitioning from political to private life. The entitlement will not be extended to an MLA who is convicted of an offence resulting in 12 months or more of imprisonment. The entitlement will not be extended to an MLA who exits from their existing seat to stand for another seat in the Legislative Assembly, or in any Australian parliament, and is successful in being elected.
The caveats on the entitlements appear fair and equitable. The opposition supports that the value of the entitlement will not be specified in the legislation and that it will be determined by the independent tribunal. The opposition also supports the provision for the minister to make an interim determination of entitlement for current Assembly members in respect of any additional salary of office and non-salary entitlements if the tribunal has not acted on that aspect.
The government has proposed an amendment whereby the minister has the power to make basic salary an additional salary of office entitlement for current and former members.
As I explained at the outset, the opposition was alerted to this amendment late last night. We received a briefing at the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and we thank the departmental staff for that, but we cannot support this. We must call it out for what it is. The government’s briefing note from last year recommended that the reason it had been amended to remove the basic salary and former member entitlements was because, ‘There are categories of entitlements where there is less likely to be a need for an interim determination, except in an election year when we have impending retiring members’.
The current bill, not the consideration in detail stage amendment, is supported because there was a clear process that supports an equitable determination for current and former members in the form of the Remuneration Tribunal. It was an independent recommendation at arm’s lengths of members of parliament.
The tribunal undertakes its inquiries and makes a report to government which is tabled within six sitting days. Then the Assembly either supports or disallows the determination within 10 sitting days – a clear process at arm’s length. But there are no checks and balances in this proposed consideration in detail stage amendment. The minister makes a determination and within six sitting days it takes effect. There is no transparent process for this decision.
Nobody trusts this government as it is, and this is not the right thing to do. We do not trust the government to make an impartial decision; therefore the opposition does not support this consideration in detail stage amendment to the bill.
The proposed amendments allow the minister to make any decision that currently does not fall within the determination by the tribunal. Territorians want to trust us and they need a process to trust us. We want our community to have trust in us as a parliament. We do not want them to think there is a conflict of interest when we set our own entitlements. As I said, we received the amendment late last night, and our understanding is that the amendment has the potential to allow the minister to determine pay and entitlements for members without appropriate checks and balances. Our community needs to have confidence that our wages are set independently and fairly. We are not comfortable that members’ entitlements can sit with the Chief Minister. The captain of the team is essentially deciding the pay and entitlements of his members without scrutiny and independence.
We have a well-established RTD process and we will not accept this new lack of transparency, and neither will the community. This is a government whose members love to have their snouts in the trough and who expend excessively on themselves. This is as good as handing a blank cheque to the CLP to burn through public funds to fatten their own payments between now and the election. It is not acceptable. This money should be used for the health and education of Territorians. This process does not happen anywhere else, as I understand, and it certainly should not happen here.
We have an RTD process which is independent and is at arm’s length which allows time for a process to take place that is fair, and which people can see is independent and at arm’s length. This consideration in detail stage amendment, snuck through late at night, asking us to support something on the last day of sittings, is not acceptable. It should never be allowed ...
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: I pick up on the interjections from the members opposite who are laughing. This is a serious matter. We need our community to have trust. We are trying to rebuild that trust because it has been eroded in the last three-and-a-half years. In passing this consideration in detail stage amendment we will be even more of a laughing stock.
Madam Speaker, the opposition, from the outset supported the amendment to the bill because it was set independently by the RTD, but we do not accept this late consideration in detail stage amendment. Therefore, we will not be supporting this legislation.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I should not be surprised – but I am – that the government seeks to lead an amendment to the bill before the House and did not communicate it to me as the Independent member for Karama. I got a heads-up late last night from the opposition Whip, and I thank you for that, member for Nightcliff.
What on earth is this sleight of hand about? If the government has issues with the determination of the independent tribunal, which was the genesis of the bill before the House, then why did you not refer them back to the tribunal for further consideration? All members could then be assured that an independent officer representing the public’s interest will make a determination that could then come forward. That process has not happened.
The opposition received advice last night that the CLP wants its concurrence with an amendment, which is ambiguous as best I can tell. I have not been availed of the same courtesy the opposition had with advice about what it is, what its effect is, the government’s views on why it is in there and what it hopes to achieve.
Members of this parliament are well aware that the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex have announced their retirement at the next election. Is this about speeding forward a payment to them? What would that payment be? Is it about a $150 000 payment to each of those members who have chosen to retire? I do not know. I seek an explanation from the member for Fong Lim. Is this about you, member for Fong Lim? Are you seeing through some proposal here because you were not pre-selected and may not be standing? I do not know.
Explanations are clearly required. This goes to the expenditure of public funds. Who will benefit from the CLP’s proposed changes, dropped late last night to be rushed through on the Thursday morning of this sittings? What is going on?
Yes, there is a trust deficit. I have been a member of parliament for four terms. What used to occur, what was convention, is that the Chief Minister or the minister sponsoring legislation would communicate amendments to all members of parliament, because we are all here to represent the people of our electorates.
What do I say to the people of Karama and Malak about these amendments that I have not been advised of? I got a heads-up last night from the opposition Whip. I have had to ask around for a copy this morning. What is it about? It is pretty broad. There are no explanatory notes to the amendment. The schedule says:
- CLAUSE 7
46.1 Clause 7
- invite defeat
- NEW CLAUSE 7
46.2 After clause 6
- insert
- 7 Section 5 Amended
- Section 5(1)
- omit
- (other than the basic salary or additional salary of office)
At a glance, what is that? It gives power to the Chief Minister to make decisions on payments to politicians. That is my reading of it. I would be happy to be corrected on that.
There is no explanatory e-mail from the Chief Minister about this. There is no explanatory memorandum being circulated to explain to the members what effect these proposed amendments provide.
Yes, I am cynical because I have seen the consistent behaviour of the CLP, putting their snouts in the trough at the expense of public funds that ought to be used for services to Territorians, such as tackling crime, which the Police minister wants us to believe is okay because it is down across the Territory. Police minister, residents of Karama and Malak cannot believe you have your head buried that far in the sand, and that it is okay that we do not have the additional funding required across our education system that this could go to?
What quantum of dollars are we talking here? Is it about $150 000 each for the members for Port Darwin, Greatorex and Fong Lim? I do not know. There is an explanation required and we do not have it. Is it about some other payment, such as an ex gratia payment? What is it? We do not know because there has been no explanation.
Mr Chandler: Sit down and he will tell you.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Brennan. ‘Sit down and he will tell you.’ Member for Brennan, I am not a big believer in what the member for Fong Lim says. What the member for Fong Lim says in this Chamber is often very far from reality.
I would like to see something in writing. I would like to see some written advice from departmental officers. I would like to be availed of the opportunity to get advice from the Remuneration Tribunal as to the effect of this amendment, because, to my knowledge, nowhere else in Australia does the Chief Minister, Premier or Prime Minister determine payments for politicians, in effect, their own.
This is another new low from the CLP. Yes, I am in a privileged position in this parliament. Yes, I have been here four terms, which means I, and the member for Nelson, do not fall within the remit of this because we are the last two members of this parliament on the old parliamentary superannuation scheme. However, I have every right, on behalf of the residents of Karama and Malak, to question what is going on. What is this payment about? Who will benefit from it? What will be the quantum of that benefit and what is the justification for it? I cannot ask any of those questions of the Remuneration Tribunal, which is independent and would give fair, frank and fearless advice. Instead, I am meant to be satisfied with what the member for Fong Lim says.
You have to be joking. This is outrageous! It will be another – if you needed it after yesterday’s scandal around the member for Katherine – nail in the coffin of the CLP. I hope members of parliament see this for what it is and choose not support the bill because of this last minute amendment. The original bill without the amendment was fair, just and reasonable.
Sleights of hand at the last minute that cannot be properly tested and scrutinised by the independent tribunal are not fair, just or reasonable. It is a shame that the CLP continues to show its arrogance and contempt for Territorians.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support of this bill. The bill has come from recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal and is about creating some fairness and equity in our system.
There has been some debate about the consideration in detail stage amendment we are proposing. Both Labor and the Independent Labor leader seem to have real issues with the amendment. It is a last-minute amendment. The glitch in the bill was identified very late. The glitch is that the bill does not enact what was recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. I suggest that the member for Karama, if she has concerns about this amendment, quickly toddles out of this joint, gets on the phone to one of the members of the Remuneration Tribunal and asks their opinion.
Ms Lawrie: Where is it? Where is their opinion?
Mr TOLLNER: This amendment is supported by the Remuneration Tribunal. You should get out and make a quick phone call.
I apologise, on behalf of everybody, that the member for Karama was not kept completely informed. This bill has zero effect on the member for Karama’s retirement income; that is a fact. The member for Karama, in her own words, has suggested that she is somewhat special in this place because she is on the old parliamentary scheme. That is also a fact; the member for Karama will retire on $1m-plus without a doubt.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that offensive because it is factually incorrect. I ask that he withdraw it.
Mr Tollner: It is not factually incorrect; it is a fact. Member for Karama, you have a life expectancy …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. If the member finds it offensive please withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: It is a matter of fact.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Please withdraw it.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. Let us look at some calculations. The member for Karama, under any assumption, would be suggested to leave somewhere around …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 32: offensive. This is about a bill before the House where you are trying to ram through last minute amendments to benefit yourself.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nightcliff. Minister, keep to the point of the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: This is the point of the bill. It is about restoring equity and fairness …
Ms Fyles: Your snout is in the trough.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: That is offensive.
Ms FYLES: I withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: Let us clarify a couple of things. If the member for Karama lives an average lifespan for a woman, she will probably live to somewhere around 80 years old.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not a level playing field in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause.
Honourable members, this bill is about giving the tribunal and the minister powers. It is not about members’ payouts or what they are doing or not doing. Keep your comments to the bill please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am simply responding to points raised by the member for Karama, who suggested the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex will benefit from this, and that I will benefit from this, and that she is on a different scheme.
Ms Lawrie: Who will benefit, Dave?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Karama, please let the minister speak.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Karama asked questions about who will benefit. I thought it quite interesting that the member for Karama raised that, because this bill is of no benefit whatsoever to the member for Karama; she is on a completely different scheme to the rest of us.
Mrs Lambley: She is well placed.
Mr TOLLNER: She is well placed; that is right. Yet she has the audacity to say this is all clouded in secrecy, but nobody consulted the member for Karama because she is not affected by it.
If the member for Karama was to say, ‘I realise I am on a different arrangement to everybody else. I think it is wholly over the top and parliamentarians should not have pensions. I was one of the people who voted to get rid of the pension. I want to do the right thing by letting the place know I will donate my entire pension to charity’, then she might have some truck in this place, but she does not.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 38: irrelevance and tedious repetition. Debate the bill and the consideration in detail stage amendment that is at hand.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nightcliff. Minister, if you could turn your comments to the bill in.
Mr TOLLNER: We are not actually at the consideration in detail stage amendment yet.
Ms Fyles: We are talking about it.
Mr TOLLNER: We are talking about a range of things which you guys raised. I am summing up, responding to what you raised.
Ms Lawrie: You haven’t yet.
Mr TOLLNER: This consideration in detail stage amendment makes no difference to me personally – zero, nothing ...
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: It does not. Understand this, this consideration in detail stage amendment has nothing to do with me personally. I will not benefit from the amendment one way or the other.
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the member for Karama continues to interject with lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw, please, minister.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. She continues to interject with mistruths.
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Karama!
Mr TOLLNER: You continually cant on and twist the intent of this bill. This bill was presented to the government by the Remuneration Tribunal. It is a recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal.
Ms Lawrie: What about the amendment?
Mr TOLLNER: The amendment is a recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. Get outside, get on the telephone, ring them up and ask them, member for Karama, if you are so interested, rather than throwing mud at all your parliamentary colleagues. You are a disgrace. You are a disgusting person. Get outside and ring the Remuneration Tribunal …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. What I said may well have been a fact ...
Ms Fyles: We are just telling you to bring it back and go through the process.
Mr TOLLNER: We are going through the process. We intend to go through the process.
In relation to the interim determination, it is a recommendation by the Remuneration Tribunal. Secondly, the next point where you are wrong is the Chief Minister cannot act unilaterally. The Chief Minister can only act upon receiving a recommendation from the Remuneration Tribunal in order to make an interim determination …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: This is what we are debating. We are about to pass a bill where all of this stuff will come out, but you seem to have your fingers in your ears and you do not want to hear it ...
Ms Lawrie: Show us.
Mr TOLLNER: Get on the phone and ring the Remuneration Tribunal. I have just told you it is a last-minute amendment …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, opposition members! The minister will be heard while he is responding.
Mr TOLLNER: … recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 241: Table the letter from the RTD saying it is its recommendation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, member for Nightcliff.
Ms Manison: Does it exist?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, opposition members. The members for Casuarina, Wanguri and Nightcliff are all on a warning. The minister will be heard in respectful silence.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just reliably informed that the Remuneration Tribunal Chair has just been on the phone to the Leader of the Opposition explaining this to him.
Ms Fyles: No, that is not …
Mr TOLLNER: Talk to the Opposition Leader before you say, ‘No, it is not true’. Ask him whether he has just talked to the Chair of the Remuneration Tribunal.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say thank you to all of the members who have contributed, as puerile as some of their comments may have been. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the consideration in detail stage amendments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in detail:
Clauses 1 to 6:
Mr WOOD: You are amending section 2 of the act. I have the existing act amended here. Under definitions you have added ‘former member’, see Part 2 section 4AA. Is that correct?
Mr TOLLNER: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: I must now refer to something further on; the amendment is up the front but the discussion about what it means is further down. It says under 4AA, in relation to who a former member is:
- The tribunal must also, on the Administrator’s request, inquire into, or inquire into and determine, an entitlement for a person (a former member) who, after the commencement of this section, ceases to hold office as an Assembly member; and
(a) who was first elected as an Assembly member at the general election held in 2005 or at a later election; and
(b) who is not, after ceasing to be an Assembly member, entitled to receive payment of a pension or superannuation benefit related to the former member’s office as an Assembly member.
Minister, are there limitations on that? For example, the ex-member for Katherine, Fay Miller, retired. Do these payments go back? If they do not, where in the legislation does it say this is only limited to members of this Assembly?
Mr TOLLNER: I draw your attention to the section you quoted, 4AA(a). Fundamentally it is a matter for the tribunal to determine who is an eligible member and who is not. There is a lot of clarity provided in that section of the bill.
Mr WOOD: The clarity is what I am trying to get out. I should not pick on the member for Katherine; it is not fair. If a member has left a previous Assembly due to retiring – we are talking about voluntary retirement. Can any member who has retired since 2005 be included in this payment?
Mr TOLLNER: Technically, yes, but it is my understanding that there are no members in that circumstance, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I am a bit confused. We are talking about voluntary retirement.
Mr TOLLNER: Technically you are right, if that situation existed. I am led to believe that this is not a circumstance. There are no members who were elected after the 2005 election who have voluntarily retired.
You are thinking of the former member for Katherine, but that was an involuntary retirement and there was a payout attached to that. It is separate from this. This bill currently does not apply to former members. Technically, if there was, then it would, but the reality is that there are none.
Clauses 1 to 6 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr GUNNER: I need to ask a question of the Treasurer after the horrific verballing of the Remuneration Tribunal and my conversation with the Remuneration Tribunal. Today I spoke to two members of the Remuneration Tribunal, neither of whom said this consideration in detail stage amendment was a recommendation from them.
We supported the bill as it stands. It was based on a report from the Remuneration Tribunal. The consideration in detail stage amendment circulated last night gives the Chief Minister way too much power and goes beyond the Remuneration Tribunal’s report. That is the point I put to both members of the Remuneration Tribunal, and in our conversation neither of them said this consideration in detail stage amendment was a recommendation from them. If it was, they did not tell me. They said the bill, as it stands, was based on the recommendations. I explained to them exactly why we do not support this amendment, why we believe it gives the Chief Minister too much power and why we believe it goes beyond the bounds of their report.
