2012-11-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be given to the member for Brennan, Mr Chandler, today, on the grounds of ill health. For the purposes of Question Time, any questions arising out of his portfolio areas should be redirected to the member for Katherine, Mr Westra van Holthe.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from Her Honour the Administrator, Message No 2 notifying assent to bills passed in the October/November 2012 sittings of the Assembly.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Motion of Censure
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from censuring the Chief Minister and his government for lying to Territorians by promising to cut the cost of living and then increasing power and water bills by $2000 per family and $7800 per small business from 1 January next year.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept this censure motion and we ask that the media, if broadcasting, discontinue the broadcast other than through the Internet.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we start the debate I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour, and also the Mayor of Litchfield Council, Allan McKay.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move a censure of the Chief Minister and his government for lying to Territorians by promising to cut the cost of living and then increasing power and water bills by $2000 per family and $7800 per small business from 1 January next year.
It is extraordinary that the member for Blain campaigned, as his first and core commitment to Territory families, advertised in the newspaper and signed his name on a contract to Territorians, that he would cut the cost of living in full knowledge of the financials of Power and Water. In fact, it was so much in full knowledge it was the subject for hours before the scrutiny committee, the Estimates Committee of this parliament. In full knowledge of the financial situation of Power and Water - which is not as dire as the CLP would like to make out. They speak with forked tongue on this subject. They say Labor did nothing, we neglected Power and Water and it is all Labor’s fault. Yet, they campaigned against Labor’s tariff increases in 2009. They said Labor ran the organisation into the ground. They ignore the fact it took the Merv Davies’ report - 2007 adjustments in infrastructure requirements which added to the debt of Power and Water - infrastructure requirements because the CLP had run that organisation into the ground.
It was well-known that in the 1990s, before the CLP lost government, it was stripping staff out of Power and Water and not repairing and maintaining Power and Water to the extent it needed to be. It has been well-documented, and some of us have been around long enough to remember all these debates. In the last three years of the previous CLP government they took more out of Power and Water in dividend payments to government than they invested in Power and Water.
It was interesting in Question Time today that the Independent member for Nelson went to the heart of what is the core difference between the way Labor approached Power and Water - as an essential service - and the way the CLP is treating Power and Water - as a corporation that needs to be in profit. The CLP is putting profit before people. It is fattening the pig to take it to market to sell it off.
When the Chief Minister was asked in Question Time today to unequivocally rule out leasing or selling off Power and Water he did not. He used the weasel words of ‘we have no plan to’. Chief Minister, Territorians do not believe you, they cannot believe you because you had a signed contract commitment and you have already broken it; you have already torn it up. You have increased the cost of living for Territorians. There is a massive hike to their cost of living - $2000 a year. When he had the opportunity in Question Time today to spell out how families could meet some of this burden, he did not do it. He weasel-worded all over the place but did not go to the heart of the question.
In your taxpayer-paid advertisement in the newspaper today - the one which you know, Chief Minister, breaches the Public Information Act but you do not care about breaking a law, you are so arrogant in your role as Chief Minister. In a paid advertisement that breaches the Public Information Act you talk about comparisons with Tasmania. Seriously, what a joke! How out of touch are you? How many Tasmanians are running their air conditioners, jacking up their power bills? You sit there and laugh saying your family is doing its bit. How many people are in your household, Chief Minister? How do you compare your income situation and your household numbers to the average Territory family? It is a joke. You are ignoring the hurt and pain that is happening.
In 2009, when Labor made the first tariff adjustments in two decades, at least we had the decency to have an independent analysis done. We had the decency to show that independent analysis to the business groups and consumers who would be affected. Everyone got to read the Reeves report information - the executive summary. What do we have in comparison? No evidence from the CLP.
You say you are advised by the Renewal Management Board yet sitting on that board are members who are not even paying these bills in the Territory. Does Neil Conn have an account? Is he paying Power and Water bills? Is Ken Clarke paying Power and Water bills? Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, who you laud as some expert but who could never accept Australian accounting standards and would not introduce Australian accounting standards into the Territory budget. He could not accept that you do not just run a cash book; you need accrual, which brings all your liability onto the books. He would not do it; he refused to do it year in, year out.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is a commonly accepted procedure in this House where individuals have no defence that the person making allegations against them should be circumspect and cautious about those allegations. These are strident attacks on the integrity of a gentleman who has no capacity to reply in this House. I ask you to have the Leader of the Opposition temper her comments.
Ms Walker: It is a shame your former English teacher never had a right of reply.
Ms LAWRIE: It is true, and you know it is true.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a censure motion against government, not against Mr Clarke.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated Opposition Leader. Have you finished Leader of Government Business?
Mr ELFERINK: That is it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, could you please be careful with your comments?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I am simply stating that, as Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke never introduced the Australian accounting standards to the budgets of the Northern Territory. I will state another fact - another inconvenient truth for the CLP - the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory parliament found Ken Clarke had erroneously adjusted the budget papers for presentation purposes only. That is the Public Accounts Committee report. This is the man the Chief Minister and the Treasurer are taking advice from on the Power and Water financial situation and are paying $200 000 for just six months. Who is footing his accommodation bill while he is staying in the Territory? Is his accommodation being paid by the Department of the Chief Minister? There are big questions about the total package for Ken Clarke.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, she is reflecting on the integrity of Mr Clarke. I do not see him reflected in this censure motion. The censure is against the government, not Mr Clarke. I ask that she be asked to temper her approach in relation to an innocent man who cannot defend himself in this House.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on ‘an innocent man’. Territorians who are having their power bills jacked up by $2000 a year while these old CLP mates are providing that advice to the government do not believe he is an innocent man. They do not believe he is some benign grandfatherly type sitting on the top level of the department, Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Once again, a person who has no right of reply in this House is being stridently attacked by the Leader of the Opposition and she has not mentioned him in the censure motion. Perhaps she would like to amend her ill-drafted and ill-considered censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please temper your comments in regard to individuals.
Ms LAWRIE: The inconvenient truth does make them protest too much. This is where Territorians are going. We cannot believe this government is paying their old mates such exorbitant salaries for six months and, at the same time, hiking up our power bills. Are they for real? They cannot believe the Treasurer tells them on television it is all right; you will have forgotten about it in four years’ time. They certainly hope we will have forgotten about it in two years’ time. These are quarterly bills, Treasurer, and no one will forget when those quarterly bills are coming in at such hiked-up levels as much as you hope they will forget.
Territorians are making real decisions as to whether they pack up and leave the Territory. These are painful and hurtful decisions. I met a person recently who said to me, ‘I have been here since 1967 and this is the first time I am making a genuine considered decision to leave the Territory’. I had someone the other day say they have been here since 1969 and are thinking about their need to pack up and leave the Territory.
It comes whammy after whammy. The weekend before the power prices were announced the government announced the axing of two housing financial assistance schemes designed to get people off the rental roundabout and into home ownership. They obviously did not want much debate on those schemes because they went straight into announcing the power price hikes.
There is a reason they would not want much debate on those. We have since seen industry organisations say the schemes are meaningless. The price caps are too low, the new construction locks people out of the existing marketplace, many battlers - those low- to medium-income earners - rely on the old stock as their first point of purchasing. The government did not want scrutiny of the housing situation even though it rails and rails about the real cost and burden on Territorians and families - rent. The government scrapped the housing schemes designed to get people off the rental roundabout on the weekend and came smashing through with mean and unnecessary price hikes and what is the excuse? It is Labor; Labor did not do anything about it, Labor ignored the problem. Not true!
They arbitrarily whack up increases without a shred of analysis or evidence behind it - no documents tabled, no executive summaries or reports tabled. It is just, ‘Believe us, what we say is true’. There is no independent analysis, no independent experts providing evidenced-based advice. They jack up people's prices and hike them up by $2000 per family.
This is all after Terry Mills, the member for Blain, had gone to the election promising to cut the costs of doing business in the Territory. The impact on small business is $7800. Families will face a double whammy as prices increase everywhere: childcare, groceries, rates and rents. Again, you see the CLP wanting to blame someone else for the decision. They made this decision. They sign off on behalf of Robyn Lambley, the Treasurer. It was a decision made by the CLP yet they will not accept their decision.
We asked the director of a childcare centre what this would mean for childcare costs. They said they will go up $5. The member for Araluen issued a media release slamming me for getting the figures wrong when it was the director of the childcare centre who advised the rate. Lo and behold, on the Monday – the media release was issued on the Friday - someone provided us with a copy of a letter from the childcare centre which mentioned increases of about $4.50 a day.
The Treasurer says everyone is wrong and her maths is right. Even when she admits she does not understand maths, everyone else is wrong and she is right. Then, letters are coming from childcare centres.
You have what the Treasurer says in one area and reality in another. You are so out of touch with reality you do not understand parents are walking into childcare centres and receiving letters telling them their childcare fees are increasing by about $4.50 a day. It is quite extraordinary how out of touch they are and how they wantonly tear into and break their promises.
The day before the election the member for Blain said, and I quote, ‘A Country Liberals government will work tirelessly to reduce costs for Territory families’. This sentence will become famous as the biggest lie ever told to Territorians and his quote was just one of many. TV, radio, newspaper ads all promised to cut the cost of living - all lies when he had full knowledge of the financial position of Power and Water. It had been raked over at estimates in June just prior to the August election. Bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, but you knew the full financials of Power and Water in June while you were lying to Territorians about promising to cut the cost of living.
The first dot point of the five-point plan says more money in Territorians’ pockets. What makes it even worse is this was a deliberate lie because it became clear that while you were publically saying these words and putting them in writing in your ads, you were already privately planning to increase the cost of living; you already had Ken Clarke on your payroll providing advice. Everything you are using in government to justify the increase you knew before the election. You had the full financials before the election so why did you deliberately lie to Territorians because of your naked grab for power?
Have you explained to Territorians in the bush, where you campaigned for them, that they will have to meet all these power, water and sewerage price increases? Have you told them? Where is the communication around that? Do people in the bush know they will have to pay a whole lot more? Have you explained that to them? Did you do that on your aeroplane circuit just after the election saying, ‘By the way, we are jacking up your power, water and sewerage costs? Thanks for voting for me.’ It is unbelievable. You do not want people to understand what you are doing because you are not letting them know out in the bush what you are doing. Do not worry; we will do that for you.
The Power and Water debt position was sustainable. It takes about 8% of revenue to service debt across government and the non-financial sector. Most people would like to pay only 8% of their income to service their rent or mortgage. Moody’s has looked at Power and Water and, of course, Moody’s points to Power and Water because the infrastructure spend went up dramatically after the catastrophic failure at the Casuarina Zone Substation.
After decades of neglect under the CLP, Labor literally had to build the organisation. However, a wise government would repay that debt slowly over many, many years because it is not a profit-making business; it is an essential service. There is a stark difference between what the CLP believes Power and Water is and what Labor believes. Labor understands that power, water and sewerage are essential services. They are not the fat pig to take to market to sell to get a one-off privatisation slug into your books and then say, ‘Well, look at that, now we have the money to fund the unfunded election commitments’. The member for Arafura will be able to have his $20m port. The member for Stuart will be able to get the road sealed between Kalkarindji and Lajamanu as promised.
It is interesting when you go out bush and hear all the unfunded election commitments. We already have on the record the new Katherine Hospital - no change out of $130m for that; the sealing of the Port Keats Road - $200m-odd for that stretch of highway. You want Territorians to pay for the power, water and sewerage price increases so they can fund your unfunded election commitments through positioning Power and Water for sale.
As the debate went on and the CLP heard from Territorians directly about their anger at the disrespect and the hurtful, mean and nasty way in which they have been treated by this government, their claims became more and more hysterical. For example, the Treasurer recently claimed that without these increases the lights would go out - purely hysterical. They are carrying on the same way a four-year-old would carry on when caught lying. I gave an analogy on radio recently saying the Chief Minister is behaving like the naughty schoolboy in a schoolyard caught out having done the wrong thing, and this is wrong.
It is not too late to listen to Territorians. This is wrong in every way, Chief Minister; this pain you are inflicting on households and businesses and what it will do to the domestic economy is wrong. When you are a naughty schoolboy in the schoolyard and have been caught out, what do you do? You say, ‘They made me do it’, and that is exactly the analogy I have been drawing here, and everyone gets it. Everyone understands that you decide, Chief Minister, with your Treasurer, what the tariffs will be. Labor did not decide on these tariffs; they are CLP price hikes despite going to the election with a promise to cut the cost of living whilst knowing the full financials of Power and Water and despite having the opportunity in June to scrutinise at estimates the full financials of Power and Water.
This approach by the CLP government is clearly an ideological divide between the ALP and the CLP. We get that the delivery of power, water and sewerage in the Territory is not designed to be profit-making. We have a vast geographical land mass to deliver these essential services across. We have a very small population so the capacity to raise revenue is limited. Well, not unless, of course, you hike up the tariffs as the CLP is doing.
We understand schools and hospitals, which are critical services to Territorians, do not make a profit; they are subsidised by government. This is so families can afford to live in the Territory, small businesses can afford to operate in the Territory, and we have productive Territorians, all of which is good for our domestic economy.
We make no apology for investing in infrastructure at Power and Water. It was the first government in about two decades to do so. We make no apology for the infrastructure investment we have made in schools, hospitals, and across our health system and road network - infrastructure which has gone to the debt position of the Northern Territory. The budget books are there which show we were running counter-cyclical in capital works programs because we delivered the major projects of INPEX which would run capital private investment.
We were running counter-cyclical; we were predicting a very modest deficit in the out year of 2015-16. In GST recovery, we would have delivered a surplus if we were in for another year, not by hurting Territorians the way you are now, but by understanding there is recovery in the national GST. We made it clear in our financial statements that we would use additional GST revenue to pay down the deficit. We shaved $582m off the debt after eight surplus budgets in a row. We had a track record. However, we also recognised that the global financial crisis did hit.
The Chief Minister says there was no global financial crisis, and they sacked the member for Katherine at one stage in estimates when he was shadow Treasurer for saying there was no longer a financial crisis. However, you are wrong and the private sector understands this.
All the industry and organisations recognise government was doing the responsible thing in infrastructure investment to keep business doors open in the Territory. Infrastructure investment in Power and Water was critical; the Merv Davies’ report shows that in detail.
Infrastructure investment across the Territory, as a developing jurisdiction, was critical but also had a double effect of keeping the all-important construction sector in jobs and delivering growth economies in the Territory through those hard global financial crisis affected years. The example I give is the 2010-11 financial year. We recorded economic growth of 1.6%. Strip out the public spend from those figures and we would have flatlined. We would have been on the brink of recession. However, these are all inconvenient truths because it does not suit the rhetoric of the Chief Minister.
People ask me why he wants to quickly cut all this debt. I tell them he needs the money to pay for his unfunded election commitments in the bush.
In the Northern Territory election campaign both major political parties submitted their election commitments to Treasury. There was a stark difference between the two. Labor’s election commitments amounted to $200m. The CLP election commitments amounted to $400m, but there were election commitments the CLP had made which were not on the list or costing submitted to Treasury.
Were they bottom drawer election commitments? You made them, and have put a couple on the record in parliament since then, yet they were not part of the $400m in commitments you submitted to Treasury. Adding up those election commitments, there is a lot of money to find. We know of $400m through two commitments alone, and if you start to ratchet up those other roads and buildings across the bush you have promised you would hit $1bn pretty easily.
Locking up the drunks alone will be an interesting investment in correctional infrastructure, let alone finding the staff for those facilities and their recurrent cost. If you are going to put them in regional centres - the question has been asked but not answered – will you provide government employee housing for those staff? If so, you have a government employee housing cost.
This is the mean CLP cutting jobs across the public service, hiking up power prices to make Power and Water profitable so they get the dividends in. The Chief Minister, in Question Time today, lied to Territorians again. He said we took dividends for 10 years. We did not. Dividends stopped mid-2000s because we recognised the investment needed into Power and Water and therefore kept giving that organisation dividend holidays.
If you are going to talk about the situation, stop lying. Deal with the facts! However, for you the facts are an inconvenient truth. When you lie to Territorians by saying, ‘Labor ignored Power and Water and we have to clean up the mess’, the truth is that after the 2007 Merv Davies’ report we recognised we had to invest in Power and Water. The truth is for the last three years of the CLP government it financially stripped out more from Power and Water than it invested. Stop lying to Territorians.
You say Labor ignored it and did not adjust the tariffs when it should have. The truth is, it was the first time in 20 years. The Labor government - I was the Treasurer at the time and had to do it - in 2009 adjusted tariffs significantly and massively. That is why we could go on the CPI pathway thereafter. Stop lying to Territorians and pretending I am a supporter of the 50% increase!
The lie was perpetrated again in Question Time today, and the fool you have as a Treasurer seriously rewrites the book on a fool. Everyone is laughing about her and it is time you recognised that and sacked her. She appears on television and says, ‘Well, I do not know. I do not know Darwin; I am from Alice Springs.’ Then, in front of the media when asked simple questions, she says, ‘Well, I do not know. I am no good at maths’. Are you for real? She is the Treasurer of the Northern Territory. It is unbelievable.
She was asked by Channel 9, ‘Do you hope Territorians forget about this in four years’ time?’ ‘Well, we hope they forget about it in two years’ time.’ People cannot believe the bungling incompetence of this Treasurer. Does she know Ken Clarke is on the Energex board whilst advising about Power and Water? Does she know Shane Stone is director of the Energex board? Is she such a fool that she is being led down a path by the Ken Clarkes and Shane Stones of the world? Are you that incompetent?
The problem is Territorians are paying for your incompetence. You are not listening to Territorians when they say, ‘Do not hit us with a 30% electricity hike in year one, at least do it in increments’. I had no intention of doing this to Territorians. I was clear in my commitment on a CPI pathway. I was reassuring the board we would conduct a five-year review of all operations of Power and Water. We conducted one in 2009, and were more than prepared to do it again in 2012-13. I would never sell Power and Water; I would never fatten it up for profit to sell it; I would never slug Territorians with the price hikes you are because I understand it. I understand we live here; we have families here and have to meet our bills. I understand small businesses constitute more than 80% of businesses in the Territory and need to make ends meet to be profitable. Small businesses are contributors to our economy, I understand that. I raise a family here; I live and work among people in this community.
I have been the Treasurer for the past five years and understand the financials. I understand how, over time, you can ameliorate costs; you can run your capital counter-cyclical. I understand how you can reduce the costs of government. Efficiency dividends were hiked up under my time as Treasurer without needing to sack public servant; we had a staffing cap in place. I understand all the mechanisms at hand to be fiscally responsible and I am watching irresponsible and stupid decisions being made.
I ran into someone yesterday who gave me their example. The wife was sacked because she was a public servant on a contract. She has lost her income. Even though the Chief Minister believes no Territorians have been sacked, she is unemployed thanks to your job cuts. The father of the family, which has many kids, is taking care of the aged pensioner living with them and is on the chopping block. He works for the public service on a Commonwealth contract and is hearing redeployees will be put into Commonwealth contract positions and those in the Commonwealth contract positions will be sacked. There will be no income for this household through your actions, Chief Minister, and, at the same time, the cost of utilities will go up by $2000 a year.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the Leader of Opposition.
Mr Mills: No, you cannot have an extension of time in a censure.
Motion negatived.
Ms Lawrie: You are gagging on a censure. You are setting a new low!
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): With respect Opposition Leader, you had 30 minutes to outline your position and prosecute your case. You came to a withering halt and needed an extension of time because you started wandering after 15 minutes and became nasty, so your call.
We have accepted this censure because we are accountable and have had to make difficult decisions. I hope you stay to hear some stuff and understand it; however, that may not be your style because these matters are not of particular concern; it is a short-term nasty hit that can be achieved to get a nice reception when you go to the shopping centre and delude people. You have conjured this up, you are feasting off it, but it will not sustain you and will certainly hurt those in the community who put their trust in you.
This censure is opportunistic, plainly, and hypocritical. It is based on a newspaper campaign; one we do not dismiss as unimportant, make no mistake about that. We respect our local newspaper, we believe in freedom of speech and we listen to it, but this government will not be governed by e-mail or petitions. We have to make difficult decisions. We have explained that and will continue to do so.
After 13 weeks in office we were left with the same situation a number of other new governments have faced when seeing some hard decisions need to be made. Generally, it comes to our side of government to make those hard decisions and that is what we have done.
To unpack the Opposition Leader’s argument is quite messy because there is not much there once the huff and puff is finished. There are some wild assertions and the type of thing the Opposition Leader would earnestly engage people in and feel their pain, but would deceive them because the false assurances are no assurances at all. They are quite deceptive because the Opposition Leader knows full well, but is, perhaps, not particularly concerned.
What struck me about the Opposition Leader’s comments is she asserts they had a plan to pay down debt over time. Everything was going to be okay because they had a plan. We, then in opposition, had no knowledge of that plan though we called upon it time and time again. They were going to pay this back over time we now hear. However, it was a secret plan. Even after the calls from the then opposition to reveal the structure of this plan, no structure was forthcoming. The argument of the Opposition Leader reinforces the reality of the debt problem by acknowledging that reality and saying it was going to be dealt with over time, but time unspecified - no detail, no structure to that plan, just trust the empty assurances of the former Treasurer, now Opposition Leader. Not only that, she reveals in her censure motion how that was going to be achieved. Wait for it mums and dads across the Northern Territory, that was going to be achieved by more GST coming in which would help us!
Once again we find ourselves in a position held by the former Labor government which reveals it at its core. It wants the Territory to be a mendicant state. It does not take responsibility as a mature jurisdiction, like other states and territories, to manage its own affairs responsibly. We are being given resources from the Commonwealth by hard-working Territorians, and Australians, to acquit well in the Northern Territory. Our default position is to put our hand out and expect more money so we can fix this problem then artificially maintain a scheme which causes debt to grow and never respond to it except to say, ‘We have a forward plan and that is for someone else to give us some money’.
That is not the way a business operates at its core, not the way a family operates at its core when it has to manage its responsibilities, and certainly not the type of leadership we would expect from a government to try to get some core strength in our community when facing up to real issues. All communities go through difficult times and there have to be adjustments; this is one. It is not an easy adjustment to make, but to default to sheer and rank nastiness, hypocrisy and opportunism as a primary platform further weakens any capacity for the community to recognise there needs to be a response in these challenging times.
We now have an acknowledgment there is a debt problem. The former Treasurer knew this and conceded as much. It is acknowledged here with no substantiation there was a plan to deal with this over time unspecified and no structure to that plan. The plan was the Commonwealth would give us more money and we would then be able to sort the problem out. Then, of course, the real problem was never the responsibility of the former Treasurer; the global financial crisis caused the problem; we were never really responsible. However, any analysis - and it is even reinforced by the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper which identified the area of strong growth.
Australia and the Northern Territory have been protected in many ways from the effect of the global financial crisis because of our placement within the region. We are in a stronger position. It weakens the argument of the former Treasurer to foist up the global financial crisis as the real cause of the problem. All of these weak arguments run by the former Treasurer are reinforcing the reality - the inconvenient truth for the former Treasurer - that there is a very serious debt problem. However, because we are situated in this region, and the former Treasurer should know this, we were largely shielded. There was an effect, make no mistake, but not to the degree it affected other places. Many commentators now define what the former Treasurer described as the global financial crisis as a north Atlantic crisis. That is where it hit the hardest. There was some effect here, but nowhere to the magnitude - the former Treasurer likes to conceal her need to be responsible for managing our own affairs here and now - nowhere near the same impact other jurisdictions had to face. However, it does not exempt a former Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister from the responsibility to manage our affairs well.
All of this combined reinforces that the Opposition Leader knows we have a real challenge which has been faced up to by this government in a manner we know will not win the short-term support of Territorians. We believe, because it is necessary and will strengthen us in the long term, it will allow the Territory to grow and respond to the great opportunities waiting for us. However, we have to be in a far better position.
Make no mistake, other states and the Commonwealth are looking at the Northern Territory - not only the rating agencies, but other jurisdictions are also managing challenging times - to see whether the Territory, in all its talk about being a state and punching above its weight and all that type of rhetoric, can walk the walk and talk the talk. We have to make those hard decisions and we will continue to do so.
As a new Chief Minister, I accept responsibility for this and can see where we are going. I can see where the Opposition Leader is going - trying to magnify this issue to harvest as much political capital from it as possible. However, it does not serve the long-term interest of the Northern Territory.
Where are we going? First, we acknowledge there was a need to get our law and order issues under control; we are set on a path. We want people to be responsible so we dealt with the Banned Drinker Register and can now focus on behaviour. We are putting in place a means to deal with that. We have increased allocations which will be revealed in the mini-budget on the law and order front.
However, when it comes to cost of living, the key problem is not power and water. It contributes to the underlying problem; that is, the cost of housing. You will have debate in this parliament tomorrow on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s role is to get us to a place where we establish a planning framework so we can release land we can properly resource through a new scheme - the creation of new stock. The issue has been the failure to increase the supply of housing. We have the younger people and if they can have new housing stock they can get into at an affordable rate that will make the biggest difference. That is where we are going. This is not a one act play.
The Opposition Leader would like to keep us in this spot for the rest of our term, but we are going places. We have to do this so we can strengthen our core business and stand amongst our Commonwealth peers running our business in a similar way, responsibly passing on benefits where we can, but ensuring the debt levels are manageable.
At the same time, we are moving as swiftly as we can to ensure people on modest incomes will be able to access affordable housing. After 13 weeks we have put those planks in place. Those planks will continue working relentlessly to deliver on the long-term needs of the Northern Territory.
We know where we are going. We know the pain people will be experiencing right now and some measures will be outlined to assist families in adjusting to this impost. That is to come and we are not blind to it. I hope, over time, Territorians will begin to understand the necessity of this important decision.
The Opposition Leader has acknowledged there is a debt problem, even though all the words around that tried to conceal it in a duplicitous argument. Essentially, she has agreed there is a debt problem. If anyone were to look at the former Treasurer’s publications between the budget handed down and the pre-election fiscal statement, there was nearly $100m growth in debt, but that is ignored and diminished because, ‘We can deal with that because the Commonwealth will give us some money’. That is not a responsible way.
There is an acknowledgement there is a debt problem. There is also a plain acknowledgement - anyone can see this with all the noise coming from the Opposition Leader - this would have been responded to by tariff increases. Make no mistake about it, that was going to happen.
The censure motion from the Opposition Leader will be judged, by anyone who hears it, by the venom contained in the attacks on individuals - slandering, mocking and belittling people, talking down in such a nasty tone that it does not assist what is a real issue in the Territory. It does nothing to strengthen the core of our community when the truth is known by the former Treasurer. In their gut most Territorians understand this, we have spoken to most heads of departments and people in agencies and they knew there was a serious problem.
Anyone from outside looking in knew there was a serious problem and were just waiting for leadership. Granted, it will be hard; however, yours is not the kind of leadership the community want nor needs at this time. We started off with a run up to a grand censure - the first censure for this Opposition Leader - and it is laced with nastiness and venom. That will not auger well for the opposition. If it wants to play a meaningful role in bringing this Territory together that is not the person to follow because that will not help anyone.
You will have increased nastiness around the traps. You will receive text messages attacking the government. Good, go for it! We will continue on because we have assessed the situation, just as the former Treasurer has, and we will be making responses.
The former Treasurer asserted that we knew everything. No, we did not. Welcome to opposition. We had a concern about levels of debt. If you want to gain some credibility, check it. We suspected there was a problem, as most people around the traps knew and were talking about. However, the true nature and breadth of that problem was not known until we undertook a proper assessment. Attack those who made that assessment! Run through any circles at any level trying to run these people down and you will be laughed at. You will be seen for what you are: cheap and nasty. These people have high credentials. That is already an attack point. Go for your attack points if you like, but this is the real business.
An assessment was made and we found the unfunded liabilities of this former government were enormous and they demand a response.
Now people begin to plead ignorance, ‘We do not know. You have not put your case well enough, new government’. We have presented the report in parliament; it is there for anyone to read. We placed material in the NT News so people can assess that. Yes, we were criticised for doing that. We have to do it so the information is out there. It is a part of our duty to communicate with the wider community that there is another argument being run and there is another reason for this, and of course nobody wants it. However, there is a reason for it and if there was a way around it we would not do it, but we have to.
So we outline that, we communicate as best we can. I wonder how many people in the opposition have honestly read the RMB report tabled during the last sittings. How many have followed up the footnotes and checked for yourselves or are you just involved in politics? You want to score a point or two, get your jollies and cheer out the back and think, ‘The people like us. We have a petition.’ You have provided no leadership, nor have you shown any authenticity when it comes to dealing with complex issues. I urge you to read it. In your quiet moments look at it and make your own judgments privately. Sure, you might be in the game of politics. Go for it.
The former Treasurer is simply ignorant when it comes to maths and we have many cases of this. The former Treasurer is astonishing. It is like she is telling the truth and you feel you should not challenge because it sounds like it is said with real authority – 8% in the column in today’s paper – ‘8% is all it costs, quite manageable. Trust me, 8%.’ Where does this 8% figure come from? It sounds good. Where does it come from?
Has anyone in opposition checked that? I hope Territorians are checking this, but, sadly, they expect their leaders to give them numbers and facts they can bank on, that mean something, that assist people in understanding this. Where does the 8% come from? Heaven knows. It would be a good opportunity for this Opposition Leader, who is trying to gain some support in the community, to start telling the truth and explain herself.
When we do some investigation into the context of the article it appears the payment of interest is only 8% of revenue and is quite manageable. It would be if that was the case but, when it comes to the Power and Water Corporation, its revenue for 2011-12 was $560m and 8% of that is $44.8m interest; however, the actual interest is $75m. That is not 8%; it is more than double that. Where does this figure come from? We have an Opposition Leader who can trot out figures and make people back off and believe that must be the case because she said it with such conviction. Beware; be very careful!
We have heard the Opposition Leader declare publicly a $5 per day per child increase in childcare fees was needed to cover the proposed increase. She made that assertion. She has now moved and, with a typical lack of courage, puts a person in the line of fire. Someone else said that, so that person is attacked. That is another gutless technique to run the public message and, when caught out, you put someone else in the line of fire and say, ‘It wasn’t me, it was this person here’, and they feel bad about it. They are exposed by this Opposition Leader who is so opportunistic and hypocritical.
For the Opposition Leader to run this in the marketplace and have everyone saying, ‘Yes, yes, that’s terrible. That’s how much it’s going ...’ and engender hysteria and fear so you can gain a point - a Year 10 high school student could have done the sums on that one. If there is a $5 increase every day as asserted, is it because of power? Should it be tested to see whether that is the case? If it is power as asserted, that would mean the childcare centre has a power bill of $0.25m when it is only $15 000. If you follow that argument through, even a Year 10 Maths student could have worked that out. However, that does not worry the Opposition Leader because you can then run the argument to engender hysteria, fear and support for your campaign. That is not a very good basis upon which to build a case.
Running arguments like that, this Opposition Leader has the temerity to tell us how we should be fixing it. All of this comes back to the point that the Opposition Leader acknowledges there is a debt problem, but tries to squib around the edges and conceal it - acknowledge there is a debt problem, claim there is a plan to deal with it but there is no such plan; no evidence of a plan even though you are held to account and have now revealed the grand plan was to put your hand out and hope the GST would bail you out of the problem. That is not the way to run the Territory with its wonderful future, to hope someone will pay you out. She has acknowledged tariffs needed to be increased, which has been revealed and outed.