There was a horrific verballing of the Remuneration Tribunal by the Treasurer, and of a conversation I had with them which he was not privy to. We support the bill as it stands based on the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal. We do not support these amendments.
I want the Treasurer to explain how he can talk about a conversation which he was not privy to, how it applies to this clause, and how this can be a recommendation of the RTD when neither of the members of the RTD said it was.
Mr ELFERINK: I have to declare my interest in this, but moving on from that I advise that I have spoken to Michael Martin, who is on the tribunal. I have deliberately stayed away from this bill as much as I could from the get-go. However, last week Michael Martin from the tribunal contacted me and said there was an expectation in the tribunal that the existing power – the power this amendments deals with is a power that exists now – was anticipated to be used by the tribunal as an interim order to be issued until the next tribunal meets.
I asked a couple of questions about that because of my role as the Leader of the Government Business, and I discovered that the amendment sought to remove that power, which was never the intention of the tribunal. That is the advice I received from Michael Martin.
As a consequence, I have spoken to Michael Martin on a number of occasions and he said he would seek to use the interim power he thought already existed, which it does right now. That power is there right now.
The bill has the effect of removing that power, but because of the timing – this was supposed to pass last year but it did not for whatever reason.
Mr VOWLES: Your stuff up.
Mr ELFERINK: I will not enter into a slanging match; I will just try to explain it. For whatever reason, it did not pass last year. It was always the expectation of the tribunal to be able to write to the Chief Minister and have him exercise that interim power. That is how the conversation started a week ago, and that was the first time I involved myself in this process. I have only done so because I am the Leader of Government Business.
The consequence of that is that the amendment to the bill seeks to restore the power that is in the bill right now. The reason Michael Martin explained to me was so they could make an interim recommendation to the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister could exercise the power he already has. The problem is, because I became involved at such a late stage, this issue only became apparent recently. There is no wickedness or skulduggery. I am comfortable in making this assertion on behalf of the Chief Minister: if the Chief Minister chooses to exercise the power he has now – the bill removes the power and we seek to amend the bill so it restores that power he already has – the Chief Minister will not exercise that power unless he has, in writing, a recommendation from the tribunal to do so.
I am sure the Chief Minister will stand and make that assurance. That places the bill in exactly the same place we, legislatively, are now. There is no skulduggery or wickedness; there is nothing else like that. There is, however, an issue of timing. Under the current rules, if it lies on the table the next tribunal will not meet, and the equitable problem the tribunal was trying to deal with does not manifest.
At every stage this is the tribunal trying to deal with what it considers to be an inequity problem. This is a mechanism for it to be done. It is a mechanism that has existed since this legislation came into the House. I think Paul Henderson was the person who introduced it.
The power has always been there; this is just an attempt to restore it so the tribunal’s recommendation can become subject to an interim order, and that is it; there is nothing more than that. I did not want to engage in this debate, but because of my role as the Leader of Government Business I became involved at a late stage, and so I had to declare my interest.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, we have not received the advice from the independent Remuneration Tribunal which the member for Port Darwin has received. If this advice existed a week ago, attempts could have been made to have this discussion then. I have spoken to members of the Remuneration Tribunal today. Our interpretation, based on the advice we received since this was given to us late last night, is that it goes too far and gives the Chief Minister too much power.
I do not want to verbal the Remuneration Tribunal, but I had two conversations with them today and I did not walk away from those conversations with the understanding that this was a recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. The original bill, which we have had since late last year, was. That is a long time; we have had this bill, based on the recommendations of our independent Remuneration Tribunal, since late last year. Our understanding is based on the report of the Remuneration Tribunal, the bill as it was introduced last year and my conversations with the Remuneration Tribunal today and on previous occasions. We would support the bill as it stands, without the consideration in detail stage amendment. This amendment before us is new to all that process.
The CLP’s understanding of it does not appear to be our understanding, and on that basis we simply cannot support it.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the Opposition Leader if he would be happy to support this amendment, bearing in mind it is about allowing the equitable position this bill creates into the future, and allowing an interim determination to be made by the Chief Minister, if the Chief Minister was to now give an ironclad guarantee that he will not act on this until he has received written advice from the Remuneration Tribunal to make an interim determination.
I understand that you cannot, for whatever reason, trust the words of people on this side of the House. But if you have an ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister – he can only exercise this prior to the election because after the election this will come into force in any case. If he is to make an interim determination prior to the election and does not receive advice from the Remuneration Tribunal, you can make an election issue of it, given that he would have breached his own word. Would that satisfy you as an interim measure until we are past the election?
Member for Fannie Bay, the other thing I should highlight is, yes, you know there are a couple of members retiring at the next election, but we do not know with certainty that they will be the only members. There could well be others in this place who choose to retire before the next election. If we do not make this amendment we will unfairly penalise them. I will not be a beneficiary of this amendment, so one way or the other it is no skin off my nose. It is also no skin off the noses of the members for Karama and Nelson. But other members in this Chamber may, in the next couple of months, choose not to recontest in the election. Some equity should be shown to them, bearing in mind that you agree with the fundamentals of this bill. If there was an ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister, at least you have something to hold him to account to at the election.
Mr GUNNER: I will counter that proposal with an alternative, which is to allow the bill to be adjourned and brought back on for debate in March, to allow me to work with my team and the cross bench to get advice from the independent Remuneration Tribunal.
Mr TOLLNER: Opposition Leader, I am quite prepared to comply with that. There is no skulduggery involved here. We are not trying to twist the system in any way. We would appreciate some bipartisan support on this issue. If there is any possibility of bipartisan support arising from further deliberations with the Remuneration Tribunal, I will be more than happy to put this on hold until we come back in March.
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to do that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I put on the record that as an Independent member of parliament in this Chamber I came to work this morning knowing nothing about what we are talking about today. The opposition should feel grateful that it found out something at 10 pm last night, as opposed to an Independent member such as me – and I suspect other Independents might be in the same boat – knowing nothing. This, again, is an issue of respect and recognising that the Independents hold the balance of power in this parliament, theoretically.
I cannot agree to the proposed amendment. I cannot agree to this proceeding because there has been no consultation with me and, I suspect, other Independents. It is unfair to run government like this. It is not critical that this goes through parliament today. It can be put off, as the Opposition Leader just said. An ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister means absolutely nothing. My experience indicates that an ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister is not worth the paper it is written on.
Ms Walker: Worthless.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is absolutely worthless!
This is about golden handshakes for the boys – three so far. It is about tardiness and messing up the tabling of this bill in parliament at the end of last year. The CLP government should have put it to the vote at the end of last year. It was tardy; it messed up again, and here we are having this bizarre conversation about amending this bill and ironclad guarantees from the Chief Minister. This is not an appropriate way to run a government. We are talking about $100 000 golden handshakes to people in the CLP government. That is the crux of what this is about, which I have to question.
To most Territorians, $100 000 is a lot of money. It could mean the difference between their kids going to one school or another, or getting through the year with a car that goes or one that does not. For us to just accept this feeble explanation from a CLP government which, from all accounts, is crumbling, is a train wreck – they could not even organise the latest remuneration determination to go through parliament as it normally would, within the required time frames. It is appalling. I cannot agree to anything to do with this proposal by the government.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. The behaviour of my former CLP colleagues continues to astound me. They have lowered themselves to the lowest, particularly over the last six months. Just when you think it cannot get any worse, it does. Even though it might seem, in the scheme of things, a fairly minor issue, it is an example of a government that is in ruins and cannot organise a standard bill to go through parliament within the required time frames.
I will not be accepting any ironclad guarantee from the Chief Minister when it comes to this.
Mr WOOD: After last night I really did not want a morning like this. I was hoping it would be quiet and we would debate normal bills. There is a stack of them that I thought would be debated today.
This one popped up and I looked at my sitting program for yesterday. I think it was down at number seven. I did not even look at it; I was more worried about whether we were going to debate Cash for Containers. I spoke to the department about it. Then out this comes and all of a sudden the rain comes down.
The member for Port Darwin has been negotiating, which is fair enough. I am not knocking him. He has asked me about it. I have been talking to Mick Martin and other people about it, trying to get information on it, and in the end I am totally confused.
I support the principle, but we have to be a bit careful. We have a three-person tribunal which we set up to take our hands off any decisions about our wages. I said to the media the other day that when a politician puts his hand up for a pay rise he can never win. This does not affect me. I am on the old pension system. I am not coming from a point of view of something I will get from this legislation.
Even though some of us are well paid, some members of the public service are well paid. There are school principals on the same wage as I am. They will get long service leave, holiday pay, sick pay and other benefits that we do not get. My argument is that some remuneration is fair. The amount of that remuneration is not for me to decide. That is why we have a tribunal. We also have a set of laws in this act which enable the tribunal to provide a report to the parliament and go through a process of six days, then 10 days disallowance. It also has to go to the Administrator.
I do not want to go through all those technical things; it only makes me more confused. We have a section in the act which gives power to the Chief Minister to do certain things. What has confused me this morning is that on one hand the original change was that ‘an entitlement of a former member’ was to be added to section 5 of the act and the words ‘additional salary of office’ were to be deleted. This then popped up this morning which omits ‘other than the basic salary or additional salary of office’. Then I got an e-mail which said, ‘Looking at the amendments to the act it appears the minister’s power is changing from him now not being able to make a minister’s determination about additional salary of office. The amending bill removes that prohibition but he will be constrained and not be able to make a determination about a former member’s entitlement – see 7, s5 amended.’
I am lost. I know some of these things are difficult, and I do my best to get through legislation that is well beyond me in legal terms, but I get advice. I have been getting advice at a rate of knots, which has not given me a chance to think about this or ring a few more people. I appreciate the comments from Mick Martin, and I appreciate the comments from the member for Port Darwin, but I am at a loss, in some ways, to be able to definitively say that I support this or that I do not. I am not sitting on the fence; I am just a bit confused.
I understand that the Chief Minister can act under this section if the tribunal – and he promised he would not act unless the tribunal gave him support for this change. I know the tribunal supports the change. I would prefer it if the tribunal gave me a letter and the Chief Minister gave me a signed letter saying all the things people have told me verbally. I know there are concerns about guarantees, but if we have it in writing and signed that is good.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it should go to March, but I am concerned that we normally have a disallowance period of 10 days. There should be some disallowance period, even if it a couple of days. For argument’s sake, maybe there was a mistake. That is the whole idea of disallowance. Maybe there was an error or someone had second thoughts. You need a disallowance period. I do not know if you can squeeze that in between March and the last sittings.
The clause we are dealing with is the crux of this debate. I get to you sometimes for not voting this way or that, and usually I do that because I have another opinion. I have always said you can have three or four opinions in this House; you do not have to be on that side or that side, and that is the freedom of being a crossbencher. However, I am having difficulty handling this bill coming up with a reasoned decision. I understand the principles behind what we are trying to do, but I want to make sure the public is satisfied that this decision is not being made by the members of parliament, that it is made by the tribunal and all the Chief Minister does under the act is act as a delegate of the tribunal’s decision.
I would like to see some of that in writing and see some period of disallowance, and maybe something in writing from the Chief Minister saying he will allow a number of days, because that is important. Shortcuts can be dangerous, and 10 days is a fair time for disallowance. It should be a couple of days at least; by that time we will know the bill and it would give us some breathing space. It was a bad move by the government to introduce this in such a hurry. It was number seven on yesterday’s Notice Paper. Usually I can see what is coming up, so I was printing the container deposit legislation, which was number two yesterday. This one came as a shock.
If the government and the opposition believe this can be adjourned until the next sittings it will give me time to pull my thoughts together, ring people, discuss it with the Clerk or with both sides of parliament and then I can make a reasonable decision. At the moment I have not made a decision and am happy for this to be adjourned.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, it important to speak, particularly after the commentary by the member for Araluen. Let us bring things back a little. Last year the tribunal made a determination that should a member of parliament not be elected in a subsequent term, the resettlement allowance, if you want to call it that, would go from three months’ salary to eight months’ salary. It has nothing to do with me and I do not have an opinion on it. When that determination was made, there was an error in the legislation, to bring this back to simple terms.
Ms Fyles: But it took until 10 pm last night to tell us.
Mr GILES: No, the error in the legislation is why this bill is up in the first place. The error is this: if a member’s electorate is discontinued, such as the electorate of Greatorex, which is being discontinued, or if a member chooses to retire voluntarily, they do not receive that settlement allowance. This does not apply to me because I am running for parliament. If I lose my seat the allowance comes to me anyway. This issue does not apply to 21 people in this Chamber. It does not apply to the members for Nelson or Karama because they are on the old superannuation scheme.
It is different for you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am naming you as the member for Greatorex because your electorate is being discontinued. It also affects the member for Port Darwin because he said he will not run again. The legislation before us, putting aside the smaller amendment, will remove that anomaly to say that if your electorate is discontinued or you choose to retire, everybody is the same, apart from the two on the old super scheme. They have the preserved benefit model.
That is all this is about, nothing more, nothing less. Whether it should be a rate of three months’ or eight months’ salary is a different conversation and is for the tribunal to decide; it is independent of government. The tribunal determination always comes to me as Chief Minister because it falls within my portfolio. I then bring it to parliament and it sits there. You can have a disallowance period, and then it goes forward. When we identified the anomaly, through the tribunal, we were going to raise it in the last sittings of last year, but we did not want to do it on urgency and be accused of trying to rush it through. So we introduced it and have brought it forward now.
Since that time it has been identified that there is an error within the bill. The error within the bill, which is what this smaller, late amendment is about, removes the ability for the Chief Minister to make that determination. The approval for the Chief Minister to make the determination is always there, so every time a recommendation has come from the tribunal in the past, it was me who made the determination in parliament, and it sits on the Table.
The amendment that was put forward last year removed that allowance. All we are trying to do with this little amendment is to bring that ability back. That is all it is. I am not getting into the conversation about pay, salary benefits and that sort of thing; I am not talking about that. I am talking about the process of how this works.
Yes, the amendment was brought in to fix an anomaly with two electorates. Currently there are three schemes which operate when a politician leaves parliament. We will not get that down to one scheme until the members for Karama and Nelson are no longer in this Chamber, whenever that may be. By passing this bill with a small amendment we can get it back to two schemes. It is as simple as that.
Whether I sign a letter saying I will not make a determination or otherwise – I did not make one yesterday or the day before. I only make them when recommendations come in from the tribunal. Those of us who have been around long enough know the process and how this works. This is merely …
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: Sorry, member for Nightcliff? That was offensive language.
This is merely trying to move from having three models to two models. That is all it is.
It is bringing back the ability for me to table the determination so it can go through, keeping in mind there is an election on 27 August. Member for Greatorex, you are affected on the third tier because the electorate of Greatorex is being cancelled, so you are not part of the second scheme, and the member for Port Darwin has announced his retirement. Should anybody else wish to retire it will make sense for them, hypothetically, to not announce it but try to run and then have the party not endorse you, because that is a back way of you fitting into the second category rather than the third.
Hypothetically, to explain that further, if I did not want to run again I could ring the party and say, ‘I will put my name up, but do not pick me’, so I fit into category two instead of category three. There is a workaround in the system. We do not want workarounds. We want more of a level playing field, understanding that the members for Karama and Nelson are there until the end of their career. If we fix this today, which I am asking others to support, then we get back to two systems rather than three. It is that simple.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not heard anyone talk against the principle of the bill. The equity of a separation payment was set in an understanding by the tribunal which is independent. The tribunal independently set the period of the separation payment. It has captured the different choices members have in separating as representatives of their electorate. Where the rubber is hitting the road and getting stuck, Chief Minister, is the consideration in detail stage amendment.
We have had one explanation from the Treasurer and a slightly different explanation from the member for Port Darwin. That is my perception; I am allowed to have a perception. I heard you, Chief Minister, explain that the member for Greatorex attracts it because his seat is being redistributed, whereas my recollection is that the member for Greatorex announced his retirement before that. Regardless, it would give effect to a separation payment, which is fair.