Watch this Opposition Leader, who will do anything to block this inconvenient fact. She will do everything she can to get people to believe these documents are not true. They are true and many will back it up. Be careful putting your trust in the Opposition Leader because she has run a pretty fierce campaign, but one which will not take people anywhere. It has to be based on fact.
There was going to be an increase by the former government. I am not blaming the former government; however, there was going to be an increase. The board was very concerned, so much so members tried to speak to the former Treasurer. I understand she was not available so the former Chief Minister had to take the call and acknowledge there was a problem which needed to be responded to. You only have to look at other jurisdictions. You could see the same thing happening. There had to be a response to a difficult decision. Gosh, it would be an unpopular decision so best not make it; lie low and deal with it after the election. The dishonesty of this troubles me.
We now have the allegations in concert between the Opposition Leader and the local paper claiming some type of conflict with Mr Ken Clarke being on the board of Energex. We start raising this as an attack point. Attacking people as a means to prosecute your case is pretty low-level stuff. The paper does not mention the previous government appointees on the board of Power and Water. Several of them sit on boards or have been on boards of major Australian power companies. Mr Clarke was a consultant for the NT government in the housing portfolio as well as serving as Under Treasurer in the early stages of the Martin government. He was their man, but I am sure he will say without reserve Energex has no interest whatsoever in buying the Power and Water Corporation. This is another furphy which has popped up - run that argument as though we have some malicious intent rather than going about our business and sorting things out so we can secure the future. Raise this, is it true? No, it is not true. Energex would not take it even if it was offered for nothing. No one would.
Governments source their experts from among respected people within the industry. However, the Leader of the Opposition would be more likely to hire the senior executive of a credit card company to review our finances because all our cards have been maxed out. She would like to conceal that from view and hope someone will dump some money on the Northern Territory and, somehow, claim credit for it. We saw that year after year. GST revenue poured into the Territory and she claimed personal credit for it. When the money dried up, the previous government blamed the global financial crisis and had strange language about having to do a downward adjustment of our forward expectations. That means you expected to get more GST, ‘We are hungry for GST, but not as much came as we expected so we are in a terrible problem but it is not our responsibility to live within our means; it is the responsibility of someone to bail us out. Fortunately, we have the global financial crisis which is the cause of all this’ ...
Ms Walker: Eight surplus budgets, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Look, you missed it. In those eight surplus budgets you always had more money than you expected and more arrived. You take personal credit for the eight surplus budgets, but during those eight surplus budgets you put nothing aside, made no preparation, you were warned again and again to live within your means and make provision for a rainy day. You failed to do so, spent, then spent again and claimed personal credit for this achievement, which was a flow of money from outside into the Northern Territory. You went around like big shots thinking you had done something flash and then you looked back on that wonderful era when you were just reinforcing yourselves as mendicants with no responsibility for the long-term interest of the Northern Territory rather than your short-term interest - live off the fat of the land and make no provision. You lecture us about promises which have been made. We will live up to promises and ride this one all the way through. However, we will run the Territory properly; we will be honest with Territorians and make the unpopular decisions because they have to be made.
We see children who deserve something better than they have had for the last 10 years. Our promises have been honest and we will work with Territorians to achieve them. We know where we are going, and the first thing we have to do is be true about this and recognise there is a problem. The Opposition Leader knows darn well we have a problem and we are dealing with it.
If the roles were reversed what would we have? Heaven knows, but it would certainly be influenced by the self-congratulatory approach of the all-important Labor government if it was in charge of this. It would be about them, how great they are, and how they have managed to do this. Heaven knows how you would have managed it. You have a different approach and people might not like it. You can throw all the words you like at us, we will continue because we have our eye on the long-term interest of the Northern Territory.
This is but 100 days, and we have a plan and are continuing with it. The key issue is cost of living; having money in the pockets of Territorians. We will ensure we handle those interest repayments - that debt - so money can flow through our community for the benefit of Territorians and they can have an affordable place to stay. We will work with that.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is good to be able to participate in this censure motion debate and finally come face-to-face with the CLP over the issue. The Leader of the Opposition received a very strong reaction when she used the analogy of a schoolboy in the playground being caught out doing the wrong thing. As a manager of juvenile conflict resolution over 30 years, I have done much work with people in schoolyards and other places trying to manage conflict. The body language coming from the other side was incredible. The Chief Minister was certainly in a difficult spot. I read the psychology of that difficult spot as being very uncomfortable with this specific challenge.
It is not only coming from the opposition, it is coming from Territorians. It is Territorians telling politicians, ‘Got it wrong guys, got it wrong! Take it easy, guys, you are pushing too hard, you are not thinking.’ The Treasurer was unnerved by the assertion there were old boys upstairs pulling the strings. That was very interesting body language. The Treasurer finally came to ask whether she was being told the truth. That was the question going through the Treasurer’s mind.
The member for Port Darwin was the best with the grimace over the election promise of the Port Keats Road. As a shadow Treasurer, he had some trouble with his own maths. However, he is a wise Territorian and understands $1m per kilometre and the promises made will come back and haunt this CLP government big time. He understands that, and his grimace and flinch in the chair were poetry to me. I happen to be an expert at reading naughty boys who get caught out in the schoolyard and refuse to ’fess up to the truth. That was a moment I will share with this parliament which influenced my contribution to this debate.
The one at the back was equal first. That was the member for Sanderson, who had a sudden awakening when he realised he has four years on Hansard, on the public record with the same story over and over again about all the people in Sanderson leaving the Territory because of the cost of living pressures from this ‘irresponsible government’. Four years I sat here. I spent more time in this Chamber than all those people over the other side. I spent my time studying hard, listening and learning about representing Territorians. The member for Sanderson has on the public record - go back and read it - four years, time and time again. I sat here late at night listening to the same dirge.
When the Leader of the Opposition challenged the government over this issue, about listening to Territorians, about cost of living pressures and being responsible elected community members, the member for Sanderson shifted in the saddle big time. I took great delight because I thought, ‘That is a member of parliament who has nowhere to hide’, because we will go back through the Hansard. I believe the member for Sanderson is challenging his own Caucus with this because he has four years on the record saying, ‘If you put too much pressure on too hard, too soon, people will leave’. Territorians are telling not only the opposition but people right across their community that they are fearful of this as a policy; they feel it is too much, too hard, too soon and it should be done in a more responsible way.
The Leader of the Opposition has put forward how Labor would do it, how Labor was going to do it, but this new government knows better.
This morning’s contribution from the Chief Minister seems to suggest he does not listen, he does not want to listen, which allows for those wonderful conspiracies that there is a third party in this debate pulling the strings. That is of great concern. We will go through this session with some more monumental changes made by this government: the hand-picked Planning Commission and Environment Protection Authority. We have already had the hand-picked Tourist Commission. We are now looking at a government which refuses to listen and is going headlong into whacking Territorians with significant utilities increases which will raise the cost of living. I wonder where the rural members are in this debate.
Where are the regional CLP members, the new Indigenous liberals of the Northern Territory, because people in the regions are telling me they have great concern? I will participate in this debate representing people from the regions as I move through Alice Springs, the Barkly and, most recently, over the weekend, in Darwin. I have consolidated much public advice and opinion on the issue the Leader of the Opposition has brought to this parliament for a very important debate.
The Treasurer said in Question Time today, ‘It will be hurtful and harmful to every Territorian’. The member for Nelson brought the Treasurer back to account with another question which showed how out of touch she is and the conflict she has involved herself in. In one breath she is telling Territorians in the regional and remote areas - and this is from Question Time on 31 October 2012. The question came from the member for Nelson. The Treasurer thanked the member for his question and said:
Today the Treasurer tells me, as a person from the regional and remote areas, all Territorians will be affected by the tariff increases in power, water and sewerage. I am wondering what is happening with the puppeteer pulling the strings, or the number of puppeteers. I engage in thoughts that this could be really dangerous politics if this is the truth because I have lived through this.
I lived through the CLP old guard of the 1980s and the 1990s as a public servant. I was a public servant whose career was capped by a vindictive government out of touch with reality, which was eventually thrown out with a massive debt and was controlled by a third party - by others who were pulling the strings - the old guard of the Northern Territory.
The Treasurer has been contradictory and I am concerned, as a person who lives in the regional and remote areas. I believe constituents are concerned. We are not on the street scaremongering as the Chief Minister suggested, we are listening to Territorians. When people talk about price hikes of 30%, 40%, 25%, they have legitimate concerns; they are Territory families.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, as it is 12 noon, do you wish to continue at a later time?
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Debate suspended.
PETITION
Cyclist and Pedestrian Safety
on Charles Eaton Drive
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 106 petitioners praying that Charles Eaton Drive be made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rejoin the debate on the censure motion of the Chief Minister and the government. I quote the Chief Minister’s response to the debate, ‘We will not be governed by petitions’. It was very interesting that a petition was just presented, and the Chief Minister, in his response, told this House, ‘We will not be governed by petitions’, and went on to elaborate.
However, let us go back to the issue in debate: these tariff increases. I questioned the new regional members of the CLP asking them where they were, how they participated in the discussions, and how they were when the discussion went to protecting the lower socio-economic groups across the Northern Territory, particularly in the regional and remote areas.
The issue of broken promises is important in politics. It is important for community leaders, especially community leaders elected on their vision and promises. If promises are given to drive down the cost of living, prevent cross-border migration and grow the Territory, and then they are broken with very shallow strategies about fast cash grabs in the utility sector for possible ulterior motives, then that breaks the promise. Promises are important to people, and important to people in the bush as well, and the Borroloola story is a good one for election promises.
The then Leader of the Opposition, who I had never seen in the Gulf Country before, decided to fly in and make some promises. The big promises were that he would break up the land councils, scrap the shires, and build a business centre in Borroloola which would accommodate Centrelink, for instance. There were also promises about roads to outstations. I asked some of the identified community leaders, ‘Would you believe a guy who has dropped in from an aeroplane with two television crews to sign a whole heap of promises before a Territory election?’ These are grassroots people in the Gulf Country who I have been associated with for over 30 years. That is how I let out in response to the political stunt pulled in Borroloola.
However, the promises are okay, because the promises went down the track to Tennant Creek. The promise is for a youth centre, which is a great idea. The CLP government will be delivering a youth centre in Tennant Creek. The promises were for a family crisis centre - absolutely. This will be a new concept, like the Barkly Work Camp is a new concept in corrections. That is a great promise and I welcome it. You guys will now deliver that and the people of Tennant Creek are expecting it because it was promised by the CLP candidate, much to the disappointment of the unfortunate member for Braitling who woke up on Sunday morning, but we will not go back to that.
Alpurrurulam in the eastern Barkly - a very strong promise - the shire will be scrapped and the resources will be returned to create the Alpurrurulam Community Government Council, and they know what they want. They want civil construction plant and equipment. They were promised that and it will have to be delivered, unless, of course, those people who represent the CLP are prepared to say, ‘No, it was only gammon. We didn’t really mean it. We are doing our best to rack up the cash to deliver it, but the priorities will be X, Y and Z.’ Let us see where Alpurrurulam in the eastern Barkly sits in the mini-budget and the subsequent budgets of this new government.
I was privileged to drive on the Lajamanu road the other day and see the work the previous government had done to it. Then to hear there was a commitment to seal that road - that is a great commitment. That will be 112 km at $1m a kilometre: $112m. I am sure the member for Port Darwin, when he flinched on the Port Keats Road, will do a double take when he realises the number crunch on these remote roads promised in the election. Let us ensure we are honest with people and, if we make promises, we deliver. It is as simple as that.
Let us talk about the cycle of regional and remote communities in relation to regional towns. Under this government there has been a combination of effects. We will talk about Tennant Creek. The combination of effects has led to another massive price hike in power, water and sewerage to the residents of the regional and remote areas. It has been a compounding effect of other policy decisions and the first one was, ‘We will slash public sector jobs’. In the election there was a promise there would be no job cuts but, ‘We will slash public sector jobs’, and that has started. The precursor to slashing jobs in Tennant and the Barkly was to cut HDA and travel budgets.
Immediately, a small identified community at Tennant Creek – there are many battlers in Tennant Creek and many people trying to do their jobs suddenly started to come under the pump, the psychology of which was, ‘How secure am I? How secure is my future, and how secure is the future for my family here?’ The business and consumer community collided and there was a downturn in confidence.
With a small economic base like Tennant Creek, when public servants stop buying sandwiches at the caf for lunch that has a big impact. We are not talking about a big town like Alice Springs or a city like Darwin or Palmerston. We are talking about a regional centre which immediately suffered these effects. This was policy implementation by a new government - smash, crash from day one, and the confidence started to be eroded.
The Alice Springs Centralian Advocate ran some interviews the other day. I was really pleased to read about the Tennant Creek businesses that responded. There is no doubt about us in Tennant Creek, we are battlers with a, ‘We will survive’ attitude. The businesses interviewed spoke rationally. They know it is coming. They said they are not doing too badly at the moment, there is a bit of uptake coming into the festive season, but the power, water and sewerage hikes will hit them. However, they will not pass that onto the consumer, they will bear it.
The businesses will realise the consumer base has dwindled. The consumer base has shrunk because the confidence has gone and, where we are in the Territory, people in the cycle of a regional town - Territory stories this government refuses to accept or listen to are about planning for Christmas and New Year, for the annual holiday to visit families down south, and then about planning to pay all the bills when they get back. I have lived like that for 30 years. That is the cycle we go in. We have our festive season or we go away on trips, we come back, and then we have to have a serious plan about paying the bills, as the Chief Minister says.
We will find not only has the business sector been hit with higher costs, but it does not want to pass them on. However, you know how economics works. The consumers have lost confidence. We will come back to massive hikes in the utilities charges. It defines the difference in policy and that is the crux of this debate. It is about how Labor policy is to continue to grow what I call a new frontier not the last frontier.
I used to talk about the last frontier, and I only wish I had arrived 20 years earlier. Now I talk about the new frontier, and it is about ensuring we keep that momentum going because the Territory is a growth place for northern Australia, the future is bright, yet a new government has reduced confidence. It has smashed people and continues to bulldoze its way, its ideas and what it believes.
We talk to people on the streets in Alice Springs, the Barkly and Darwin. I was happy to go into the heartland of the Chief Minister’s electorate on the weekend and talk to people in Blain. They came to a local park because they wanted to talk to elected community representatives about how to get some sanity back into this debate. They were not saying to the Treasurer, ‘Can it!’ They were saying, ‘Get real! Get rationale and understand what this means to Territory families!’
There was a guy with a young family who works hard for a living in the transport industry and we deconstructed the challenges which would be put onto families in that area. He told me with a 40% hike in water he will have no choice but to turn off the water to the garden at home. I thought he might look at conservation measures and other ideas around better water usage. He said he could go down that path but, essentially, something he was proud of, has been working on for 30 years, will have to be cut back.
Imagine what will happen when that translates across the Northern Territory. Tennant Creek did not have the green belt when I arrived, but it has now. Here is the battler who is truly focused on trying to do the right thing. The Chief Minister really concerned me when he assumed we waste water. Statistics once again - Territorians waste much water. In Tennant Creek we are pretty conservative with our water and are also about creating a green belt in the town and an amenity which …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes …..9….. Noes …..15…..
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Ms Finocchiaro
Mr McCarthy Mr Giles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Walker Mrs Lambley
Mr Wood Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, as I usually do with censure motions because they are put together by someone else and worded in ways I do not always agree with, I will not be voting on this motion. However, I will be putting my point of view about the issue of the increase in water, sewerage and electricity tariffs.
I have never liked the word ‘lying’ because, in many ways, it is an offensive word. I believe the government has broken its promise, which is a different thing. My concern about this debate - and we will probably have a debate today and tomorrow - is that the broader picture in relation to debt and what it means to have debt in a place like the Northern Territory is missing.
The reason I asked the Chief Minister a philosophical question today was because I have not heard enough from the government about the foundations on which it is making statements. What is its understanding of debt; what is its understanding of the supply of essential services? Is there a debate about whether essential services should be subsidised? I have a couple of documents here today which deal with the very same issue. We have not really discussed the basis on which much of what I call the later debate is occurring. We have not really had a chance in this parliament to discuss that.
For instance, why do we have to have a surplus in four years time? Is it essential? There is nothing wrong with debt. I had a mortgage that went for 19 or 20 years; I paid off my house ...
Mr Elferink: That is the point, you paid it off.
Mr WOOD: Hang on! Running the Northern Territory is not quite the same as running a house because government continues to buy houses, if you want to look at it from that point of view. It continues to have infrastructure …
Mr Elferink: And you did no repairs on your house? You did not put in a driveway?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: The issue is whether debt is a bad thing in a growing economy. The previous government built this building and State Square, the court house, the original Yulara resort, what is now the Crowne Plaza, and it went into debt. There was quite a time when governments were in debt and the reason - I am talking about in the CLP days - was to keep the economy going. Is that a bad thing? I imagine during the time this government went from surplus to debt, the very same argument put by the CLP for building this and the other buildings I mentioned was to keep the economy going to ensure we did not lose our workforce.
I remember the same arguments from the government about spending large amounts of money on infrastructure for the very same reason: to keep the economy going in times of a global economic crisis, and that is what it did. It said it had the highest infrastructure spending of all time. Of course, that had to come to an end. If we kept going down that path, we would have been well and truly broke.
We make the assertion debt is bad. The question is whether it is manageable debt. That issue needs more discussion. The other issue is why do you have to have this debt wiped out by 2015?
I was reading a statement which said we will have a surplus ...
Mr Elferink: A surplus is not getting rid of debt. That is financial illiteracy, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for all things technical ...
Mr Elferink: For God’s sake, get it right man.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, desist interjecting!
Mr WOOD: The debate about that is occurring after the government has made some drastic decisions which, regardless of all the good arguments the government might put forward as to why, you hit people today with a $2000 a year debt where families are working their butts off to pay existing rents or mortgages. You will hurt them not only financially; you will put mental strain on some of those families which will push them to breaking point.
I have not heard anything from the government except what the Chief Minister said today. It is the first time I have heard something at least recognising there will be an impact on families. He said they are trying to cushion the effect for those people who will be struggling with the implications of this $2000 increase in costs for families.
Not enough of this has being debated. Not only will they have a $2000 a year increase for the provision of essential services, there is no doubt there will be ongoing costs because the cost of goods and services affected by the increases in electricity, water and sewerage will be passed on to the same people. It will not be just a $2000 increase; it will be more than that. I am interested to know if the government, when working out the increase to power, water and sewerage, has done some sums to see what long-term effect this will have on families.
It is all right to say people on this side are taking a popularist point of view and we have to be realistic. I am not saying we should not have to do our best to pay for the cost of electricity, water and sewerage. My question to the Chief Minister was: is there any reason you have to have full cost recovery? Is that what the government wants? Within the cost of running Power and Water there has been large infrastructure expenditure. There has been an upgrade of the generating plants at Channel Island, two new Rolls-Royce generating sets built at Weddell, an upgrade of the generators at Katherine, a replacement generator - I do not know if it has been put in or not - for Tennant Creek, and in Alice Springs there is a large new power station. None of that would be cheap.
If we are talking about whether the government has done anything, it certainly has put money into infrastructure. The Casuarina substation - I do not know how many million dollars that cost - blew up. The Snell Street substation needed repair. Obviously there has been a huge amount of money, capital expenditure, put into upgrading the provision of essential services in the major centres in the Northern Territory.
Does the government intend that those costs be paid for quickly or are they to be spread over 20 or 30 years? Has that been included in the government’s increase in power, water and sewerage? Could the government tell me how much it costs to run Power and Water on an annual basis - that is, the running of Power and Water, fuel, wages, repairs and maintenance and all those things. How much does it cost to run those annually, as distinct from paying off the cost of the infrastructure I mentioned? We will then have some idea what the government is trying to achieve with this increase.
I am concerned that not much of this discussion has occurred previously. Much of it has been in the political arena. Around or after an election there is much, ‘you said this and we said that’. However, there has not been enough discussion about the philosophy of this government in relation to the provision of what I call essential services for the community. They are human rights because every person has the right to water, sewerage and electricity at a reasonable price in this day and age.
Ms Lee interjecting.
Mr WOOD: There must be something in my ear, I can hear something; it must be a bee.
This will hurt people. My question is not whether power and water prices should go up it is why they have to go up instantly. Why cannot the load be spread over a longer period? You cannot belt people over the head with an increase like this and not expect people to be hurt, and they will be hurt. Once upon a time in years gone by the CLP was a family-orientated party which worked with small business. I hope it has not forgotten the foundations it had back in the 1980s and early 1990s. One of the reasons why it ended up in opposition was it became too cosy with big business and forgot the little people. What concerns me in this case is the little people have been left behind in this debate. They will pay and this will hurt many families severely. Two-thousand dollars a year will have a big impact on them.
I am interested to see how people can possibly offset some of these charges, especially in relation to solar power. The government, and the previous government, would promote the idea of solar power but even this area has not been debated fully. The Power and Water Corporation has said you can have up to 5 kW of power on your roof. However, there are questions about how that would affect income for Power and Water and if there would be a budgetary effect should people be allowed to go higher than that. Again, there are other parts of this debate which we have not looked at. We have only concentrated on a section of the debate and, while it is extremely important we concentrate on what the government has done, there was not enough time before the government made this decision to talk about the role of Power and Water and the government in providing essential services at a reasonable price to the community.
The Chief Minister also said - I could not quite follow the logic - more affordable housing. I have yet to see what affordable housing means as I believe affordable land will give you affordable housing. Affordable housing, on its own, will not exist if the land is too expensive. Whilst that may allow people to have a little more money to spend on power and water if their house were to be a fraction cheaper, for existing Territorians who are paying high rents, paying their mortgages, this will make no difference except it will be even harder to pay their mortgage. They will have less money to pay off their mortgage and less money they can use for other things because their rent will still be the same. In fact, the rent will probably go up because of the changes to power, water and sewerage. In this debate we have not had a detailed analysis from the government of what the effect will be, which is disappointing.
The CLP used to be a promoter of the family and of small business. We have heard small business will be affected to the tune of $7800. I have not heard anyone from the government deny that.
I heard the butcher at Humpty Doo might go out of business if he has to pay this extra charge because he is a specialist butcher. Many butchers charge higher prices for their meat than the big supermarkets. Has there been any indication from the government it has looked at the effect these charges will have on those small businesses? This is what your bread and butter, as a Country Liberal Party, used to be: the family and small business. I had hoped you would have looked at those effects and come back to the parliament presenting an analysis of what this will mean and the overall costs.
If you say in the long term things will be good for the Northern Territory because we are taking the hard decisions, you also need to show how that will happen. The promises in the papers - I have all the stuff the government put out during the election – are about reducing the cost of living.
If you say you believe you will reduce the cost of living but will increase the cost of power and water, it would be nice to hear how you will do it because you have already upped the cost of living. If you say in the long-term this will be better for Territorians, show us how. What is your plan to offset this cost - not only offset it neutrally, but negatively? Where will there be savings? You have increased the cost of living by $2500 per year. You promised to reduce the cost of living, which means you have to find savings for Territorians of at least $2500 in other areas so other parts of the economy are not as expensive. You made that promise. You said you would reduce the cost of living and, basically, if you do not we can kick you out. I do not want to, in four years’ time, be worrying about whether you get kicked out or not. I want to ensure, if you say something in relation to the cost of living, people can believe it.
The lower cost of living is the key on one of the glossy brochures about the long-term plan the Country Liberals were putting forward. It says:
The first item is lower the cost of living. I have no problem with waste duplication that is good. The government should be aiming its policies to reduce wastage. This says lower the cost of living and I have not seen anything to show how that will occur.
I would like to see some admission this will hurt families. Before the amounts were announced by the government the lady in charge of Somerville said these charges would really hurt people. I have not heard anything from the government to say how we will help those people hurt by this. This is a human issue; this will hurt people.
Will it drive people over the edge? That concerns me. Financial issues drive people to the end of their tether. I hope the government understands that will happen, and I would like to hear what it will do to help those people. The Chief Minister said he will outline some proposals to help offset the effects. I would like to hear those policies. What will help cushion the effect on families? It is not only families, but single parents, especially one income families. This will really hurt.
The government cannot say, ‘Well, we have to make the tough decisions’. You have to add a little compassion. Whilst the economic rationalist might say, ‘Well, that’s bad luck’, you have to look at what effect this will have on families, on individuals, and you have to clearly state in this debate what you will do about it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Katherine. I am being spoilt as an Independent.
We have not had enough discussion about what the government is doing. It says we have to move out of debt; we have to pay off this debt. I do not have a problem with that. I have a problem with saying it has to be done overnight, and that is the impression people are getting. They are saying, ‘We have to pay off the Power and Water debt’. We should be trying to reduce the debt of Power and Water, but do we have to do it instantly? Can we lessen the burden on families by doing it so they can adjust to it?
I have not heard discussion about the makeup of Power and Water. Infrastructure is one big cost, capital expenditure is a big cost, and the running of Power and Water is also a part of the equation.
I do not always like the tone of censure motions. I am not accusing the Chief Minister of lying, but he has broken a promise. Members of parliament and government can break promises. People accuse Julia Gillard of breaking a promise. They accuse her of lying about the carbon tax. People have the right to change their minds, but they have to admit what they said before is not quite the same as what they say now. That, to me, is breaking a promise people elected the government on. There were so many glossy brochures about reducing the cost of living.
If the government can show us it can reduce the cost of living whilst, at the same time, bump up the price of power, water and sewerage, please tell me and I will be convinced you can reduce the cost of living. At present, I do not believe, from what has been said, you are keeping to your promise. I feel for families. My daughter is one of those who struggles with rent in Palmerston and has three children. This will hurt people and families severely, and I am concerned we will lose people from the Territory. People will come under severe mental strain because of this increase in the cost of living which the government promised it would lower.
I am happy to listen to the rest of the debate. I do not agree with the wording and, traditionally, do not vote on censure motions. However, people will understand my thoughts.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, we came to government on 25 August this year, only 14 weeks ago. Very quickly, it came to our attention that, despite the reports which were made available publically and to us in opposition about the Power and Water Corporation, things were much worse than we ever imagined.
Yes, we have been assisted in this process by the Renewal Management Board, a group of distinguished, professional people, most of whom have committed significant periods of their life to the Northern Territory, and came back willingly to lend us a hand in what they knew would be an enormous exercise: planning and managing our way out of a financial predicament. No one imagined it being as bad as it is.
Dr Neil Conn, head of the Renewal Management Board, provided a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce before the election outlining the seriousness of the financial situation in the Northern Territory. I made myself available to attend that presentation. He left a group of about 300 or 400 people in deathly silence. People were absolutely shocked and dismayed by what Dr Conn presented to them. He gave the people at that breakfast presentation a very stark picture of where the former Labor government has led Territorians: into a financial situation which is indeed bleak, member for Nelson. People will tell you it is not as bad as we are painting, not as bad as the Renewal Management Board maintains, not as bad as people will have you think.
I sat in silence with the hundreds of other people in the room that morning absolutely gobsmacked at what I was hearing. Since 2008 the former Labor government kept spending well beyond the means of the Territory. Revenue was dropping and expenditure was increasing. We have ended up with a fiscal imbalance a population of 233 000 people cannot sustain.
As the Chief Minister mentioned, we are paying $750 000 per day in interest repayments on a nett debt close to $3bn. If we keep spending the way the former Labor government spent over the last four or five years, we will end up with an enormous debt of around $5bn by the end of our term of government in 2015-16.
Coming to government we were dismayed and alarmed by the seriousness of the financial predicament of the Northern Territory. We were faced with making very difficult decisions early in our term. Mind you, we are at the 14 week mark now. The point where we realised we had to make some very difficult decisions, particularly around the Power and Water Corporation, was probably around week five or six. It was glaringly obvious the main problem facing the Territory budget was the Power and Water Corporation. It contributes 40% towards the fiscal imbalance; 40% of the problem with the Territory’s finances is due to the problems in the Power and Water Corporation.
I am giving this explanation mainly for the benefit of the member for Nelson who claimed he did not understand why and how we made these decisions. I am also giving this explanation for the benefit of Territorians. Most people would have heard this explanation before because, fairly consistently over the last 14 weeks, members of this government have been trying with great difficulty to explain a very complex situation.
The reason we target Power and Water Corporation is because it contributes 40% towards the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance at the end of each year is added to the nett debt of the Territory; it is cumulative. At the end of this year we might have a fiscal imbalance, we suggest, of around $800m and that will be added to the nett debt which is climbing, climbing, climbing, compliments of the former Labor government.
Power and Water Corporation contributes a significant amount to that debt and a significant amount to the fiscal imbalance. We found very early in our term - within weeks of coming to office - that the Power and Water Corporation is in a very precarious financial situation, one that is commercially and financially unsustainable and is bordering on the point of insolvency.
This is a story you did not hear from the former Labor government. This is a story the now Leader of the Opposition chooses not to talk about because it is unpalatable, embarrassing, and something she does not want to take any responsibility for, but it is the truth. It is the state of play we are faced with as the new government of the Northern Territory. If we had our way we would be back in 2008 where the former Leader of the Opposition was in a situation of having an almost bottomless pit of GST revenue, where there was a manageable level of debt. She had money to play with, and it was wonderful. It must have been exhilarating spending on things like water parks; spending money on enjoyable and necessary things the Territory wants and requires.
However, we are faced with a situation where there is no money in the bank, no money in the coffers, and the debt is at the highest level ever in the history of the Northern Territory. We are faced with the biggest problem of all: the Power and Water Corporation. We have no money to splash around to impress the people of the Northern Territory. We have no money to exercise anything but restraint and very conservative measures when it comes to how we manage the finances of the Territory.
Our situation is completely foreign to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition as a group. They did not take responsibility for where they have landed us. During their term they did not take time to reflect on the fact things were becoming worse, their level of spending was unsustainable, and very difficult decisions needed to be made fairly soon to rein in this escalating problem.
One decision we made and are talking about today, and which the opposition has censured us about, is to increase electricity, water and sewerage tariffs across the board. We have made this decision with hands on our hearts. It is, undoubtedly, the most difficult decision this government will make in its four-year term. It was a difficult decision because it will deeply hurt and affect most Territorians. Some Territorians - we know who they are - will not be too bothered by this, but most Territorians will feel it. People in this room will feel it. We have not made this decision lightly. We have tried to keep it as minimal as possible, believe it or not. The figures we have come up with are not about full cost recovery which is what the member for Nelson suggests. This is about getting us out of a financial debacle with the assistance of other mechanisms so the Power and Water Corporation can start to function at a reasonably financially sustainable level. It will not make the Power and Water Corporation commercially sustainable; it will not even come close to that.
The Power and Water Corporation has identified $30m worth of operational savings and $52m in capital deferment. A total of $82m has been identified within the Power and Water Corporation as its contribution towards getting out of this financial mire it has found itself in. The other part of the equation which has been brought to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer, for many years is the necessity to increase electricity, water and sewerage tariffs to a level which brings revenue to a point which allows the corporation to function effectively.
With me I have the latest copy of the corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. I doubt whether the former Treasurer has even laid eyes on this. This is the latest one signed off in April 2012, during her term. These documents are released annually. Throughout this document there would be about 20 references to the fact tariffs needed to be increased above and beyond the level of the CPI. The year before, in the 2011-12 Statement of Corporate Intent of the Power and Water Corporation, the same messages were echoed. Revenue had to be increased beyond the level of the CPI. In 2011-12, 2012-13, 2010-11 and 2009-10 the messages were plain and clear right through these documents. For the last four or five years the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, was informed it was essential that revenue increases, through tariff increases, be put in place. Revenue had to be increased. Tariffs had to be increased to provide the revenue Power and Water Corporation needed to reach the minimal level of financial sustainability.
What did the former Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, do? She embarked on what could only be described as a minimal and token effort to increase the revenue generated by the Power and Water Corporation. She chose to increase tariffs by a minimal amount. The only exception was in 2009, when she increased tariffs by 18%. Congratulations to the former Treasurer for having the courage to do that in 2009 because it takes courage. This government knows it takes an enormous amount of courage to make a decision like that. Politically it is unsavoury, unpopular, and risky to make that decision - even 18%.
The former Treasurer decided to implement much lower tariff increases, reflecting CPI increases, with the exception of 1 July 2012, when the government implemented tariff increases commensurate with the CPI increase. Added to that was the carbon tax of the federal government.
It was only in 2009 that the former government implemented a tariff which could have reasonably increased revenue to a level which met the needs of the corporation in order for it to break even - to pay for its expenses. The years that followed demonstrated no commitment whatsoever to fulfil her part of the deal.
It was recommended strongly in the Reeves report released in 2009 that she needed to substantially increase tariffs. She did not do that, and the years that followed really signified the complete financial demise of the Power and Water Corporation.
The former Treasurer, the portfolio minister, undertook quite an ambitious capital works program. Once again, if I refer you to the Statement of Corporate Intent last financial year – 2011-12 – 62% of what was a considerable spend on capital works was paid through borrowings and from 2011 to 2013, the forecast is 78% of the capital works program would have been paid for by borrowings. These are alarming figures. A corporation of this kind should not be borrowing any more than 50% of capital works expenditure through that means. However, 62% for last year and 78% for 2011-13 are staggering figures, very risky and very irresponsible.
The member for Nelson mentioned the capital works program and what was going on there. Yes, the former government was forced into a corner on that score. It had to make some major investments into the Power and Water Corporation in order to upgrade the facilities, the infrastructure, because of what happened at the Casuarina Zone Substation. However, when you embark on such an enormous capital works program you also, as a business manager, have to think about revenue. The only source of revenue the former Treasurer had in mind was to borrow the money, which demonstrates to me and anyone else who has had a hand in business that she really had no idea.
However, I will leave the technical, complicated explanation there because the message I am trying to give the people of the Northern Territory is, when you talk about who is responsible for the decision on tariff increases, the government is responsible. We take full responsibility for the very difficult decision we made last week to increase the electricity, water and sewerage tariffs. However, what responsibility does the former government take in all this? I have heard no sense of responsibility on its part whatsoever. The former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, has shirked it all off and plays the innocent party in all this, milking it for what it is worth.
There is a sense of karma here; what goes around comes around. You were not re-elected. People did not have faith in how you were managing the Northern Territory. We will prove to Territorians over the next four years that we will manage things, we will get back on track, and we will reduce the cost of living.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today about the environment as there is nothing more important. The Territory has one of the most enviable lifestyles in the world based around our beautiful natural environment and unique cultural heritage.
Growing up in the Territory, I had amazing experiences mainly based around our adventures exploring our Territory. In the south, with the beautiful town of Alice Springs nestled in the MacDonnell Ranges, one of my strong memories of Alice Springs was participating or watching sport from Traeger Park sports precinct looking out at the ranges, particularly around sunset. It is simply stunning and, when I think of Alice Springs, this memory often comes to mind.
As you travel up the track through our beautiful desert country, you move into the subtropical then tropical savannah country with Kakadu and Litchfield National Parks and, to the east, the Arnhem Land coast is an untouched treasure. I have been lucky to experience many of these places and thank the traditional owners of these lands for sharing their special place with me so I can appreciate how important our environment is.
The Northern Territory is a vast unspoilt country of beauty. We are in a unique position in the Territory with so much of our land untouched by development. We have a tourism industry based around this vast and undeveloped landscape. People travel from all over the world to visit an untouched natural place of cultural and physical significance. It is something so many can only dream of: the natural beauty largely left untouched for thousands of years. Therefore, when it comes to legislation about our environment, we must ensure it is strong and well thought out, not rushed. We will not get a second chance with our environment if we get it wrong.
I and my family, like many Territorians, live here for the unique lifestyle based around our natural environment. Where else on your day off can you easily visit Litchfield National Park, or spend the day on the harbour visiting places such as Mica Beach, which is unspoilt. Indigenous Territorians have been here for many thousands of years and have a unique and deeply personal connection to the Northern Territory landscape.
Any measures to improve the long-term protection of our environment – physical, cultural and social – are a good thing. The environment is our most precious asset and without a safe, clean and sustainable environment our future is bleak. As the Territory develops and expands we must ensure we protect our uniqueness and ensure future generations of Territorians have access to this same unique lifestyle we enjoy today compared to our southern cousins.
In the Northern Territory we have a special responsibility: our largely unspoilt environment, both urban and regional. We do not want to repeat the mistakes made in southern jurisdictions. On our visits down south Territorians see many examples where legislation and poorly thought out development has not protected the environment and has caused people living in the area problems. The poor planning on Sydney’s northern beaches not only created a traffic nightmare, but the huge high rise developments along some of the beaches have, at times, looked like they would be swallowed up by the beaches and ocean. Only through great expense and time have they been saved.
This legislation we are debating today not only has a role to play in protecting our environment from large commercial development, but also needs to protect our quality of life in an urban setting. One element missing from the legislation is noise pollution. Both domestic and commercial noise pollution can cause great harm to the surrounding social environment. In such a warm climate we need to encourage tropical living, yet an ill-placed or noisy pool pump or air conditioner can often mean windows have to be kept shut, defeating tropical-style housing development. Industry needs to have strict guidelines in place so it has a clear framework around noise pollution. We must protect the community from unacceptable noise, whether it is commercial construction or domestic noise.
We take for granted we have an abundance of water, particularly in northern Australia, but water security is becoming one of the biggest environmental issues we face across Australia. Long-term water supply is a challenge for government in both residential and commercial development.
It is not clear if the new EPA will have this as a major environmental issue to consider when providing sound advice to both government and Territorians more generally on ecologically sustainable development. Development needs to be carefully guided.
I am conscious of our development challenges in the Territory, particularly in remote areas, and job creation in the bush is one of our key objectives. However, we need to be careful of a legacy of issues left from activities which are not well thought out or managed and left for taxpayers to fix in the future.
In the 1940s and 1950s, we saw uranium mining which is still being cleaned up today in the Jawoyn country in southern Kakadu and, more recently, gold-mining activity at Mt Todd which has left untold damage and financial cost to Territorians. As a mother, I am very conscious of leaving unsolved problems for future generations, hoping science will somehow solve them. We must be careful we do not leave a burden for future generations.
There is much change in our environment: increasing acidity in our salt water affecting our sea life, sea levels rising, and changing weather patterns. The loss of biodiversity, including some unique animal and plant species, potentially some unique to the Territory, is a threat. Under this new EPA, who is paying attention to these emerging environmental issues? As a society, we are much more conscious of environmental issues. Does this EPA have a key role in this change or is it purely an assessment of proposals and a regulatory body? Will the Environment Protection Authority have a role in protecting our environment from invasive plants and animals?
These are some of the concerns of Territorians we will have questions about in the committee stage. This legislation seems far more about assessing development projects and less about proactively providing protection for the environment. Development is important, but it must be balanced with protecting our unique environment and ensuring a sustainable quality of life.
This legislation has been promoted as reducing red tape and integrating planning and environmental protection across government, but what is meant by ‘integrating’. My consultation with Territorians has highlighted community cynicism about that, particularly with the political appointments to the head of these two critical bodies. One of the major problems we have with this legislation is the automatic appointment of the Chair of the Planning Commission on the Environment Protection Authority. This creates a risk to the independence of the EPA and a conflict of interest.
One must question why this is necessary and if it is aimed at ensuring projects get special or preferred consideration, such as Arafura Harbour. By increasing the focus of the EPA to assessment and regulation, we are shifting the role of the EPA. The existing EPA has the role of looking at emerging and cumulative issues. How would the work of Charles Darwin University, CSIRO, or our own Parks and Wildlife people help inform the work of the new EPA in ecological sustainable development, particularly with an eye to broad-scale environmental issues?
In the past we have seen the introduction of species, for example, gamba grass for pastoral improvement. This has had a huge cost to the community and the environment. Who would review and provide advice on these types of issues and look at the introduction of new species into the Territory?
Prevention is always better than cure rather than repeating the mistakes of others, particularly here in our special Territory. One of the most important responsibilities of a government is to support economic development, but not at an all-cost approach. We must have an eye to the future on behalf of future generations.
Our concern is not focused on reducing red tape and more certainty for business, but getting the balance right and the need for consultation and engagement with our community about the proposed changes.
The role of the government in protecting our environment is vital. We must have in place legislation which ensures all members of our community play their part in protecting the environment. I question the speed of the introduction of this legislation and what consultation has taken place. In looking at this legislation we consulted a number of stakeholders, and I thank them for their time and input.
We can see what you are aiming for in increasing independence of the EPA and giving the executive powers of assessment, compliance and enforcement. We recognise your move to ensure the EPA is not subject to ministerial direction, but who is representing the grassroots community values and perspectives in this new legislation?
In carrying out its work protecting the environment, how will cross-cultural perspectives on environmental values and notions of wellbeing be determined and included as part of the core business of the new EPA? How can the community ask for a review of environmental assessments and conclusions of the new EPA? This is an area of major concern.
The legislation aims to provide improved compliance and enforcement through greater autonomy. However, this is not necessarily a given if the work is not resourced properly. I will be looking to the mini-budget to see what level of resources will be available to the new EPA and what administrative support will be provided in the context of job cuts across the NT public service. We will be watching, over time, to see where the advice to the EPA comes from and the mix of views which informs its work: advice from our own skilled workforce and a knowledgeable community, or a panel of consultants.
In your second reading speech you said there will be no new regulatory functions required for the EPA. Perhaps there needs to be, and this is an example of the potential benefit of more opportunity to improve this legislation if we had more time for consultation rather than rushing the legislation through.
Many Territorians are concerned about one agency having both an assessment and compliance role as proposed in this legislation. Some believe it is better to keep those roles separate. The public needs to have confidence in the EPA. This key issue could have been canvassed through proper public consultation.
You talk about being open and accountable, yet I have huge concerns around the independence of the new EPA. At first glance it seems attractive to have the authority independent of government, but confidence in that arrangement is not helped by the hand-picking of board members.
The Chair of the EPA has been appointed with no advertisement or calls for expressions of interest, although it was part of the 100-day plan to do so.
It seems we have two political appointees for the Chair of the EPA and the new Planning Commission. The notion of independence as a major selling point to the bill is brought further into doubt when you look at the powers and delegations in clause 36.
What qualifications would be sought in the members of the EPA, particularly in respect to issues relating to the quality of life? Who will bring this advice and make these judgments? Also, it is not clear how assessments and recommendations may be appealed. This is one of a number of questions I will clarify in the committee stage.
The bill provides for the EPA to focus on mitigation, remediation and continuing improvement. The important thing is transparency and the work of good people supporting the EPA, and how effective the authority will be in doing its job.
We will be watching the funding provided to the new EPA. In relation to the government’s commitment to continually improve, the current EPA Act provides for a review of the legislation after five years. This new legislation is silent on that type of review.
I want to again stress the importance of consultation around the legislation with the business community, environmental NGOs and land councils, particularly if they represent more than 50% of the Territory’s land mass.
Being environmentally sustainable means using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources. We need an ecological process where life depends on and maintains a total equality of life for now and in the future.
The definition of this is not in the bill, which is in other states’ bills and nationally. By not including reference to these guiding principles, it is not as comprehensive as we have found in other legislation. In committee stage, I will ask questions around the absence of these precautionary principles.
The community deserves more opportunity to discuss and comment on issues like this. The community would feel more comfortable and confident after an opportunity to discuss this legislation as the environment is one of the most important things we should be concerned about.
I do not apologise for suggesting the legislation be slowed down and subject to wider consultation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill presented by the honourable Chief Minister. I want to congratulate the member for Nightcliff on what was clearly a very well thought through argument in this parliament.
You obviously went to pains to go through the bill, dissect each part of it, and come up with some very relevant points you feel need to be raised at committee level. I encourage you to take the opportunity during committee stage to ask all those questions and seek clarification. Well done, member for Nightcliff.
This government has an unashamed commitment to sustainable economic development in the interests of providing opportunities for all Territorians. We also have an equally strong commitment to accountability, transparency and meaningful regulation of the environment.
My ministerial responsibilities of Mines and Energy and Primary Industry and Fisheries are integral to the development of jobs, wealth and a better lifestyle for Territorians. There are multiple mining projects in various stages of development or expansion, including the iron ore province at the Roper, Phase 3 of McArthur River Mine, rare earths at Nolans Bore as well as Mount Peake and Moly Hill in Central Australia to name but a few.
From a primary industry perspective, the Australian Agricultural Company’s abattoir at Livingstone will be a significant development for the Top End. This government is committed to advancing the expansion of the Ord River irrigation area into the Territory.
While the government is strongly supportive of these projects going ahead, it does so in the context of a rigorous environmental assessment and regulatory process. I have made no secret of the fact the Northern Territory is open for business, and so it should be. After languishing in so many areas for years, the signal to the broader community, the investment community, those who would invest in the Northern Territory, to grow our economic capacity is very clear.
However, part of the message I have been delivering to the broader community is we are open for business but not at the expense of the environment. We will continue to regulate and monitor environmental processes around all developments occurring across the Territory whether they be in the mining sector, the primary industry sector, or others.
The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, the EPA, will deliver that rigorous assessment process in an independent and accountable manner. When talking about independence of an EPA, shortly after the election in August I was cleaning out my parliamentary office on the fifth floor and came across an old manila folder with a pile of papers in it. On the front it had ‘independent EPA’. This is something we have been talking about for many years. We believed, in opposition, the EPA needed something more; it needed more teeth, more scope, and needed to do things it considered necessary in determining environmental protection for greater parts of the Northern Territory. We have achieved that in this bill.
It should be noted that not only will the NT EPA be an independent body, but there are also clear requirements about transparency in relation to assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. There are quite a number of references to the ‘responsible minister’. In many cases, matters which fall from the EPA to departmental level and through ministers will fall onto my desk; I will be the responsible minister. I am quickly going to run through the provisions in the act which fall into the category of scenarios.
Where the responsible minister has received a report and made a determination consistent with the assessment report, the minister must advise the NT EPA within seven days. That is a normal reporting process. Where the responsible minister makes a decision contrary to an assessment report, the minister must notify the NT EPA of the reasons why and table that explanation in this House within six sitting days. Similarly, where the minister responsible for the NT EPA makes additional comments on the assessment report before providing it to the responsible minister, the minister for the NT EPA is obliged to follow the same process; that is, where the comment is consistent with the assessment report the minister must advise the NT EPA within seven days. Where that comment is contrary to the assessment report, the minister is required to inform the NT EPA of the decision why and table the explanation in this House within six sitting days.
This is an excellent example of the level of transparency which has never occurred in environmental regulation in the Northern Territory before. Before the election and during the election campaign the Chief Minister, formerly the Leader of the Opposition, told Territorians time after time that we would be an honest, open, accountable and transparent government. The bill before the House is an example of the commitment the Chief Minister made to Territorians.
However, it is acknowledged there may be times when a recommendation of the NT EPA may be difficult or impossible to achieve within the operational requirements of a developmental project. Under those circumstances, Territorians can take comfort from the fact they will have a clearer explanation about what occurred and that the government accepts full responsibility and accountability - wait for it, there is that word again, ‘accountability’ - for that decision. We will not shy away from our responsibilities; we take accountability very seriously.
I have a strong expectation that the departments for which I am responsible will have a cooperative relationship with the NT EPA in relation to projects which undergo environmental assessment. This model of a strong independent NT EPA is a critical framework which will support responsible development.
In general terms, the NT EPA will be able to provide advice to the minister, either at the request of the minister or on its own initiative - that is important, on its own initiative - on a variety of critical environmental issues. These include achieving appropriate and effective environmental policy and management for the Territory, legislation related to the environment and its administration, issues affecting the Territory’s capacity to achieve ecologically sustainable development, emerging environmental issues, the cumulative impacts of development on the environment, or any other matters related to the objectives of the NT EPA.
There is a further transparency obligation on the minister in relation to advice provided by the NT EPA. The critical point is, as a genuinely independent body, the NT EPA will have a very broad scope to provide advice to the Territory government on environmental issues which will need to be considered as the Territory grows under this government’s policies. The NT EPA will also be resourced properly for the first time and will have complementary regulatory responsibilities under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. I note the comments from the member for Nightcliff about watching the mini-budget to see if that will appear. The commitment that it will be resourced properly has been given.
Delivery of this legislation is a key component of this government’s program for Territory development in a responsible and transparent manner. An independent EPA is something the Northern Territory has lacked. We called for it from opposition many years ago. Today, 27 November 2012, I support this bill and expect it to be passed this afternoon.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill. In researching this bill I went back to the original EPA inquiry report. There were four options in that report. One was to leave things as they were, B was my option, C was the CLP’s option, D was the ALP’s option and guess which option has now come forward? It is C which was very similar to what has been put forward today.
When we brought out the recommendations for this inquiry we all agreed on them. It was not a minority report; however, having four options I guess you covered that. Everyone had their own version of what the EPA should look like. I believed the EPA should be more like the Development Consent Authority because it dealt with issues on a continual basis. The CLP wanted an independent environment commissioner and the ALP got what it wanted, which is more or less what we have today. I do not necessarily agree that the last EPA was not independent. You could argue this one might be more independent and I will get to that later, but the people on the previous one, generally speaking, looked at issues independently, and you can see that from some of the reports.
I remember the hard work Mr Andrew Tupper put into the development of the EPA. We have to remember this was the first time we had an EPA; it was evolving. Some of the changes which occurred later were due to the good work of the member for Brennan, who put forward, in opposition, a number of amendments. The previous government was willing to put those amendments to parliament and there were changes to the existing EPA.
I will not be supporting this bill, not because I am against having an EPA; it is good we have an EPA. I do not believe it can be independent while the Chair of the EPA will be part of another organisation - the Planning Commission - and the Chair of the Planning Commission will be on the board of the EPA. The EPA has to be at arm’s length from those other organisations because, notwithstanding they might be good people who represent those positions, it will be perceived that the EPA can never be truly independent as it should be.
I should go back one step. The Chief Minister, in his second reading speech, said in the very first line the purpose of the bill was to establish an independent Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority with executive powers for environmental assessment, compliance and enforcement. It will not achieve that and I will explain my reasons.
People might have heard me on the radio when I used the well-known example of proposals in years gone by to develop Ludmilla Creek, called the Arafura marina proposal. I use this as a hypothetical case because no decision has been made, but it is a case people know. The Planning Commission might decide, in its review of some strategic development in the Northern Territory, that Arafura marina is a good thing to look at and decide to investigate the proposed development and make a decision. That decision is made by the board, but two of the people on the board are the Chair of the Planning Commission and Chair of the EPA. For argument’s sake, the Planning Commission recommends this is a great thing for the Northern Territory; it should go ahead, it has great financial spin-offs for the Northern Territory, for business, for people wanting to keep their boats there, people who want to live next to a canal, and it will improve the lifestyle of the Northern Territory.
Then the EPA decides to look at it. ‘Ludmilla Creek is a nice little creek on Darwin Harbour with mangroves and many fish. For years people have enjoyed the area for recreation and fishing. We should look at it from an environmental perspective.’ Two people who have already been part of the decision-making process on the Planning Commission will be making decisions on the same proposal the EPA is looking at. The Chair of the Planning Commission, who is on the EPA board, will now make a decision about whether this is an environmentally suitable development. The Chair of the EPA, who is on the Planning Commission, will also be part of the decision-making process.
How can anyone believe they will not have a conflict of interest? The government must know there will be a conflict of interest. It has put in clause 24, which excludes any challenge by anyone in any court or tribunal over a decision made by those people which would normally be regarded as a conflict of interest. It excuses that in clause 24 of the bill which, to me, is an admission by the government there is a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest you do not have an independent EPA.
If there is an argument that we need a planner, let us employ a planner who is not on any other board. Find a planner and put that person on the EPA. If you want an environmental person on the Planning Commission, you can employ a person with environmental credentials who has nothing to do with the EPA. That way you will be truly independent. That way it will apply in practice.
Clause 24 admits you have a conflict of interest which will destroy the perception of this body being independent. That is sad because even though I have other issues, I could have lived with those. This one I cannot live with. There is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.
The other concern I have is - this was part of option C in the original inquiry into the EPA - the government has gone on a more regulatory role, an enforcement role, by taking over the department of Environment. You have now expanded the role of the EPA and it can be argued that is good or bad. The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the NT Horticultural Association opposed an EPA when this was discussed. Business did not like the idea of an EPA. The findings of the committee said largely, industry and business did not support the creation of an EPA in the Northern Territory. They were concerned it would add more bureaucracy and limit the growth of business.
It is interesting to see we have given the EPA a bigger role than it had before. You have a series of government departments and many of them - some may not affect the environment - can affect the environment physically - the Department of Infrastructure might want to put a highway through the mangroves somewhere, or the department of Education might want to put a building on a fairly sensitive area.
The EPA could look at those departments, if it was a large enough development, and assess if there was an environmental impact. Also, the previous EPA was able to look at the department of Environment to see if it was doing its job. A classic example is the Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court flooding. I wrote to the EPA and it conducted an investigation into the role of the department in relation to how that parcel of land was able to be subdivided.
Now the department is part of the EPA, who checks that? That was important because, in the case of Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court, an independent body said, ‘Department, you are not doing your job. Your job is to be the regulator, to enforce, to ensure planning and developments are done according to the act.’ The EPA could make that public and you hope the department would pull its socks up and do what was required.
I am concerned we now have no one to check the checker. They have taken the department under their wing and who will investigate to ensure they are doing their job? That was the advantage of having the EPA away from the department. There are other issues I will go into in the committee stage.
I am disappointed there does not appear to be any place - it may be intended, but I do not see it written as in the old legislation - where the public could be given some indication their request to the EPA is to be considered. Under section 5B(1) of the old act, the public was included. That is not in the new bill.
I wrote to the EPA about 16 months ago about a large drain at Berrimah Business Park. People might have noticed when they go past the old Coonawarra naval base there is a big park on the side and all the water from that park has been, by design, made to flow into Knuckey Lagoon. I had a letter from a constituent who said he was concerned that in the big Wet the water was already close enough to his house. What would happen if we had much extra water?
I also had concerns about pollution and siltation coming from that development because the drain was being poorly designed. It was the usual old-fashioned developer style of drain - get the water, get it off quick and who cares where it goes. It was a concrete invert in the middle of a gravel drain.
I wrote to the EPA and they investigated it. My question is: as a member of the public, would I have any rights under this legislation, as before, to ask the EPA to look at an issue I might raise? Also, what is on the books from the previous EPA the new EPA has said it is not going to continue with because the drain has not been finished yet.
My understanding is that letters went out to people who were involved in the design for their comments. A draft report was written and letters went out asking for comment on the report. I am concerned that all the hard work over the last 16 months has died because the new Wet Season is with us. The drain is the same old drain, except they put some hay bales down to restrict the amount of siltation. However, my concern is, in this day and age when we start putting water into a conservation reserve - Knuckey Lagoon - the standards should be high regardless, especially the standards for releasing water from what is more or less a commercial/industrial area. They should be pretty high before you are allowed to release water into a sensitive area like that.
We need to protect areas like Knuckey Lagoon. It is one of those magic areas very close to Darwin. People drive past but sometimes do not realise the importance of the area. If you ever go there at sunset, down Fiddlers Lane where Adina Poole, my good friend lives, watch the number of pelicans, magpie geese, jabirus - all types of birds congregate in that area. It is a wonderful area very close to Darwin, and I will throw my two bobs worth in: I hope it is not part of the infill. However, I move on from that.
I will raise some of these issues during the committee stage. Chief Minister, I have a fundamental issue with it. I do not disagree in general with what you are doing. Whilst I might have some issues here and there, I could probably live with those. I cannot accept that, by having people on one board and on the other board, you can claim it will be truly independent. In the eyes of the public, that will always be seen as a conflict of interest. As I said, clause 24 of the bill admits there will be a conflict of interest.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to further discuss some of these issues if I need to during the committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I join the debate on this new bill. I have communicated this to the electorate in Barkly, circulated it to a number of people and asked them to make comment on the bill. I have some comments which will translate into questions as well, where constituents are keen to find out more about government and its new legislation.
As I have communicated in the electorate, new governments bring in new legislation and that is normal. However, when we have the calming speech of the member for Katherine and the underlying sentiment of ‘trust me’ that is fine. I compliment him on a nice speech without any cynicism. I remember when they were in opposition, ‘who wrote it for you’, the ‘fifth floor spin’ and all the negativity which went on year after year - all the good old tricks. I will not go anywhere near that because I learnt so much about it in four years of having the privileged position of working in the government.
The ‘trust me’ line I do not buy, nor did the constituents I circulated the proposed legislation to. They said they cannot buy the ‘trust me’ line because this legislation is far too important and will impact on the Territory’s future.
I had a very privileged position in the previous government being the Minister for Lands and Planning and, therefore, became associated with environmental protection and the previous government’s Environmental Protection Authority. I started to connect a few dots when I was researching this legislation, this bill before the House. I started to reflect on the change. If it is not broken why do you have to fix it? I understood it is a new government and wants to put its stamp on the Territory, or should I say restamp the Territory after a period in the wilderness. I remember the 27 years before that. The old DNA and values have re-emerged. Therefore, legislation needs to be properly scrutinised.
As I connected the dots, I thought of my experiences as the Minister for Lands and Planning - the development community, and the tension between good economic sustainable development which acknowledges the constraints and delivers for the environment. It was certainly a great learning curve and a very good experience with the Territory community. I remember a clich I put out early in the piece. The Urban Development Institute of Australia invited me to a Saturday meeting and they were challenging me. There was an understanding I was a hick from the bush and what the hell was I doing in this position?
With good challenges around the table, I put out the clich that I grew up in Sydney and wanted to see cranes on the skyline. That was picked up and celebrated for a number of years following. From dropping that clich on the table that day to what I subsequently learnt over the years, there is a great responsibility for putting cranes on the skyline or, for that matter, any development throughout the Northern Territory.
I also picked up on the member for Nightcliff as a home grown Territorian, a young mother raising a young family. There was passion in her contribution to the debate about getting it right and ensuring we hand over to the next generation, and generations after that, a very responsible outcome when we talk about getting the balance right between development and the protection of the environment.
We go back to connecting the dots. I remember the continual mantra of the then opposition about failure to release land. It was a continual line of failure to release land. I started to take a big interest in the greater Darwin area. I had a good knowledge of the rest of the Territory, but I really needed to learn quickly about the greater Darwin area. Those were enjoyable days. I continue to revisit projects the previous government put in train which are rolling out now and represent good development for the greater Darwin area. Darwin is the capital of northern Australia, and do not forget the city of Palmerston.
However, the mantra was about failure to release land and the continual attacks on what government was not doing while I was out there kicking dirt, seeing these developments take shape and learning about the constraints - the important areas where there are critical constraints to development.
Yet the opposition in those days was making statements and the now Chief Minister said, ‘I flew into Darwin and looked at all the land down there’. He was highly critical of government because it was not developing it, did not know how to develop it. In the job working with experts, I understood the reasons there were serious constraints around developing ‘all the land down there’ and why it was so important to get it right.
The Environment Protection Authority was a major stakeholder in these processes. It made assessments and put forward advice, scientific knowledge, and background relating to social, cultural and economic scientific explorations around development proposals. That was all factored into the complex decision-making processes of government. They were team processes. It was not supreme ministerial authority; it was a partnership with the public sector listening and consulting with the community, it took on board the development community and accepted advice on the serious environmental issues that needed to be factored in.
I remember a very significant development I was involved with as the minister. All the outcomes seemed good but there was a major challenge around sewerage: effluent disposal. As I took the time and energy to learn about it I started to understand the complex nature and the challenges. The developer wanted to take a different route, very much a shortcut, at a reduced cost and tried to convince government it would be okay. Reflecting on that, I am glad we took the long way around and worked our way through the development. It achieved its objectives in the long run; it is up and running and the outcome for effluent disposal was appropriate. It took a bit longer, cost much more, but it delivered for future Territorians, as the member for Nightcliff said in her contribution to debate about ensuring you get the balance right.
This bill is recreating an Environment Protection Authority and the member for Nelson has highlighted a number of concerns. I share those concerns, and some of the constituents in the Barkly have questions in other areas.
To go back to the start, it is an honourable bill with honourable intention; however, it focuses purely on industry. When I relive the auditory assaults I had in this House, elsewhere, and in the media from the then opposition, it is not so much about fast-tracking, cutting red tape or focusing on one sector of the community, it is about being holistic, inclusive and consultative.
Good planning needs to be based on good consultation. One thing the previous government did right, with all the criticism going on - there are many things - was the Enquiry by Design process when planning for the new city of Weddell and the new suburb of Kilgariff. That was a very good learning curve and the current government needs to factor in the lessons learnt. Enquiry by Design is important in the consultative process and taking the community with you as opposed to stepping outside of community consultation and making the decisions in a more closed or closeted environment. The member for Nelson deconstructed some of the structural issues around the new Environment Protection Authority and mentions the crossover between the chairs.
The politics of that is the member for Katherine says ‘trust me’ and the election campaign from the CLP said ‘trust us’. They delivered certain promises yet, within the 100 day period, promises have been broken. Important elements of the design have been changed relating to the appointment of both chairs, one to the Environment Protection Authority and one to the Planning Commission. As a Territorian, as a constituent who raises some concerns, I say, ‘Hang on a minute, I was told one thing then it was changed. Then it is fed back to me that both these appointments are very credible appointments.’ That is good, but it does not reflect generating community trust, the train of community consultation, information, education and awareness as we go through this process together.
Connecting the dots and the auditory assaults I endured through those years about releasing land, releasing land, releasing land, you will have to forgive me for developing the conspiracy theory that perhaps there is another agenda and perhaps that word in the bill ‘integration’ is not in the best interests of good environmental or planning outcomes. Maybe it is a political way of doing business, but the Chief Minister talks strongly in the House about politics clouding things, politics degrading outcomes, and politics getting in the way of serious debate.
I looked at how this started to roll-out through a process of promises, a process of election of a new government, and now a process of steamrolling this through the House. I will never forget as long as I live the statement from the member for Greatorex, ‘Well, we have the numbers, we are going to do this whether you like it or not’.