What members have expressed a concern about, Chief Minister, is that we have not had the opportunity – I have not had the opportunity as an Independent member of parliament – to scrutinise the consideration in detail stage amendment and seek advice from the independent Remuneration Tribunal about the remit of it. Is the scope too broad? Is the scope bang on? What is it? Is it kosher or is it not? I do not know.
Listening to the debate, I have heard the Treasurer reassure the Chamber that the tribunal recommended this and that the Leader of the Opposition knew that because he spoke to the tribunal this morning. I then heard the Leader of the Opposition say to the Treasurer in the Chamber this morning that he believes he and the members of the tribunal have been verballed, and that was not the conversation he had with the tribunal members this morning.
Chief Minister, there is deep concern with the lack of process to scrutinise it or have anything in writing from the tribunal members on the scope of powers this amendment will give effect to. I am pleased that maturity has been shown in the Chamber this morning as a result of these concerns. The Opposition Leader put forward a sensible suggestion of dealing with this in May, giving every member an opportunity to be satisfied with the Remuneration Tribunal’s views, because it is independent, and the Treasurer showed maturity in accepting that; he thought that was a good thing. The Leader of Government Business also seemed to acquiesce.
We can get on with the rest of the business of today and sort this out by following a process that is fair to every member, sharing the same level of knowledge.
I repeat that I am in support of the intent of a separation payment for members of parliament. Public servants would have accrued annual leave. Public servants may have clocked up enough years to have accrued long service leave. Politicians do not get those conditions of employment; hence, the Remuneration Tribunal has determined access to separation payments. We can sort this out in March.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty the members have had. There has been a bit of interplay on both sides. I did not realise there was an objection to the proposed amendment to the bill until immediately prior to parliament sitting. It had not been signalled. There is no skulduggery here. I have spoken to Michael Martin. This issue did not become enlivened until – in my role as Leader of Government Business it is my job to manage the bill through the House – I spoke to Michael Martin, about a week ago. It was clearly in his mind that the power which exists now – so members are clear, the irony of this bill is that it gets rid of one impediment to the recommendations of the tribunal and creates another because of timing.
This amendment is to remove that second impediment to the current power that exists now. I have spoken to Michael Martin and he indicated that there was always an intention, as far as he is concerned, to exercise this recommendation so the power that exists would be used. The loss of the power in the bill was lost sight of. This amendment seeks to restore the power. As a consequence of that, this all happened at the last moment. I found out last week, and then there was a weekend. You then have to get legal opinions from SFNT and have an amendment drafted. That is why the timings are what they are.
If I had known in advance that this would cause push back from the opposition and other members, I would certainly have – that is why we made a briefing available at least to the Leader of the Opposition – been dealing with that issue. However, it is what it is. The best thing to do at this stage would be to adjourn the consideration in detail debate and come back in March.
Debate adjourned.
REORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, I move that government business be reordered to bring on Order of the Day No 7, which is the continuation of the motion to note the October Business Month statement.
VISITORS
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Stuart Park Primary School. Is that correct? Being from Alice Springs I do not recognise the uniforms. They are accompanied by Ros Coggan, Carolyn Gabrielle and Ildiko Sarmanya. I welcome you all to Parliament House.
MOTION
Note Statement – October Business Month
Note Statement – October Business Month
Continued from 19 November 2015.Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for choosing to bring on this motion. It is a great motion and is certainly worth noting. I pay tribute to the Minister for Business for the fantastic job he and his department did in organising another fantastic October Business Month.
Mr Wood: Have you recharged your batteries from last night, minister for Duracell?
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson wants to pull on the boxing gloves. He cannot help himself. I think he is punch drunk, but he is back here having another go.
Mr Wood: I could not go a day without you, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: Good on you, member for Nelson. It is great to see your zeal for the job has not died.
Mr Wood: I love getting done by you.
Mr TOLLNER: It is interesting that the member for Nelson is interjecting on a business debate. It is not often you hear the member for Nelson talking about business or being pro-business.
Mr Wood: I know. I have knocked on a few doors and they are all going broke.
Mr TOLLNER: You will find, member for Nelson, there are businesses in your electorate that deserve representation as well as all those anti-business people you represent.
You would not want to be a developer in the member for Nelson’s electorate. He was attacking them in debates last night. He attacked that angle of the …
Mr Wood: No, I did not. I am making you stay honest.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, you fundamentally suggested that you cannot trust developers and politicians. He could have said that political parties should not get money from alcohol or cigarette producers, or people who produce firearms, or any number of sins, but for some reason the member for Nelson picked on developers.
He said we have to copy New South Wales. We will pick on developers because they pick on them in New South Wales. I can understand why the member for Nelson is quite prepared to pick on developers because I cannot imagine there would be too many developers in the Northern Territory coughing up political donations to the member for Nelson. He certainly has not made himself a friend of the developers ...
Mr Wood: I do not need the donations, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not suggesting you need donations, member for Nelson, but you point out that you are not a supporter in any way, shape or form of the development sector.
Mr Wood: Rubbish.
Mr TOLLNER: Why would you come into this House and start attacking developers?
Mr Wood: I did not attack them.
Mr TOLLNER: Mate, I saw it as a full-frontal assault on the Territory’s developers, suggesting they should not be able to have any kind of relationship and that we should mirror the New South Wales legislation, which has all come out of the ICAC, which the member for Nelson supports having in the Northern Territory.
I was in New South Wales last year. My sister lives there, and I caught up with her in the middle of Sydney. I happened to be wearing a McArthur River Mining Golf Day shirt and she said, ‘Wow, what are you doing with that shirt on?’ I said, ‘I went to a charity golf day there’. She said, ‘It has that logo on it’. I said, ‘What logo?’ She said, ‘The McArthur River mining logo’. I said, ‘Yes, they’re the ones who hosted the golf day’. She said, ‘I just can’t believe it. You’re the Treasurer of the Northern Territory and you are wearing that shirt. That is illegal in New South Wales.’ Politicians and public servants are not allowed to wear shirts with any company branding on them at all because that, in New South Wales, is deemed to be improper ...
Mr Wood: What does this have to do with my bill?
Mr TOLLNER: It has to do with your attacks on developers. It is all part and parcel of that same thinking in New South Wales where they attack developers. I am trying to think of the developer who wrote a big article in The Australian not so long ago saying how that policy has affected the development sector in New South Wales. It is alarming.
This fellow’s article contended that it is almost impossible for a developer to meet with a politician either in a federal, state or local government area. Because of the ICAC inquiries no politician would be seen dead meeting with a developer in New South Wales. He said it has had a detrimental effect on the development sector in New South Wales. They cannot personally approach a person in local government or be seen to be approaching a politician or, in many cases, a bureaucrat. Under that circumstance …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a statement on October Business Month. It is quite wide-ranging, but, Treasurer, if you can keep to the point.
Mr TOLLNER: It is very wide-ranging, but I will comment on some of the things happening in our immediate environment, that is, this Chamber, and the impact they have on business.
There have been some detrimental impacts from the legislation they have in New South Wales, member for Nelson. I fully understand why you have seized on it because the last thing you want to see in your area is developers and …
Mr Wood: How do you think Coolalinga is going?
Mr TOLLNER: Every time there is a development application you oppose it. Oddly enough, you did not oppose the prison; you supported that.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Would you ask the minister to withdraw that statement? It is not true.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, but without a doubt, you did not want to see the prison development. I think you campaigned for the prison to stay at Berrimah, but then you changed your mind and saw that development go ahead in your electorate. Similar to the workers’ camp – you did not want a workers’ camp anywhere near your electorate, but you changed your mind and allowed INPEX to put one in your electorate.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Not only relevance, but I do not have to listen to this; it is inaccurate – I would like to use a swear word. It is not what this motion is about. I do not have to put up with this tirade of misinformation. You must have written the ice ad.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am simply responding to interjections from the member for Nelson.
You are dead right. You do not have to listen to it. You can up stumps and leave. I am only saying these things because you keep baiting me and throwing out these wild things. You invite debate and discussion, and then you say you do not like what I am saying about you and you should not have to listen to it. My suggestion is this: do not interrupt me when I am making a speech about business. I am pro-business. I think most people, on this side of the Chamber at least, are pro-business. I am warranted in saying that. I am looking around and I do not see any anti-business people. I do not think we have any people here who are anti-development or anti-developers. I do not know whether people on this side want to see a ban on political donations from developers.
Some people on this side might agree on a ban of political donations from cigarette companies, alcohol companies or whatever, but what is the issue with developers? Why do you specifically target them, member for Nelson? They are part of our business community. I know that in many circles developers do not enjoy a very good reputation, but I have always admired people who are prepared to build things and achieve something. One man’s rubbish is another man’s treasure; it is true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that sort of stuff.
Many people protest about small blocks, but there are also many people who like to buy small blocks. Horses for courses and each to their own. Fundamentally, whether it is small blocks or big blocks, most of it would not happen without the ingenuity, entrepreneurship and enterprise of developers. The member for Nelson abhors the idea of developers who make money, for some reason.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. We are going nowhere near October Business Month and what he is saying is simply untrue. He thinks if he repeats something time and time again people will believe it. Get on with the subject. Mr Deputy Speaker, could you ask the member to talk about October Business Month? The rest is diatribe.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you feel you have been wronged you can make a personal explanation later. Treasurer, I ask you to bring it back to somewhere between September and November.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, of course. I am probably unduly singling out the member for Nelson for criticism, but I get constant interjections coming across the Chamber. Barely do I get two words out and the member for Nelson is diving at me, hitting me with a cricket bat …
Mr Styles: Figuratively speaking.
Mr TOLLNER: Figuratively speaking, of course …
Mr Wood: The minister for Duracell – he goes on and on.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, please desist from interjecting. I will try to steer my comments away from you specifically and look at the greater issue.
October Business Month has been a rip-roaring success for the last two decades. Is it 21 years?
Mr Styles: Yes, 21 years last year.
Mr TOLLNER: Last year it was 21 years. I have always said, even when I was the Minister for Business, when you put on an event like October Business Month, it lasts through several Country Liberal governments, through several Labor governments and then through another Country Liberal government. It has to be something worth supporting. It is supported by both sides of politics, fundamentally because of its popularity amongst business people.
Business people tend to get an enormous amount of quality information from October Business Month. It allows them to network and focus more on the mechanics of their business. The Business minister said that, for that period of time, it allows business people to focus on their business rather than being involved in their business. They can get out and get the helicopter view of their business, make strategic decisions and get some good intellectual information about how they might adapt their business to changing environments.
That is important because we are going through an economic transition, not just in the Northern Territory but globally. I must stress that we have some troubling economic headwinds coming our way. A casual observer could tell you that people are very nervous all around the world with what the future holds. We see the turmoil in Europe and the turmoil created by the Greek meltdown and that it is overburdened with debt and deficit. We see problems in Italy, Portugal, Spain and virtually every part of Europe. Even the economic power house of Germany is now struggling under the weight of the refugee crisis in Europe. I read last night that there are uprisings in the streets because of refugee and Syrian issues emerging in Europe.
All that obviously has an impact on the economy and on business. These days, more than ever at any time in history, we are more connected globally. We see the problems in the US, which is coming up to a presidential election. There is a lot of turmoil in the US. We have seen the US come out of recession and it seems to be heading in the right direction, but the future is still quite shaky for American citizens as well.
China is moving from a manufacturing base to a service base. We have seen reductions in its economic growth, which has had a major impact in Australia, particularly on our resources industry. The world glut of oil and gas, on one hand, is fantastic as it has brought down fuel prices and energy costs around the world. But that is a double-edged sword because it impacts us in the Northern Territory. The Territory, which sees much of its future being based around energy-based industries, is now having to deal with the problem of low commodity prices for oil and gas. We are on the horns of a dilemma in the Northern Territory.
The federal government is still coping with those years of Rudd and Gillard, where they blew every asset belonging to government. Every fund that had been put away has been spent, and we now see ourselves heading for a $600bn debt and a $50bn budget deficit, numbers that are almost too high to imagine.
The Northern Territory budget derives 80% of its income from the federal government and Australian taxes, so we know there is a bumpy ride in store for us. The government has tried to diversify our economy and business. We are not a one-trick pony like the previous government, which put all its time, energy and focus into the INPEX project. Good on them; it was a good project. The problem with the previous government was that it took its eye off the ball in so many areas.
The previous government had the view that the Northern Territory should be one big national park. They did everything they could to kill our agricultural and pastoral industries, and to get in the way of mining. It was impossible to clear land. It was impossible to extract water. They did their level best to close down agricultural research facilities and the like. They gutted that entire industry, putting all of their eggs in the oil and gas basket. Interestingly enough they allowed 95% of the Northern Territory to have onshore gas exploration applications on it.
Interestingly, in the last couple of days we have learnt that the Labor Party in the Northern Territory has done a 180 degree turn on that policy. They have recently suggested they will have a moratorium. Many people are waiting to see what happens this weekend at the Labor conference. We all believe they will demand a five-year moratorium. A five-year moratorium will basically tell our onshore oil and gas industry to pack up and leave the Northern Territory.
These are very worrying times for business in the Northern Territory, particularly those in remote and regional areas which depend on industries like mining, agriculture and tourism to see development in their areas. Infrastructure is critical. Mining companies, gas exploration companies and the pastoral sector all do their bit in building a case for infrastructure, roads and bridges to connect the Territory. To say there are industries we do not want in the Northern Territory just makes it that much harder to create infrastructure opportunities.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Application of Standing Order 31
Application of Standing Order 31
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Fong Lim concerning the application of Standing Order 31 in the context of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in Question Time about media reports relating to the actions of the Deputy Chief Minister.
It is a long-standing practice in this Assembly that a member cannot allege another member has misled the Assembly or lied about a matter unless the member’s conduct is dealt with by way of substantive motion.
Standing Order 31, however, does not prohibit the asking of questions during Question Time about allegations of behaviour and matters reported in the media. Members may not impute that another member is lying when asking their question. I have reviewed the record as I said I would.
On a number of occasions yesterday during Question Time the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Deputy Chief Minister and asked, through points of order, when the Chief Minister knew about the Deputy Chief Minister’s conflict of interest. These, I understand, are the words the Treasurer brought to my attention and sought a ruling on.
Honourable members, in the context of the questions asked and the matters raised, the Leader of the Opposition was relying upon media reports. However, the point was made by the Treasurer that these are allegations and the occurrence of a conflict of interest has not been determined. Therefore I request that members couch their language in the context of the matter being considered.
If it is an alleged event please use the word ‘alleged’. Unless the member has agreed, admitted or been factually found to have done something, it should not be imputed that they have done it.
Yesterday in his question to the Deputy Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition said:
- By your own admissions today you have clearly breached your own Ministerial Code of Conduct. When will you do the right thing and resign?
The Leader of the Opposition was depending upon an admission he considered had been made. Members will recall I sought advice, and after consideration I ruled the question in order. The minister in his answer said:
- I have not received any personal advantage from the work I have done as the Primary Industry minister – none whatsoever. You would think if I had some personal advantage to declare it would be because I had some financial or pecuniary interest in investment, and that does not exist.
After considering the standing orders and the decorum of the Assembly, I ask members to use caution and context when commenting in this House about other members. This applies across the board; therefore, when I hear imputations about the conduct and character of any member made by any other member at any time during debates, I will apply the same rule.
MOTION
Censure of Deputy Chief Minister
Censure of Deputy Chief Minister
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, whose behaviour in pursuing his personal business interests has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct, specifically sections 3.1 and 8.8; potentially breached the Criminal Code, specifically section 77; and brought the reputation of the Northern Territory into disrepute locally, nationally and internationally, and further damaged business confidence.
The Deputy Chief Minister has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The Deputy Chief Minister has potentially breached the Criminal Code. These are serious and grave allegations. The Code of Conduct the Deputy Chief Minister should be living by provides a very commonsense guide to individual responsibility, Cabinet confidentiality and conflicts of interest. The minister has breached all these codes in his actions and his words:
I will quote from the preamble to the code:
- Merely avoiding breaking the law will not always be enough to guarantee an acceptable standard of conduct. The Ministers must not only act lawfully but also in a manner which withstands the closest public scrutiny and which has regard to prevailing community values and standards.