That resonates with me as a Territorian and I talk about it to my family and constituents. I draw a clear point of reference as an opposition member and say that is not a credible way to do business or take Territorians with you as a government in this very important area. The member for Nelson will have some good questions around that, and I am interested in the minister responding because that was a letdown. I am sure the minister will give that credibility and talk about how integration between these two commissions, which will share the principle office, will deliver better, credible outcomes, and ones which are community consultative and will ensure we get the balance right.
That is my experience, and there is not too much alarm in that. That is rational and fair ground for questioning of this legislation. I will be interested in how the minister advises this House, which is basically advising the Territory, that this is good, this is the way to do business. We will have to broaden the definitions to go much further than industry.
The wording of the bill talks about a perception of inefficiencies and unresponsiveness to industry in regard to the original EPA established in 2008 under the previous government, which had more expanded powers in 2010 - that growing organism, that policy development. The member for Nelson talked about review. I remember learning in this House very early that new legislation is naturally reviewed. It is a good process, a credible and accountable process. The member for Nelson talked about the concern - he has not picked that up and I was not able to find it either - where there are opportunities for this to be reviewed and revisited. When we focus on inefficiencies and unresponsiveness to industry, we have to go back to the drawing board and talk about delivery for Territorians and future generations of Territorians.
There will be a couple of questions on process. A constituent of mine has really gone into the legislation and talked about process around the Environment Protection Authority and its meetings, its quorums, and how it does business. There are a few questions I must ask on behalf of that constituent. We will slowly talk about this legislation delivering better outcomes for the environment.
The member for Katherine spoke, importantly, about the big ticket items: resource development, which relates to regional development. That is a space I am very interested in, having spent more than half my life in that area. It was interesting when the member for Katherine talked about ministerial responsibilities and how it will be a team effort and be inclusive. I look forward to having that explained to me because in the resource sector it will be very important to get the new oil and gas sector right.
We are not only talking about the incredible opportunities coming offshore which will also develop offshore, but about the oil and gas sector in Central Australia. If anybody is familiar with the Beetaloo and Georgina Basins, the exploration programs for oil and gas in those areas are quite extensive and represent great development for the Territory, particularly around domestic power generation. However, it will be bouncing around the member for Katherine’s ministerial office, processed under the new Environment Protection Authority, and there will need to be very serious research and sound decision-making to ensure we maximise the opportunities and do not set the Territory up for failure in the future.
In the semantics of the bill, I was a little concerned where it says, in the case of other than environmental assessment outcomes, the minister has six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, including reasons for any decision not to accept that advice. I am interested in other than environmental assessment outcomes and it would be good if the minister could clear that up in the response to this House and the Territory.
I am also keen to hear what the member for Nelson was talking about: where the community features in the processes between the Environment Protection Authority and the minister’s role. These things will be teased out in the committee stage.
One of the things I found interesting in the writing of this bill was that much energy has been put into describing the Administrator’s role. Having once been in a very privileged position as a minister in government, I attended Executive Council meetings with the Administrator and saw how the process of appointments put forward works, where the lead minister would advise Her Honour on appointments. This bill has gone into great detail putting that as something almost new, or has raised the bar on accountability or rewritten the Administrator’s role. I am sure the minister will be able to explain it because I will be asking questions such as, ‘What is new?’ That is how it happens; that is a very important part of the legislative process. If members of this new EPA are hand-picked, what is the crossover? Will the Administrator be more involved in the selection criteria, or will the lead minister of the government have some other mechanism of presenting these hand-picked members and delivering their credibility to the Administrator? I am interested in that and am sure the minister will supply that information. If I am still really confused, he will have to forgive me and I will ask some more questions in the committee stage.
It is about not only giving me confidence, but the constituents I represent and the Territory community as a whole. That is about it from me. I welcome the opportunity to further learn about the new government’s Environment Protection Authority and look forward to other questions as well. At the end of the day, we are all about ensuring we get this right because, if there is one thing we all agree on, this is the best part of the country. We all have our own stories to tell and, as elected community representatives, we shoulder enormous responsibility in what we do and the decisions we make. As the Chief Minister has said on many occasions, politics should not cloud these ultra-important areas of Territory development.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak and look forward to learning further about this bill.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I give my support to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Bill. This bill will establish an independent authority not driven by government or its ministers. It will remove the confusion existing between the current EPA and the government Environment department. It will bring the Territory in line with most other states. Queensland is the only state which does not have an independent EPA. As the Chief Minister has already said, the EPA was part of the 2012 election campaign.
My questions this morning about the quarantine waste incinerator at East Arm show the problems associated with lack of independence of an Environment Protection Authority. The continued operation of this dangerous sub-standard incinerator at East Arm would not happen under the new EPA. It does not surprise me, given the level of the previous Labor government’s neglect and maladministration. Continued use of the incinerator is another example of the previous government looking at short-term actions to paper over a problem rather than implementing long-term solutions which would be in the interests of all parties in the NT.
While it publicly spruiked its so-called open and accountable environmental credentials, in reality it was the complete opposite. Labor’s environmental monitoring and protection agency was, effectively, a toothless tiger. Bad news never made it to the minister’s desk or the news and, subsequently, did not reach the public arena. The new EPA will be completely independent with free and frank advice being provided to both government and Territorians. This advice to Territorians will be free of government interference and spin.
The unearthing of the significant environmental breach surrounding the incinerator which had the potential to cancel flights and destroy the holiday plans of Territorians only came about because this government released the shackles on the current EPA and allowed it direct access to the government and its ministers. This morning a solution to the incinerator was forecast, but if the previous Labor government had not bandaided its bad-news issues this problem would not have developed. The former EPA did not meet the needs and expectations of the community. This new authority will address the community’s concerns and remove confusion. Bad news such as the incinerator will become public and independent of government massaging and spin.
Most people can also remember the train derailment at the Edith River this year, or was it late last year?
Mr Westra van Holthe: 27 December.
Mr HIGGINS: I live at the Daly, as we all know, and had this bill been implemented I would have felt much more at ease knowing I was receiving independent reports on the environmental implications rather than government-massaged spin. Everyone I spoke to around that area, and some further upstream, were very suspicious of the reports coming out at the time. Under this new bill information will be released independently. As for the environment, I have been a member of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and previously the community reference group set up by the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin. I have a good handle on the water issues and implications of land clearing in the Daly catchment and see this new EPA as a good, solid independent authority which will support the work already done by this committee and a mechanism to get some complete independent advice, again without government massaging.
This EPA is part of the overall package of transparency and accountability with the independent planning authority, which I also see as a key driver behind the development of the NT through areas outside Darwin such as the Daly: plenty of water, plenty of land, but no development. Compliance and transparency being implemented as part of this new independent authority being established is supported. Thank you.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Daly on a fantastic contribution to this debate. It was much better hearing his contribution than the previous speaker, who did not seem to add any value at all. I will pick up on the incinerator at Darwin port. Two very important questions were raised today, one to me and one to the Chief Minister, about environmental concerns in the Northern Territory and, hence, the need for us to move to a fully independent EPA.
When I was advised the incinerator was not meeting environmental guidelines and standards it was immediately closed down. For the previous six years the former Labor government - the one with the green credentials but that did not espouse them – was quite happy to let the incinerator continue its operations with dioxins and furans emanating into the atmosphere without any respect for the environment or the people who worked at the port. It was left to us to fix, but it is left to us to fix everything. It does not matter whether it is the incinerator, road problems, AMS problems or problems across the board. There is no money for the Arafura Games or no planning, no money for homelands, and nothing done to try to improve the shires in the bush.
It is left to us to fix it all and the opposition has the hide to talk about us trying to correct the deficit and the problems with the debt as we hold the coffers. We have a model to improve the environmental credibility of the Northern Territory and the opposition wants to throw rocks at us, throw daggers, when we are trying to do the right thing. We are the Country Liberals and we are doing the right thing for the environment and the opposition wants to throw stones.
The opposition had the non-independent EPA and we are moving towards an independent EPA. I would have thought the green-loving commies on the other side would be applauding and congratulating us for all our hard work in standing up for the environment: true independence. No, they throw stones and get grumpy. That is the way they do it. I was feeling dumber by the minute as the member for Barkly was talking, but it is positive to see the member for Daly give a sound contribution because in his region he wants development and jobs. He has water and prime land for development and jobs - a sustainable vision and future for the people of the Daly region. That is what he wants and the independence of the EPA, as put forward by the Chief Minister in his guise as minister for the Environment, represents opportunities in that space.
This says to the rest of the Northern Territory, and Australia, ‘We will develop, but in an environmentally responsible way’. That is what we want. We want development. We want to look after our environment. We do not want what happened at the port where we put at risk planes coming to the Northern Territory from overseas, visitors, people sitting around at Christmas time saying, ‘I can’t go anywhere because Labor did not address the incinerator issue. We did not have a biosecurity solution. We were not protecting our borders’, but we know Labor does not protect our borders. We know Labor has problems protecting our borders. That is a national thing. That is the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Labor, through its veins.
I want to provide encouragement to the Chief Minister for the passage of this bill. It is a very good bill. It is independence for the EPA, independence for our environment, and provides a sound footing and future for all generations in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading speech.
A number of issues have been raised, questions to be answered, most of which will be covered during the committee stage, but I will run through some of them broadly. First, the appointment of Dr Freeland to the position was raised a number of times by members opposite and the Independent. Dr Freeland, as outlined in the second reading speech, is eminently qualified. If we take an objective view, it was a wonderful thing Dr Freeland was available. That was a quality decision made in full view of the community; it was not hidden. I understand I may have trespassed on some sensitivity; however, it was a decision made in full view of the community, strengthened by the merits and the opportunity to have Dr Freeland serve the Northern Territory in this way. Dr Freeland’s qualifications were outlined in the second reading speech.
The Independent member for Nelson made reference to the previous EPA and spoke of Mr Tupper. He has done a fantastic job and will continue to serve the Northern Territory. He also commented he thought they were able to provide independent advice. It is not a reflection on their intellectual or professional capacity: they were. However, what we have provided is legal independence. It is a significant change. You may be independent-minded and free to provide your professional commentary on environmental matters, but the distinction here is the legal independence. That is significant and is illustrated most tellingly by the member for Daly in his contribution, also the member for Braitling.
We would not be able to hide from view the problems at the port with the dioxins being pumped into the atmosphere with this structure we have in place. It could not be hidden, whereas the previous system could be concealed from view and managed politically. There is a significant difference and this is a structure we put in place; a mechanism to serve the best interests of the Northern Territory.
The objects of the bill are very clear and must be complied with. The wording is consistent with the national strategy. The role is to provide an assessment of proposals.
Once again, we raise the hypothetical of a development being considered. It is the role of the EPA to comply with the objects of the act; it has clear requirements of what it is to assess and it is of an environmental nature. I will get to the matter of the Planning Commissioner being involved in a moment.
The concern raised by the member for Nelson, who has done quite an amount of work on this, then echoed by the member for Barkly, is whether the community will be involved. The Environment Centre NT had the same concern. Of course they will be involved because the capacity for own initiative investigation is prompted largely by members of the public raising their concerns. There is nothing to stop the public from seeking an investigation, and they do it regularly with the pollution hotline. Now the EPA has the power to address these issues. There is nothing to restrict that; it is quite plain there. That is the purpose of this. Endeavouring to read into this all types of conspiracies - it is a vehicle to drive development and short cut environmental assessment and investigation. It is quite the opposite.
The final argument raised by the member for Nelson and echoed by the member for Barkly is that the Chair of the Planning Commission is involved and on the EPA. You use the argument there is a legal reference to. But it is not an indication so much of the conflict of interest, it is so it can function, otherwise it would not be able to and those seeking to block or run their own agenda could use that mechanism to disallow or call into question the findings of the EPA. It is for that purpose the Planning Commissioner has the capacity to participate, but his participation should not be used as a tool to block or restrict the capacity of the EPA to comply with its objective. Its purpose is to conduct investigations: own initiative, sourced from the community, or to provide advice to the minister.
The key issue is it is in full view of the community; it is not concealed. It is legally independent, it must make a report, and that report must be responded to. If the government, the minister, differs in their view and will not take that recommendation, that cannot be concealed. It must be made public. That is significant and has been well illustrated by the problem we have had at the port. It would be a very difficult political matter for this government, or any other government, to manage that and conceal it from view.
There are natural concerns. Part of the objective of this new government is to allow people to gain some confidence in the instruments there to assess matters of concern in the environment. I note the concerns raised by the member for Nightcliff, who specifically referred to noise pollution. Those matters can be referred. They are own source, own initiative investigations which can be prompted by complaints or concerns raised by the public. It has the capacity, therefore, to investigate. However, the beauty of this is it is legally independent and the government cannot control it. It must respond publicly.
Having the presence of the Planning Commissioner on the EPA, you could see it in the worst possible light. However, you mentioned many times, member for Barkly, the need to get the balance right. Issues need to be considered in a planning context, and it would help in the deliberations to have the view of the planning context in which a decision is being taken. Not to influence, but to inform and strengthen the deliberations, the considerations and the ultimate decision of the EPA. The EPA must comply with the objects of the act. Of course, there is the positive. The Planning Commissioner would be informed of the environmental concerns and issues when making planning decisions with the EPA being represented on the Planning Commission. It allows the environmental issues to be properly considered in an integrated and streamlined way so we get the balance right, the left hand and the right hand understand each other’s sensitivities and we can get that balance right in the best interest of the Northern Territory and the broader Territory community.
Madam Speaker, we will be going into committee stage where some of those matters could be further investigated.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill 2012. Is it the wish of the committee that it be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: I will go through some of this bit by bit. I am referring to the functions and powers. Clause 8(4) says:
Social equity is a very interesting term. Is there any reason why that term is not put into the definitions in this bill? It is not an easy term, but could there be a reference to what it means?
Mr MILLS: Are you seeking clarification as to why it was not in the definitions?
Mr WOOD: I could probably ask you what you think it means and if that meaning should be in the definitions so people know what it means.
Mr MILLS: This harmonises with the national strategy. I understand social equity to mean ensuring we can balance the needs of a community in relation to those who have and those who have less. That we have equality in our community is a consideration and is a part of its conclusion; it is a part of the definition which flows from the national strategy.
Ms FYLES: While we are talking about definitions, this bill employs a definition of ecologically sustainable development promoted by the Commonwealth government and accepted nationally. Will the guiding principles established by the Commonwealth government to underpin this definition of ecologically sustainable development be included with the administrative policies and guidelines of the new EPA?
Mr MILLS: Because it is listed in the national strategy and there is a connection it does not have to be repeated; one is connected to the other.
Ms FYLES: While we are on that, I note you have not included the application of the precautionary principle as the federal government and a majority of other states have.
Mr MILLS: They are embedded in the objectives of the EPA and the Territory has already signed off on those matters so it is understood to be the case. The connection between the principles of ecologically sustainable development is reflected in the language used, but it is also the underlying agreement that has been signed between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth.
Ms FYLES: To clarify, because other states have included them, is there a reason why we have not?
Mr MILLS: It is already included by definition and fact. Not having it mentioned specifically does not mean we are now exempt from the agreement or the national strategy which we are a part of. It is not absolutely necessary.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in relation to your decision-making processes what comes first, the environment or the economy?
Mr MILLS: To use your famous words, ‘To get the balance right’.
Ms FYLES: The functions of the new EPA include encouraging community involvement and engagement. I cannot see where community involvement is engaged. Minister, who has the government consulted regarding this new legislation? I have several questions on this area.
Mr MILLS: There has been broad consultation for many years. We wanted a better system which was truly and legally independent so the community could grow in confidence that there is a capacity for independent assessment. In regard to the community’s involvement and capacity to have issues of concern assessed, that is part of it, as I described in my closing comments of the second reading speech. Because of the capacity for the NT EPA to have own-initiative investigation it can be freely prompted by members of the community who would be encouraged to make those concerns known. However what happens now is there is real power for those matters to be investigated. Before, they did not have the power they will now be given for thorough investigation and public disclosure.
Ms FYLES: Regarding that consultation, land councils represent a large part of the Territory’s land mass. Were they consulted on this legislation?
Mr MILLS: This has been in play for quite a long time. Members of the team carried the platform of the party across the Northern Territory and there were opportunities for anyone with concerns. These things were publicised. I remember talking about this in 2005. There has been plenty of opportunity for people to be involved, most recently with the Environment Centre NT.
Mr WOOD: Clause 8(3) says:
Has the government considered meetings of the EPA, at times, could be open to the public? I give the example of the DCA, which makes similar decisions although you do not hear how it votes. There is an opportunity for people to attend meetings of the DCA. Could there be an opportunity for people to attend meetings of the EPA?
Mr MILLS: That is a very good question because the NT EPA is a separate legal entity. If it deems it appropriate or necessary to have a public hearing there is nothing to prevent that.
Mr WOOD: In the case of the DCA, the normal process is that meetings are open to the public. Parts of the meetings are closed, but the discussions are open to the public to hear what is happening. I encourage that because the word is ‘transparent’, and I will give you an example. Today the PAC had public hearings and I congratulate the government for doing that. The same should happen with the EPA. If you want it to be an independent, open and transparent authority, it would be nice to have as the default that meetings would be public.
Mr MILLS: If it gets through parliament it will be a separate and legal entity which will have to comply with the object of the act and will be transparent. It will have the capacity to do that if it wishes. If it is necessary to engage the community to achieve the goal of providing an objective report to the parliament fine; however, the primary task is to investigate and then make a report. Where the transparency comes in is it is not concealed from view. That report comes to the people’s parliament and is televised and people will see what goes on. There is plenty of opportunity - we are handing something to the opposition here. If we choose not to comply with the recommendation in part or whole you know exactly what we have done and can hold us to account because it is open and transparent. It is a different system.
I know, member for Nelson, you wanted it to be like the DCA. There is an element where it could be like the DCA, but we are after transparency and to have it in the public space where, if I am the minister and do not agree with the recommendation, there is no way I can conceal that and you can hold me to account. You can ask me questions in Question Time.
Ms FYLES: You highlighted in your second reading speech that the bill will result in more independence and transparency. Why does the bill not require the EPA to publish summary records of its meetings?
Mr MILLS: We will be responding to the recommendations and decisions made by the Northern Territory EPA. It is a separate entity, completely independent, but when it comes to the point of making a decision and a recommendation, that is the object of the exercise. As a supplementary, there will be an annual report.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority will have to get the balance right and its recommendations will be tabled and followed. Does it have a monitoring role?
Mr MILLS: The important difference is the DCA will make decisions and the EPA makes recommendations. Those recommendations are for us to comply or not comply with. If we say, ‘Yes, we accept that recommendation’ that enacts a process. Let us say a mine has been approved, or a process has been authorised and given the all clear by the Mines minister, the NT EPA will monitor that as required. There is the ongoing need for investigation to ensure these matters are being properly followed through and there is adequate investigation: powers which are invested in the NT EPA.
Ms FYLES: How will the government ensure the EPA stays connected with regional issues and those priority environmental issues of concern, particularly to Indigenous Territorians?
Mr MILLS: We do not regard Indigenous, urban or remote as different to anyone else. As environmental issues need to be investigated and recommendations made, it is fully open to all Territorians. We will be, as much as we can, letting people know wherever they live they have a part to play in this. With our move towards more localised decision-making, they will be made aware of this so they have capacity to raise their concerns to the NT EPA, which may prompt an investigation.
We want to let all Territorians know this system is in place to serve their interests and they have the capacity to understand its recommendations, perhaps even contribute to an investigation. The Beetaloo Basin as the member for Barkly quite rightly raises, will be regional and there will be the opportunity and perhaps the requirement - not that I can direct, I can suggest the NT EPA looks at that because we want to ensure the environmental issues concerning the whole Territory are properly protected, guided, and that adequate recommendations are made for government to decide yea or nay.
Mr WOOD: I want to move to Part 2 Division 3. I do not know if that is moving too far ahead. It is constitution and membership.
Minister, this is not about personalities, it is about process. I am not having a go at Dr Freeland, I raised this in Question Time. You said you would open up expressions of interest and applications for the appointment of the Chair of the EPA. This legislation does not exist yet; we have not passed it. What is Dr Freeland’s title at the present time?
Mr MILLS: Deputy Chief Executive of Lands, Planning and the Environment. However, I have signed something so, if this comes into play, he is not any more.
Mr WOOD: I hope your signature is not the only one because membership of the NT EPA consists of five members appointed by the Administrator by Gazette notice. I imagine you put the Administrator in there to be - I might not know all the ways - the independent person who appoints the five members of the board. My issue is - regardless of Dr Freeland, I am not trying to bring that into the debate - clause 10 (2) says:
Perhaps by putting the word ‘Administrator’ in you are saying the Administrator only picks the one the government selects. Why are there not 10 people and the Administrator can pick five members without any interference from the government, if that is the way this is written and intended to be independent? It says the Administrator appoints the five members. If that is the case, why is the Administrator not given five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 possibilities all with those qualifications and you leave it up to the Administrator to make that independent decision rather than the government?
Mr MILLS: That is a novel approach. It is inherent in this because, in giving consent, the Administrator must be satisfied those being appointed fill, as a whole, all the requirements of an NT EPA which are specified in the act. You are asserting there is a possibility of the government putting all its favourite people into one group and saying, ‘Here, sign this off’. However, the Administrator has to be satisfied these recommendations fulfil the skill set required.
We have a task of due diligence; we have to support the objects of this act. A recommendation is made in good faith then the Administrator, before giving consent, has to be satisfied under subclause (3)(a) whether the person brings particular skills, knowledge or experience in regional areas or issues, Indigenous issues, or in working with a community and so on. Ultimately, that decision is made by the Administrator. We make recommendations, but the decision is guided by the act. We need to have that full skill set within that group.
Mr WOOD: If I read this the way it is written, the Administrator appoints five members. If I go over the page it says:
Is it possible the Administrator may not pick Dr Freeland because it says the Administrator must pick one of those five?
Mr MILLS: It is entirely possible, member for Nelson, but the government will, as I said in the second reading speech, be making a recommendation. However, the final decision rests with the Administrator.
Mr WOOD: I wonder what would happen if she did not accept your recommendation?
Mr MILLS: Well, 1974.
Mr WOOD: I hope it does not cause that much trouble.
Mr MILLS: The Governor-General.
Mr WOOD: There is a process, but the process is slightly twisted because you have already said Dr Freeland will be the chair.
Mr MILLS: He will be recommended to the Administrator.
Mr WOOD: My concern is you have only picked one person. You have said that gentleman is fine, he has all the qualifications, but by not doing what you said, which was to open up expressions of interest, you have not allowed yourself to find someone - I am not putting Dr Freeland down - who may have more qualifications and be more skilled. In other words, you said that is the reason you put that in the promise. Obviously you were going to have a choice. By taking the one man decision, have you not avoided the possibility of getting someone who may have better qualifications? That was what was intended during the election.
Mr MILLS: The intention was to let the community know we were deadly serious and would, ultimately - whatever process was used and I described it plainly, and I accept what is written there is not exactly what happened - find a very good person for the position and we have found one. I accept it is not exactly what was said but the objective has been achieved. Yes, hypothetically, possibly, maybe, but we had to get on with it otherwise we may not have had the opportunity to make this recommendation to the Administrator.
Ms FYLES: While we are on membership, ecologically sustainable development requires using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so ecological processes on which life depends are maintained. The bill requires the assessment of quality of life as part of the assessment of ESD and that membership of the EPA includes skills in social analysis. What kind of skills experience will be sought in this area of social analysis? Who did you have in mind for this role? I have a list which I am happy to take one by one, or I can read them and you can answer them.
Mr MILLS: I cannot provide you with the names of people. We would still have to work through that, but I want this to work. I want good people with the appropriate skills to make this work and achieve one of our key objectives, which is to have the community develop increased confidence in instruments like the NT EPA. I will have that in mind as we go through that process.
I am guessing you think I have a list of people I am rushing off to and they are all CLP members. There is nothing like that at all; that is not the type of process we are going through. Perhaps it tells more about our opponents than it says about us.
Ms FYLES: How will cross-cultural perspectives on wellbeing be determined?
Mr MILLS: Appropriate skills, life experience, qualifications and track record. These are important decisions. When we come to making recommendations we will weigh that up carefully and see what we get.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have spoken about the appointment process with the Administrator. What is different about the current Executive Council process government uses to appoint members of boards?
Mr MILLS: There is no difference; it just has to be specified in the act. This describes how it works and the Administrator is the one who makes the decision, which is fairly normal. It is not something exotic. It is an independent body and we describe in the act how it works.
Mr McCARTHY: It took a fair bit of the bill, which is what drew my attention to it. I continually ask, ‘What is different about this?’ The member for Nelson has asked some interesting questions about how these people will be selected. Is the process different where you will be advising the Administrator of their credentials, background and qualifications?
Mr MILLS: As Chief Minister, I make decisions. I sign off on decisions, but I receive recommendations and a profile. I have to weigh up and make the decision yes or no. The Administrator will do the same. The Administrator knows what is to be achieved here - the final check. The Administrator has the authority to sign this off because it is fully independent and recommendations are provided. As I receive recommendations and make decisions with certain allocations of responsibilities I have, in this case we describe the role the Administrator has. Point 1 says the Administrator has to be satisfied, but recommendations are provided.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I recently saw in the newspaper an advertisement for the Planning Commission as an expression of interest process. Is that how you will be conducting this process with the EPA?
Mr MILLS: Yes, possibly.
Mr McCARTHY: Will you be accepting expressions of interest from across the Territory, nationally or could it be internationally?
Mr MILLS: Possibly.
Mr McCARTHY: From that process will you have a shortlist to be considered by the Administrator?
Mr MILLS: If you read the bill you can see the breadth of skill is really quite special. We need to have a body of people who have the capacity to address a wide range of issues with high-level skills, whether they be scientists, demographers or whatever, but they are all specified: environmental science, management, social and economic analysis and so on. We are looking for the best to serve the Northern Territory. That is what we will do and once we have that list we will make the recommendations.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you. Can you define ‘we’ for us?
Mr MILLS: We, the government.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, will this be a Cabinet process?
Mr MILLS: I guess so. Ultimately, it will be recommendations made to the Administrator.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in relation to the selection criteria, how will you process the applicants in an expression of interest process when you say ‘we, the government’? Will that be done by the department, you, or by Cabinet ministers?
Mr MILLS: If you are asserting our real intent is some political process, this says we want the right people with the broad range of skills. I will be requiring my department to assist in this process. We want the best people for this job and these assertions probably say more about the way you operate than we operate. We want the best people for this job.
Mr McCARTHY: With respect minister, I have been involved in the ExCo process as I outlined in my contribution to debate: a very privileged position. I asked some questions around how you plan to process that. It is quite an extensive part of the bill. I am not sure if you are aware of those processes and your answers are not really giving me any confidence.
Mr MILLS: Not giving you any confidence? Is that what you said?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, minister. I am asking legitimate questions, reasonable questions, and your answers are creating more questions than answers.
Mr MILLS: Ask another question then because I ...
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, how will you shortlist applicants in the expression of interest process?
Mr MILLS: To use common sense, I would be seeking recommendations too. Ultimately, I would take responsibility for a recommended list which would then go to the Administrator. However, I want to ensure I serve the Territory well by having a list of recommended people to serve on the NT EPA who can do the job.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, what you are describing for the parliament and the Territory is that it will be the existing Executive Council process.
Mr MILLS: We said that at the start. There is no real difference here other than we require a very broad range of skills and diversity which comprises this unique body. It is a reinforcement of its independence how this process occurs and is written down for you, so there is no real difference.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister, you answered my question: there is no real difference.
Ms FYLES: One of the government’s selling points for the new legislation is it provides integration of the Planning Commission and the EPA. The community is quite cynical about the political appointments announced to head these two critical bodies: the automatic appointment of the Chair of the Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency and vice versa. This is presented as integration but puts at risk public confidence about independence. My constituents are questioning why this is necessary. Is it aimed at ensuring special projects, such as Arafura Harbour, receive preferred consideration? When will the government come clean with who it has in mind for membership of the EPA?
Mr MILLS: As soon as possible. We want this to work; there is no conspiracy plan. It is to ensure we have the independent capacity for thorough investigation of matters of an environmental nature as outlined in the objects of the bill.
I understand questions could be raised, as invariably they will, about the recommendations to the Administrator. However, I am strongly confident that in time people will see the quality of these decisions and I am backing that. My objective is to strengthen the community’s confidence in the decisions we have made because they are in their best interest. That is why we will make quality recommendations to the Administrator, but time will bear this one out.
Ms FYLES: The community does not have confidence that will happen, but we will move on. Clause 24 seeks to prevent any legal challenges to decisions involving the Chair of the Planning Commission as a member of the EPA. Why was this felt necessary?
Mr MILLS: I covered that at the end of the second reading speech. It is so it can operate, otherwise with this not being covered off - it is advice we sought - it could provide the means for a person or persons to interfere with or obstruct the deliberations and investigations of the NT EPA by providing a legal challenge.
Ms FYLES: Have you obtained legal advice that this is a defensible arrangement and would stand a legal test?
Mr MILLS: Yes, we certainly have.
Ms FYLES: What is the potential NT government exposure should this protection be challenged and found wanting, for example by an aggrieved developer or any other community action?
Mr MILLS: I could not advise you on that other than to say this has been covered off. We are secure in our confidence we can allow this NT EPA to do what it is set up to do if passed through this parliament.
Mr WOOD: On that same note, Chief Minister, you said earlier the reason for the Planning Commissioner to be on the EPA was not to influence but to inform. If that is the case, why do you need the Chair of the Planning Commission to be a member? Why not ask the Planning Commissioner to attend a meeting to inform the EPA but have no voting rights in the EPA?
Mr MILLS: The NT EPA makes recommendations and informs or is informed. The object of the exercise is to have all aspects considered. Environmental recommendations are made in a planning context as well. We want to have as many eyes look at this as possible. One process will inform the other process so we can get the balance right. One will strengthen and add to the other. It is to strengthen it and allow us to have both processes adequately informed and the line drawn in the right place.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, I am trying to find the clause. The EPA is able to ask anyone to attend a meeting to give it advice. The person it invites could be the Chairman of the Planning Commission, who would give advice to the EPA then leave the room. Now the Chairman of the Planning Commission is not only giving advice but is voting on the EPA. Clause 24(2) identifies that:
That lets both the Planning Commissioner and the Chairman of the EPA off the hook when it comes to having a disclosure of interest requirement as under clause 22.
Is that not the government admitting there is a problem with conflict of interest, one which could be avoided? I mentioned before you could have other people talk about the issues. Another option is the Chairman of the Planning Commission can be invited at any time the EPA wishes but is not part of the vote so, therefore, does not have a conflict of interest problem at all. He informs the EPA - that is what you want - but is not involved in the vote. That is the issue I have.
Mr MILLS: There will be many eyes looking at this and, ultimately, it will be the eyes of the parliament - the opposition, the government - and the wider community. We are committed to an integrated and streamlined process which gets the decisions made efficiently and effectively with proper and respectful regard for the objectives of the act.