A minister’s actions are held to a higher level of scrutiny. The Deputy Chief Minister’s defence is that he did nothing, when actually he did do things. That is the problem, and the cause of the breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and potential breaches of the Criminal Code.
The Deputy Chief Minister met the CT Group to pursue a personal business interest at the same time he was pursuing a government agenda with it. He took out a bank loan, signed a contract, met the CT Group and briefed it on a tender. All these actions of the Deputy Chief Minister are critical.
None of these actions are in dispute as they are all agreed events. They matter because, according to section 3.1 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, as soon as there is a conflict of personal and professional interest you are meant to:
- … advise the Chief Minister immediately of any private interests.
Yet for eight months the minister pursued both a personal agenda and a government agenda with the CT Group. The bank loan and the signing of the contract are critical because they show how far this pursuit of private dealings had advanced when there is meant to be no seeking of advantage, as per section 8.8:
- Ministers are not to use their position improperly to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves, or any other person or entity, not enjoyed by the general public. Ministers are not to use information obtained in the course of their official duties so as to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves or improperly for any other person or entity not enjoyed by the general public.
- Any person who:
(a) being employed in the public service or being the holder of any public office and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment or office, not being a duty touching the administration of justice, corruptly asks for, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of his duties of his office …
Let us be very clear about this because this is the point the minister fails to understand. You are not allowed to seek or attempt to seek personal gain. This is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and a potential breach of the Criminal Code Act. It is not about whether you gained; it is about the attempt, and we know you attempted to gain. You took out a bank loan and signed a contract which you did not send in.
These were deliberate, considered actions after eight months of discussion. During the eight months of discussion and undeclared conflict, you sat down with the CT Group on 15 August to discuss an upcoming government tender. This was eight days before the Chief Minister’s media release advising of the tender. This was a meeting between you, as a minister, with the CT Group at a time when you were also, in a personal capacity, in negotiations to procure a share in Space Ship One mega mall. You were discussing a future government tender.
Section 8.8 of the ministerial code states very clearly:
- Ministers are not to use information obtained in the course of their official duties so as to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves or improperly for any other person or entity not enjoyed by the general public.
This conversation went beyond the bounds. It breached Cabinet confidentiality. Section 2.3 of the code says:
- Effective Cabinet confidentiality requires the protection of Cabinet deliberations not only at the time an issue is current but also into the future, subject to the agreed processes for distribution and announcement of Cabinet outcomes.
This conversation breached any measure of integrity. This is betrayal of common sense, good judgment, community expectations, prudence, the Ministerial Code of Conduct and, potentially, the Criminal Code Act. While acting in your capacity as a minister of the Crown you were stimultalously negotiating a personal business interest and providing a briefing on government work. There is no separation of the personal and private here. The rules are clear in section 3.1 of the code:
- Any conflict of interest between a minister’s private interest and their public duty which arises must be resolved promptly in favour of the public interest.
That occurred six months prior to this meeting. The Criminal Code Act is clear. A public officer must not seek a benefit in their public duties.
Let us work through the sequence of events which occurred so we can make sure the order of events is on the public record.
We know the minister travelled to Vietnam in May 2013 and March 2014. On 9 May 2014 the minister and Mr Chung, President of the CT Group, signed a project facilitation agreement to support the CT Group in its quest for 10 000 ha of land for cultivation for the production of dragon fruit over a 10-year period. The minister put out a press release to this effect. The minister took a trade delegation to Vietnam in December 2014.
As a result of a document tabled in the House yesterday, it is revealed that the minister received a brief of information by e-mail about the Space Ship One mega mall as early as 6 February 2015. The minister responded to this e-mail, asking if there was an end date for expressions of interest in investing in the mega mall. In May 2015 the minister sent Mr Chung from the CT Group an e-mail from his private e-mail address which stated:
- I hope we can spend some time together to discuss the possibility of future investments in Vietnam and look around HCMC or any other place you consider worthwhile.
Please note that I will only use my private e-mail address (this one) for correspondence of this nature between us.
- I would be very pleased if you could assist me with hotel booking for four nights for 5 to 8 July or recommend a hotel for me to stay that is convenient. I will depart on 9 July.
Once I leave HCMC I remain in Vietnam on official business …
The response from Mr Chung was:
- … we will pick you up and of course, we will arrange hotel and all transportation for you for following days.
On 7 August last year the minister participated in a bilateral trade mission to Indonesia to support the live cattle trade. The press release issued that day stated that the minister would be continuing on to Thailand for official duties.
The minister has confirmed that he changed his itinerary in the days before travelling, with the Chief Minister’s verbal approval, to include a courtesy call to the CT Group’s operations in Ho Chi Minh City for an update on the dragon fruit project. The NT News has stated this trip resulted in an additional $2300 in taxpayer expenses for the trip.
On 16 August the minister received a formal shareholder offer from the CT Group in an e-mail stating the following:
- It was good to see you during your recent short trip in Vietnam. As promised, I would like to send you the information package of SS1 Mega Mall as below …
… also appreciated if you can confirm the number of shares you would like to acquire for our better arrangements.
On 22 August the government issued a press release announcing its intention to establish a luxury hotel in Darwin. On 30 August the minister sent another e-mail to Mr Chung from his private e-mail stating:
When we last met
… I mentioned a hotel site that will be released by the government in a short time.
Very soon the expressions of interest will open to develop a luxury five-star hotel on this site …
My e-mail to you is to give you a little early advice of the process.
If you believe you have some further interest in this proposal, please let me know and I will try to provide some further details about the governments’ ‘thinking’ in relation to the site.
This e-mail references their meeting on 15 August 2015. The minister has confirmed that it was:
- … standard practice for government ministers to engage with potential investors who have an interest in the Northern Territory. I sought advice before engaging with the CT Group and this advice was that it was acceptable practice to send basic details as an FYI.
Yesterday the Deputy Chief Minister made a personal explanation to the effect that because a transaction was not completed there was no conflict of interest. That the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister believe this is the case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of their roles as public officials. Their view goes to the heart of what everybody knows about the CLP: they are in it for themselves, their mates and their favourites. That is not on. We all deserve so much better.
The Northern Territory Cabinet Handbook was updated just on a year ago amidst government scandals about ministerial travel, the pensioner concession scheme and former Police Commissioner McRoberts, coups and counter coups, and breaches of Cabinet confidentiality. The Ministerial Code of Conduct is attached to this handbook. The preamble to the code of conduct is very clear. As I have read out, it states that:
- Merely avoiding breaking the law will not always be enough to guarantee an acceptable standard of conduct. Ministers must not only act lawfully but also in a manner which withstands the closest public scrutiny and which has regard to prevailing community values and standards.
The Deputy Chief Minister’s statement in this House perfectly captures his misunderstanding of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
He stated in this House yesterday:
- However, at the end of the day there is no completed contract, no investment and no conflict of interest, end of story.
Unfortunately it is not the end of the story. It remains Territory Labor’s view that the Deputy Chief Minister has breached numerous sections of the ministerial code, and possibly the Criminal Code Act.
Section 3.1 of the code outlines conflict of interest in general terms. I quote:
- Ministers are to advise the Chief Minister immediately of any private interests, pecuniary or non-pecuniary, held by themselves or members of their immediate family of which they are aware, which give rise to (or may potentially give rise to) a conflict with their public duties. Any other matter which may give rise to a conflict between duty and interest must also be declared. Minister’s should adopt a broad interpretation of this requirement. Any conflict of interest between a minister’s private interest and their public duty which arises must be resolved promptly in favour of the public interest.
The Deputy Chief Minister has had a professional relationship with the CT Group since at least May 2014, maybe earlier, as that was the date of the first media announcement about the project collaboration with the NT government. The Deputy Chief Minister had been deliberating investing in the CT Group since at least February 2015, when he reached out to the CT Group shortly after his own failed coup to ask whether there was a time frame to invest in the Space Ship One mega mall.
The Deputy Chief Minister had eight months to declare his potential or perceived conflict of interest because he undertook official government business with the CT Group on at least three occasions – in July, August and December – and the, in the meantime, pursued private interests with a company he met with through his officials for personal gain on at least five occasions before deciding not to invest in the company.
He has breached the code of conduct because he did not disclose his potential or perceived conflict of interest at all, or seek advice about whether his actions constituted a conflict of interest and a breach of his duties as a public official. He reached out to a business offer, got a bank loan for more than $500 000, and he signed a contract. While he did not follow through with the transaction, he did everything but.
Where is the breach? Section 3.2 provides confirmation in this regard. It states:
- Generally a declaration should be made in all cases where an interest exists which could not be said to be shared with the rest of the community or as a member of a broad class of persons … If ministers have any concern about a conflict or a potential conflict of interest in any areas of their responsibilities, they should advise the Chief Minister.
The Deputy Chief Minister made no attempt in the 12 months he was actively considering investing in the CT Group project to declare his interest or seek advice from the Chief Minister. Or did he advise the Chief Minister and was told everything was okay?
That is why knowing when the Chief Minister knew about this is crucial. As we know from the Deputy Chief Minister’s testimony, he, on several occasions, asked the Chief Minister for permission and was granted it.
The Deputy Chief Minister’s actions also constitute a breach of section 8.8:
- Ministers are not to use their position improperly to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves, or any other person or entity, not enjoyed by the general public. Ministers are not to use information obtained in the course of their official duties so as to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves or improperly for any other person or entity not enjoyed by the general public.
The Deputy Chief Minister, in the course of his official duties, was presented with a private opportunity not available to the general public to invest in a significant project in Vietnam. He did not seek advice or proceed with caution. Instead he took out a sizeable bank loan and all but sealed the deal. We do not know why the transaction was not concluded. We do not know where the advice came from or where the sudden intervention occurred, but the intent was certainly there. The Deputy Chief Minister, in the House yesterday, asked the opposition to check its facts about his communications with Mr Chung and the CT Group about the impending EOI for the five-star luxury resort, and we have.
The government announced its intention to proceed with an EOI on its newsroom website on 22 August 2015. According to the e-mails obtained by the NT News, the minister communicated with the CT Group on 30 August to give the heads up about the EOI. The minister failed to mention that his e-mail on 30 August, as per the NT News, stated:
- When we last met I mentioned a hotel site that will be released by the government in a short time.
According to the time line of events already established, the minister had last met with Mr Chung on 15 August 2015, seven days before the government released its statement announcing its intentions for a five-star luxury hotel in Darwin. On radio yesterday morning the minister admitted sending aerial pictures on the e-mail communication advising of the potential site for the hotel. Whether this breached Cabinet confidentiality, and whether it was a breach of the minister’s collective responsibility of the government, needs to be further scrutinised. What was discussed in that meeting on 15 August? What information did the Deputy Chief Minister provide to the CT Group about the thinking of government before the announcement, information that is not available to the general public? The minister at the very least breached section 2.3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which states:
- Effective Cabinet confidentiality requires the protection of Cabinet deliberations not only at the time an issue is current but also into the future, subject to the agreed processes for distribution and announcement of Cabinet outcomes.
What makes the matter worse is that this breach of Cabinet confidentiality appears to have occurred with the permission and support of the Chief Minister, and to have been standard practice. The Chief Minister and the minister did not acknowledge in the House yesterday that the minister had advised the company of the EOI seven days before there was a public announcement. This is a worrying scenario. Did the Chief Minister know the minister was engaging in private business with this company before approving the divulging of Cabinet information, or was the Chief Minister misled about the minister’s relationship with the CT Group? Did he know the Deputy Chief Minister had divulged the information before the public announcement of the EOI?
Yesterday and today, in the House, the opposition asked a series of questions to get to the bottom of yet another scandal and another distraction from prosecuting the government on the delivery of government services. Yesterday the Chief Minister told us that the Deputy Chief Minister has his full support, but he would not tell us when he first became aware that the minister was contemplating investing in a company with which he had a personal and professional relationship, if he was aware of the conflict when he approved the provision of tender information to the CT Group ahead of public release, or whether at any stage he advised his Deputy that he may be in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Criminal Code.
Yesterday the minister refused to resign and said he believed there was no conflict, but he could not tell us whether he had discussed potential shares in the CT Group’s Space Ship One mega mall project at any time on the one-day taxpayer-funded trip to Vietnam on 15 August, the day before he received a formal offer of shares. Today he again refused to rule out whether he discussed the personal purchase of those shares at any stage on that taxpayer-funded trip to Vietnam.
We have asked questions yesterday and today to address the serious questions that remain about what the minister said and when, what the Chief Minister did and when. There are too many unknowns in this woeful tale. The opposition has sought advice from the police because no matter what the Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister say, we have a situation where a public official has attempted to receive a personal benefit through the course of his official duties. This may constitute a breach of the Criminal Code under official corruption. At the very least it is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct for failing to avoid a situation where the minister is perceived to be or is placed in a situation which may give rise to a conflict of interest.
A responsible minister for the Crown would stand aside while investigations take place. A responsible Chief Minister would take immediate action and make the necessary inquiries and investigations into the matter, as Prime Minister Turnbull is doing in a not dissimilar situation. But we do not have a responsible government in the Northern Territory. We have not had one for three-and-a-half years. We have a government which condones the use of public office for private gain. We have another scandal which the CLP is trying to sweep under the carpet while the CLP attempts to survive another day in minority government. The minister must take personal responsibility for his actions and resign.
I disagree with the Chief Minister on many things, but he may have been right when he said the Deputy Chief Minister did not have the ticker or integrity for the job. We believe this minister must resign, and if he will not resign the Chief Minister should sack him. What is the point of a code of conduct when you see behaviour like this go completely undisciplined by a CLP government and Chief Minister?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this censure motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you start to see why there are still schisms between the members opposite when this is the quality of leadership the Leader of the Opposition brings.
The issues he raises here are in a hierarchy. Let us deal with the most serious issue first, which is the proposal before this House that the minister has engaged in what might be a breach of section 77 of the Criminal Code Act.
I remind honourable members that the second-last time this section of the Criminal Code Act made public notoriety was when a gentleman by the name of John Lawler was overseeing the Stella Maris inquiry, which found that improper conduct had effectively been engaged in by making sure benefits flowed directly to a union at the hands of a Labor government which did not in any way go to any expression of interest process.
The problem Mr Lawler had with section 77, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to, is that it refers to the word ‘corruptly’. Mr Lawler said there was no particular definition of ‘corruption’, per se, in the Northern Territory, and as a consequence he was unable to infer actual corruption out of that section. If it did not apply in the Stella Maris case, it certainly will not apply in this instance, so at the first hurdle the Leader of the Opposition has fallen over.
I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that if he chooses to quote sections he must quote them understanding that every section, at law, creates points of proof. To commit an offence you have to commit all the elements of the offence, not just some. You cannot cherry pick a couple of elements and say the offence has been committed. The first hurdle he runs into is the word ‘corruptly’. There is no evidence of corruption here, none whatsoever. Moreover, it then goes on to say in section 77:
- … obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of the duties of his office …
That is, kickbacks.
That is what the section talks about; it does not talk about some vague link. To make out a criminal offence you have to make out exactly what the offence suggests. In what I have heard, no suggestion has been made that there is any causal link between any duty the minister has been asked to engage with, or, alternatively, is obliged to engage with.
Regarding the flirtation the minister made with buying shares in the company, the Leader of the Opposition, in all the 25 minutes he was on his feet, did not establish any causal link whatsoever. That is the reason he failed, in the very first instance, in trying to prosecute the notion that some sort of criminality has been involved in, because it has not.
The first question he asked about attempting to do something also attracts a second hurdle, because at no stage has he said that he has done this. Even the Labor Party acknowledges that this never occurred. The minister involved certainly said, ‘I thought about it. I did something but desisted of my own motion.’ That is the word he used. That comes from section 4 of the Criminal Code.
Let us talk about the nature of attempts. If you are to prosecute the notion of criminality in this place, then you must do it to the standard the courts expect. You cannot just pull some item out of legislation and run a pre-criminal prosecution without making out all the elements of criminality to which you are making the assertion. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has not come close.
There are a number of places I would take honourable members to in relation to disposing of the matter of criminality. I draw honourable members to page 157 of Ross on Crime, the Lawbook Co 2009, where it deals with the idea of attempts. No dispute in this House exists as to anything actually occurring. What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make out is that there was an attempt. That then begs the question, what is an attempt to do something?
I draw honourable members’ attention to page 990 in Crown and Donnelly 1970 New Zealand Law Reports. Justice Turner makes a number of observations in relation to attempts. I will not read the whole quote; I will read the sections that matter first:
- First, he may, of course, simply change his mind before committing any act sufficiently overt to amount to an attempt.
I suggest to honourable members that the Deputy Chief Minister could comfortably settle in that place and say, ‘I simply changed my mind before committing any act which is sufficiently overt to amount to an attempt’. However, Justice Turner goes on and says:
- … he may change his mind, but too late to deny that he had got so far as an attempt.
Let us say, for argument’s sake, that the Deputy Chief Minister actually met that second measure, and I suspect that he would not. It is then up to the prosecutor, in this case the Leader of the Opposition, to be able to demonstrate to the people of this House, the Northern Territory and the court to which he would send the Deputy Chief Minister that he got so far as to meet the second tier outlined by Justice Turner.
Let us turn our minds to exactly what that means. It is important to go down this path because it disposes very quickly of the errant, excruciating nonsense we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition. I point whoever wrote that torrid little speech, in an attempt to suggest any form of criminality on the part of the Deputy Chief Minister, to the Crown against Borinelli 1962 SASR at 214 and 218. Similarly, preparation will not be considered an attempt if not sufficiently proximate to the crime.
I turn to the matters of DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55. This is a quote worth listening to. Lord Diplock said:
- The constitute elements of the inchoate crime of an attempt are a physical act by the offender sufficiently proximate to the complete offence and an intention on the part of the offender to commit the complete offence. Acts that are merely preparatory to the commission of the offence such as, in the instant case, the taking out of the insurance policies are not sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt. They do not indicate a fixed irrevocable intention to go on to commit the complete offence unless involuntarily prevented from doing so.
Lord Diplock’s words from that case ‘a fixed irrevocable intention’ – in order words, let us explore the crime of intent. In this case the fact scenario was that Mr Stonehouse took out – in England if memory serves me correctly – a number of insurance policies and then set about faking his own death so he might become the beneficiary of those insurance policies through an intermediary.
The effect of that was he then travelled to – I think it was Miami. He crossed the Rubicon in Miami, to paraphrase another law lord, and then faked his own death. For various reasons in the case that I will not go into, the issue of the law of intent arose and the idea of proximity was written down and described very tightly indeed.
Let us then examine an example. If I say I am going to rob a bank and do nothing else, I have done nothing close to committing a crime or even attempting to commit a crime. If I say I going to rob a bank and I put a shotgun on the table in front of me in my kitchen, am I robbing a bank? Have I attempted to rob the bank? Of course not. There is no sufficient proximity and anybody can see that.
If I am say I am going to rob a bank, put a shotgun in my car, jump in the car and drive towards town, have I attempted to rob the bank? No, of course not. There is still insufficient proximity. If I say I am going to rob a bank and I stick the shotgun in my car, drive the car into town and park in front of a National Australia Bank, have I done it yet? Of course not. If I go through all of those steps then grab the shotgun and walk into the bank with a balaclava on my head, at that point I think you have satisfied the proximity test outlined in Stonehouse.
Let us compare that to the so-called attempt with which the Leader of the Opposition sought to slander the Deputy Chief Minister in relation to section 77 of the Criminal Code Act. What was the preparatory work? By the Deputy Chief Minister’s own admission his preparation was simply that he took out a bank loan and obtained some forms, which he signed. Then what? What is the allegation? He stopped. He did not walk into the bank. He did not even drive to the bank. He was still at the stage where the tools of the so-called attempt were sitting on his kitchen table at home. That is as far as he got. That is it.
You failed at the first hurdle by not even remotely understanding how section 77 operates and that every element of a case has to be made out, not just some elements, before you can have a successful prosecution. You have fallen over there.
The second place you have fallen over is that you are not even in the ballpark when it comes to the crime of intent, based on the admissions the Deputy Chief Minister made in relation to the steps he took. Yet you would bandy around his good name and section 77 of the Criminal Code, and use the word ‘corruption’ when you do not come close to meeting any of the requisite benchmarks even on a most superficial examination of the operation of law in this jurisdiction and every other common law country I know of.
The member for Barkly came a lot closer in the Stella Maris inquiry than the Deputy Chief Minister has ever done in this place. His contribution to that process is still a matter for consideration inside this House, and potentially in the Privileges Committee, but for the fact there is currently a criminal investigation in relation to conduct by the member for Karama, which as far as I know is still on foot.
These are the sorts of things that are overlooked by the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition, using the benchmarks he relied upon in the Ministerial Code of Conduct, has at any time recently broken the law – let us say within the last six months – and whether or not he wishes to declare that so the people of Northern Territory know what laws he broke. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would choose to do such a thing.
That is an interesting question. If he was asked that simple question, no matter what the law is, his interpretation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct means he has to fess up because people have a right to know.
That has disposed of, successfully and completely, the shallowness of the issues surrounding the criminality of this motion. Any person who has even fleetingly considered this does not have to be legally trained; they only have to read two pages in a law book and read the code to realise they are not even close.
You say ‘potentially’ in the same way that, potentially, hell will freeze over if a snowflake appears there for more than two seconds. That is an untenable situation.
Here comes the second component, his breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct in the Cabinet Handbook. You will find the Ministerial Code of Conduct at Appendix A in the Cabinet Handbook. The Leader of the Opposition quoted at some length from section 8.8:
- Ministers are not to use their position improperly to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves, or any other person or entity, not enjoyed by the general public. Ministers are not to use information obtained in the course of their official duties so as to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves or improperly for any other person or entity not enjoyed by the general public.
The minister did not breach that section. He started to go down that path and, as the Chief Minister said yesterday, indeed in travelling down that path he may have been unwise, but he then stopped. Why did he stop? Somewhere in his mind, I imagine, his sense of duty towards his ministerial portfolio and the people he serves clicked in, as it should. As he said, he desisted by his own motion; he signed the form and what did he do? He left it in his desk drawer. That is as far as it went.
In regard to the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Cabinet Handbook, he started down a pathway and then stopped. Unwise perhaps, but surely in the age of reasonableness, rather than the shrill barkings of the members opposite in relation to this matter, the decision to desist from a process like this should stand in stark mitigation of the conduct. He realised he was making a mistake. He did not have to tell anybody else. He realised that even these initial steps were errant and so guided by, I presume, his own ethics, but certainly by the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Cabinet Handbook, he ceased and desisted.
What is his crime? Probably a bit of poor judgment to start with, but he acknowledged that. He said it in his explanation to the House. ‘I should not have done that, but I stopped long before I got there’. For that, these members opposite would see this minister resign, be cast into the courts and persecuted in this place and in the public arena for his own unfortunate circumstances. I cannot bring myself to consider that he has done anything other than set down a path, perhaps unwisely, but he got to the point very quickly where he realised that to pursue the matter would be a genuine breach of this Cabinet Handbook and the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
I understand the opposition is raising an issue in relation to the timing for seeking expressions of interest to build a five-star hotel. I have to be careful with my memory, but it was my understanding – and I remember the Deputy Chief Minister saying it was widely known. I recall that, over the last couple of years, it was discussed in a number of quarters, even in the public domain, prior to the call for expressions of interest going out.
I am not quite sure of the date of the release of the expression of interest. The EOI was to be released, I think, on 30 August 2015, but if that is true, was there not a newspaper article on 22 August 2015?
Mr Styles: Ashley Manicaros.
Mr ELFERINK: A week earlier – Ashley Manicaros. Here is the secret information that was released by the Deputy Chief Minister to the CT Group. The secret information can be located hidden away in the very dark recesses of page one of the NT News of 22 August 2015.
So dishonest in his prosecution of this matter is the Leader of the Opposition that he deserves his own censure.
Here comes the crux of it; this is the real issue. It is as simple as this. I understand that the members opposite have seen a political opportunity, and if I was in their shoes I would pursue that political opportunity too. However, let us take a step back from this place and look at the real world.
Here is a question. If you were the CT Group, seeing your name bandied around in the public domain as it is, how confident or comfortable would you be investing in the Northern Territory with the faux scandal being driven by the Labor Party? The answer is, I imagine, that their confidence would be somewhat diminished, for the sake of the opposition winning a political point, because that is really what is happening here.
The outrage is not real. If it was, you would be hearing a lot more than you are now. The silence of Question Time, the mild indifference of the members opposite and the many seat backs I can clearly see demonstrate to me that there is no rage; this is just something we do. In the process we might be chasing away an investor who wants to bring, potentially, hundreds of jobs to the people of the Northern Territory. That is what will play out in the real world, not this ethereal and strange place we occupy where we try to find points to score against each other, clutching desperately for each gotcha moment to demonstrate how wretched the other side is. No, we will not consider anything beyond that.
I remind honourable members that there was a time when the former Labor government wanted to bring the INPEX facility to Australia. The INPEX facility was something we, as an opposition at the time, supported, in spite of the fact we could have raised a number of issues about the arrangements between INPEX and the Northern Territory government.
We could have found some trip that was taken or a conversation that was had. We could have said, ‘It is all bad. It is all jobs between INPEX and the Labor Party and it is all a very sweet deal.’ There came a point where we decided not to pursue the political goal. We realised the ambition for the Northern Territory that the government was pursuing. That is entirely forgotten by the opposition. When Gino was trying to run the Leader of the Opposition’s media conferences it demonstrated that there are people upstairs who can only see the world through the lens of opportunities in the media and in parliament.
It is clear to me that this is a manufactured rage. It is not real. Everybody knows what has happened. It has come down to this. The Deputy Chief Minister thought about buying some shares, borrowed some money, filled out a share form and thought, ‘No I’m not going to do that’. He buried the whole thing and had nothing more to do with it. If the circumstances of the Deputy Chief Minister had been otherwise it would have stayed buried and nobody would have known. Unfortunately they did not stay buried. Information has leaked out and, as a consequence of that, members opposite have had an opportunity to prosecute this faux rage at the potential expense of Territory jobs. That is the part that irritates me about this.
I get the political point scoring, but what I am worried about is that it might scare away investment. One of the things an opposition has to be mindful of is that, through their conduct, they can diminish the quality of a jurisdiction’s reputation to the point where people will step away from investing here. That is reckless, stupid and unwelcome. I would not countenance that for one second.
I will not pursue this any further. This is genuinely a faux scandal. It is faux outrage. It was badly prosecuted, and even the most superficial investigation by a reasonable person similarly circumstanced would come to the conclusion that he had taken some unwise steps and then stopped. He acknowledges that; bully for him. There is no reason for a censure and, quite frankly, the opposition is being reckless in its pursuit of these matters, potentially at the expense of Territory jobs.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): I thank the Opposition Leader for bringing this very important censure motion before this parliament. I thank the Attorney-General for his contribution to this debate. I could not help but wonder where the government will be without the member for Port Darwin to defend everybody on his side on anything.
The essence of the opposition’s argument is quite simple. The member for Katherine blurred the conduct of private financial business and government business. He did so over many months, through the end of 2014 until the end of 2015. That is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. It is probably a breach of the Criminal Code. Therefore he has no choice; he must resign, and if he does not resign then he must be sacked.
The Ministerial Code of Conduct is written in a way so as to caution and guide the behaviour of ministers. It is designed to deal with the dilemma of ministers of the Crown being ministers and private people.
Clause 3.1 is very clear in the way the Ministerial Code of Conduct resolves these issues. It says:
- Ministers are to advise the Chief Minister immediately of any private interests, pecuniary or non-pecuniary, held by themselves or members of their immediate family of which they are aware, which give rise to (or may potentially give rise to) a conflict with their public duties. Any other matter which may give rise to a conflict between duty and interest must also be declared. Minsters should adopt a broad interpretation of this requirement. Any conflict of interest between a minister’s private interest and their public duty which arises must be resolved promptly in favour of the public interest.
What this section says is obvious. If an action of a minister is likely to give rise to even a potential conflict of interest, he or she must report it to the Chief Minister immediately.
The Deputy Chief Minister conducted a private financial relationship with a major Vietnamese company, CT Group, regarding investment in that company at the exact time he was conducting negotiations and discussions with it on major investment issues in the Territory. If this does not arise as a potential conflict of interest then I am not sure what does.
We know from the e-mails between the minister and Ms Phan, tabled by the member for Araluen, that the financial discussions were occurring as early as February 2015 and probably before that time. As soon as those financial discussions began, the minister placed himself in a potential conflict of interest situation with the Ministerial Code of Conduct, section 3.1, which has now been breached.
There is no question about this. This is a breach, and as such the minister was required to report it. Chief Minister, he was required to report it to you. Did he, Chief Minister? If he did, when did he report it? We have clear evidence that he needed to report it in February. We believe he probably needed to report it earlier than that, but, by his own statement, he did not make a decision until September 2015. That is eight months after the e-mails between him and Ms Phan. What did the minister do in that time? He undertook a number of trips to Vietnam, including one which was allegedly private; he conducted discussions with the CT Group about a major investment in land in the Territory; and he conducted a relationship of a personal nature with a CT Group employee.
If the minister has not reported a conflict of interest to the Chief Minister by this stage then all his actions, everything he is doing, are miring him more deeply into his conflict of interest.
There is a test that crops up every now and then in politics, the law and life, which is called the person in the street test. The question posed by this test is: would the person in the street, given the facts we have heard, judge that the minister has a conflict of interest? The answer is obviously yes. You only have to listen to talkback radio and read the media and social media to see that.
The Ministerial Code of Conduct is much harsher than that. It errs on the conservative side of reporting even a potential conflict of interest. By the ministers own comments, he clearly identified he has a conflict of interest. He did not report it in February.
He has to resign, surely. This is not rocket science; this is simple and straightforward, and far from the convoluted contribution we had from the Attorney-General.
The Deputy Chief Minister, and minister for Primary Industry, no matter how he positions himself or what he says, is always the Deputy Chief Minister and minister for Primary Industry. Sadly, the reality of life in politics is he is never a private citizen and never not a minister until the day when his commission is withdrawn. No matter what the minister says, you cannot set up artificial walls and make yourself not a minister.
The minister seems to think that if he uses his private e-mail address, he is not the minister. Hillary Clinton would be interested in that defence. He said that he takes off his ministerial hat and puts on his private hat, and magically he is no longer conflicted, even though he was talking to the same people about the same issues as he did as a minister. That, I am afraid, is a joke.
I do not give two hoots about the minister’s private life. I understand that relationship breakdown can happen. But the average person in the street would say that no matter how you feel about each other, being in a relationship with a person employed by a company you are doing government business with means you have to step away from all discussions with that group. Frankly, it screams common sense that if you wish to pursue your relationship, you cannot pursue your business dealings. People would expect that. The minister did not do that. He placed himself in a potential conflict of interest the minute that relationship began. I ask him again, did he report that to the Chief Minister?
Chief Minister – should he respond in this debate – did he, and if so, when? I doubt it somehow. Once again we have a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is to be punished by dismissal.
I now turn to section 8.8 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The section of the code goes to the issue of improper advantage:
- Ministers are not to use their position improperly to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves, or any other person or entity, not enjoyed by the general public. Ministers are not to use information obtained in the course of their official duties so as to gain a direct or indirect personal advantage for themselves or improperly for any other person or entity not enjoyed by the general public.
It could not be clearer. The opposition contends that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has also breached this section of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Let me tell you how. The minister, regardless of whether he thinks he is acting as Willem Westra van Holthe or as the minister, is always, in the eyes of this code, a minister. The minister proceeded to develop a relationship with the CT Group.