The clause you have referred to, rather than substantiate your concern it points to a conflict of interest, is there so both chairs can participate in the process. The objective is integrated and streamlined decision-making so we can instil, ultimately, greater confidence in the community about the processes we go through, weigh all issues carefully, and draw the line in the right place. The clause is simply to allow the chairs to participate without legal challenge and bogging the whole process down.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, that is the reason I oppose it. It covers up the conflict of interest. The Chair of the Planning Commission is not the only planner in town. If the EPA wanted planning advice, it could have obtained a planner. If the Planning Commission wants environmental advice - because the Chair of the EPA swaps his hat and moves over to the Planning Commission from time to time - you could get a qualified environmental person to inform the Planning Commission, just as you could have a qualified planner inform the EPA without having this conflict of interest.
Mr MILLS: I do not accept it is a conflict of interest. The purpose of this is to have a more holistic approach to decision-making which results in a recommendation to the government. At the end of the day, a recommendation is made to the government and, as a result of the process you may have some concern about - it may be swaying things one way or the other - we have the opportunity in the parliament to have that sorted out in full view. Nothing is hidden.
I accept there is a high level of cynicism. ‘We would like to break these things up, have slow decision-making so we do not get the lines drawn in the right place, do not have efficiency and confidence but everybody is having a say and we end up with no decisions being made.’ That is not the way we will operate.
We want to ensure issues are weighed up carefully; that as many eyes as possible weigh them; the NT EPA has the objects it has to adhere to, it has an act, if passed through this parliament, which will guide its deliberations; and it will make a recommendation to the government. The government has to give an open report on that. We have plenty of opportunity to deal with this and it is not just at that point.
One process feeds the other process. Planning and environment have a connection. We want to ensure we can get that connection, not one over the other, but to have more integration and greater streamlined processes around decision-making so we can move things on and get the line drawn in the right place swiftly, rather than have complicated processes that end up with no swift or efficient decision-making and a community that increasingly loses confidence in the process. That is one of the issues we have faced so far.
There is a good reason why the two are connected, and a good reason for that clause to allow them to operate as two chairs. The purpose is to allow the operation: one process to feed the other process because planning and the environment occupy a similar and overlapping space.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, I am not asking the government to slow down the process. I am saying the makeup is, by its very nature, not doing what you said it would - be an independent EPA - because those two bodies will, at times, be dealing with the same issues. Public perception - and perception is important here - is that you have people making decisions on two bodies about the same issue. They will see that as not being independent.
Minister, in regard to membership, if you had removed the Chair of the Planning Commission and put another person there under clause 10(2)(b) who had experience in planning, full stop, you would have been able to put a planner there who did not necessarily have any connection with the Planning Commission. You still would have a fast process, but you would have removed any potential to have the EPA seen by the community as not being independent. That is what I am getting at. I am not saying you should not be doing this, I see that as a perception which will not go away.
The other important area we have forgotten is the EPA is not just about advice. You say in the first line of the second reading this will have executive powers for environmental assessment, and compliance and enforcement. You can tell me if I am wrong, but the EPA has now taken over the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. All those people on the EPA, technically, will make decisions in relation to that act and your amendments later in this act deal with many issues where the NT EPA - I will give an example. The Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, Part 5, Environment protection approvals and licences and best practices licences, section 33, Additional matters to be considered in granting best practice licences, should now read:
The NT EPA has a far bigger role than just giving advice. It is now taking over what you said in your second reading and, therefore, that makes it even more important that there is no potential conflict of interest or perception of one. That is why I am concerned we have gone down this path. Why could we not just have a planner with good experience and leave the Planning Commissioner independent.
Mr MILLS: Because of our commitment to integration, streamlined processes and having one relate to the other. We see it is most appropriate that the two key people, in their professional capacity and being independent, have the capacity to relate one process to the other.
I understand your concerns. I understand perceptions will be out there, but I trust that time will help relieve some of those anxieties and reduce cynicism.
Mr WOOD: It is an important part of our discussion, but I will use the example of integration. People who deal with homelessness: Somerville Community Services and St Vincent de Paul both deal with homelessness but have different aspects. They come together at a meeting and you do not expect St Vincent de Paul to be voting on Somerville issues or vice versa. They come together to share, to inform, but Somerville would vote on its issues and St Vincent de Paul on its. In other words, they are integrated but they do not become part of the voting system for each body. Even though I am not against the concept of integration, the issue is they can vote. That is what makes the integration, potentially, seem to be biased.
Mr MILLS: If you want to follow your analogy through you should be talking about NTCOSS. That is the vehicle where the different interest groups would come together and make that recommendation rather than the two NGOs.
Mr WOOD: I move on, unless you want to keep going.
Ms FYLES: You have assured us the public can initiate work by the EPA. The current act allows for this in section 5B, the new bill does not. When will an issue become important enough for the attention of the EPA?
Mr MILLS: When it is important. It can be brought to the attention of the NT EPA, there is nothing precluding that. It has the power of investigation of own-initiative and that clause encompasses the capacity for any voice in the community to raise concerns that can be taken up for investigation by the NT EPA. There is no preclusion there at all.
Ms FYLES: The current act, again section 5B, allows for the public referral of issues to the EPA but the bill does not. How can stakeholder organisations initiate attention to the EPA?
Mr MILLS: Telephone, hot lines. It will not be hidden from view. This is there to serve the interests of the community and there will be capacity for anyone with a concern to make the appropriate contact. If members of the public are not happy with the support they are getting from the NT EPA, they can contact the Environment minister who can act on their behalf and make that known to the NT EPA. We are trying to get a process which works.
Mr WOOD: He cannot tell them what to do.
Mr MILLS: I could ask for advice.
Ms FYLES: While we are talking about administrative matters, under Part 5 clause 36, Delegation, the bill has been promoted by the government as introducing increased transparency and independence. Why does clause 36 of the bill allow the EPA to delegate any of its powers and functions under the act to a single member of the EPA, a public sector employee, or a chief executive officer? How would the public know about any of these delegations of powers under this clause?
Mr MILLS: Clause 36?
Mr WOOD: Would you mind if we take that later? I have a series of questions before that.
Ms FYLES: Sorry, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. Unless you want to answer that now, minister? I will go back to clause 24, that’s all.
Mr MILLS: That was 36?
Ms FYLES: Yes.
Mr MILLS: A delegate is subject to the directions of the substantive holder of the power or function being delegated. How the power is used when delegated is dealt with administratively through the directions from the substantive holder of the power to the delegates. This is consistent right across government.
Mr WOOD: Can I ask a question on that? How does that fit in with who can be a member of the planning authority when clause 10(2) says:
Mr MILLS: That does not result in them becoming members of the NT EPA.
Mr WOOD: By delegating, are you not making them ex-officio members?
Mr MILLS: No, it is like you are charged with some responsibility. Do X, Y and Z, but you are not a member of the NT EPA.
Mr WOOD: This bit takes some explaining. It is clauses 27 to 29 and I had to work through this one. I thank the acting CEO for the briefing we had. This is in relation to advice and you said everything will be transparent. Clause 25 says the EPA must give advice at the request of the minister, and the EPA may advise the minister on its own initiative. In advising the EPA, it must take a number of things into consideration.
If I switch to clause 25, Advice of NT EPA:
Clause 27(1) says:
do certain things. You must give the NT EPA a written response to the advice, and:
The next line says:
Keep that in mind for a minute. Clause 29 says:
Mr MILLS: It is up to the minister. We are required to. It may also be covering issues of commercial-in-confidence.
Mr WOOD: If we remove the commercial-in-confidence and the minister has, as it says, not followed or does not intend to follow the advice, ‘include in the response reasons why the minister has not followed and does not intend to follow the advice’, the EPA ‘may’ make copies of that response, not ‘must’ as distinct from further down where they ‘must’ give copies of the advice they have given the minister to the public. There is a ‘must’ for the EPA but, when the minister does not agree with the advice, it is only a ‘may’ make that available to the public. It is a complicated area and I am happy to go through it again.
Mr MILLS: Do it again.
Mr WOOD: There are two clauses. The clause under Part 3, Advice and reports of NT EPA - it has taken me some time to get my head around it. One clause is about advice given to the minister. Another is about quality reports. If we deal with the advice section, clause 25(1), the NT EPA must, at the request of the minister, advise the minister on a range of issues.
The minister then responds to that advice - the advice it gives the minister under clause 29(1) - you have to zip around on this - says after the NT EPA gives advice or a report to the minister under this Part, it must make copies available to the public in whichever way is considered appropriate. The EPA, when it gives advice to the minister, must tell the public what advice it has given the minister. The minister might reject that advice, so it goes back to the EPA under clause 27 which says:
It must tell the public what advice it has given the minister, but it may only say what the minister’s response was. Why is the minister’s response to the advice not made public, as it is required further down?
Mr MILLS: I assume in that transaction there may be matters of a commercial-in-confidence nature between the two parties. However, advice does not necessarily require action or decision by a minister. There may be correspondence between the two which does not require the minister to do anything. It is when it comes to the point of recommendation and advice to a minister that requires an action that is not complied with, then it follows. However, it may be advice which does not require an action; it may be for information.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but if you read clause 27(1)(a), the minister may give the NT EPA a written response to the advice. He might say, ‘For such and such reasons, I do not accept the advice’.
Further down it says the NT EPA must withhold from the public information of a commercially confidential nature, and may withhold other information from the public if it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for doing so. If you take those two bits out that according to this the EPA can withhold, why can it not tell the public the other reasons the minister did not accept the advice? It has ‘may’; everywhere else it has ‘must’. It is this bit here. If it said, for instance, ‘the NT EPA must make copies of the written response available to the public in a way considered appropriate; however, the NT EPA must still withhold information’ etcetera, I would be happy. Considering, minister, you spoke about transparency and how people want to know what happened, there is a bit in here which could, in theory, hide - and I am saying this in a nasty way - but the public will not have the ability to find out why the minister rejected the advice. That seems to go against what you are trying to do; having an independent EPA which is transparent.
Mr MILLS: The advice provided to a minister that requires an action is in full view. If there is advice received from the NT EPA to a minister which may not require action and is for information, it is not necessary, on all occasions, to have everything made public. There could well be toing and froing which does not attend to our core objective. Information, advice and recommendation has been made which requires a response or action from the minister and, if that is not complied with, that explanation must be made known.
I am sure there will be plenty of interaction which does not require action on the part of government. That is what that covers.
Mr WOOD: I will not labour it, but there is a loophole which could be closed off with some changes to what can and cannot be declared.
This may be something technical, minister. Clause 29(1) says:
Why is there a need for that? When you look at clause 29(4):
Mr MILLS: That allows for the provision there could be some gap between sittings.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Minister. Clause 29(5) says:
Can you give us some idea what a preliminary nature would be? What does that mean? A preliminary nature in relation to what? How broad can a preliminary nature be? Is it just a one-liner or …?
Mr MILLS: Preliminary nature is an initial investigation which does not result in sufficient information or advice for a decision or action of government. The point of the exercise here is, when a recommendation of a substantive nature is completed which then requires a response of government, that should be. However, there could well be an earlier phase of that process, a process in play which is not a completed or mature process, which results in a recommendation to the government requiring an action. It is preliminary, it does not require any action. It is to inform or advise.
Mr WOOD: Minister, clause 32 relates to confidentiality of information. Is that wording the same as confidential information? I might be splitting hairs here. Are we dealing with confidential information or are we talking about the confidentiality of information?
Mr MILLS: In the course of an investigation by the NT EPA, it may be privy to information which cannot be shared widely because it may be confidential relating to a particular proponent. The investigation is to focus on something very specific. In the course of the investigation focusing on a specific objective - the objects of the act – it may procure other information which is deemed to be confidential. It is not, therefore, required to pass on that confidential information but to report on the specifics of the investigation.
Mr WOOD: Clause 32 states:
I need some clarification. For argument’s sake, I am a member of the NT EPA and am also a member of the Planning Commission. I receive confidential information as a member of the NT EPA and then pop across to the Planning Commission and tell people on the Planning Commission about that confidential information. Am I excused from breaking the law by clause 32(2)?
I have been acting as the NT EPA person and have sat as the NT EPA person on the Planning Commission. Am I allowed to use information I received on the NT EPA on the Planning Commission and vice versa?
Mr MILLS: In the course of an investigation, confidential information is known to those members of the NT EPA. One of them in particular - it might be the chair - goes to the other and says, ‘I have confidential information which assisted the NT EPA to come up with a recommendation which was made to the government. I have this confidential information and am happy to share it because I am now in a different space.’ No way!
The objective is the weighing of information - some of it may be confidential - to make a recommendation. That is the objective of the exercise. You cannot take confidential information and use it in another space and receive some kind of shelter. No way!
Mr WOOD: I understand that; however clause 32(2) says:
Is the performance of the person’s function as a member, which also includes representation on another body, excluded because that person is still acting in one of those functions? One of the functions of the NT EPA chair’s job is to work on the Planning Commission. That person is exercising that function as a member of the Planning Commission. Are they, in that capacity, excused from this clause of the bill?
Mr MILLS: The measures are specific to this bill and do not transfer.
Mr WOOD: I understand that and am not trying be a nuisance, but I would like to clarify it and have it written in the Hansard. It says it does not apply if the person discloses for the exercise of the person’s powers or the performance of the person’s function as a member, but in performing his or her function as a member, the Chair of the EPA has representation on the Planning Commission. Are you are saying that person’s function as a member stops outside the NT EPA?
Mr MILLS: Correct.
Mr WOOD: That is what I wanted to clarify.
What happened to those matters which have been looked at by the existing EPA, presuming it has not completely disappeared? The example I gave was the drain at Berrimah Business Park.
Mr MILLS: Yes, I should have raised that in my concluding remarks in the second reading speech. All ongoing investigations will be completed.
Ms FYLES: The current act requires a review after five years of operation and tabling of that review in the Legislative Assembly: section 26. Why is the new legislation silent on such a review?
Mr MILLS: It can be reviewed at any time.
Ms FYLES: Section 5A of the current act contains provisions requiring review and assessment of the effectiveness of agency responses and the implementation of action under the EPA act. This bill does not have that review. Why should the EPA not be able to review the effectiveness and make those reviews public?
Mr MILLS: Do not forget there is an Ombudsman. If there are problems which can be reported, an Ombudsman plays a part in this as well.
Ms FYLES: In the second reading speech you said there will be amendments to legislation regarding water and container waste later in the year. If this needs to be developed, why not hold this bill until the new year, consult more widely and bring it forward as a total package?
Mr MILLS: We have made a commitment to establish the fully independent NT EPA, to set a new framework and new level of confidence in the Territory community, and to have integrated decision-making. It complies with our election commitment to have this legislation presented to the Territory parliament and, hopefully, passed shortly so we can comply with what we said we would do in the Territory election.
Ms FYLES: Division 2 clause 8(3)(a) highlights the community’s involvement and encouragement. I do not mean to harp on about this, but this bill is lacking in the role the community can play. Why is the new NT EPA being required to ensure, rather than encourage or facilitate community involvement and engagement? To ‘ensure’ you can simply place something on a website and have ticked that box; however, at a grassroots level, really encouraging and facilitating the conversations around community involvement.
Mr MILLS: To be frank, by giving these powers and full legal independence and open reporting to the Territory parliament, we are not setting this as a community facilitation role specifically. There is plenty of opportunity for members of the community to raise concerns which can then be investigated. There is nothing to preclude the NT EPA taking up an investigation brought to its notice by members of the community. The purpose of the bill reflects the broader powers of the new NT EPA and recognises it is a regulatory body and may not always be in a position to be a community facilitator. Others will play that role. There is capacity for members of the community to raise concerns with hotlines and the like. There is capacity for the minister to seek advice on matters of community concern. There is capacity for members of parliament to raise similar matters of concern and seek advice from the NT EPA.
The community is not blocked from this. Remember, we are enhancing the capacity of the NT EPA to conduct investigations and provide recommendations. The community will have plenty of opportunity to raise concerns and have them investigated. The primary function of the NT EPA is investigation not facilitation.
Ms FYLES: Under the new EPA arrangements, who will be paying attention to emerging environmental issues?
Mr MILLS: We all will. If any matter requires investigation we now have the capacity for it to be independently assessed. Additional resources go to the NT EPA to monitor and investigate matters of concern. There are plenty of groups, plenty of people who monitor, investigate - we still have a department which is able to monitor, investigate and consider. As I said, there are community groups. The role of the NT EPA is to investigate matters of concern.
Ms FYLES: Will the EPA have a role in addressing broad-scale issues affecting our environment, for example, invasive plants, or is it more focused on site-specific issues?
Mr MILLS: Its role is to investigate matters of concern and make recommendations which require an action, ultimately, from government.
Ms FYLES: Under these new arrangements, how would we see the impact of seabed mineral exploration and mining on sea country and cultural heritage assessed?
Mr MILLS: As it needs to be investigated it will be. If it were to be undertaken, the processes which have been outlined here would be in play. If a recommendation is made in full which requires action from government, government then has the requirement to either accept that recommendation or, if not, disclose the reasons for not doing so.
Ms FYLES: Will the EPA have a budget and be given additional resources? Can you clarify that?
Mr MILLS: Yes, indeed. It has an allocation of an additional $500 000 to allow it to do its task.
Ms FYLES: How will the new EPA work in responding to incidents of public concern? One example already spoken about today is the Edith River copper concentrate spill last Wet Season. Can you take me through that under these new arrangements?
Mr MILLS: If a matter needs investigation it will not be investigated so much as it was before - if this receives passage - by a department but by a fully independent body which makes full and open disclosure so we are all informed and the government is then held accountable.
Its greater power is its independence. Rather than being an arm of the government, and the results of those investigations perhaps being controlled or managed by the government in the interests of the government - that is no longer the case. It is open, it is out, it is in full view and recommendations made in a case such as that are then in full view of the public.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in the case of other than environmental assessment outcomes, the minister has six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the NT EPA, including reasons for any decision not to accept the advice. Could you give examples of other than environmental assessment outcomes?
Mr MILLS: Emerging environmental issues, cumulative impacts of development on the environment, a whole range of issues that are outlined in Part 3 of the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, is that an improvement on what currently exists?
Mr MILLS: Absolutely.
Mr McCARTHY: Can you outline that for me?
Mr MILLS: I have been explaining this for several hours now. It is, by nature of its independence and its independent legal status which requires an action of government on its recommendations, to be fully disclosed, not managed by government.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In relation to completing my sheets I will take back to the Barkly for the constituents, regarding membership - this is Division 3 - we are talking about five members and a chairperson, which makes six members of the NT EPA, yes?
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Mr McCARTHY: In the absence of a chairperson, another member elected by the members present at the meeting is okay, yes?
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Mr McCARTHY: Is a quorum four?
Mr MILLS: Yes, four.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. The chairperson is absent and, therefore, there are four people and the vote goes two each way and the delegated chair has the casting vote. Would that be correct, minister?
Mr MILLS: There are five on the NT EPA, one is missing and one is the Chair of the Planning Commission. That is six. We have two away, have we?
Mr McCARTHY: We have a quorum of four, minister.
Mr MILLS: We have four, they take a vote and it is divided down the middle. I guess the chair would have the casting vote.
Mr McCARTHY: That is good. Thank you for clarifying that for me, the Territory and my constituents in the Barkly. Is that really appropriate when we are talking about major issues around environmental protection?
Mr MILLS: You have this fairly amplified. Remember, the gathering is going to weigh a final recommendation on an exhaustive process. It is quite unlikely you would be scratching to get a quorum when making a final decision. There will be plenty of meetings and plenty of decisions made along the way which would inform a recommendation. You could argue the line you have, but it is extremely unlikely when the purpose of the NT EPA is to make a substantive recommendation at the end of an investigation which will require action from the government. To go down that line, yes, there may well be a case where there are four people in the room and it might be split down the middle and there is a casting vote. You then have a recommendation from the NT EPA which has not been properly considered and not reflective. Now, come on! There will be plenty of meetings and there will be plenty of discussions. This body would be able to work that out. Ultimately, there is a final recommendation made and I am sure they would not be scratching for a quorum when it comes to a final decision.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have many hypotheticals there but this is in the bill, this is what Territorians are looking at, and this is of concern. I have not taken any notes around that answer. I will use Hansard to talk about this; however, do you see this could be a problem for such an important decision and an important organisation?
Mr MILLS: I would see it as a greater problem if it was not referred to because it would mean the ongoing operation of the NT EPA could not continue and it could not meet to deliberate and come up with some recommendation that feeds a process. It would be a greater problem if we did not have a provision in there so it could meet.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, it is new, innovative, independent and integrated with planning. Do you believe all these initiatives could be let down with a simple process like the quorum at a meeting?
Mr MILLS: No. Let us say there is your doomsday scenario where they are scratching to get a quorum together, they are divided down the middle, there is a casting vote and we are unsure whether that was reflective of the true nature because the other person was not there and he or she was going to say something. At the end of the day, it is a recommendation to the government and the government has six months to respond to that, and must respond to it. If you are not certain about it you make an investigation. The buck stops with the government, ultimately, but we have to let the system operate.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, how would you handle a situation like that? Would it be, first of all, made known to the minister that the decision was made with a quorum of four with a split vote and a casting vote of the chair?
Mr MILLS: I could not tell you. I would be weighing it on the quality of the advice I receive and making a decision on that basis.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, let us hope it would not involve 15 000 hectares of mangroves in the Northern Territory or anything monumental. Do you consider this will have to be looked at in the operation? It is a new bill to create a new authority and this needs to be looked at carefully to ensure something you seem to think is trivial does not trip up what you are telling the Territory is monumental.
Mr MILLS: I want to ensure I receive quality advice so we make quality decisions.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in regard to review of legislation, you have not put a time frame on it. If this was a problem could it be a trigger for a review of the legislation?
Mr MILLS: If this machine, which we believe is pretty good, turns out to have a problem, talk about it and we can bring amendments to fix it because the object of the exercise is to provide a better vehicle than we had in the past. As a new vehicle comes into the marketplace and something needs to be corrected; this is the parliament, we will sort it out. This has happened before. We want it to work and believe it does. We thank you for having tested as many aspects of it as possible, but these things can be revisited at any stage by way of amendment, review, reconsideration and debate. We are a parliament.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister.
Mr MILLS: That is all right.
Mr WOOD: Two questions, minister. As you know, under clause 28(2) the NT EPA may, on its own initiative, inquire into and report to the minister on any aspect of environmental quality in the Territory. Would the EPA be allowed to look at the proposal for a nuclear waste repository – to take it out of dump terminology - at Muckaty Station?
Mr MILLS: In short, yes.
Mr WOOD: We could store waste, but I would encourage our EPA to look at the issue because it is a current topic. Will it have the power to do it, considering the Commonwealth is involved, or will there be an overlap? I imagine the Commonwealth has to do it as well and I did not know how that would work in practice.
Under the existing EPA, it could check the department to see whether the legislation was current, capable of doing what it was supposed to, and see if the department was doing its job. Who do we have now to check the department is doing its job?
Mr MILLS: The Ombudsman has not gone away.
Mr WOOD: That is what the present EPA could do and was one of its functions: to see that legislation was adequate, from an environmental point of view, and departments were doing what they were supposed to. I accept the Ombudsman - that is the only other option at the present time.
Minister, I do not have any more questions and I thank you for your answers. Do you understand where I am coming from?
Mr MILLS: I understand.
Mr WOOD: The EPA is really important. I would not have sat on the inquiry if it was not; however, I have those concerns.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Freedom of Information, Privacy Protection and Public Interest Disclosures in the Northern Territory
Annual Report 2011-12
Continued from 31 October 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this report was tabled in the last sittings and the Attorney-General spoke to it. Having reviewed what he said in Hansard, I am unsure if he is going to resume his comments because he only referred to one part of the report.
Nevertheless, this is an important report. This is a very important office in the Northern Territory with regard to avenues for transparency and accountability. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures came about under Labor. Forgive me, I cannot tell you what year that was. I have had very little access to the Internet in the Chamber today so I have not been able to track down the date. It is sufficient to say it exists. It is a very important body which gives members of the public an opportunity to understand and access freedom of information through this process.
When the Attorney-General spoke about this in the last sittings he raised some very important points. I concur with him on the points he made, particularly with regard to matters around procurement. I want to go back a step, and this is why I am expecting the Attorney-General to return to resume his remarks, because we have an opportunity for people to raise matters of concern and they can be investigated.
Going back to the Attorney-General’s comments in Hansard, I could not help but think that they were negative. That is not to say some of the matters raised are not serious. He quoted from the message from the Acting Commissioner Allan Borg; the Commissioner is Ms Brenda Monaghan, who has taken leave from that position to fill another role. I know them both to be very good operators by reputation. We can selectively quote from these reports, and the Attorney-General had a very important quote about how procurement is an essential function across the whole of government and has been identified in jurisdictions across the world as the process most likely to engender corrupt conduct.
There is a sentence which precedes that, an important qualifier from Mr Borg:
Without putting the kybosh on all of our public servants involved in the procurement sector as somehow being dodgy or untrustworthy, let us be very clear here, as Mr Borg says in his opening remarks, most public officers are honest, loyal and working in the public interest. It is important to make that clarification.
In chapter 2 of the report, Mr Borg cites – this is about the public interest disclosures and there are eight matters included in this report which have been investigated by the commission. It is important these are on the public record. They highlight that wrongdoing has been identified and investigated, as the Attorney-General noted. Some of these matters have been referred to police for investigation, and that is as it should be.
The Attorney-General said that these matters are of the gravest concern, as they are. He said:
I do not disagree with that. It shows there is something wrong but it is more than system failures we are talking about. There is human error - serious errors of judgment that people make. As much as we can have transparency, accountability, laws enacted, codes of conduct; and all of those things which act as deterrents to people doing the wrong thing, sadly, there are people who will do the wrong thing for personal gain or whatever reason.
However, I wanted to make that qualifier. Many years ago when I worked in the mining sector when Alcan became the owner of the operations at Gove, in my role in communications in the HR department, given we were part of a huge global organisation, there was the roll-out of a worldwide code of conduct. It was a massive process. In the corporate sector there are many opportunities, basically, to do the wrong thing; gain through the employer from whatever activities employees may find to do so. Ultimately, in the corporate sector, if you get caught doing the wrong thing you will lose your job. That is probably no different in the public sector.
I found that when the company rolled out a worldwide code of conduct it really opened up discussions amongst the workforce about what was regarded as appropriate behaviour, what was not and, importantly, what channels employees should go through if there was uncertainty about courses of action. That is very much what the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures look after. That is a really important transparent process in our democracy that we need to have in place.
I will not go through the entire report. This is a public report; anybody can access it. You can read it on the Internet. You can read the types of matters the commissioner investigated. It is confidential insofar as there are no names. It also provides statistics on the data around freedom of information requests, about the avenue people may pursue through the commissioner’s office when they have had access to information under FOI denied, and the reasons behind that.
Ultimately, the commissioner cannot resolve everything. The commissioner resolves some things but needs to, ultimately, make decisions about matters in accordance with the act as to what he or she can investigate and deal with and what they cannot. Then, perhaps, they can refer those complainants on to another avenue where they may receive an answer to what it is they are looking for.
Chapter 3 is an important one. It is only a page, but it is a really important measure that was implemented under Labor about protecting and supporting disclosers. Of course, this is about whistleblowers. This is about allowing people an opportunity, with complete privacy and confidentiality, to raise a matter with the commissioner that they see is not right without any threat of reprisal. It is interesting to note that the commissioner writes in this chapter:
That is a shame. People should be confident they can raise a matter - be a whistleblower - if they see that is important. Obviously, it is a step people take very cautiously and with some hesitation.
It is interesting when you sit on the opposition benches with shadow responsibilities across numerous portfolios and get to understand exactly what is involved in the role, for instance, of Attorney-General and Justice. I was reading in Chapter 3 about FOI complaints to the commissioner in 2011-12. There was one example provided of a prima facie decision delivered in 2011-12. There are a couple of examples of investigations undertaken but this one proceeded to mediation and a hearing. It was to do with a complainant who had applied for access to a submission handed to the Legislative Assembly’s Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the NT from last year.
I was a member of that committee. Given the sensitive nature of the subject we were dealing with, we received many submissions which were agreed by the committee to be kept confidential and not to be shared in the same way you would in parliamentary committees: to go into in camera mode. It is interesting to see that issue came before the commissioner and, ultimately, the result was the complainant was not able to access that document.
Finally, the office also plays an important role in educating and providing public awareness. In order to do that, it works across other offices as well, including Consumer Affairs, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and, no doubt, others. The more we promote to people that this office exists and the role of the commissioner the more we can hope to see transparency and accountability in our community. I commend this report to the House.
Mr GILES (Infrastructure): I listened intently to the member for Nhulunbuy. She was very gracious in identifying the concerns and raising the issue that these are not acceptable.
She spoke about human error in this process and how the findings of corruption and so forth are not good enough. As Minister for Infrastructure, my portfolio is subject to some of these comments and it is important for me to respond, particularly about what we have done to date.
It is important to reflect on the missing elements of the member for Nhulunbuy’s speech, particularly about leadership, decision-making, and being in control of your department. That is not to say things will not go wrong here or there; that will always happen, but these fundamental flaws through some of the departments show a clear sign of ineptness and the failure of the previous government and its ministers to lead. You do not have to go too far to reflect on the incinerator issue at the port. For six years the current Opposition Leader and deputy opposition leader were both ministers for Transport and Infrastructure. They extended the life of the incinerator polluting our environment with no concern - not in charge, not on top of their game. The Asset Management System is a shining example of incompetence and something this parliament will see more and more of.
It is very important we put a line in the sand in relation to the failures of the Asset Management System to date. The previous minister, the member for Barkly, and before that the Opposition Leader, were not in charge of their portfolios. There was supposed to be $14m to build a whole new system for asset management. It was scoped at $28m, brought back to $24m, $32m has been spent and we are only running at 11 % capacity.
AMS is a disaster, a basket case. I will be happy to talk more about that tomorrow and I anticipate there will be something in the paper. I understand Alyssa Betts was at the Public Accounts Committee today busily taking notes about Labor’s failures with the Asset Management System. The Leader of the Opposition buries her head in her books because she must be embarrassed and ashamed. She was not in control of her portfolio, neither was the member for Barkly when Minister for Transport and for Infrastructure. Today he spoke about the EPA, about how his proudest moment was as Minister for Lands and Planning; he did not talk about transport or infrastructure. Is it any wonder AMS blew out to be the basket case it is today? They were not in charge of their portfolios.
We are now trying to go through, line by line, every expenditure item to see what has gone wrong to date. Hauling in this behemoth of a system is incredibly difficult.
However, moving to the public interest disclosure report, it is not good enough that public officials seek to shirk their responsibility, bend the rules, and all the other findings in the report. I will go through a number of responses from the Department of Infrastructure. I want to send a clear message that it will not be tolerated. We will put in place all the measures we can to avoid future offences, and where we find gaps in the future we will respond because we will be in charge of our portfolios.
The Department of Infrastructure has implemented the recommendations of the commissioner. We have developed a package of policies to address the recommendations, including things like the gifts and benefits policy, the fraud prevention framework, improper conduct policy and procurement policy. We are developing and implementing training across the department to mitigate risk and enforce the importance of public service ethical behaviour. Specific matters have been referred to the police for investigation and those matters are continuing. There is training on workplace behaviours incorporating our code of conduct, conflicts of interest, improper conduct policy, reporting procedures, and the gifts and benefits policy. That training is occurring in the department and for all new staff members.