In developing that relationship at both a personal and professional level, he developed knowledge of CT Group operations not available to the ordinary person in the street. He started to use that knowledge to position himself into a major – we are talking about more than $0.5m – purchase of shares, investing in a shopping mall. He carried on engaging with the CT Group for the next eight months, all the time positioning himself with greater knowledge, closer personal relationships and an intimate relationship.
He conducted official business with businesses and government officials in Vietnam, and took the opportunity afforded by that official business to continue to cultivate his relationship with the CT Group. The question members must ask themselves is, if the minister was Mr Westra van Holthe, police officer from Katherine, what opportunity would he get to put himself in front of the senior figures of a major Vietnamese company? What opportunity would he have to get an understanding of a business deal and an opportunity like the Space Ship One mega mall? What chance would he have to conduct business in Vietnam at someone else’s expense, and then conduct his own business as Mr Westra van Holthe, police officer from Katherine? None.
Mr Westra van Holthe from Katherine would have had none of those opportunities, so he is without doubt placed in a position of knowledge by virtue of his position. Therefore it is a breach and a sackable offence.
As the Opposition Leader has pointed out, section 77 of the Criminal Code Act of the Northern Territory deals with this issue. The Deputy Chief Minister has probably breached that as well. It is all adding up to a massive problem for the Deputy Chief Minister. I suggest it also adds up to a massive problem for the Chief Minister and the CLP government. There is one way to lance this boil, Chief Minister. You could and you must sack your deputy.
The further problem the Deputy Chief Minister has is that he has form on this sort of behaviour. The minister, in the seven years he has been a member, has had to provide a personal explanation to this House defending his actions three times.
The first was for the juvenile behaviour of this member of parliament for placing stickers on toilet walls in the Convention Centre in Alice Springs when parliament was sitting there – pathetic behaviour from a member of parliament, who was caught red-handed in the act. But wait, there is more. In 2011 the member was investigated by the Professional Responsibility Division of the Northern Territory Police and the Ombudsman under the auspices of the Joint Review Committee. The Joint Review Committee found, in point one, that then Senior Constable Westra van Holthe had engaged in improper conduct, being a breach of the code of conduct.
The Joint Review Committee also found, in point two, in relation to an allegation that Senior Constable Westra van Holthe had deliberately altered the documents in an attempt to avoid payment of transfer fees, penalties for late lodgement and/or stamp duty. The Joint Review Committee found that he had altered the documents twice and it was:
- … open to the inference that this was a deliberate attempt by Constable Westra van Holthe to avoid statutory penalty for his failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the date of the sale. The alteration itself is unlawful.
Point three of the Joint Review Committee report says:
- The JRC is of the opinion that Constable Westra van Holthe could be perceived to have used his position as a police officer to influence the commercial transaction between you …
… to his advantage.
The Joint Review Committee also found that Constable Westra van Holthe had unauthorised access to documentation because of his position and stated that:
- The JRC is of the opinion that the unauthorised access is a conflict of interest and improper conduct.
I have taken quotes directly from the Ombudsman’s report that was tabled in this parliament on 3 May 2011, outlining the case I have just referred. Do I need to go on?
Senior statutory officers of the Northern Territory, in the form of the Ombudsman and senior police, have found that this man, the member for Katherine, when he was a police constable, did four things. He breached codes of conduct, deliberately altered documents, used his position to influence and committed conflict of interest and improper conduct. He has done it once before and he was caught. He is now doing it again.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister has no choice. He needs to sack his Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond in part to this censure motion. What a pathetic effort it is by Labor to bring down the Deputy Chief Minister. There is no evidence whatsoever. My friend and colleague, the member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General, did an admirable job in very carefully, and in a most detailed way, destroying any argument you had. He pulled you guys to bits like a clock. There is no smoking gun. There is nothing the Deputy Chief Minister needs to answer to here.
This is fundamentally about the Labor Party trying to win at all costs. They have taken a leaf out of Graham Richardson’s book, their federal elder – I think his line was, ‘You need to win at all costs whatever it takes’, or that sort of attitude – to the point where they are quite prepared to tell porkies.
I am reliably informed that no report was handed to the police by the Opposition Leader. His suggestion that he has reported this matter to police – he may have, but to my understanding they have not received a report. It seems he has taken a leaf out of the member for Goyder’s book, where she says she requests documents under FOI on the Minister for Lands and Planning on a range of things in the rural area to find out about developments. Neither my office or the Department of Lands and Planning have received freedom of information requests from the member for Goyder. It simply has not happened, but it seems to suit the member for Goyder’s argument to say she has done that. Likewise the Leader of the Opposition, in the same vein, likes to say he has reported this to the police, yet police have no record of any report in relation to the member for Katherine from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay.
That aside, the opposition’s argument just does not stack up, as was very ably demonstrated and articulated by the Attorney-General.
My real concern with this censure motion, this win at all costs style motion, is the issue of cost and what the opposition is prepared to do to win. The fact is the CT Group, as has often been talked about, is looking at major investments in the Northern Territory in relation to dragon fruit. Government has gone to considerable expense travelling into Asia and building the Asian relations portfolio. My colleague, the member for Sanderson, often talks about the importance of engagement with Asia, attracting investment and creating jobs and opportunity. It is outrageous that the opposition will kill that in one fell swoop.
They are quite happy to not only denigrate the Deputy Chief Minister – I am sure he is used to it as it is part and parcel of politics – but to allow the CT Group to become collateral damage is outrageous, and it demonstrates the opposition’s desire to win at all costs.
Labor never worries about costs. When it comes to spending, they do not worry. It is not something that concerns them. It is an addiction. Get out there and spend – rack up the costs. Last week we saw Labor’s cheapjack political stunt in relation to the moratorium on onshore gas. They seem to think that, electorally, it is quite popular, that people do not want this industry, and to hell with the jobs and investment that onshore gas is creating, and to hell with the Tennant Creek to Mount Isa pipeline. Those things do not matter as far as Labor is concerned. The only thing that matters is that we get a Labor government. That is shameful.
The previous Labor government, whilst they did not give a toss about debt and deficit, at least had an eye for the opportunity onshore oil and gas presented for the Northern Territory. The previous Labor government allowed 95% of the Northern Territory land mass to be explored for oil and gas. In one fell swoop the Opposition Leader can undo that work and all of this government’s work to create an onshore oil and gas industry. It beggars belief that this mob can come here with such pathetic information and try to pull the Deputy Chief Minister down with such a feeble argument when that argument is so easily dismissed and dismantled by the Attorney-General. I have seen the Attorney-General have put his mind to things and work out puzzles and problems, but in this case he did not. He walked in without notes and pulled you guys to bits like a clock. He demonstrated from every angle why your argument had no content whatsoever.
Surely as an opposition you must have understood you had an extraordinarily flimsy argument. To use that flimsy argument and be prepared to destroy another potential investment opportunity shows how bereft you are of morality, vision and any other bit of decency most people possess. When you see someone twirling away, working hard to build and create something, regardless of whether you like, it, there are very few people who would kick it over. It is like little kids on a beach. One kid spends hours building a sand castle and the other kid, for whatever reason, does not like it and kicks it over.
That is the attitude the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory has. Why can you not say, ‘We don’t particularly like the way you are driving economic growth, although we believe in it’. That is interesting because Labor does believe in everything we are doing. Almost every policy announcement we have made Labor has copied. That includes the jobs package, the procurement package, the Buy Local campaign, the North East Gas Interconnector, the Infrastructure Development Fund, and the list goes on of government policy that Labor has stolen. The procurement stuff is amazing. It is a straight take. We said we would weight Territory businesses at 25% – lift them from 20% to 25%. You could not even say 30%, 22% or 27%; you did a direct grab. It is all about copying our policy, but then not following through with it.
I always say about Labor, ‘Do not listen to what they say; look at what they do.’ You cannot listen to them when they say they will create 14 000 jobs, then in the very next breath they destroy 6000 jobs in the oil and gas industry. You cannot listen to them when they say they want to create jobs when they hound an investor out of the Northern Territory who wants to grow dragon fruit. It is disgraceful base politics that you guys are trying to run. I do not think the Opposition Leader understands how pathetic he looks when he makes these bald statements.
We have seen the Deputy Chief Minister cop it on the chin. He made a personal explanation; he admitted readily to the fact he was contemplating this …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate has been civil; we will not let it become uncivil now. If anyone plays that game they will be on a warning.
Mr TOLLNER: The Deputy Chief Minister fessed up and said, ‘Yes, I did contemplate this. I even got to the point where I signed the document.’ But then he had a revelation that proceeding any further might create him some problems and rightly made the decision to go no further with it.
I loved the Attorney-General’s scenario of a potential bank robber; to say you will rob a bank is one thing, but to actually do it is another. You cannot be charged with bank robbery if you do not rob the bank.
Mr Elferink: Or if you are still sitting at home.
Mr TOLLNER: Or if you are still sitting at home. The Deputy Chief Minister cannot be accused of finding himself in a conflict of interest, because he did not. It never happened; it just did not eventuate. As much as jilted wives, members of the Labor Party and other members of this place might like to see the downfall of the Deputy Chief Minister, you will have to find something else because there is nothing to see here. Nothing has occurred.
The member for Nhulunbuy sits there and giggles, but you are trying to construct something from nothing. Did he purchase the shares and send through a money order? Did he complete it and send it in? Was the paperwork processed? No, he did not; none of those things occurred.
The Deputy Chief Minister is without fault in this. He actually deserves credit because he thought about it and said, ‘If I proceed with this I might find myself in a position of conflict’. That is a selling point.
I was listening to ABC radio the other day when the Deputy Chief Minister was being interviewed, and Adam Steer was the radio journalist. The Deputy Chief Minister did an admirable job of explaining the circumstances the found himself in. The thing that surprised me most was the calls that came afterwards. All of the callers asked, ‘What does this have to do with his job? He did not make any transaction or commit any crime or misdemeanour. In fact, he has been a very good minister.’ I thought, ‘Goodness me, finally there are people cutting through the chaff and understanding what is going on’.
We have a damn fine Primary Industry minister. I think what is driving the opposition is that they see we have a Primary Industry minister who restored the live cattle trade to Indonesia – a remarkable achievement after the damage the previous Territory and federal Labor governments did to our live cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Restoring the live cattle trade to Indonesia at the speed and with the effectiveness our Primary Industry minister did deserves credit. And he has not just restored that trade to Indonesia; he has opened new markets in Vietnam and Cambodia. He is also working on buffalo and is working hard with our seafood industries. He is doing a fantastic job, and that is at the heart of what galls Labor most.
They want to see this government fail. They want to see industries fall over. They want to see the economy tank. They want to scare away investors. Every opportunity you get you talk the Territory down. Hallelujah, in December the first indicator that we have seen in probably two years said there has been a dip in business confidence, and all of a sudden Labor is vindicated. ‘The place is going to hell in a hand basket.’
That is not the way any responsible opposition should act. Making personal attacks and smears, trying to drag somebody down for no reason apart from their own base political desire, is an outrage. That you are prepared to destroy investment and jobs is immoral.
You guys are the ultimate economic vandals, destroying jobs and investment, driving investors and people away. Then the next minute you have the audacity to stand up in parliament and say, ‘No one wants to come to the Territory’. Why? Because you make a farce of the place.
Everything you pull up is guttersniping. It is a disgrace. Attack us on policy, on what we stand for and when you think we are managing finances wrongly. But, no, we hear none of that. All we hear is this pathetic focus on personalities. It is appalling.
I have played a bit of footy. The member for Barkly will relate to this. I used to say, ‘Play the ball, not the man’. That is, play the game, play it hard, smash the bloke if you can, but do not aim at him. You are trying to play a team game, and if everybody does their job we all benefit.
I have always believed in a strong and questioning opposition. It is good for democracy. At times even my old mate over there, the member for Nelson, has some good points to add to this place – rarely, but at times. I say from the bottom of my heart – and I admire the man for it – that the member for Nelson has never resorted to petty personal attacks; it is not in his nature.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is what this place seems to have devolved into, particularly in the last four years. It is fundamentally driven by an opposition devoid of ideas and policy, doing anything it can to win at all costs. They do not care how much they destroy. The main thing is that they somehow or other win.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, people know that, generally speaking, I do not vote on censure motions because sometimes they have aspects to them which I do not agree with. But they do give me an opportunity to at least give a point of view.
I have been in this House as long as the member for Katherine. I remember the times when he was in trouble before, even the issue in Alice Springs that was just raised. That was not the brightest thing that ever happened. It might have got a laugh from some members, but it was not very smart. He was also condemned for some of his actions in Katherine. There was a censure motion and I supported the member for Katherine. People were being judgmental. He had been punished for what he had done, and that was the end of the issue.
I am always concerned about condemning people when I have my own faults. You have to be careful of throwing stones in the glasshouse. I put on record that I believe, even though the member for Katherine and I do not always agree, especially on things like water, that he has been an outstanding minister for Primary Industry. Be that as it may, I read the preamble to the Ministerial Code of Conduct and it says:
- These guidelines have been developed to assist ministers to understand their ethical responsibilities and their obligations within the Westminster system of government and as ministers generally.
Ministers are expected to behave according to the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties. They hold a position of public confidence and trust, and have discretionary power which can have a significant impact on citizens of the Northern Territory. Ministers must therefore commit themselves to the highest ethical standards to maintain and strengthen the democratic traditions of our state and its institutions.
Merely avoiding breaking the law will not always be enough to guarantee an acceptable standard of conduct. Ministers must not only act lawfully but also in a manner which withstands the closest public scrutiny and which has regard to prevailing community values and standards.
If a minister engages in conduct which constitutes a breach of this code, the Chief Minister shall decide upon an appropriate course of action.
Many people have quoted that book. I will quote from something else. People might remember the Stella Maris inquiry; I do not think they would have forgotten it. There was an important recommendation. The government accepted all the recommendations bar one. That is recommendation 18, which runs into recommendation 19. The preamble to that was:
Ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly and senior executives of the Northern Territory Public Sector often face challenges in understanding and contextualising integrity in decision-making and in managing conflicts of interest, both real and perceived. Further enhancing the Ministerial Code of Conduct will help in this understanding.
New ministers, who may not have been exposed to these challenges before entering the Legislative Assembly, are vulnerable. Ensuring an experienced person is available to provide advice in dealing with these issues is an important preventative strategy in ensuring good governance and accountability.
Recommendation 18, from the commissioner who dealt with the Stella Maris inquiry, says:
- I recommend the Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, with additional support, be appointed the Northern Territory Integrity Commissioner to provide advice to ministers, the Legislative Assembly and Northern Territory Public Sector similar to the role of the Integrity Commissioners in other jurisdictions.
Recommendation 19:
- I recommend the Integrity Commissioner (appointed as per recommendation 18) provide advice to government on any further legislative or other changes that would further strengthen the Northern Territory’s integrity frameworks.
Surprise! The government did not accept that recommendation.
Here is a classic example of where we need an integrity commissioner. I am not making a judgment on the minister, but there are certainly issues that raise questions. I do not believe all the questions have been answered, not as fulsomely as they could have been. I do not know any more than that. I do not know what has been said in this parliament. I do not have access to the e-mails, bank accounts, letter, or whatever has been sent around.
If there is some doubt as to whether the minister’s activities in relation to this company in Vietnam have breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct, if we had an integrity commissioner he could look at this immediately. We would not need a big inquiry. The integrity commissioner could call the minister in, or the minister could visit the integrity commissioner, as happens in Nunavut in Canada. Members of parliament there can visit the integrity commissioner, a person who has judicial standing, probably a retired judge, for advice, and vice versa.
The government has left itself open to a position that could have been looked at by an integrity commissioner, who could have reported to this parliament as an independent arbiter. It is hard to get independents into this debate, especially in the last six months before an election. That would have enabled a report to come to parliament which we could debate based on the facts from an independent assessor.