We have revised systems to increase the level of control. We have separated the budget and expenditure approvals to ensure they are not the same. A Department of Infrastructure procurement policy has been developed and our Department of Infrastructure procurement procedures have been revised to ensure strict compliance with the procurement directions. For example, ensuring necessary quotes are obtained for smaller projects and exemptions should be sought for urgent projects only. This revision of the procurement process provides a complete end-to-end process mapping and subsequent risk management solutions to try to avoid the situation we were put into in the first place.
We have developed a statement on integrity and ethical behaviours which we are sharing with external parties so the private sector, or the general public, understand the position we are in and how we seek to make improvements in this area. We are improving the quality of tender documents to ensure specific firms are not favoured and cull levels are appropriate. More importantly, out of this whole process, without going through every individual thing we have put in place, we are implementing a cultural change process which ensures the organisation has a new culture of not just customer service, but a culture of discretion which separates any conflicting interest of officers away from the contracts.
The findings in the public interest disclosure report would be quite concerning for any member of the public, any member of this Chamber, and for any minister, but as the Minister for Infrastructure, it is more concerning to me than anyone else. These issues have been raised within my department particularly. A small group of people has been involved in this behaviour.
The chief executive of the department has my full confidence in ridding the department of these scourges of corrupt activity. I will continue to receive updates from the chief executive about the implementation process. I continue to receive information on how the reform process is going. We have put in place a process whereby staff can provide anonymous feedback within the department when they feel there is an issue. It is an internal blow the whistle campaign where they can provide information straight to the chief executive or the public interest disclosure. That is a very good opportunity to seek to remedy the situation we are in at the moment.
I go back to the point: the commissioner has found issues and the department is acting on them. We have put in place a range of responses. Police are still investigating and there may be further action in that regard; however, the point is it was allowed to reach this point in the first place.
We are in the same boat of not being in control across a range of areas. Power and Water, the previous government was not in control; the Asset Management System, the previous government was not in control; the Arafura Games, the previous government was not in control; the same in health and all our other portfolios. The previous government took its eye off the ball. That is not a blanket statement to throw political spin. We are seriously going around with a dust pan and broom trying to clean up the mess. This is one huge mess. There is corruption: an estimated 35 to 40 people in a gang acting corruptly within a government department. It is a serious issue which was completely out of the sight of the previous government.
The AMS, which was supposed to cost $14m, is costing $32m and only operating at 11%. It should have been $14m, now they are asking for another $30m-plus to keep it going. Who has been in control? How can it blow out this badly?
Rent is lost from public housing. Contractor confidential information is going into the ether. This is what has been happening and no one has been in control. I thought the member for Fannie Bay might have had a few questions at the Public Accounts Committee meeting today, but he sat very limp because he knows his government allowed this to happen.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would caution the member for Braitling. It is a breach of privilege to carry on in that fashion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you would stick to the script of the statement.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of what I am and am not allowed to say in this Chamber. I am raising the point that the previous government was not in charge of its portfolios, and am reflecting that I thought the member for Fannie Bay might have asked some different questions. It is very interesting that he did not pursue that line.
However, I want the general public to understand we are moving towards putting in place a better framework to ensure these things do not happen in the future. There will always be accidents, but it is our job, as a government in a leadership position, to ensure we have the appropriate mechanisms in place to stop this happening in the first place.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I conclude this debate and thank honourable members for their input. I have listened carefully to the words of members in this House and continue to be concerned. I agree with the member for Braitling’s comments; clearly someone was not aware of what was going on.
When this annual report hit my desk I was astonished to read it and almost spat my cornflakes across my desk. I was on the phone to the public disclosure commissioner within minutes of having read the substance of this report and some of the matters raised.
To remind honourable members, one cannot but have a shiver run up your spine when you read things like:
When I realised what was going on I raised this issue with my colleagues. The member for Braitling identified this probably reflected on areas in his department. He knew about it within weeks of taking over the department. I knew about it within weeks of taking over as Attorney-General because I read the material coming across my desk. I read the draft of this report.
The part which concerned me about the draft report was there was no reference to police. I advised Mr Borg that I was worried the mere reference to these people having resigned seemed to be sufficient in his report. Mr Borg was kind enough to inform me he had referred the matter to police and it was being dealt with. Nevertheless, I immediately wrote to the Chief Minister and informed him. Within weeks, three ministers knew what was happening.
Once again, I do not want to speak in too much detail beyond what I have already described. Needless to say, if you are a responsible government you ask the question: is there anything else? This report is limited to the financial year 2011-12. This report only deals with specific matters which occurred in that one year period. This office has been around longer than one year. I asked Mr Borg to brief me in relation to some of the issues he was facing.
There are a number of matters not in this report which are of concern. One matter involves, potentially, millions of dollars worth of contracts. I will not say anything more about it at this stage, but one of the things which struck me was Mr Borg explained there was a resourcing issue in his office. I reassured Mr Borg I would get straight on to it. Consequently, I spoke to staff in the Chief Minister’s office and we are addressing it.
I do not know whether the allegation about millions of dollars in contracts is true or not; that has to be established by an investigation. However, there is sufficient information to require additional resources be given to the commissioner with a view to attending to that matter in particular, as well as other matters. To that end, I have committed this government - in consultation with the Chief Minister’s office - to providing those extra resources.
The original plan was to get police to do it, but there are some problems with Chinese walls between the two operational pieces of legislation. Therefore, we will be seeking professional investigators, who will probably be retired policemen, to assist with the investigations into these matters. What concerns me is that if what I am informed of is correct, and if what is in this report - which I have now no reason to doubt - is correct, Mr Borg’s assertion that there are work groups where improper conduct is tolerated and supported, and where the giving and receiving of gifts and benefits is common practice, somebody somewhere did not have their eye on the ball over the last full financial year in which the former government was in power.
When I became Attorney-General, I was astonished at the amount of things piling up on my desk which had not been attended to by the former Attorney-General. It is almost like the office had been vacated for months. It was an office which, essentially, had been vacated for months and all manner of things had been neglected by the former government. I do not know why, but if you do not have the presence of mind to attend to matters of such magnitude as the ones raised by Allan Borg, the Acting Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, there is something fundamentally wrong with your administrative capacity.
We are not talking about mere incompetence in this report; we are talking about allegations of corrupt behaviour. I find it incomprehensible that we found ourselves with reports like this on our desks, collectively, within weeks of coming into power. I find it hard to imagine how the former government could not have known, or at least been alerted to, some of these things. When in opposition, you hear these things all the time and you tend to take these allegations with a grain of salt by virtue of the fact every procurement process produces more losers than winners.
Generally speaking, you accept people are hurt and upset when they do not win contracts. Every so often you get information where you think, ‘Oh! That does not sound quite right.’ You try to pursue it but never get much joy, particularly from opposition. On this occasion, we find ourselves in a situation where some of the rumours we heard in opposition have more than a kernel of truth to them. We, as a government, will send an unequivocal signal, and I listened very carefully to the member for Braitling make exactly the same noises. We will not in any way tolerate corrupt activity; we will root it out and expunge it.
I believe the message is starting to get through because when I was at the Parap Markets at my usual stall someone seeking government contracts said, ‘You are scaring the public servants too much because they will not even have a cup of coffee’. Whilst I thought that was a little extreme, I am not too upset they have taken that approach because it shows a level of probity is starting to operate.
I would never argue or determine acceptance of a cup of coffee was a corrupt act, but for all those public servants who will be reading this Hansard transcript, or may be listening now, if you are involved in the procurement process and somebody offers you something, err on the side of caution. There is nothing wrong with the normal social behaviour of accepting a cup of coffee; not much corrupt activity can flow from that. I would have a public servant in the procurement process ask themself, ‘Is there an expectation based on the thing I am being offered? What would a reasonable person consider to be appropriate activity?’ If the answer to the question is that you are uncertain, do not do it. That is the benchmark I would expect public servants to apply. Judgment has to be called for but, as in the matters outlined in this report, seeking and accepting the gift of electrical appliances from a period contract holder is not on the right side of this discussion.
I am staggered that in the Northern Territory I would have to deal with an issue of this nature and apparent magnitude. One of the matters described in this report is currently under police investigation and we will see what the results of that are. The other matters subsequently raised with me by the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures will be investigated so the criminality, or otherwise, of those disclosures can be established. I am disappointed that we have to deal with an issue like this; however, we have been confronted with it and will be strident in our pursuit of it.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 30 October 2012.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): As Leader of the Opposition I comment on the Auditor-General’s October 2012 report to the Legislative Assembly. I want to thank the Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, for his very thorough report. He canvassed quite a few issues in the October 2012 report going to a series of audits he has undertaken, and I will go to those audits and his comments in the report.
Pages 20 to 31 make good reading. It is his project summary in relation to the Darwin Correctional Precinct. It shows the rigorous assessments and the financials run through a public sector comparator in accordance with Infrastructure Australia PPP Guidelines. The Auditor-General found no concerns with the procurement process, and has also recommended that the Department of Infrastructure manage the project until completion. Then, of course, the Department of Correctional Services will take over.
The report, understandably, recognises the importance of the long-term oversight of the facility. This is a critical issue, and I ask the government to turn its attention to the role of Correctional Services going forward in oversight of the facility. It talks about the capacity of the facility and, again, we look forward to seeing in the upcoming mini-budget funding for Correctional Services, given the current government’s clear policy of locking up drunks.
In relation to the McMinn Street duplication - pages 32 to 35 - the report raises concerns about the contract variations, the project delays, and the significant cost overrun. The cost came in at $8.7m against the tender amount of $4.5m. The delays were a series of unidentified underground services, wet weather delays, unexpected high-voltage connection costs, and the discovery - to top it off - of a WWII bomb crater, then further wet weather as a result of the delays in dealing with the bomb crater.
Mr Elferink: I do not believe it was a crater, to be honest.
Ms LAWRIE: There is certainly conjecture out there, member for Port Darwin. It was declared a bomb crater and it held everything up. The cost increases were also impacted by significant project scope changes to deal with all these issues. The department raised the government’s concerns with the contractor at the time. The contractor’s systems were identified as the major contributing factor.
The report also looks into the Tiger Brennan Drive extension. I call that Stage 3, which is the overpass area on Berrimah Road. It talks about very modest overruns in Stages 1 and 2, which could be explained by the need to follow the new requirements after the adoption of the Austroads Guide to Road Design which replaced the VicRoads design guide.
The Auditor-General goes through the Department of Health grants to non-government organisations for primary health services - pages 42 to 48. Concerns have been raised about the grant management system - the GMS - and policies relating to funding and accountability for NGOs undertaking primary health services on behalf of the department. I welcome and recognise the efforts contained in this audit to improve GMS and accountability. I hope the new framework referred to regarding health as per the new Minister for Health’s announcement pays attention to the Auditor-General’s comments of being cognisant of the need for accountability, especially in contracting external and private providers. It would be a pity, and a dire shame, to see the significant steps forward in dealing with grants to NGOs as described in the audit take any retrograde step.
The Mandorah Ferry takes up pages 49 to 64. The Auditor-General undertook internal and external inquiries into the tender process. The internal procurement contract review found that while better record keeping and greater transparency would have improved the outcome, due process was followed. The external procurement process investigation focused on the second request for tender and identified problems with forward planning and risk management by the agency. It would have been ideal if the process had commenced much earlier. Best efforts were made in the time available to meet both community expectations and to ensure due process in what became, ultimately, a very difficult market environment.
Calibration of speed detection devices and breath testing equipment - pages 74 to 80. Most of us would know the court case arising from this. The Auditor-General looked at the NSW and Northern Territory review of calibration procedures and identified a lack of policies and procedures which still need to be addressed. I draw this to the government’s attention.
The Auditor-General saw an improvement in record keeping and accountability mechanisms. I welcome those actions by the police; however, speed detection devices and breath testing equipment are regularly tested and calibrated by suppliers or other authorised agents such as the Victorian police.
Finally, I draw members’ attention to the Project Employment Scheme - pages 81 to 83 - focusing on the public employment section of the government. The Auditor-General - I welcome this - has concerns that this employment scheme for people with disabilities under the Willing and Able Strategy policy setting is not providing measureable outcomes. What has happened to important programs such as the Willing and Able Strategy since the CLP has come in? I look forward to an update from the Minister for Public Employment on that. I am concerned that with the focus on job cuts the government may well lose the focus on the all important Willing and Able Strategy. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report, in particular, the findings and recommendations from the compliance audit undertaken in respect to performance reporting by the former Department of Resources, specifically, the performance indicators contained within the agency’s 2010-11 annual report.
Although the Auditor-General found the records supporting the performance information presented in the department’s annual report were reasonable, areas of improvement were identified. Further, although the Auditor-General acknowledges that with the restructure of the department the specific recommendations contained within the report are redundant, there is no doubt that the findings and recommendations provide valuable information and guidance for the new agencies.
The following issues were highlighted: the need for management to review the nature of performance indicators reported, including the nexus between budget papers and the annual report; the need to provide evidence of independent review and assessment of reported performance indicators; and the need to maintain sufficient and appropriate documentation to support all reported performance indicators.
The former Department of Resources was provided with a copy of the draft findings of the audit earlier this year. I understand the recommendations of the Auditor-General were referred to the department’s Risk Management and Audit Committee, the RMAC. I am advised the RMAC has begun the process of reviewing the agency’s performance indicators and examining how to improve the linkages with the agency’s corporate plan as well as developing meaningful, measureable, verifiable and robust performance indicators. The new agencies formed - the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the Department of Mines and Energy - will continue this work. I understand that as soon as the new audit structures have been established to service the new agencies the review of performance measures and indicators will be progressed in time for inclusion in next year’s budget papers.
I thank the Auditor-General for this report and the important contribution these reports make in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of delivering government services. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, Territorians want a health system which meets their needs. They want their little Paul’s tropical ear fixed so he can get back to school; someone to manage cousin Joe’s worsening diabetes so he can get back to work and feed his kids; Aunty May’s cancer be dealt with in Darwin; Mrs Smith across the road can one day get that hip replacement she desperately needs; there will be an ambo there the next time grandad has an angina attack; and there will be someone they can go to for advice to stop their kids from getting crook.
They also want choice. They want to use their private medical insurance with a doctor of their choice. They want to know if they need surgery there are more places to go than just the public hospital. They want to know there are good medical facilities and services in our regions. They want to go to a GP for treatment rather than queuing for hours at the emergency department if the illness can be treated at a clinic instead of the hospital. These things are what people expect from our health system.
They also know, because of our small population, there are procedures and treatment that may never take place in the Territory, but they expect our health system will be highly competent in dealing with our most common ailments. They also expect us to grow these competencies with visiting specialists and our own people so we do not have to fly to the other side of the continent if we are really sick. I know people expect this because I expect it too. Territorians have another expectation: they expect me to deliver on this.
Since being given the honour of being appointed Minister for Health, I have spent many hours talking with patients, clients, staff, clinicians, our non-government partners, the private sector, and key health system stakeholders. I have developed an enormous amount of admiration and respect for the people who work in our health system. I am amazed at the level and quality of services they deliver - many in difficult situations and locations - and they do it with compassion and dedication. They are ordinary people doing the extraordinary.
My gratitude extends to all staff in roles which support the frontline workers, from the kitchen and ground staff in our hospitals, nurses out bush, to senior executives in the department, and the many people who work in private clinics. They all do an incredibly important job.
A constant theme to emerge from my discussion across the Territory is the desire for our staff and service providers to be given greater responsibility for operational decisions which affect them and their clients; for red tape and bureaucracy to be reduced; to be able to use their initiative and be allowed to be innovative where appropriate; and for services to be more closely connected to the communities they serve.
Since becoming responsible for the Health portfolio, I have discovered - and it saddens me to report it – that our Health infrastructure is in a terrible state of disrepair across the Territory and the system is disconnected from the people in the communities it serves. Nobody is working out of big flash offices, hospitals, or clinics and, typical of Labor governments, there has been an overreliance on business rules, systems, and bureaucratic red tape. Our hard-working staff have very little buy-in and, as such, innovation and initiative is stifled. I am surprised staff morale is not affected more.
The previous government put in place a structure within the department which centralised decision-making and control. It took away important input and influence from our communities across the Territory. It is a top-down hierarchical structure which does not support innovation or seamlessly integrated services.
A lack of innovation and initiative was demonstrated by the previous Territory Labor government when, for years, across Australia all governments were reforming their health systems. Our Northern Territory government did not. Labor left us with a health system almost a decade behind the rest. The previous government members should hang their heads in shame. Not only were they lacklustre when it came to reforming how our health and hospital services were delivered, but they were happy to sit by and idly let their federal masters ignore the needs of Territorians. They did not have the backbone to stand up to federal Labor to get their fair share of the Australian government funding the Territory requires and is entitled to.
The Northern Territory accounts for 1 % of Australia’s population, but 2 % of all public hospital admissions in Australia. This one piece of data is an indicator of sickness. We have Australia’s sickest people by a factor of two. We have the country’s longest waiting times for elective surgery. Admission into a hospital from the emergency department can sometimes take an entire day or more. We have an explosion in the number of chronic disease cases every year, and Indigenous Territorians continue a downward spiral in health outcomes. This is further evidence of just how sick our health system is and how afflicted our people are.
However, Canberra’s response to this much higher level of need is to fund the Territory at a much lower proportion than any other jurisdiction. The Commonwealth’s share of total government funding for health in the Northern Territory is 43%. This is the lowest rate in the nation and compares to the national average Commonwealth funding share of 62%. I am reliably informed this gap in funding could be as high as $600m per year. Ironically and perversely, those states with the healthiest people have the lion’s share of national health funding. Did we hear a peep from the former Territory Labor government about this disgraceful level of support from their comrades in Canberra? This miserable level of funding is compounded by the fact the Territory has the lowest number of GPs in Australia. In urban areas in the Territory, there are 66 GPs per 100 000 people compared with the national average of 92. In rural areas, the Territory has 51 GPs per 100 000 compared with 84 nationally.
This much lower number of GPs in the Territory results in a far greater burden on our hospitals and other publically provided health services. It has also reduced the Territory’s access to Medicare funding. I would even go as far as to observe that while there are GPs in Sydney making a living from treating people with hypochondria, ingrown toenails and sunburn, many practitioners in remote parts of the NT are treating the whole gambit of life-threatening chronic diseases. This is yet another example of Australia’s health system unfairness.
Labor simply never understood the role a robust and efficient private sector could play in our health system. They could not comprehend there are good synergies with an active private sector working in concert with our public system. Hospitals have a real desire to free up beds for those in greater need, whilst it is a desire of those in private practice to grow their businesses and free up space in public hospitals. Happily for me, there are people in the NT who have taken responsibility for their own health to the extent they want to pay for the treatment option of using private health providers. These people reduce the strain on the public health system and the taxpayer and should be applauded, not treated as outlaws as they have been by the former Labor government.
Private practitioners who bulkbill are in even greater demand and an expansion in these services will see a real reduction in waiting times at emergency departments. Our experience to date demonstrates this. The poorly designed Palmerston GP Super Clinic dealt with over 9000 admissions in the last year and the small bulk billing practice in Casuarina saw almost 60 000 people in its first six months of operation.
The former government ignored these vital services and put up roadblocks to discourage further operators in the marketplace. Its focus was almost exclusively on the public sector. Remember, private providers are, potentially, our partners in helping reduce the burden on our public system. Rather than do anything to nurture and develop private practices, the previous government pathetically put out its hand to accept capital money for one-off trinkets from the federal government. Labor never cared about the ongoing operational costs associated with these trinkets. Even though there was no operational funding, it was just something else we could put on our credit card.
The $18.6m medi-hotel at Royal Darwin Hospital is a classic example of this. The facility was due to open shortly. However, there was no money to run it. Territorians have had to find $5.5m annually, and staff at our premier hospital are expected to perform the role of hotelier. Another example is the dialysis bus in Central Australia which was a $2m gift from federal Labor that costs more than $200 000 to run. The previous NT government never budgeted for those costs and created an expectation of an ongoing and expanded dialysis service.
A further example which I had to put a stop to is another medi-hotel at Gove hospital of all places. It was proposed to build a federal Labor-funded $5.8m 12-bed patient accommodation unit without a budget to run it. Just put it on the card, as usual. Is it any wonder the former Labor government left us with such spiralling debt? These are just some examples of its poor decision-making and inability to strike a proper deal for Territorians. There are plenty of others I could cite.
I do not intend to sit on my hands like the previous minister with the same health and hospitals system I have inherited.
Honourable members, you can be assured that, unlike the former minister, I will not be shying away from my duty to structurally reform our health system. I will do my utmost to support and nurture private practice and to force the Commonwealth to increase its funding to the Northern Territory health and hospital systems to bring us at least close to the national average level.
The reforms I am about to detail are significant, contemporary and, most importantly, well overdue. As Health minister, I am determined to reform the health system to ensure the needs of Territorians are being met and health workers have the tools to do the job. Frontline workers should be empowered to make local decisions which suit their communities’ needs and are supported by a Territory-wide system which provides the platform to ensure they can deliver safe, quality services in our community.
These reforms will provide an opportunity to better integrate services between the private sector, the primary care sector and the hospital sector to improve our patient and client journeys. The reforms I am announcing today will provide all of this. In considering these issues, I have also reviewed the requirements placed on the Northern Territory as a consequence of the National Health Reform Agreement with the Commonwealth, and have reviewed arrangements in place in other jurisdictions.
The new service framework I announce today is contemporary and based on the principles of:
ensuring community responsiveness; better coordinated and integrated services
Putting these principles into action requires significant structural change in our health services, hospitals and the department. Put simply, there will be a Territory-wide client-focused service delivery system comprising health and hospital services. Operational management for service delivery will be vested in two health and hospital boards, one in the Top End and one in Central Australia.
The boards will have management responsibility initially for hospitals and, later, for broader health services in their regions. The management boards will have representation from the Gove, Katherine, and Tennant Creek communities. The Department of Health will be much leaner and more efficient. It will have a more traditional role of policy advice and support to the government, Territory-wide planning, clinical governance, negotiating and monitoring performance agreements with the new health and hospital boards, negotiation with the Commonwealth, and managing Territory-wide services such as population, health and disease control.
An important element in ensuring a Territory-wide system which delivers consistent and quality services will be the establishment of the Health and Hospital Services Council. Within the overall system plan, the council will provide strategic advice on Territory-wide service and system issues, quality performance and accountability. Council membership will include the chairs of hospital boards including chairs of the advisory committees from Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Gove hospitals, the chief executive of the Health department, and other senior health sector representatives.
These changes are far-reaching and provide a significant progression from the complex and over-managed centralised structure which was a hallmark of Labor administration over the last decade. These changes will restore responsibility and authority to regional areas and reduce the management levels involved in decision-making. They will empower those at the coalface to make decisions which are timely and responsive. This level of responsibility and accountability is far greater than what Labor gave the current hospital network boards. In view of the significance of the changes, responsibility will be devolved to the boards in a staged way first, for hospital services and later for health services. Systems will be delivered to support the boards to take on this significant task.
These changes will bring our health and hospital system into line with contemporary practice in Australia. Change as significant as this needs to be implemented carefully and with consultation. However, I want it to be done as quickly as possible as I am committed to making these changes for the benefits of patients, clients, staff, and our key service partners.
These changes will be supported by detailed plans and a time line with realistic and achievable milestones. Significant input will be sought from clinicians and other service providers. Changes to the Department of Health will commence early in 2013. I anticipate the health and hospital boards will commence their formal responsibilities from 1 July 2013. Progressive transfer of health services to these regionally-based boards will also commence in 2013. Full transfer of health services is expected to be completed by the end of 2014.
To further explain these reforms, I am commencing a roadshow in early December to regional service areas to talk through the changes, why they are needed, and the benefits to patients, clients and staff. Furthermore, I have tasked the Chief Executive, Mr Jeff Moffet, with leading the implementation of these changes.
In closing, these changes will make a real difference to everyone involved in our health and hospital systems. Most importantly, our Territory patients will have greater access to better connected and coordinated services through a comprehensive regional management structure. The changes will make a real difference to our frontline people, who will now be empowered by the devolution of authority and responsibility to make local decisions which are responsive to the unique needs of their individual patients. The changes will also make a real difference to staff in the Health department, who, without having to deal with the service delivery issues, can realign their focus on core support services, policy and planning responsibilities.
I would like to offer my thanks to all those staff, service providers, and consumers who have taken the time to talk to me and give me their thoughts on how to improve health and hospital services in the Territory. Their advice has been invaluable in helping me develop this new service system for the Northern Territory, and I am looking forward to further engagement and discussion with them into the future.
A final but very important point: in all my discussions with people over the past few months regarding the current state of health and hospital systems in the Northern Territory and my intention to reform it, not one person has asked me, ‘Why are you doing this? Why are you even considering changing the system? The system is perfect.’
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not going to be an easy road. However, I am looking forward to working to the best of my ability as Health minister to achieve the very best health system possible for all Territorians. I commend the statement to the House and I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his first statement in the House on the very important issue of health services. I was looking forward to hearing what he thought of the department. There is no doubt the system needs to be changed and was on the way to being changed. I knew there would be the usual anti-Labor rhetoric going back years and claiming everything was the fault of the previous Labor government. I was really looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the department. Does he have Tollner’s grand plan? I received the statement and realised Tollner’s grand plan is more like Jim Hacker’s grand plan, if you remember Yes Minister.
The statement is welcomed. There are no details in the statement. I am looking forward to more details in the future. It is disappointing as a taste of the things to come with cuts to services and facilities. I am sure we will see more of that in the mini-budget.
I agree with the minister: Territorians deserve a health system which meets their needs. In the past 10 years, the Labor government did exactly that: restructured, improved, and put in place a health system to serve Territorians. It has not been and is not a perfect one, but it is much better than what we found in 2001.
At that time we found a system with facilities which needed to be upgraded. Wards were closed by the CLP government. That system needed more doctors and nurses, and had no renal dialysis facilities outside Darwin, Katherine, and Alice Springs. The department had a fake budget, with the books cooked by the then Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, who admitted he did it. That is why he did not remain Under Treasurer for much longer.
The minister made a number of admissions in his statement about our health system. Finally, he admitted we have the sickest population, we do not have enough GPs - as I said over the past three or four years I was minister - and limited bulkbilling was taking place in the Territory. At the same time, he shows he has to learn much more about the system. He made much of the private health providers in the Territory. There are none! GP numbers in the Territory are the lowest in the nation. We have one private hospital in Darwin. Private providers do not come to Darwin or, if they are here, they leave. What happened when the paediatrician at the Darwin Private Hospital quit? Every person who used his services has to go to Royal Darwin Hospital.
However, let us look at his plan. He mentioned a new framework for health but, unfortunately, it is a framework which will blow out administrative costs at the expense of frontline services. The proposal seeks to push responsibility into communities and, at the same time, covers his back. It will not be the minister’s responsibility. I am for letting the community have a say. I was the minister who instructed the department to have extensive consultation with Territory people about the proposed health and hospital boards. The department wanted one. I insisted it talk to the people and, as a result, we have the Top End and Central Australia health and hospital boards.
I always supported health professionals - the nurses, the health workers - anywhere they worked in the Territory. That is the reason we embarked on a recruitment drive for more doctors and nurses when we came to government. We now have the highest number of doctors, specialists and nurses in the Territory.
The minister made some interesting points and claims about the funding from the Commonwealth. He said we receive a lower amount of money from the Commonwealth than any other state. We receive about 43%. I remind him, he was in federal parliament when his mate, Tony Abbott, as Minister for Health, changed the funding formula for the states and territories from 50:50 to 30% Commonwealth and 70% territories and states. That means we had to pay 70 for every $1 spent in the health budget, because Tony Abbott removed the 50:50 ratio and made it 30:70. We clawed it back to nearly 50:50, and we progressed with the Commonwealth to argue for more funding.
He made comments about infrastructure being in a state of disrepair. I suggest he travels around the Territory and looks at some of the facilities. I would like him to visit Royal Darwin Hospital to see the new upgraded facilities: the new upgraded emergency department with a new children’s section. He can see the re-opened wards at Royal Darwin Hospital, the ones which were closed when the CLP was in government. He can see the power distribution area for Royal Darwin Hospital.
Look at the ungraded emergency department at Katherine! Look at the state-of-the-art emergency department in Alice Springs! Look at the Tennant Creek Hospital, one of the smallest hospitals in the Territory. Labor spent millions of dollars to upgrade it. Look at the renal dialysis facilities in Alice Springs, minister. The previous government provided facilities which are the envy of other states and, as a result, people from Western Australia and South Australia come to Alice Springs to be treated rather than being treated in their own state.
Should I remind the minister of the fiasco which occurred during the upgrade of Alice Springs Hospital? This government is now in court with a company which was upgrading Alice Springs Hospital in the CLP days. At the same time, should I remind you, minister, it was you and your party which objected to the upgrade of the children’s ward at Royal Darwin Hospital when the Commonwealth decided to fund the upgrading - a ward which should not be upgraded, but should be completely remodelled and a stand-alone paediatric ward built at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The minister states the Labor government did not invest much in health and, as a result, the health of people spiralled downwards. Well, you must be the only person in the Territory who does not know anything about the health improvements of Indigenous Territorians. Should I remind you about the reduction in infant mortality for Indigenous children? Should I remind you of the reduction of anaemia in Indigenous children? Should I remind you of the reduction in cervical cancer in Indigenous women, member for Fong Lim? Should I tell you Indigenous people in the Territory undergoing renal dialysis now have the same life expectancy as people in Adelaide, Perth or Sydney? That did not happen by accident; it happened because the Labor government invested in the health of Indigenous Territorians.
You mentioned the renal bus which we funded - $200 000 - to travel around Central Australia. The member for Namatjira said, ‘Shame’. You should be ashamed. That bus provided services to your own people. When they could not come to the city, the bus went to them and treated them. It was a CLP minister who said on an ABC program, ‘If they do not come to town, they can die in their communities’. It is on the record and you should be ashamed you do not stand up for your own people. Enough is enough! We had enough of your rhetoric and double face. You never stood up for your people only yourself.
We know very well, especially after watching the 7.30 Report on Friday, of allegations the current member made a promise to bring back full-strength beer. I suggest you watch the 7.30 Report. It is very, very interesting. We can hear more about that.
The whole proposal today by the minister is nothing more than a smokescreen to cut funds to hospitals and clinical services. The minister used his statement to announce cuts to the dialysis service in Central Australia and health accommodation in Gove. He must be the only minister who does not know that having people in a hospital is more expensive than putting people in the Hilton. The cost per person per night in a hospital bed is more expensive than putting people in the Hilton. It takes a great deal of money, effort and staff to look after people in hospital when they do not need to be there. These people now can be accommodated in a hostel at a significantly reduced cost. I suggest you talk to some of the people in the department, even some people outside the department. Some of your colleagues in other states, irrespective of whether they are Liberal or Labor, will tell you exactly the same.
Minister, you say the department will be a traditional department. Can you please explain what a ‘traditional department’ is? Is it a department which is going to lose many people so it does not have the capacity to support the boards? Will it be a department which will pay the bills with no responsibility for recruitment? Will it be a department to serve the minister?