I do not know whether the minister did the right thing or not, but an integrity commissioner would be able to find out. It would not be tainted with the politics we have in this House. It is a legitimate issue to discuss because ministerial codes of conduct are part of what happens in this House and should be referred back to this House.
For the sake of natural justice and fairness, and for this parliament to find out exactly what the truth is in this matter, an integrity commissioner would have been the way to go. We do not have one so how am I to know the truth? How am I to judge whether the minister has broken the code of conduct? My only suggestion – the Chief Minister does not have to listen to it – is to ask the minister to step aside and perhaps get someone to conduct an independent inquiry just to clear the air.
It is only a suggestion, because the document says if a minister engages in conduct which constitutes a breach of this code the Chief Minister shall decide upon an appropriate course of action. I put that suggestion, because I am not sure we will get to the truth via a censure motion, the media or Facebook.
We need an independent assessment of this issue. It raises questions, there is no doubt about it. I do not want to get into the personal life of the minister, but if his personal life is possibly conflicting with his duties in his role as minister for Primary Industry then the best way to clear the air is for him to step aside, allow someone to investigate the situation and report to parliament. If there are no issues the minister can continue as the minster for Primary Industry and we get on with life. Thank you.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 10 Noes 13
- Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mrs Lambley Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Mr McCarthy Mr Giles
Ms Manison Mr Higgins
Ms Moss Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Vowles Ms Lee
Ms Walker Ms Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion not agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement – October Business Month
Note Statement – October Business Month
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am thrilled I can continue the comments I was making prior to lunch. Having said that, I pretty well said everything I needed to say …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move that an extension of time be granted for the member for Fong Lim.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am thrilled that the Chief Minister has such a desire to listen to me speak some more. I am thrilled that my colleagues opposite are so keen for me to talk. I know my best mate forever, the member for Nelson, is keen to hear me talk, but I have to apologise to the Chamber because I have said everything I needed to say in relation to October Business Month.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 9
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Ms Lee Mr Wood
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2016 on the Entitlements of Assembly Members
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2016 on the Entitlements of Assembly Members
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I find it rather ironic that I stand to deliver this paper today.
On 26 October 2015 the Administrator issued a notice under the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act requesting that the Remuneration Tribunal conduct an inquiry and issue a report and determination on the entitlements of Assembly members. The inquiry was commissioned to look at the costs incurred by members in serving their electorates and the extent to which the 2015 redistribution of electorate boundaries may affect these costs.
The tribunal has completed its inquiry and provided me with a copy of its report and determination. I table the Remuneration Tribunal report and Determination 1 of 2016 on the entitlements of Assembly members.
In general terms, the Remuneration Tribunal found that, with the exception of the Arafura electorate, current electorate allowances were adequate to enable members to serve their electorates. Key aspects of the 2016 Remuneration Tribunal’s determinations are: removing reference to the electorate of Greatorex, which will no longer exist from the time of the 2016 Northern Territory general election; including the new electorate of Spillett, which will receive the standard urban electorate allowance rate of $50 500; and increasing the electorate allowance for the seat of Arafura from $75 000 to $100 500. This increase better reflects the cost of travel required to adequately service the electorate. As required by the act, the determination is now subject to a 10-day sitting disallowance period. Subject to this, the determination will take effect as from the date of the next Northern Territory general election.
I acknowledge the extensive consultation conducted by tribunal members John Flynn and Michael Martin with MLAs and electorate staff, and thank them for their thorough assessment of electorate allowances following the revision of electorate boundaries in the Northern Territory.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper
Note Paper – Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Report – the Preventable Disability
Note Paper – Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Report – the Preventable Disability
Continued from 10 February 2016
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 27 August 2015.
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak on a fantastic achievement by a lady who worked for 40 years in the Northern Territory public service named Julie Renard. On 18 September 2015 Julie Renard was officially recognised for completing 40 years of service in the Northern Territory Public Sector. I recognise and thank Julie Renard for her 40 years of service.
Julie commenced her career with the Northern Territory public service on 10 June 1975 with the then Department of Housing and Construction as a wages clerk. She had to sit and pass the clerical entrance exam to be eligible for the public service.
Julie has travelled extensively throughout the Northern Territory, has worked in various departments during her 40 years of employment and has gained numerous qualifications. From 1980 to 2005 Julie performed in a number of roles with the Department of Education, Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment, Department of Transport and Works, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and Territory Housing.
Julie won her first executive contract role in 2005. She rewarded herself by buying a fishing boat and named it Fish and Chicks. What an appropriate name. Julie continued to draw upon her corporate knowledge of government and her expertise in stakeholder engagement and relationship management skills in Territory Housing and the Department of Justice.
Julie was a regular motivational speaker at the Discovery Program for young and upcoming women in the public sector where she forged many mentoring relationships over the years.
Julie left the Northern Territory public service on 20 September 2013 to commence a new career in the private sector.
In January 2014 Julie returned to the Northern Territory public service and is now the Director of Central Australia with the Department of Business. I am told Julie has often said that she knows she has been very fortunate to have worked with and been mentored by some amazing people over the years, some of whom recognised the potential in her and helped and encouraged her to study and achieve tertiary qualifications.
Julie, I join your colleagues, past and present, in thanking you for your contribution to the Northern Territory Public Sector. I hope you continue to share your knowledge, experience, passion and drive to inspire the next generation of strong women in the Northern Territory public service for years to come.
That is a testament to a woman who is a leader in her own right, not only in the public service but in our community. For those who have studied leadership, the first thing you learn is that a leader’s role is to develop other leaders. That short story about a remarkable journey through the public service gives testament to a woman who has shown true leadership in that she has helped develop other leaders, having gained the mentorship of many previous leaders. It is one of those encouraging stories I hope people who read about Julie take into our community and make sure they join those in the ranks of leaders in our community whose main goal is to ensure that we develop other strong leaders so they too can contribute to our community in the way Julie Renard has done.
I again congratulate her for 40 years of service and wish her well because she is still a member of the public service, still giving to the people of the Northern Territory. To Julie Renard, on behalf of not only the government and all members in this House, but from the public service and the people of the Northern Territory, thank you very much for your great contribution.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about an activity associated with Taminmin College, in my electorate. I have spoken before about Taminmin, which is par for the course because there is so much happening at that college. It continues to astound me how many varied activities the college is involved with. It is nothing like I was involved with when I was at high school and boarding school.
I want to read about a group of students and their teachers who participated in the World Challenge, which occurs on an annual basis. They go to different countries to our north mostly. I will read into Hansard …
Mr Wood: Are there countries to our south?
Ms PURICK: No countries to the south except for New Zealand, but that is another story.
- Taminmin College World Challenge 2015-16.
I am assuming this has been written by one of the teachers. It is good reading and shows exactly what that college does, the support they get from the families and teachers and how engaged the students are:
- On the 26th of December 2015, 18 students and two staff gathered at Darwin International Airport, ready to embark on an amazing adventure for the next 4 weeks. The group of students would at this point separate into 2 groups as they left the comfort of their homes and families to explore Northern Laos, Southern China and North Vietnam, 3 of the remaining 5 communist countries in the world.
Which would have been quite an eye opener for students from Humpty Doo and the surrounds:
- Team One: On 26th December, after 18 months of preparation and fundraising, year 11 students Sean Sherley, Brandon Rudge, Georgia Brockwell, year 10 students Ayla Thorbjornsen, Nikki Minshull, Jaimi Pearsons, Jaide Cain, Laura Luchetti and teacher Tracey Wing embarked on their 30 day World Challenge adventure through Laos, China and Vietnam.
The team was involved in building a toilet block in Laos working with villagers, interacting with local school teaching sporting games and completing a three day mountainous trek. Into China the team spent 6 days trekking and staying each night in different villages where local families took us into the own homes. Locals were entertained with the team dancing for them. Three birthdays were celebrated and the team worked together very strongly throughout all the challenges that they faced throughout their trip. An overnight train saw us arrive in Vietnam where time was spent with a well-earned rest and relaxation phase where students organised a three day boat trip around Halong Bay.
That is a huge adventure, coming from the Northern Territory, Australia, and going to these countries. Not only were they going to a different country, but were going into parts of the country where tourists normally would not go.
That was Team one:
- Team 2: After goodbyes with family and friends, the students were away. 3 flights later, and a brief overnight stop in Singapore, the team landed in Luang Prabang (Laos). The students used their time in Luang Prabang to acclimatise to the adventure they lay in front of them. Students needed to source local currency, communication options and travel options for the next leg of their journey. Luang Prabang provided many wonderful experiences including visiting rescue centres for Moon Bears (used in Chinese Medicine) and Asiatic Elephants (rescued from the logging industry), as well as exposing the students to some of the wonderful smells and tastes that South-East Asia was going to dish up.
- The team made their way further up north to Luang Nam Tha, where they embarked on a 3 day trek through the Laos jungle. The local guides shared knowledge of how to build shelter, find basic food, as well as making pots from giant bamboo. The first night of the trek was spent sleeping on banana leaves under a banana leaf shelter …
Not much different to the rural area:
- … while the second night was spent experiencing a village stay.
- After Laos, the team made their way to their 2nd country, China. The team’s base was Jinghong in Southern China. The students became instant stars while walking around the streets of China, with people taking videos of them and stopping them to get ‘selfies’.
Which I am sure they would have really loved:
- The next leg of the journey took the students further south to a minority village to work with a Primary school. After 4 days of hard work, 2 soccer goals and one swing set was made, along with some amazing artwork on the walls painted. Some wonderful times were had with students across two cultures. Along with the structural works, the team enjoyed playing soccer, basketball and badminton with the kids with sporting equipment that the team donated to the school.
- After the Community engagement, the team made their way to the Vietnamese border for their third country, and up the mountain to the beautiful mountain top town of Sapa. The team embarked on the second challenge of their trip, a four day trip through the mountains to visit different villages. The trek was full of many laughs as people slipped and slid their way through the track.
Presumably, it was very wet:
- The final part of the trip was a few days in Vietnam’s Capital, Hanoi. This gave the students the chance to explore the rabbit warren of Hanoi’s old quarter, heritage listed Halong Bay, the world famous Water Puppets, Ho Chi Minh’s Museleum and Presidential Palace. It wasn’t long before the students were back on the plane and heading home into the arms of their waiting families ready to share all their wonderful stories about their adventures.
That is a sample, and I am sure the students have much more to write about their experiences going through those countries in northern Asia. It is wonderful that a college like Taminmin College not only has the capacity to take students with the teachers – and let us remember that many teachers go on these expeditions with the students. The students fundraise. The member for Nelson knows about this because I am sure he gets his door knocked on to assist with their fundraising.
When I was at high school at boarding school in Perth, the best I recalled when I was reading this was I went to a metal fabrication factory in about Year 11. That was it. The boys wrote sexy messages on the metal things with pieces of chalk.
Then you have these students in 2015 and 2016 going to countries like Laos, Cambodia, China and places like that experiencing wonderful cultures, food, smells and also learning about each other. Previous expeditions from Taminmin College went to Mongolia. I cannot remember which side of Mongolia they went to.
At the ages of 14, 15 and 16, not only do they see a wonderful array of different things to what they have experienced at home in the rural area, but it also teaches things about themselves – about leadership, companionship and how to get up each day when you are not feeling well as you are a bit crook, scared or homesick.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the teachers deserve huge credit because they are there to guide and help the students and enjoy this wonderful experience. Congratulations to Taminmin College, the teachers who went with these students and the students and their families who support them. Well done and congratulations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I need to apologise to you. The agenda today concerned me because it had gone all over the place since yesterday. I would have expected you or the Clerks to have noted that I had already spoken on October Business Month. That would have tested if people were wide awake.
Be that as it may, I must admit that today was a bit of a disaster when it came to having a Daily Agenda which was sprung on us to the point that an item way down the Notice Paper the day before got stuck up in the front, then we debated something down at No 7 or 8. I wonder whether the Daily Agenda is worth reading. Someone can let me know as it happens and I will change speeches.
The reason I was trying to speak was simply – I know that Mr Tollner enjoys baiting me – because I wanted to give him a few facts. Facts are not something he knows about. He is good at fairy tales, rumours, and imaginary facts – put it that way. He should have starred in Alice in Wonderland because that is where he lives sometimes.
He tends to have a go. I know why he has a go because he tells people many of these things. He told me that I do not promote business. I produce a Sporting and Community Directory which has quite a number of small businesses listed. I seek leave to table a black-and-white copy of my Nelson Notes.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I promote local business in my newsletter. There are three local businesses on this page. I describe who the owner is, the phone number and what they sell. This goes out to 3000 or 4000 people now that I have a slightly expanded area.
There are new businesses at Coolalinga. There is Coolalinga Collectables and Secondhand NT, along with Coolalinga Outdoor Power Equipment, NT Power Sports, Outback Batteries, Snap Fitness, TYREPLUS Coolalinga, a new tyre company, Supero Pizza – I must admit, without knocking all my other pizza people around the place, they make a very nice pizza – and Territory Stock Feed and Saddlery, which has been around a long time and has moved a few places but now has a permanent home. The member for Goyder will know Territory Stockfeed. There is also Big Mower, which has moved into the Coolalinga area and BD Homewares. The member for Fong Lim might be interested in Northern Territory Fasteners, another Territory company owned by a Territory family. There is Kabayan Caf and Takeaway, which makes really good fish and chips. If the member for Barkly happens to be going down the track, on the left-hand side of Coolalinga in the older Stavri shops is a little place which used to be the Coolalinga Diner and is now called the Kabayan Caf and Takeaway.
I include things like the long-awaited Coolalinga Shopping Centre taking shape. The foundations are being poured so the change is now obvious there. According to Gwelo, the centre should be finished by the end of 2016, just in time for Christmas. This goes out to many people, along with other news.
Does the member for Fong Lim really think that I sit in a hole and do nothing? It is important that you promote your local businesses, and some of these businesses thank me as, all of a sudden, people knew they could get power tools, fasteners and materials that are used for building at Coolalinga instead of having to go into Palmerston or the industrial area.
I do not mind the member for Fong Lim having a bit of a joke, but he likes to do it often. It gets to a stage where it is not really funny. He also said, ‘Gerry Wood is anti-development’. He does not look at the facts. I do not know what other members do, but I look at every development in the rural area, in Litchfield and sometimes further out. If I think it is an important development to a subdivision or some other development, I look at the area and put in a submission, not necessarily rejecting it, but I sometimes raise issues I believe need to be looked at. I might support it if this or that happened. It is fairly rare that I not support a subdivision straightaway. I did not support one recently – as I told the minister the other day – because it is in slop country; it is not suitable. I took photos when I walked the area and it is not suitable.
Ernie Chin has invited me to one of his subdivisions on the Cox Peninsula Road. I went there about two years ago, after it had been raining and took photos. This is a big subdivision and many people will live there. One of the reasons I go to those subdivisions is to make sure that when young families buy a piece of land it is land that is high and dry, and they are not buying something that is not suitable to live on. That is an important issue; it is not just about whether the roads are in the right place. I am going out there because Ernie has developed that subdivision. Because of the comments I made, the Lands Resource Management team was there as well. Areas that were not suitable for subdivision drainage areas have been removed and put into one block. That is good. I promised him I would come out after these sittings and have a look and put something in my newsletter.
Is that anti-development? Is that anti-subdivision? No, it is not. I can name at least 20 major subdivisions I have supported. I rarely do not support a subdivision. If I have not supported them it is for very good reason – they have been on unsuitable land or the blocks have been too small. He talks about blocks being too small as if it is a flippant statement. He is the minister for Planning. ‘Plan’ means to do things in an organised and planned way. It is not to do things just because someone knocked on your door or you though it was a good idea. As a minister you have a plan and should stick to it. The problem is we had a plan and you are changing it and do not really care.
Then the minister had a go at the legislation I was trying to introduce last night. I apologise to members for not being clear in what I was trying to do. In trying to work through this different way of bringing that legislation through yesterday, I probably did not communicate well with other members. I apologise for that, but sometimes my brain is operating at the speed of light and I forget to do things that should be bleeding obvious, but I did not do that.
That legislation was not just about developers and is not knocking developers. It is also about the alcohol industry, which by the way gave both parties here $150 000 for the last election. It is also about the pokies industry and the tobacco industry. It is not saying those industries are necessarily bad at all. That is what the member for Fong Lim will try to do; that is how he twists things around. It is saying, from a government point of view, we should not accept donations from those groups because we need to be seen to be squeaky clean when we make decisions about them. We need to be seen to have not possibly been influenced by $150 000 for the last election.
That is what it is about. It is not saying the alcohol industry or developers cannot lobby the government. I am saying they cannot lobby the government with money. They need to lobby the government with a good reason for what they want to do. What is wrong with that? That is not anti-development, that is making sure we have good governance in the Northern Territory and that the government is making decisions based on the rules which are not influenced by donations.
The main reason the member for Fong Lim did not like it is because he is a bit worried he might lose some money. There might be a big hole in the election fund ...
Ms Fyles: They will have to hold a chook raffle.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that would not hurt.
He is worried that if this legislation goes through then the money the CLP normally uses for elections would be down quite a bit. However, it should not be like that. Raise the money yourself.
I was in Nunavut, Canada. They have a maximum of $30 000 per person to spend and that is it. Everyone is on the same level playing field and you have to raise that money yourself. If you have a long way to go in your electorate you can get some adjustments, but basically you have to sort the money out yourself. That is something we ought to look at, but obviously not today.
I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the member for Fong Lim. I wish him well in his pursuits in whatever it is when he retires at the next election.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I adjourn tonight requesting the assistance of the Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, with an important regional and remote telecommunications issue at Barrow Creek in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory government, with Commonwealth black spot communications funding, partnered with Telstra in the construction of a mobile phone tower at Barrow Creek in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, this resulted in a signal which was inaccessible for the majority of local residents located 7 km away at Neutral Junction Station and the Tara community.
Telstra’s regional manager Northern Territory advised the mobile phone tower was located adjacent to the Barrow Creek Hotel to reduce costs, acknowledging its position at the base of the ranges significantly limits its signal footprint, disadvantaging the majority of local residents representing health and education service providers, an Aboriginal community and a pastoral property business.
Telstra’s regional manager Northern Territory advised of available supporting mobile phone technology such as small cell towers which, if installed at the community and station, would enhance the Barrow Creek tower signal providing mobile phone coverage for Aboriginal community and cattle station residents in addition to the school and health clinic.
Chief Minister, I seek your support in relation to your government’s declared $49m Telstra communications partnership program for such supporting infrastructure addressing the significant deficit affecting Northern Territory constituents living, working and conducting business in the area, yet denied mobile phone access from the Barrow Creek infrastructure reflecting poor planning, cost cutting and inequitable use of taxpayer funds.
I thank you for your consideration of this request, Chief Minister, on behalf of our constituents. I would be honoured to make further comment if requested by your office. It is a significant issue, and I acknowledge and support your government’s program in rolling out modern telecommunications into the regional and remote areas.
When I was first advised of this issue at Barrow Creek, I went about trying to find a solution through Telstra. Telstra explored a number of technological innovations that they thought might be suitable. Unfortunately, nothing was suitable. The latest advice – now we are talking about eight or nine months down the track – is the small cell towers. But Telstra advise they will need the funding to support this infrastructure.
I have also written to the federal Communications minister about this issue. It would be good, Chief Minister, if you look at retrofitting these technologies for the communities of Tara and the Neutral Junction Cattle Station, including the Neutral Junction School and the Neutral Junction health clinic. It would be good if you could fund these new initiatives out of your declared $49m partnership with Telstra. The retrofitting is rather disappointing; however, it will solve the problem. It is a little embarrassing in a program where infrastructure was provided and unfortunately hijacked in a cost-cutting agenda and, therefore, did not deliver to the majority of the population living in that area.
We are talking about an Aboriginal community with a health clinic on-site, the potential to conduct business, the safety angles of mobile phone coverage, the educational opportunities of young people accessing the Internet and ICT through mobile phone technology, the local school and those critical bus runs that happen each day, getting kids back and forward to school on rough rural roads, and the road safety aspect.
The Neutral Junction Station, which is now under new management, has embarked on a number of business opportunities. The store is progressing. The Neutral Junction Station is also a representative for Centrelink and has taken over that incredible fodder production project.
There are considerable business interests taking place that need support. You cannot get mobile phone coverage even though you are within a radius of 7 km of very expensive infrastructure that was planned and constructed under your watch as part of your telecommunications program.
It would be great for you to step up to the mark and address this issue. I encourage you to contact the management at Neutral Junction Station and any of the residents at Tara community. We hope between the business provider, Telstra, and the Northern Territory government’s $49m telecommunications partnership, you can see fit to provide this retrofit for small cell towers that would enhance telecommunications in that area.
We will continue to conduct this campaign. The next stage is that the management at Neutral Junction Station is organising a petition. We will continue to communicate with the federal Communications minister, the member for Lingiari, and you, Chief Minister. Solving this as soon as possible would be a great outcome. This would be quite easy if the Northern Territory government is prepared to provide funding support within its Telstra partnership.
This is just one issue in regard to supporting our regional and remote areas. I acknowledge the Black Spot Program and the recent announcements you made about new infrastructure in new regional and remote areas. As the local member in Barkly I have also worked with the member for Lingiari, and we have put in a comprehensive submission targeting other areas. Cape Crawford in the gulf country and Alpurrurulam, a very strategic remote town, could possibly be quite easy solutions in relation to their proximity to Mount Isa and those telecommunications footprints.
Larrimah recently requested mobile phone technology. In relation to the original agenda of providing road safety across our national networks, Larrimah would complement those footprints travelling on the Stuart Highway linking coverage between Daly Waters and Mataranka and providing the potential of saving lives, as well as supporting the business community of which the debate this week has been very intense.
We have challenged the government about getting stuck into improving business confidence across the Northern Territory. We provided very strategic policy ideas and voiced our concerns as an opposition on behalf of Territory business.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this program will continue. I ask for the Chief Minister’s support on behalf of our constituents. He is most welcome in the Barkly at any time. Any of his ministers are most welcome. We look forward to receiving his support. He will be hearing from our constituents about this matter and others as we continue towards the 2016 Northern Territory general election.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity this evening to speak about some travel I undertook recently to India as a participant of the Australia India Youth Dialogue program. The experience was amazing and enlightening regarding the India-Australia relationship, and in learning about the people and the other delegates who were part of that program.
It took place between 27 and 30 January, and we covered quite a lot of ground. We participated in the program in New Delhi, Mohali and Bangalore across the four days of the program. It was quite intense, but it was fantastic to see the different areas and what they offer.
Bangalore is a start-up capital. Given that innovation is definitely on the agenda nationally, it is something we in Territory Labor have been talking about – how we encourage enterprise and innovation and back local ideas. It was fantastic to be in a place where it is quite well-established and to talk to people about start-ups, innovation and how we can encourage that.
The Australia India Youth Dialogue brought together 15 delegates from Australia and 15 delegates from India who represented a range of sectors including but not limited to the arts, business, sports, politics, innovation and media and community services. There were representatives from Asialink, for example, from the University of Melbourne. There was a former Wallaby there who is now an architect designing sports infrastructure and an Indian Paralympian swimmer. It was fantastic to have such a range of perspectives and stakeholders and an acknowledgement of the importance of all of those stakeholders in the India-Australia relationship. It made for very interesting conversations.
The panel sessions included: encouraging entrepreneurship; sustainable resource management and development, including water management; strengthening the bilateral relationship; cultural identity and the involvement of the public – and particularly the involvement of young people – in the public policy process; and a range of other conversations throughout the four days.
I will touch on some of the speakers. There were many very high-quality speakers who participated in the program including the Acting High Commissioner for Australia at the time, Mr Chris Elstoft. I acknowledge that the High Commissioner finished his posting the day before we arrived, and the new commissioner, Ms Harinder Sidhu, was announced today. We spoke to Mr Chris Elstoft;Mr Amit Dasgupta, the former India Consul General who was based in Sydney and is retired; Mr AS Harinath, who was the senior environmental specialist with the World Bank, and Mr Suhit Anantula, from Business Models Incorporated in Australia. That is just a taste of some of the people we had conversations and panel sessions with.
There was also a session with Dr Michele Ackroyd from the Goyder Institute for Water Research, which was interesting. The Goyder research centre is based in Adelaide and does a lot of interesting work. Some work happening between South Australia and India within the water management space is definitely worth watching.
During the dialogue, I participated in a panel session with politicians from Australia and India in relation to young leaders and public engagement in policy making. They included Tim Watts, who is the federal Labor member for Gellibrand, Mr Harsh Sanghavi and Mr Hanuman Ram Farroda, the president of a small village in India who had interesting stories. It was an interesting way to look at the differences and similarities.
The India-Australia relationship is one that warrants deeper focus and strategic connection. The India-Northern Territory relationship is one that also warrants deeper connection. We have a very well-established Indian community in the Territory which is growing, certainly in my electorate. We celebrate Holi and Deepavali festivals and India@Mindil. We enjoy celebrating that culture.
I thank stakeholders across our associations who have spoken to me about this trip and provided their thoughts on opportunities within this relationship. Some of those opportunities in strengthening bilateral relationship are around tourism in particular. We have an opportunity to capitalise not only on tourism opportunities when it comes to the Indian market, but also innovation opportunities. There is a growing discussion about innovation and start-ups in Australia.
In August, there was announcement of Start-up India. It is a conversation that is on the agenda. The opportunity for businesses to scale up their operations is very real and one that is being investigated by many creative and smart thinkers across the Territory. There is an opportunity for us to have a deeper look.
In October Business Month, there was a session on entering the Indian market that was focused on local businesses. We can do a lot more of that and look at how we can connect innovation initiatives and bring them in as part of the bilateral relationship we have.
Regarding cultural exchange, it was fantastic to see so many representatives from the arts and sports on this trip. We have great opportunities to foster relationships in cultural exchange around sports, food and the arts, particularly Indigenous art. The Australian men’s and women’s cricket teams will both be in India shortly for T20. Those opportunities with India will continue to grow.
It was a positive trip. I had an opportunity to speak to many different people,. It was eye opening on the last day in one of the panel sessions when we talked about what we can learn from each other in addressing innovation in community services and social issues. In that session one of the panellists talked about child protection in the Northern Territory. It was quite a bizarre experience to be sitting in a room in Bangalore hearing about child protection in the Northern Territory. He was talking about an innovative program that is occurring in South Australia called Family by Family. It is one I have looked at and believe is fantastic. There are many opportunities for us to look at the innovative responses of different places in dealing with social issues. We can learn from each other and share.
I am excited about the potential for us to strengthen our relationships with India as a trading partner. I believe Australia is the second-biggest overseas education provider to India. At the moment we are discussing international education and engagement. CDU is in my electorate and has a huge population of international students, so we can explore that. We are respected as an education provider, and that is a fantastic connection we share.
It is definitely different doing a media conference in India than in Darwin. It was an interesting, fantastic and eye-opening experience, but a good opportunity to hear about the different ways in which people are communicating about local policy issues.
One of the issues we share is the feeling of engagement by locals in the public policy decision-making process, which is something we can all improve on. We can talk about initiatives, start-ups and encouraging innovation, but we have to have the partnership and buy-in from all stakeholders and partners – whether it is media, business, government, the local community or local universities – for these programs to work. I am excited to continue to follow-up on the relationships I have now built with 15 Indian delegates, 14 Australian delegates plus the speakers who were part of that program.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Australia India Youth Dialogue very much for involving me, and all the partners – mainly the Victorian government, Macquarie University and UTS:INSEARCH – for providing the backing for such a great program that is important to the future dialogue between our two countries.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I adjourn this evening on a matter in my electorate that concerns me and which I have only received news of over the last few days.
Last year the government and the Minister for Health made numerous commitments to mental health. The minister started the year in February with a firm commitment to place mental health on the government’s agenda particularly – and I quote from his media release:
- … there will be … focus on mental health services amongst youth in our community, noting that the earlier we can intervene and provide services to youth experiencing mental health issues, the greater the chance we will have to improve their mental health wellbeing.
The minister released his suicide prevention strategy in April and a mental health plan in August 2015. Last year’s budget committed to enhancing mental health services by $3m recurrently with a focus upon youth mental health, and this was to be commended.
Mental health services were devolved to the health services as part of the department’s restructure in the last year to support improve localised services. Last week the minister opened a long-overdue youth inpatient facility in the Northern Territory, along with Professor Patrick McGorry, one of our foremost experts in youth mental health in the country. I commend the opening of that inpatient facility.
However, following that announcement I was surprised when I was advised last week that with all of the increased funding in mental health for the rural and remote child and adolescent mental health service, the Top End Mental Health Service in Nhulunbuy has stopped for a period of time. Nobody seems to know whether it is indefinitely or permanently. The reasons cited were personnel and resource constraints, excessive caseloads and resource reallocation to the youth inpatient services and loss of Commonwealth funding.
This comes as a shock to our community in northeast Arnhem Land. There are people who rely upon this service, not the least of whom are children, adolescents and their families. It was a service where visiting psychologists and social workers came to the community and stayed for up to a week. By all accounts it was a fantastic service that made an enormous difference in the lives of kids with mental health issues and their families.
Never did we imagine that the opening of a youth inpatient facility in Darwin would have meant services in our region would cease. Worse still is that our community was not told of this decision; it happened with no notice. We only found out when an NGO provider followed up with the health services to find out what was happening. It was confirmed through our local schools that, yes, the service has ceased. That advice only came through last week.
Apparently our local GP visited my electorate office yesterday to ask my electorate officer if I knew if this had occurred. He was gravely concerned about the removal of this service.
The service has advised that the service gap will be filled by school counsellors, local health centres, student support services, remote disability services, private psychologists – not too many of those in Nhulunbuy; none actually – Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations, paediatricians, youth support services, MOS Plus, which is the Mobile Outreach Service, the Department of Children and Families and other providers.
This is simply not possible. These services cannot replace the specialist service of a child and adolescent mental health service, for which there is clearly a demonstrated need and has been operating well. Surely any withdrawal of support is an issue, especially in a remote region which can least afford these cuts and the cessation of such an important service.
In reality, when you are in a remote region, reliant upon a visiting service, where else do you go? The services that exist in Nhulunbuy and which people are referred to are already stretched to the limit. They rely on the referral support of these outreach specialist services which have been cut.
To add insult to injury, I have been advised through one source that the Mobile Outreach Service, or MOS Plus, counselling service in our region is also under threat. I am most concerned about this information. I remember when MOS Plus started. It is critical in providing therapeutic counselling for children who have suffered trauma. Any threat to that would be deeply concerning to all of us who live in northeast Arnhem Land, especially me as their elected representative. This service is funded by the Commonwealth through the Department of Children and Families. It is my understanding it secured 10 years of funding in 2012.
This additional service cut comes on top of the Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner position ceasing in Yirrkala in June 2015, along with the remote Aboriginal community worker position being taken out of the community. I brought a petition before this parliament last year on behalf of people in the community of Yirrkala who were petitioning the minister to keep those positions within Yirrkala, especially the Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner. The response I received from the minister was that the position had not been cut but somebody had chosen to leave that position – that is not entirely true; she was told she needed to take a job on the Tiwi Islands – and that the position was actively being recruited and they hoped to fill the position.
I have looked, watched and never seen an advertisement for that position. The furnished accommodation for that position has been vacant for eight months, so the department is still paying rent on it. I know this for a fact because it is in my street. I find that unacceptable.
We need the minister to provide some advice about the reduction in specialist mental health counselling and child protection services from East Arnhem Land. Our current circumstances are simply unacceptable.
I seek the minister’s support in reinstating these services. They are vital to providing treatment and prevention services locally, preventing the escalation of trauma or illness and supporting our young adolescents with their general mental health and wellbeing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a serious matter and I hope to see the Minister for Health address this as soon as possible.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016