You talk about the private sector and I welcome your interest. I tried many times to bring private providers to the Territory, be it GPs or others. I argued with the federal government and, as a result, we had an increase in subsidies from the federal government for people to be relocated outside urban centres. We had people provided with significant assistance to relocate to the Northern Territory but, you are quite right, some doctors are prepared to treat hypochondriacs in Sydney where they make more money rather than work in the Territory.
The only private hospital in the Territory is Darwin Private Hospital. You can have a baby there or some minor operations. When things get tough, people from the private hospital are wheeled to Royal Darwin Hospital because it has all the necessary facilities to provide for people with serious health problems.
You refer to trinkets provided by the federal government. Is the medi-hotel at RDH a trinket? Is the proposed medi-hotel in Gove a trinket? Is the medical school in Darwin a trinket? Is the oncology centre in Darwin a trinket? I do not think so. At the same time …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Do not laugh. You started your political future with that oncology centre and could not deliver because your mate, Tony, would not give you the money. Kevin Rudd and Damian Hale finally came up with the money and we now have the oncology unit.
Is the promise to provide a hospital in Palmerston a trinket? I wonder if the Chief Minister thinks the same and is prepared to say to the people in Palmerston he will not accept the Commonwealth trinket and then establish Palmerston Hospital.
There were a number of commitments in the pre-election campaign from the CLP but I cannot see any in your statement. There is no reference to cardiac services. Where is the money for Katherine hospital? The member for Katherine was telling people they would have a brand new hospital. It is very interesting you have made this statement before the mini-budget. I bet it is because, after the mini-budget, you will announce the slashing of services, breaking election commitments, and the things you promised will never be delivered.
At the same time, you say you want to reduce expenditure. How can you do that when you have to find $4.5m for the hospital to pay for the 30% increase in power, water and sewerage charges? At the end of the day, you might be getting money through the bills for power, water and sewerage, but you have to provide money in your budget for hospitals, clinics, schools, and all the other public facilities which use electricity and water.
You mentioned you are going to cut red tape and bureaucracy, but what will you put in place? The press release your CEO put out today mentioned that the functional chart showed there will be two health and hospital services. They will be, for the first time, managed by statutory management boards. That is very good. They were already in place but, at the same time, there will a Territory health and hospital service council which will report to the Health minister, a smaller more focused Department of Health, and a system-wide corporate support bureau. You had the Department of Health and two boards, now you have a Department of Health, two boards, a corporate support bureau, and a hospital services council as a fourth group where you had two before. How the hell are you going to cut bureaucracy when you replace two entities with four? When you do it please let me know. It will be a really good joke to tell at Christmas and I wish you much luck.
I am afraid your intentions are good but you have been taken for a ride. Mark my words; your administrative costs will be enormous.
Today you have raised more questions with your statement. I accept your good intentions because, like you, we had a system which needed to be fixed. Unlike you, I enjoyed being Health minister. You were given the poisoned chalice by the Chief Minister to keep you occupied so you did not try to take his position; I told you that from the very beginning. It is a very good portfolio, although, unfortunately, a thankless task. You will never get a thank you from anyone because the health sector is used by people in need, people who are stressed, people who require assistance and, in some cases, irrespective of what decision is given, the outcomes will not be positive.
Minister, your statement raises more questions than answers. You want to convert the boards to fully autonomous boards. I will tell you a story. A few years back I visited a Health minister in a southern state and asked him to explain why he continued with fully autonomous boards. The government allocated money to them and told them to spend the money and run their own services. He told me he did not have to worry about anything in the health system, it was all the boards’ responsibility and he had nothing to worry about. I suspect this is your grand plan. Jim Hacker’s grand plan is independent boards, get rid of the responsibility – ‘I enjoy my life’. I wish you luck, minister, but I will be following the advancement of your plan. I will be asking questions. I will be talking to people and the difference is, I talk and I listen. You talk, but you do not listen very much.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a number of matters very close to my heart. One is an area I have worked in and devoted much of my time to over many years: the health of my people. I welcome the minister’s statement today as it gives direction and a commonsense approach lacking in recent years. Being one of the largest components of the Territory’s budget, we need to look very closely at gaining efficiencies without compromising this very important part of our responsibility as a government.
For far too long I have witnessed a haphazard approach to the delivery of health services in the bush. In saying this, I make it very clear that the people working on the front line are doing a fantastic job under very trying circumstances. The reason I say haphazard is there is such a disjointed approach to health. So many organisations working in the health area answer to a boss, a manager, who is often sitting in an office in Darwin or another major centre and is making decisions on matters they can be totally out of touch with.
In the Katherine region we have three health organisations all working to the best of their ability, but this new approach should help those organisations coordinate their activities. If we can decentralise the day-to-day management decisions, it will definitely benefit the people on the ground and allow them to adapt as situations demand. The end result will be a better service to our clients. For example, Katherine hospital is able to do elective surgery. We can upgrade that. We can work towards the future of Tennant Creek Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and Katherine hospital instead of sending our patients to Darwin for elective surgery and other stuff.
Regional services need to connect more and provide a better service to our constituents or clients. It is the priority of this government and I am here to help in that process. I am very disturbed, I might say disgusted, at the level of funding provided by the federal government. When you see the average disparity of nearly 20% in the federal funding allocated as described by the minister today, you can only ask, ‘What are you doing to the people in the bush?’ We have some of the most disadvantaged people in Australia living in the Territory and blind Freddy can tell you to deliver the same service to someone from Bulman, for example, will cost much more than to someone from the urban areas of Melbourne or Sydney. No wonder my people have a much lower life expectancy than people from southern states.
I vow to never give up getting a fair go for the people of the bush. We need to be funded fairly if we are ever going to close the gap, which is a catchcry from the Labor federal government. I can only wonder why the previous Labor government in the Territory did not take up the fight with its federal counterparts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a new government now and members will not be sitting on their hands. The minister’s statement is a step in the right direction and I strongly support the statement today.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement of the Minister for Health which announced a tremendous and much-needed reform to our healthcare system. The organisational restructure and fundamental cultural change which will occur in the healthcare sector over the next 18 months will transition the Territory’s healthcare system from sickness to health.
Growing up in the Territory, I am only too aware of the sentiments in our community about the level of care available to Territorians. I do not believe there is a person in this Chamber who has not heard someone say, ‘When in pain get on a plane’. In fact, that sentiment has become an ingrained part of life for Territorians. Today is the day when our government says enough is enough.
As a legal practitioner practising in litigation, I have come across, all too many times, patients who have suffered as a direct result of the poor staffing levels of our hospitals, the lack of resources, the strain placed on our medical personnel who are forced to work unsafe hours just to get through waiting lists, mismanagement, and waste. No one wins in litigation; the health sector loses, the medical practitioner loses and, most of all, the patient loses.
Over the last 11 years, the Labor government did a disservice to Territorians. It has robbed us of valuable opportunities and run our health system into the ground. It seems that Labor governments all have something in common: the legacy they like to leave of debt, destruction, and fundamental mismanagement of public money and public services.
The Territory healthcare system is abominable. We have all heard the stories from nurses who are out there every day, all night long, seven days a week, 365 days a year, delivering the best care they can to patients across the Territory. We have all heard their plight at the waste in the public health system, the mismanagement of resources, the layers and layers of bureaucracy.
I was speaking with Anne and Cath from the Palmerston 50+ Tuesday Club last week about their first experiences of nursing in the 1960s. It was very interesting to hear their stories about the shortage of beds in hospitals, the lack of funding and resources to deliver proper healthcare, and the helplessness of a situation where they were merely treated as the wound dresser, being dictated to by ‘know-all’ hierarchies whose creature comforts shielded them from service delivery. As I reflect on the conversation I had with these two women, whom I respect greatly, I cannot help but think we in the Territory have not come all that far in how we deliver health services these days.
What the Minister for Health has revealed today is a comprehensive plan to grab the current health organisational chart and flip it on its head. Our government will be putting the clinicians on the top of the chart; they will be the focal point of health service delivery because they are the people on the front line in our hospitals, clinics, and remote health facilities facing the full wrath of the Territory’s health needs.
The model of having two boards responsible for service delivery is not rocket science; it is logical and makes perfect sense for the Territory. The boards will be given budgets, they will be separate entities from the department, and will be responsible for health service delivery within their jurisdictions. This set-up will remove the layers and layers of bureaucracy currently in place. An example is this: a nurse in Yuendumu does what he or she can with the resources available at the time. A patient comes into the clinic with a range of health issues including mental health, transmittable disease, and disability. Instead of the nurse picking up the phone and making one call, they must first, under the Labor system, track through numerous layers of management. Those layers then have to track through silos of other health service providers to find the person or the answer they need, which is then fed back down the chain to the nurse in Yuendumu who, by this stage, is surely well and truly over it. Is there any wonder retention of staff is such a huge issue in the bush?
Under our health reform, the nurse will form part of a team of people with the requisite experience to get the answers in one call. The reform empowers the nurses to make the decisions they need to when they need to. This was affirmed today by Diane Walsh, Chair of the General Practice Network NT on ABC radio this morning. I quote from the transcript.
Not only was the Labor health system clunky, overregulated and layered with complication, it was grossly underfunded. We have all heard of the notorious way in which Treasurer’s Advances were written out when departments needed topping up. Health is no exception and a culture of ‘top ups’ has ensued. The $60m deficit the Department of Health operated under in the last financial year will be no more. Our health boards will be given a real budget, one which properly delivers the services needed right across the Territory. It will be the board’s job to administer that budget and deliver health services in a way which emulates the private sector focus on operating with efficiency, to budget, and a core focus on service delivery.
The board will be responsible and accountable with its budget and deliver on promise. There will be no ‘top ups’, no Treasurer’s Advances, and no culture of ‘when we run out they will give us more’. There will be no more putting it on the credit card for the Department of Health. This will mean, by its nature, the board will have an interest in treating Territorians in their own community, whether that is Palmerston, Gove, Maningrida or Alice Springs. Hospital, especially Royal Darwin and Alice Springs, should be the last resort. This, of course, is in the interest of all Territorians who deserve to have access to comprehensive health care in their region. It makes perfect sense to utilise the resources we have to their full potential and relieve the burden on the public system where we can by ensuring appropriate localised treatment is administered, thereby reducing admissions to our hospitals.
The Minister for Health spoke of the importance of private sector involvement in health services and, despite what the former Minister for Health said in his response to the statement, ‘private sector’ are dirty words to Labor believers. The Country Liberals understand the importance and value the private sector can bring to all sectors of our community and our economy.
I will explain the value in the context of increasing GP services and bulkbilling in Palmerston. As always, Labor raised the hope and expectation of Palmerston residents about the capability of the would-be GP super clinic. The self-fulfilling prophecy Labor created, championed, and spun in support of its then fearless leader, Kevin Rudd, has left Palmerston residents disillusioned and, even worse, robbed of a service they expected and needed. What many Palmerston residents do not understand through absolutely no fault of their own is the Palmerston GP Super Clinic is not a Northern Territory government asset. It is a facility operated by a private partnership between Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. To this extent, it is a business. The problem is it has not been functioning well as a result of design flaws with the building due to lack of proper planning and consultation, and poor management. The federal government has abandoned the super clinic and provided little more than seed funding for the venture. This all equals fewer services for Palmerston residents.
Robyn Cahill has been seconded from the Department of Health to the GP super clinic to put in place a rigorous operational and management plan which will ensure that the GP super clinic functions as intended and delivers optimum services to Palmerston residents. Since her secondment, service delivery at the GP super clinic has markedly increased and will continue to increase well into the future.
The Northern Territory government provides the finances to cover the costs of the nurses and doctors who staff the Palmerston Urgent Care After-Hours Service which operates from 10 pm to 8 am, seven days a week. This is a commitment to Palmerston to deliver 24-hour medical services to the people in the area.
The positive message about the value of private practice is one Territorians rarely hear about due to the hysteria of the opposition and its obsession with scam campaigns to the media. Let it be known to the people of the Northern Territory, specifically the people of Palmerston, of which I am one, that increases to private medical practice in our beautiful city will create competition which will bring the price of attending a doctor down and will also, by the nature of competition, see the increase of bulkbilling in medical practices.
Territorians have been fed falsehoods by Labor for too long. Labor has created a culture whereby Territorians believe the Northern Territory government is there to prop up services, stick its nose into areas where it should not, when, in fact, if we decrease the red tape for business and encourage private practice we will see the opening of many more clinics in Palmerston that bulkbill.
The Northern Territory has the lowest level of bulkbill services in the country compared to our southern counterparts. Why? Not because state governments subsidise private practice but because natural competition means in many circumstances private practices which bulkbill are more commercially viable than those that charge $80 per visit. That concept is incomprehensible to Labor but is the truth. We have seen an example of this in the northern suburbs where private GPs have opened a doctors surgery and bulkbill patients without handouts or subsidy. This is the future of GP care for the Northern Territory, and I will fight for this as the direction of GP care in Palmerston. We are a place of families, young people, hope and community, and we will have access to bulkbilling once again through natural competition in the private sector.
The GP super clinic saw 90 000 through its doors last year. This demonstrates a need for private practice in Palmerston. I hope to see an increase of services to the super clinic such as a day surgery like the one recently opened in Casuarina. Darwin Day Surgery has two operating theatres run by a private practice where there are no waiting lists, where Territorians can get the benefit of their private health cover which, at present, is virtually non-existent. This will relieve much of the strain on the public health system. I am confident our government will foster an increase in private health services in Palmerston as it has in the northern suburbs.
The only option for the reform of health services for this minister and this government that is not on the table is to do nothing.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Madam Speaker, I support this visionary statement the Minister for Health has brought to the House this evening. I congratulate not only the minister but this government for having the foresight to be different and create a system. It is well-known we have different people with greater needs in the Northern Territory.
I want to talk briefly on a certain part of the minister’s statement which really affects my people and has affected my immediate family. I want to quote from the minister’s statement some of the things he said about renal dialysis.
This is the part which really hurts us. The expectation has been put there that the renal bus is going to every community and will take every renal dialysis patient out of Alice Springs back into country to see their grandchildren and their family. I know this because I deal with my family who are on renal dialysis in Alice Springs and, unlike the former Minister for Health, these people travel around in my car. As the local member, I take them back to country when the bus cannot go onto country. I take them for their sorry business, I take them to sports weekends, and I take them back to visit their families. I had an uncle on my community who chose not to go on renal dialysis so he died. That was his choice and, along with the family, we supported him to ensure he had the most comfortable care at home because he did not want to leave his country, his family and his grandchildren and move into Alice Springs to access the renal dialysis machine.
These are the impacts on Aboriginal people in the communities. To half-heartedly fund something which sets these people up with the wrong expectation - thinking they are going home when this bus is not going to the communities - will kill these people. I do many things with my people, with renal dialysis people. I take them back to country to visit their family, back for sorry business, back for ceremonies and they travel inside my car. They camp inside my house and their extended families, when they come to visit, camp with me and drive around with me.
At no stage did the former minister see any of these people on their communities or visit them in their homes. Did he at any stage talk to renal patients apart from turning up for a camera shot when a patient was hooked up to a dialysis machine? No. He does not know the expectation he set up and the failures of the system. Those are the things the new minister outlined in his statement this evening.
The former government did not have the foresight to do anything. All it did was create anxiety amongst people in remote Aboriginal communities and the Northern Territory, and the huge expectations it put on the shoulders of the most vulnerable people in the Northern Territory. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
The former Health minister has the audacity to say Labor did this and Labor did that. Labor has done nothing except increase the expectation of the most vulnerable people that they will have a bus service to take them back to their country to visit their grannies and families on remote Aboriginal communities. A good friend of mine, Ken McGregor, walked from Alice Springs to Yuendumu, from Yuendumu to Papunya, from Papunya to Mount Liebig, from Mount Liebig to Kintore and to a Western Australian community called Kiwirrkurra to raise awareness and money for Aboriginal people with renal disease and to ensure it was highlighted across the country that Aboriginal people were suffering from renal failure at a greater rate than anyone else.
For the former government to put so much expectation with all the lies about the bus to take people back onto country is not Territorian. It is not the style we, as Territorians, see and appreciate. We have so many people, not just in hostels, but in private homes in Alice Springs, Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek, who access renal dialysis machines. It is not just patients we are talking about. We are talking about them bringing their wives and children into town because they do not want to leave their families behind on the communities. They know they have to go to renal three times a week. Did the former minister deliver food to them when they were out of food or money? No. He has the gumption to say we do not care about people; we do not speak out for them. He thinks he does. He has never spoken up for people. He had a system which failed the Northern Territory, failed Aboriginal people and failed every Territorian. He should be absolutely ashamed, as the former minister, to condemn my colleague, the Minister for Health, and this government which has foresight into correcting the wrongs of the Labor party and identifying a better way to deliver health services in the Northern Territory so all Territorians benefit from the good health service this visionary government has put together.
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Health, and this government for bringing to this House something very unique for Territorians because we are different to any other state or territory. We are Territorians. As the minister outlined, we have a big cohort of Aboriginal people on the list with critical illnesses like diabetes, amputees, and children with failure to thrive. That is the kind of Territory it is. It is an absolute shame that for 10 years we were locked up by the Labor government not really doing anything, not really moving forward, just taking in all this debt it has left the Northern Territory with. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Health and congratulate him for his announcement of returning decision-making to regional Territory and the hospitals.
These are his words:
I never saw the previous minister for Health in the regional centres. I never saw him care about our people’s health. We will take our minister out bush with us and expose him to all that is left from the Labor Party days, when a minister who was supposed to look after our people’s health never gave a hoot about our people. Alcoholism, renal failure, diabetes, heart failure, name anything ...
Ms Anderson: Child neglect.
Mrs PRICE: Child neglect - everything has risen. For the 11 years Labor was in government it did not care. The previous government did not find out what was happening in the regional centres, what was happening to Territorians who deserve the best in health, transport, housing, and everything that should be provided to them as Australians.
Little did the then Minister for Health, the member for Casuarina ...
Ms Lee: That is all he is now.
Mr Giles: That is him; that is the one.
Mrs PRICE: Yes. Little did he realise the day the 7.30 Report people were out there that it was my niece’s funeral. I held back from saying what I needed to say out of respect for my cousin whose niece had died.
I made it clear that the social club in Kalkarindji was a great opportunity for people to sit, talk, socialise, and I thought it was the best social club in that part of my electorate. The 7.30 Report clearly stated I did not confirm or deny I made promises to keep full-strength beer. I would rather him listen to what the 7.30 Report said my comments were ...
Ms Anderson: The ninth member of the Labor Party.
Mrs PRICE: That is right. The casualties on that road and the alcoholism - has he driven that road and seen all the green cans along the highway where people stop and drink their nine cartons, 16 cartons, or whatever? Does he really understand what that is all about?
My niece’s funeral put a stop to that. Until people know how to decide for themselves - as government we have said we will give them the choice. It is their choice to decide what they want in their communities and we will support that; I will support that.
To my learned colleague, I am going to Kalkarindji to talk to Roslyn Frith because she is my in-law and we can talk things through. I bet he would not know how to do that.
We will always go and talk to people about any issue that comes up. Whether it is housing, health, or shires, we will do our best, and will ensure it is done properly. I have listened to Labor for 11 years ...
Ms Anderson: Telling lies.
Mrs PRICE: ... telling lies and talking about how it will improve Aboriginal health, housing, roads; I have been here for the whole lot. That is why I joined the Country Liberals; I had heard enough rubbish.
Madam Speaker, I feel sorry for the previous member for Arnhem because the former government did not use her wisely.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, I support this statement. It is great to see some real reform coming through in our health sector. There is more in the first page of this document than ever came out of the Labor Party in the last 11 years with regard to health reform and where we stand.
Member for Stuart, you do not have anything to worry about because the minister said in his statement he would be travelling across the Territory with Jeff Moffett, Chief Executive of the Department of Health, in the coming months talking to many staff and key stakeholders about the new structure. It is in the first page of this document: a new service framework for health and hospital services in the Northern Territory. I was the shadow Health minister for five-and-a-half years and feel like I am giving the same speech over and over in this House. I am pleased the Minister for Health has embraced a very strong Country Liberal platform and policy. He has brought it into the House, will continue to do so, and roll-out what we believe to be a great new world for health service delivery across the Northern Territory.
We do not need fundamental health reform, at least we should not. The reason we reached a situation where the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd, announced a great new health and hospitals reform package, which was really just smoke and mirrors for a change in funding arrangements but touted as the greatest health reform since Medicare, was not because our health system was broken, it was the result of long-term state Labor government incompetence. It was as simple as that. Here, we had long-term Labor governments - wall-to-wall Labor across the country, states and territories - which had been in power for decades, in some cases, close to two decades. Is it any wonder we reached a point where the new prime minister at the time said, ‘Enough is enough! We need to do something because people are not receiving the health service delivery they deserve.’ It is a fundamental right that every Australian receives adequate health care when required. It is a core responsibility of any government to deliver that to all Australians. We reached a point where that was not happening. People were waiting extraordinary lengths of time for elective surgery or emergency surgery.
In some cases, the Northern Territory was dragging the chain in nearly all areas of elective and emergency surgery. All categories: Category 1, Category 2 - even Category 1, at some point. We were one of the worst offenders in the country in delivering emergency medical treatment to those who presented at the hospital ED. It was the same with elective surgery. We saw people waiting days, months, weeks, years even. In fact, we still have people on the waiting list, waiting for years to have elective surgery. If an elective surgery or a complication arising from the issue or medical ailment is not treated in time, it can lead to serious complications, sometimes death.
We should not need fundamental hospital reform. If hospitals and our health system across the country were managed properly, adequately and resourced appropriately, we would not be at this point. We would have one of the best hospital systems in the country, one of the best in the world; there is no reason why we should not. There is no reason why Australian jurisdictions should not have the best healthcare service delivery anywhere in the world. While it is pretty good to live in this country, some things have fallen by the wayside. Health service delivery is one of those as a result of long-term Labor government incompetence. That is what it has come down to.
We have spoken at length about the debt and deficit situation we face in the Northern Territory. We are one of the worst per capita; we are worse off than Queensland. Everyone has said, ‘Queensland has had it financially. How will it dig itself out of that hole?’ We are in a worse situation. When you look at our debt and our debt income ratio, every Territorian owes more than every Queenslander.
It should not come as any surprise that our health and hospital system and our healthcare service delivery is under such pressure. We need hospitals with clout. We need hospitals which have power to make decisions on the ground. We have said that in this Chamber for a long time - since I was shadow Health minister. It has emerged in this paper from this government, led by the Health minister of the Northern Territory: a new service framework for health and hospital services in the Northern Territory is exactly what this is.
That is empowering our regional hospitals, putting the decision-making where it should be - on the ground - so no longer does the hospital have to win the argument. Now head office has to win the argument. If something arises at a hospital in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, or Gove, that hospital will be empowered to make a decision based on what best suits it and the community.
It is pretty simple and it works. No longer do we have the ivory tower - head office as it would be in the capital city - making decisions - often bad ones that are not in the best interests of communities which will be on the receiving end of them. It is a pretty simple philosophy: empower your local regions in all areas. It does not have to be only health and hospitals either; it should be right across the Northern Territory. All agencies should have some clout and decision-making power. The whole place has been downgraded over the last 10 or so years.
As an example of how the decision-making or the power base has shifted from the regions and moved to the centre up north, let us look at sport and recreation – a very simple analogy. The most senior person in Alice Springs in Sport and Recreation is an AO5. They do a great job - this is not a blight on the person – but have very little decision-making capability. Tennant Creek is similar. Katherine has a similar situation.
Once upon a time we had senior people across the Northern Territory in all departments whether it was Tourism, Parks, Sport, Museums and Art Galleries, Local Government, you name it; there were people in positions to make and execute decisions. The Territory, regionally, has been downgraded over the years and anyone with any talent or promise was quickly moved to Darwin. It was great for Darwin, probably great for them too, but it was not too good for the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory.
Now we see a shift in that. This government has been elected to re-empower the regions and to re-resource and re-respect the regions - to put respect in the resources where they belong, and that is for the whole of the Northern Territory. It is not about Darwin versus Alice Springs. It is not about Tennant Creek versus Katherine. Those days are gone I hope. They are certainly gone while this government is in term.
We are talking about the whole of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is one product. That is what is for sale. Am I slipping into my tourism mode? I might be, member for Katherine, nevertheless, it applies across the board.
We now have a health and hospital system which applies across the board. It is about Katherine hospital and Alice Springs Hospital making decisions based on what best suits that community. That is how you deliver high-quality healthcare to those who need it most. You allow the community to make those decisions. You allow the community to hire the staff required to suit its best needs.
Another part of this plan is - it goes hand in hand, does it not - is re-empowering our hospitals but not necessarily through management. I have touched on the management side, but also the service delivery itself. One of the big problems we face in the NT, particularly with Royal Darwin Hospital, is the pressure on RDH for elective and emergency surgery. Alice Springs, surprisingly, does pretty well. It might come as a surprise to some. During my time as shadow Health minister I knew Alice Springs did not do too badly when it came to elective and emergency surgery. Emergency times often blowout because it is a very busy hospital, but it meets its elective surgery targets quite well. However, there is still much pressure on Alice Springs, and an enormous pressure on Darwin and, sometimes, Darwin cannot cope.
What is being put forward in this plan, and will be rolled out by the Health minister with the full support of this government, is to allow elective surgery to take place in some of our underutilised hospitals. Katherine Hospital is a wonderful facility: a 60-bed hospital which is often underutilised. There must be something in the water in Katherine; people seem to be pretty healthy. Nevertheless, there is a marvellous facility which is often going to waste.
What is being proposed is those who have an elective surgery need can have surgery performed in Katherine. If you are in Darwin, you can go to Katherine. It suits the regions as well. If you are the member for Arnhem, if you are out in Arnhem Land and you do not want to travel to the big smoke as it were, you can have surgery performed much closer in the Katherine regional hospital. I understand it will be performed by a series of strike teams which will fly into these hospitals and stay for any length of time with an anaesthetist, a head nurse and a surgeon. More importantly, another string to this whole bow is your local GP can be there as well. The GP you see in Darwin can be in the hospital so there is continuity of care. This is so often lost when we centralise our health services and everyone in the Northern Territory has to fly to Darwin or Alice Springs.
Those people will be placed around the Northern Territory. If you are in the Barkly region you do not have to go to Alice Springs; you can go to Tennant Creek to have elective surgery performed. It makes sense. We have hospitals that can cope with it. We have communities wanting it and this is what the government will do. It will re-empower those regions, reutilise the regional hospitals, particularly Gove, Katherine and Tennant Creek. Gove is a great facility and quite a busy hospital. There is a busy maternity ward in Gove, but the other two, particularly Tennant Creek and Katherine - at this stage Tennant Creek does not have a maternity section and having babies in Tennant Creek is discouraged.
That is not part of this plan, but nothing is off the table when it comes to regional health service delivery with this government. We need to leave no stone unturned and ensure we look at the best possible way to deliver health services in the Northern Territory. We should be punching above our weight. We should be leading the way. We have some of the most unique circumstances of any jurisdiction. There are some statistics I had laid out – 1% of Australia’s population, but accounts for 2% of all public hospital admissions. One piece of data which is an indicator of acuity or sickness - we have Australia’s sickest people by a factor of two. There are some more stats which are quite telling.
The Commonwealth’s share of total government funding for health in the Northern Territory is 43%. This is the lowest rate in the nation and compares with the national average Commonwealth funding share of 62%. It is unbelievable, is it not? It really is staggering. Read through some of that stuff and it is jaw dropping. If you look at the types of ailments, the chronic disease we face in the Northern Territory - we should be punching above our weight. Of course, we need more money and better health service delivery. More money is always something governments will want; they will always go to the Commonwealth and say they need more, and the Commonwealth should provide more when it comes to health service delivery, particularly in a jurisdiction such as this. The Health minister will continue thumping his fist on the table demanding we get as much as we possibly can to deal with our circumstances in the Northern Territory.
A fundamental job or core business of government is to deliver the best possible services. This is being done. This government has gone back to the drawing board and emerged with a new plan for the future of health and hospitals in the Northern Territory. It is called A New Service Framework for Health and Hospital Services in the NT, November 2012. It is a great read and will be a wonderful new plan for the Northern Territory.
As I said, we do not need fundamental health reform as touted by the previous government. We do not need all those health and hospital reforms that came after Kevin Rudd was elected. It was remarkable; not only did he deliver it late but he delivered it tenfold. There were folders and folders of minutiae about how the states and territories could deliver better hospitals because the government knew best. How many nurses does the federal government employ? How many doctors does the federal government employ? The answer is none. It is a core responsibility of state and territories to deliver that. It is the core responsibility of the Commonwealth government to help fund those initiatives.
We need hospitals with power, hospitals with clout, and that is what this plan is all about.
I have highlighted bits and pieces from this speech to get them on the record. I will repeat them word for word as they deserve to be said again:
That is pretty simple stuff:
Allowed to be innovative:
The new service framework the Minister for Health announced today is contemporary and based on the principles of:
Again, it is pretty simple; this is not rocket science. I was going to say it is not brain surgery; however, that might be a little too corny. It will be effective. It is what the regions and the health sector have been screaming out for over a very long time.
Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful plan. This will go a long way towards delivering some of the best health and hospital services we have ever seen. It is a once in a generation opportunity to really do something. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the contributions from members on both sides of the House about the proposal put forward by our new Minister for Health to find a way forward for better delivery of health services in the Northern Territory. I am sure we all welcome that. I thank the minister for bringing the statement before the House, and for describing in his opening paragraph what Territorians want.
Let me add to the opening paragraphs of his statement to put on the record what I believe Territorians want, those Territorians for whom, unfortunately, private health insurance is beyond reach, for whom access to a public hospital can be difficult because of remoteness and weather conditions and, while they may want or need to see a GP, they will instead visit their Aboriginal Health Worker who we know to be skilled and valuable professionals providing an excellent service. Also, why would they not want to be treated on country?
We need more Aboriginal Health Workers. The member for Arnhem appreciates that; she is an Aboriginal Health Worker with more than 10 years’ experience. I am sure her patients are missing her. I hope the position she vacated has been filled by another Aboriginal Health Worker and, in the meantime, another Aboriginal Health Worker is going into training so we can have a continuous supply of these people in our remote communities.
I am pleased the Minister for Health has encapsulated what Territorians want for their families - for little Paul, for Joe, for Aunty Mary - I reckon you wrote this bit, minister - for Mrs Smith or for their grandpa …
Mr Tollner: What makes you think I did not write the whole speech?
Ms WALKER: I could definitely see bits of you in there, minister.
People in the bush want a health system which continues to meet their needs too. Let me add to that list of Paul, Joe, Mary and Mrs Smith. Little Yinimala’s mum wants his ear infection to be treated and cleared so he can listen and learn at school. Yalmay wants to see a renal dialysis unit in Nhulunbuy, not just the self-care option, so she and her husband can return to their home at Yirrkala to be with children and grandkids and not have to live in Nightcliff. Danganbarr wants to see the Miwatj Ngalkanbuy health clinic at Galiwinku upgraded. Garrwitju wants to see her community health service retain its strong independence as a provider of health services to the Marthakal homelands people. Old man Gawirrin wants to see the day when our health system focuses more on wellness than sickness and, with it, strong hope for long and healthy lives for future generations of his family, not the ongoing battles with chronic disease which are symptomatic of the lives of too many Territorians. Let us face it; it is not just health issues we are dealing with here, we are talking about a multitude of issues which impact on Aboriginal Territorians’ lives.
These Aboriginal Territorians who represent more than 80 % of hospitalisations in the Territory and only 30 % of the population also want and deserve a health system, and are entitled to a health system which meets their needs now and well into the future.
The minister talks about the honour of receiving the portfolio of Health. We all know it is a very tough gig tackling the Health portfolio. Even though I have never held it, I have been in this House long enough to observe - and have been an observer of parliaments around Australia and the world - and see what they tackle. We all know you are up for one tough gig, minister. I wish the minister well in his new role. He will see he now has to come up with solutions and find ways to overcome the challenges in this portfolio and deliver services. He will see the importance of a collaborative relationship with the Commonwealth. There is no doubt, with his announcement today, he has hit the ground running.
However, it could have been much worse; the member for Greatorex could be Minister for Health. He did little in opposition when shadow for Health, and added nothing positive or constructive to debates about health in the Territory other than to whinge and whine, to sling mud and insults, and to bemoan the fact he had to be in Darwin when all he really wanted was to get home to Alice Springs. It is small wonder he could not be trusted with the Health portfolio.
It is no surprise the Minister for Health chooses to find fault in the health system he and his government have inherited. That is what happens with a change of government. It was not and is not a perfect system here or in any other jurisdiction, nor will it be when the minister vacates the portfolio one day or when there is a change of government. I will remind him not only today, but over the next four years, of the many positive initiatives Labor delivered to improve and grow health services in the Territory and in the bush, even more so since we have had a Labor federal parliament: the introduction of renal dialysis to the bush; new and refurbished primary healthcare clinics; and an oncology unit and comfortable supported accommodation by way of Barbara James House in Darwin to allow people from the bush to receive cancer treatment in the Territory and not have to travel interstate. Let us not forget, importantly, the growth of regional health services currently under the umbrella of AMSANT.
Members opposite can and will cite instances in their own electorates where health services and infrastructure have not been up to the mark. I have no doubt there are stories members have shared and will continue to share in this House. That is the job of any elected member.
The health system and infrastructure Territory Labor inherited in 2001 had been underfunded and ignored for too long under the decades of CLP. I am sure our new minister will no doubt find fault in what he inherits. No doubt some of his criticism will be justified.
I am not convinced the minister’s statement is inclusive enough of all Territorians regardless of where they live. Let us hope details of this bold new plan will evolve. Certainly, the word ‘Indigenous’ rates one mention in this statement and, of course, the devil will be in the detail. What is sorely lacking in the statement is the role of Aboriginal medical services. The minister talks about input from communities across the Territory but fails to mention the current and growing role our regionalised health services have achieved with good support from the Commonwealth.
The minister’s statement talks about consumers of health services having choice. For Aboriginal people in the bush that choice is limited, even for non-Indigenous people. Private health insurance is not a choice they have. Accessing surgery and having, ‘more places to go to than just the public hospital’ is not a choice most Indigenous Territorians have. Going to a GP is likely to be less of a choice for many people who, in the face of rising costs of living under this new and out of touch heartless government, will gravitate to hospital accident and emergency units and super clinics which bulkbill. There are no super clinics in the bush and if you live in Galiwinku or Gapuwiyak, it is a long way to the nearest GP private clinic.
Choice, by virtue of our demographic and geographic conditions, is limited. While choice is something people are less able to exercise in the bush when it comes to health, having a say in the running of what is available is very important and where I see choice - choice as in having a say, having ownership, and allowing people to have control of their medical service.
The portfolio of Health is, as I am sure the minister is discovering, a massive one. It is probably the single biggest portfolio by way of budget allocation in government and is inclusive of a raft of things from infrastructure to services to staff and the list goes on. However, what plans are there to manage the complexities of chronic disease knowing, as I mentioned before, around 80% of hospital admissions are Aboriginal people and the majority are in hospital with multiple health issues. There are fears that the announcement today about health reforms may take us back to the case mix model. Surely, not back to the future on that one, and I would be interested to hear the bush members’ take on this one.
The minister started by talking about what Territorians want from health. He also made the astute observation that people expect him to deliver. There is much meat to be put on the bones of the health and hospital reforms announcement today. What people will be looking for is the minister, ultimately, taking responsibility for direction and success. How will these boards look? What structures of governance, decision-making, reporting and transparency will be in place around them? What authority do they truly have? Are they statutory bodies? How will the funding model work? Ultimately, we wait to see how this works.
I note some of the comments in the media today from key stakeholders such as the nurses union, where their spokesperson talked about proposed reforms to the health system saying she can see pluses in reducing the flow of patients from communities to hospitals and vice versa. I could not agree more with that. She said, on behalf of her members, she has concerns until she knows what a smaller Department of Health means. Does it mean a department which has had its budget cut?
A focus on regions is a good thing, but I am worried things are so hospital-centric. When we see so many dollars going to hospitals we want to ensure it is not at the expense of preventative care. There is much evidence supporting the fact that money must go into preventative care, health and wellbeing programs.
If I could make a quick digression on this point, where are the report and recommendations at with the new government from the inquiry into youth suicide in the Northern Territory? It is an incredibly important health and social issue. It was the result of a bipartisan committee of this parliament and, if we are serious about addressing people’s emotional health and wellbeing, we cannot avoid the body of work addressing the terrible state of affairs in the Territory when it comes to suicide, knowing we have the highest rate in the nation. It is not just about investing in this area but, more than ever, recognising the best outcomes and the best success with programs to address youth suicide will come when groups and communities have ownership and control. However, they cannot do it without support from government. That concept of grassroots programs with buy-in from grassroots not top-down typifies where you will see success, not just with suicide prevention programs, but programs full stop.
I cannot let the minister’s comments about the visitor accommodation designated for Gove hospital pass. When you say, ‘I have put a stop to it’ does that mean the $5.8m allocated by the Commonwealth for construction has been put on hold or returned to the Commonwealth government? Where is this at and where is it heading to?
I, for one, as the local member, will fight tooth and nail to ensure visitor accommodation on the campus of Gove hospital is delivered. Gove hospital has 30 or so beds, services the northeast Arnhem region and around 90% of patients are Yolngu. The hospital’s maternity ward oversees more than 200 deliveries a year. Women from remote communities are required to come into Gove in the 37th week of their pregnancy. You could be there for at least three weeks if there is nothing wrong other than that you are soon to have a baby and need to have somewhere comfortable to stay. In every likelihood you would have a carer with you. I call on the minister to ensure this facility is delivered for the benefit of Yolngu patients who travel from across the region for admission to Gove hospital for whatever reason it might be. As I said, they are often women travelling with a carer - someone there to support them, perhaps to assist with language, and keep them company while they are away from their community.
The member for Arnhem has many constituents who come to Gove hospital for treatment who travel with a family member. They come from Groote, Ramingining, Numbulwar and Milingimbi. I do not believe the member for Arnhem could accept that the visitor accommodation for Gove hospital will not eventuate.
I trust the minister is not planning to put the kybosh on other federal money allocated for northeast Arnhem Land. There is $13m allocated from the feds for a long overdue upgrade to Gove District Hospital’s accident and emergency. It is a costly project, but when you are trying to do a brownfields project on a facility more than 42 years’ old with restricted space it is quite a challenge.
On top of that there is around $7m allocated for a new clinic at Galiwinku, Elcho Island, where the existing clinic operated by Miwatj - something of a rabbit warren - is well beyond its use-by date and, in relation to functionality for staff working there, is incredibly difficult.
Whilst there is no funding allocated to it I want to throw in Gapuwiyak health clinic, which is long overdue for an upgrade. I was there last week, as was the member for Arnhem. We were both at an event opening a training centre and the clinic - you walk through the front door straight into a treatment room. It is a rabbit warren, not adequate, and certainly not contemporary. Our federal minister for Indigenous health, Warren Snowdon is across it. I hope money is allocated to that clinic in the future. Perhaps the member for Arnhem knows more about that than me.
You love reminding us you won an election on the back of the vote of Aboriginal people and you keep telling them you are listening. However, do not forget I have retained my seat for Labor and, in opposition, will be holding you to account. I will expose your shortcomings and will be letting Yolngu people in my electorate, and beyond the boundaries of my electorate, know you have withdrawn their visitor accommodation at Gove hospital and certain bush members on that side have allowed it to occur.
For the new Minister for Health it is about turning the rhetoric of this statement into reality; I will not hold my breath. With the mini-budget to be handed down next week, I am not expecting any good news just more cuts, broken promises, and perhaps another reason for people to tear up the CLP’s worthless contract. Making the announcement is the easy part, delivering on the commitments, as you will discover in government, will be much harder. However, I look forward to seeing your reforms materialise.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support this ministerial statement by the new Minister for Health in the Country Liberals government. Like the member for Nhulunbuy, I have listened carefully to the debate and taken note of some of the more impassioned contributions by bush members on this side of the House.
I was listening to the member for Stuart talk about how her experiences out bush led her to join the Country Liberals and, like many other people in the bush, move away from the Labor Party - that traditional heartland support the Labor Party always expected from Aboriginal people out bush. While thinking about that, I cast my mind back to a question I had been throwing around in my head for a number of years. I often wondered what it was about the Labor Party that attracted the Aboriginal vote. I belaboured that for a long time because I do not understand the thinking of those on the left side of politics. I understand the right side because that is where I sit. However, it is a struggle to understand what anybody really sees in the way the left runs its political agenda.
I am digressing a little from the health statement, but it ties into what the member for Stuart said. About three years ago I did a charity walk from Pine Creek to Katherine to raise money for several local groups: the YMCA and Rotary. It was a tough two-and-a-half days, and I ended up with blisters all over my feet and all the rest of it. I finished on a Saturday, and had my feet bandaged up in thongs as I could not put shoes on. I remember going to Nitmiluk Gorge for the 20th anniversary of the hand back of the gorge to Jawoyn people and listening to a number of speeches. The federal minister for Health, Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, was there and turned the occasion into a political beat up. He harked back 20 years and talked about how the CLP, as it was then, opposed the hand back of the gorge and how there was inherent and latent racism in the town at the time. In short, it was completely unnecessary and totally uncalled for. It incensed me so much that, at the end of official proceedings, I hobbled - I remember this because I was hobbling on very sore feet - up to minister Snowdon and got stuck into him over the inappropriateness of his speech on what was supposed to be a joyous occasion.
It prompted me to write a letter to the prime minister complaining about the way Warren Snowdon dealt with it. I was thinking about the construct of the letter and what I was going to say. There must have been an epiphany, a defining moment, which led me to gain an understanding of why the traditional heartland of the Labor Party was vested in the Northern Territory with many regional and remote Aboriginal people. The Labor Party, for the last 40 or so years, whenever in government, assumed the role of the vanquisher. It would keep Aboriginal people repressed and depressed.
It does it craftily through policy, through its left politics - the social agenda, ‘We will feed you, clothe you, house you, give you welfare money, all you need and, by the way, you do not have to look for a job.’ It is all those types of things.
As the member for Stuart pointed out, nothing in the health system has improved for Aboriginal people during 11 years of Labor. I see the parallels. The Labor Party would see you repressed by way of policy and then, by way of raising your expectations, come along as a knight in shining armour and say, ‘We are going to now fix it all for you’. That is how I saw this relationship; however, at the end of the day, the Labor Party was long on rhetoric but short on delivery. That is where we find the health system in the Northern Territory: very short on delivery.
It was interesting, although I digressed a little. Obviously, the prime minister did not write back to me but I finally figured it out. Social agendas such as those run by the Labor Party across this country, certainly in the Northern Territory, have done nothing to improve the lives of anyone here, let alone Aboriginal people. It is no wonder, finally, Aboriginal folk are waking up from the long Labor sleep and realising there is better out there and it vests with the right side of politics.
I want to move to the Minister for Health’s statement. The new service framework for health and hospital services in the NT will help to provide Territorians with access to health services they should rightfully have. It will do this by allowing staff and service providers to have more responsibility for operational decisions which affect them and their clients, to use their initiative and be innovative, to be more closely connected to the communities they serve, and will reduce red tape in the overall bureaucracy.
The Labor government created a highly centralised health system which took these responsibilities away from the people who should have them. It took the decision-making away from regional centres and placed it in a massive bureaucracy in Darwin. That is true, not only for the health system under the former Labor government, but for other major departments as well, including education.
I want to talk about Katherine hospital, a great regional hospital. It is one of the best, if not the best hospital in the Territory. The children’s ward and the women’s maternity ward at Katherine hospital are the best in the Northern Territory. Moreover, women who have their children at Katherine hospital rave about it. Local and visiting women are all, without exception, highly complimentary of the maternity services provided through Katherine.
Some women have given birth at Katherine hospital, left the region, and then returned specifically to have their second or subsequent child in the Katherine maternity ward. The reputation of Katherine maternity ward precedes itself. It is a great hospital only three hours from Darwin.
What really makes for a good hospital? Is it the buildings? I would not think so; buildings, after all, are just buildings. Parts of Katherine hospital are more than 75 years old, and the hospital has been subject to upgrades and expansions over many years. In good time, there will be a requirement to renew Katherine hospital.
The Leader of the Opposition has said she will hold the member for Katherine to account for the promise of a new hospital. It will not happen in this term; it will more likely be in the long term, Leader of the Opposition. I will tell you why and you can interject ...
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Start, Leader of the Opposition, and I might not stop. You left the Northern Territory in such a diabolical financial position I am surprised we will be able to make any future plans for the Northern Territory. When we came to government we did not know whether we were Arthur or Martha based on what you left behind: the horrible legacy of the Labor government. The worst Treasurer the Northern Territory has ever seen vests in the member for Karama.
In answering what makes a good hospital, let us go back to something I heard decades ago relating to churches. A church is just a building. The people, the gathering, the parishioners make up the church. For all intents and purposes, you could gather a bunch of parishioners under a shady tree and that would constitute a church. By extension, a good hospital is not the buildings but the staff. The doctors, nurses, orderlies, administration staff, cooks, cleaners and everyone else makes the hospital what it is. It is the quality of the staff at Katherine District Hospital that makes it such a stand-out health facility in the Northern Territory. The local member and this government appreciate the great work the staff of Katherine hospital do every day. Keep it up!
The trouble with Katherine hospital is it is half empty and largely underutilised. The former Labor government wasted this excellent resource. Katherine Hospital - the member for Greatorex and minister for Tourism said before - has a bed capacity of 60 and today, 27 November 2012, it is almost at capacity. In one breath I said the hospital is underutilised and half empty, yet in the next breath I said it is just about at capacity today. Let me tell you about that.
The answer demonstrates the abject failure of the previous Labor government to adequately resource the hospital. While Katherine Hospital has a bed capacity of 60, it is resourced to a capacity of 40 beds, which is two-thirds of its bed number. That is all the staff the former Labor government provided for Katherine hospital. There might be 36 or 37 patients there today, but there are still 20 beds beyond that which could be utilised if funding was provided to staff those 20 beds. That, of course, is another legacy of the former government, one that becomes a challenge for the new government, to find ways under the prevailing budgetary conditions to change the dynamic, the structure, the delivery of core services within the health sphere of the Territory. Changing those at Katherine Hospital is part of that. Perhaps we have to think outside the box.
I do not want to digress into the abysmal state of the Territory’s books; I have already touched on that - the Leader of the Opposition, worst Treasurer in the Northern Territory and all that stuff.
I want to go out of the box now. While Royal Darwin Hospital has waiting lists out the door, Katherine hospital has virtually no waiting list and has empty beds. I was pleased to hear the minister for Tourism talk about bringing patients from Darwin to Katherine and having a strike force of medical professionals attend. Lo and behold, they might be able to use some of the 20 vacant beds at Katherine Hospital and reduce pressure on RDH. The former Labor government’s preference for building bureaucracy over the provision of providing frontline staff is no more evident than at Katherine hospital. While the bureaucracy grew - we know public service numbers rose about 25% in the last six or seven years - Katherine hospital remained at two-thirds capacity.
Sometimes I seek answers to questions like that, but perhaps it goes back to something the member for Barkly alluded to earlier today: the different way we think. We think government should provide frontline services, yet the former Labor government thought we needed centralised bureaucracies. On the basis of different thinking, I can live with that although I do not agree with it; however, there is a difference in philosophy between the two sides.
Going back to the hospital, I wonder what those 20 extra beds coming online in Katherine might do for the queues and waiting time at RDH. Let us say this takes thinking outside the box. I was sitting in the government lobby listening to the Health minister conduct a radio interview on the phone. Lo and behold, we had not discussed this particularly, but he was telling the journalist how we can use Katherine hospital to take the overflow from RDH. It is pretty much the same as the message from the member for Greatorex and what I am conveying. This frames the differences between the two sides of the House. The former Labor government had no vision whatsoever and the new government is prepared to look at something new, something innovative, and bring some health reform to the Northern Territory, something sadly needed after 11 years of inaction, ineptitude and failure of the former government to deal with the health system as a whole.
I often give credit where it is due. Sometimes I have given credit to the member for Casuarina, the former Minister for Health and former minister for Resources. I gave him a pat on the back from time to time for some of the things he did over the years. I am now getting a picture that is changing my view.
Look at the legacy left behind by the former Minister for Health and the former minister for Resources. Departments have dwindled away; they have been cut back. For example, the Department of Resources faced with year after year cutbacks in full-time equivalent staff. Of course, that affects morale. I wonder whether the former Minister for Health, in that responsibility, shot the hell out of morale in Health at the same time he was shooting the hell out of morale in the Resources department. Those things affect Territorians in the health system and their capacity to deliver. Many of these people would not bother coming to work because of the former government’s policies. In the health arena, I am sure that would have been no different.
The new service framework announced by the Minister for Health to decentralise the Territory’s health system and bring the bush back into the decision-making chain means hospitals like Katherine will become part of a wider health network which will include RDH. The new service framework also integrates all health services in the Katherine region: mental health, community health, age and disability services, private GP services and access to specialists. To satisfy the query raised by the member for Nhulunbuy earlier, it also brings into account Aboriginal health services in Katherine and remote areas of the Northern Territory. This will lead to better coordination and better overall services to clients and patients generally, as decisions will be made on the ground and linked to the overall Top End and hospital systems.
The development of regional and management structures for our hospitals will help to bring decision-making back to the regions and the bush, and help to alleviate the pressure on Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals.
Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by the Minister for Health today. This is a sign of things to come. This government is about driving the Territory forward, making necessary changes and fixing the many legacies left by the Labor government - as so aptly described previously today, walking around with a dustpan and brush picking up the bundles of do-do left behind by the former government.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who spoke on this statement today. I am impressed by the level of input I have received, not just from members on this side, I also thank members on the other side.
Member for Casuarina, I am glad you spoke. You gave me a heads-up on some areas to be aware of and I thank you for that. Of course, I do not agree with some of your points. I am stunned that, although you were in government for 10 years and we have a health system the way it is now, you tend to still blame former Country Liberals governments prior to the turn of the millennium. However, when the emperor has no clothes, so be it. However, member for Casuarina, I thank you for your input. There are a few other things I will speak about later.
I particularly thank the member for Arnhem for her contribution. Clearly, as an Aboriginal Health Worker she has much to offer these debates. I am very keen to talk with her and continue contact with her and people she knows in the industry to ensure I am kept abreast of things.
The member for Drysdale spoke very well. It is interesting to see her take on developments in Palmerston, somewhere which is very controversial due to the future of Palmerston Hospital. I am keen to have that resolved in the coming months and get my head around what is going on there.
The member for Casuarina said we only have one private hospital in the Northern Territory but was prepared to throw $110m at a pretend hospital in Palmerston. We have not done any research on it, but I would have thought with $110m you could leverage something like a proper hospital by considering a public/private partnership with one of the other providers. It seems the former Health minister laments the fact we only have one private hospital in the Northern Territory; however, I never heard him say, when he was Health minister, he would try working a different way to get another private hospital into the Northern Territory.
Thank you very much, member for Drysdale, for your contribution, it is much appreciated.
Members for Namatjira and Stuart, thank you for your contribution. I was a little concerned about the dialysis. I understand what an emerging issue it is; how important it is to Indigenous people across the Territory. I have a saying I often use: you cannot pull your socks up if you have none on. Clearly, this escaped the opposition because it did not care there was no money or whether the Northern Territory was bankrupt. You only have to look at its actions to know it does not care about the finances of the jurisdiction. It does not matter about the money, just do it! There are so many instances around the Northern Territory where that has shown up.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution; she spoke very well. Her view that there has to be a medi-hotel in Gove has me beat. There is already the Walkabout Lodge in Gove as well as other accommodation centres. Why we need to build a medi-hotel in Gove is beyond me, particularly when there are no ongoing funds for it. There is no way of paying for it and to disregard that minor fact speaks volumes about how the former government got us into the situation we are currently in with debt up to our ears and in trouble everywhere.
Thank you, members for Namatjira and Stuart, I appreciate your contribution, as always.
The member for Greatorex spoke well and forcefully. It is always a pleasure to listen to the member for Greatorex and, as a former shadow for Health, the member for Greatorex brings fantastic insights into health service delivery. I was humbled to receive his glowing support.
Member for Nhulunbuy, the issue in relation to Aboriginal Health Workers is incredibly important. If you do not believe I devoted enough time in my ministerial statement to talk specifically of Aboriginal Health Workers I apologise. I have a great interest in what occurs in the bush, in remote clinics, and in Aboriginal medical services as well. They are an important part of our health system and I am keen to work with them.
I understand, member for Nhulunbuy, that not everybody in the Northern Territory has private health cover. However, you need to understand there are many people in the Northern Territory who do. The policies of successive federal governments mean many people will automatically have private health cover because it is in their financial interest to do it. These days, if you are earning a certain income and do not have private health cover you pay an extra Medicare levy, which often is substantially more than you would pay for private cover. In many cases, people in the Northern Territory will have private health cover.
The fact there is only one private hospital in the Northern Territory should not matter. The member for Casuarina needs to understand, whilst he sat around for years lamenting the fact there were no private practitioners and very few bulkbilling services, he could only come up with reasons why we could not have them. He never looked for reasons to have them or how we could get them. I have been amazed over recent weeks at the amount of people coming into my office looking to set up clinics, practices, wanting to start businesses in the Northern Territory who said it was too hard under the previous regime.
I will not name it, but the operators of a recently opened clinic in Darwin’s northern suburbs said, ‘For two-and-a-half years we were banging our head against the wall with government just to open this facility. We wanted to get it going. It has taken us two-and-a-half years of hard work to get through the mountain of red tape and bureaucracy to open this clinic.’ That is a function of government.
Member for Casuarina, whilst you can lament the lack of private practitioners in the Northern Territory, you did nothing in the time you were Health minister and neither did any of your colleagues in government who held the Health portfolio. You have not done anything to encourage private practice in the Northern Territory. I find it appalling when you say, ‘People do not have private health cover’. This is the downward spiral syndrome you have, ‘No one has private health cover, what is the point of private doctors? Government has to provide everything.’ It is always the simple answer for Labor, ‘Government provides everything’. That system cannot continue to operate in the current climate.
I have been touched today at the response the government has received to the new framework I announced. It has been quite overwhelming. Doctors, specialists, nurses, people from all walks of life have commented to the media saying how thrilled they are that change is imminent. I have only heard two negative comments. Kay Densley, I am reliably informed, one of the comrades at the CPSU, warns this is a cover for sacking workers. The other voice of opposition, of course, is the member for Karama who says this is a smokescreen to dodge responsibility. She says it is a smokescreen to sack workers and will lead to budget blowouts.
We have heard it all from the member from Karama. For the last three months she has been in Chicken Little heaven. She has been saying, ‘The sky is falling in, everyone is going to lose their job. Look what the new government is doing. Look, look!’ It is Chicken Little heaven for the member for Karama. She has a million and one reasons why the sky is falling in. Good on her! She seems to have hit her straps. It is a job she will enjoy. She can do it for another four years at least. Leader of the Opposition, good on you for having a good old cry and whinge, I would not have expected anything less from you. That is what you did in government. You have now taken up the cudgels as the leader, a position you have always coveted and are performing well. The sky is falling in - Chicken Little heaven!
Aside from that bit of negativity, there has been a high level of support for the changes I have signalled. I am somewhat concerned at that because, frankly, an enormous amount of work has to be done. The former Health minister rightly said there is much to do and it is a complex portfolio. The member for Nhulunbuy also acknowledged it is a complex portfolio. I do not take these changes lightly. It will take a huge effort by a large number of people dedicated to the cause to make this plan work. A range of legislation needs to be drafted. A range of people need to be consulted in every nook and cranny of the Northern Territory. We need to talk to people to ensure the system will work.
I am also very optimistic because this structure has a better chance of working in the Northern Territory than anywhere else. In my travels around the Territory talking to health workers, people in the health sector, all the support workers, I have been blown away by their competence, the way they work, the way they operate and the way they do their jobs. We have some fine people who do a great job of looking after us when we are sick, really know their stuff, and are very impressive people.
At the moment they are constricted by the system they work in, which is the most centralised health system in Australia. The system left by the former government is the most centralised system in Australia. We have 230 000 people in one-sixth of Australia’s land mass and you want to encourage initiative, innovation, and people to adapt to the unique circumstances they find themselves in. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work in the Northern Territory. I am confident the people we have in our health system are exactly the type of people we need working in a system which encourages initiative and the ability to adapt to the circumstances they find themselves in.
This is simply a framework. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, much meat needs to be put on the bones. I call on all Territorians to help put that meat on the bones. I am very keen to talk to people. I will be travelling with the Chief Executive of the Health department, Mr Jeff Moffet, and a roadshow to talk to people in the health sector and get as much feedback as we can to ensure we deliver the best service possible in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received the following letter from the member for Karama:
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this matter of definite public importance goes to the issue of cost of living. As we saw, the Chief Minister has literally torn up his contract with Territorians. He went into the election with a cost of living promise. He signed his name to that contract and has now torn it up. In his election material on the cost of living, the Chief Minister said people are leaving the place they love because they cannot afford to live here any longer. How ironic! He tears up the contract, the promise he made, and makes it far more expensive for Territorians to live here and enjoy the great Territory lifestyle. He went on to say, ‘A Country Liberal government will turn that around’. You have to be joking! You are making families find an additional $2000 a year in their family budget because you will not do the work of a responsible and sensible government to work with Power and Water to drive efficiencies through the organisation and do what every government does: pay down debt over time rather than slug Territorians in one hard hit. Go straight to the pain. You, in your strange manner, seem to think everyone has to take their dose of cod liver oil because that is the right thing and you are the responsible man to do it. It is a disgrace. You are completely ignoring everything people are saying to you because you live in your bubble. You are in your bubble of, ‘I know what is best for people and they will to have to put up with it because I know what is right’.
In the cost of living commitment the Chief Minister said:
I will go through them – ‘housing’.
Let us look at the actions of the Chief Minister in housing. One of the first actions was to scrap the housing finance schemes designed to put Territorians into home ownership. He scrapped My New Home, scrapped HOMESTART Extra. They have gone. Bad luck, you are on the rental roundabout. In their place - I thought it was curious to announce major policy, particularly housing policy, on a weekend, but my curiosity was not disappointed when I saw it and thought, ‘No wonder they tried to sneak that through on a Saturday’. It was a shocker.
The government scrapped the schemes put in place to make housing affordable, getting people off the rental roundabout and into home ownership. What did it put in their place? A housing scheme everyone in industry has basically said is useless; it completely misses the mark of housing finance. A price cap of $550 000 does not cut the mustard. It is pointless and does not give people the opportunity to sell their house in the northern suburbs and upscale into Muirhead. No, they are priced out of that marketplace altogether.
Real estate agents are saying the scheme should be, at a minimum, $650 000. Labor had $750 000 because we knew people would want to buy into Muirhead creating a churn through the northern suburbs of Darwin - prime real estate. If you are looking at the Palmerston market, the industry is saying $650 000 would have been the appropriate cap.
You completely missed the mark probably because you did not check with anyone in industry first. That has been your form, Chief Minister. Every action you have undertaken in a policy announcement you have done in a vortex of your own internal advisors. You have not gone to industry to find out from people at the coalface, people who understand the industry. You have not found out whether any idea you have is workable, because the workability is flawed. It is not there.
The two housing schemes you have introduced are not allowing people to go into old stock in the marketplace and completely cut out the ground from underneath low- to middle-income earners.
It is a crazy situation when, in the first 100 days of government, you are going against your cost of living commitment to Territorians. I know you want to use the Power and Water debt situation, but you have no excuse for scrapping the housing schemes and coming up with a very shabby poor cousin of the Labor schemes. Every argument you ran against My New Home exists in your HomeBuild Access. Those arguments are in the scheme, but you got the price caps wrong because you did not bother checking the real estate pages of the NT News to see what house and land packages are going for in Palmerston. You are in your bubble of arrogance, of listening to the old boys who have come out of the dark ages - decades ago. They do not have to be on a senior’s pension because they have Uncle Terry taking care of them with their $200 000 for six months.
CLP people around Darwin are asking, ‘What was wrong with us? We are here; we are living in the Territory. We are successful business people, we are successful in the bureaucracy, why did he bring the dinosaurs from down south and listen to them? What was wrong with us for those key positions?’ They are disappointed. They say this is back to the 1990s and cannot believe how backward looking the CLP government is. It is no more backward than the step it took on housing, literally pricing people out of the marketplace of home ownership with the ridiculous price cap.
That went straight into the broken promise of cost of living because you completely missed the mark with your housing scheme. You do not have any friends in industry lining up to say it is any good. They were looking for a scheme; looking for something to stimulate the housing market and construction. They were really hoping you might get there. You failed. Not only did you fail industry, you failed the mums and dads who wanted to get out of the rental roundabout and into home ownership. You failed the young tradie who was looking for a leg up into home ownership. You have completely missed the mark ...
Ms Lee interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: We have a running commentary from the member for Arnhem. She will get her opportunity in this debate. That is pathetic sideline from the back of the Chamber.
The government missed the mark in understanding a housing assistance scheme to get people off the rental roundabout and into home ownership. You tore up the first promise on cost of living. Housing is gone: My New Home scrapped, HOMESTART Extra scrapped.
You do not want the battlers, the low- to middle-income earners getting into home ownership. We get it. You are a party for the wealthy. You do not quite understand the battlers, that environment and scenario, so you are definitely going to scrap schemes designed to help them. That is exactly what you have done; you have left them in the rental trap.
What will happen with rents now? Under these bold initiatives and HomeBuild Access, will people see reduced rents? Are we seeing any of the new 2000 stock promised? No; none. Council after council is announcing it is jacking up its rates because of the power and water price hikes. Darwin has said at least 3%, Palmerston is saying 6%, and everyone in the rental market knows that once council rates increase landlords put the rent up. One of the consequences of your price hikes in power and water is that rents are going up.
So, rather than deliver on the cost of living promise for housing, you have done the exact opposite. You still believe in your bubble with advice from the old boys who have not lived in the Territory for a long time but you brought them back out of retirement. ‘Do not worry; there is no contemporary here I want to listen to. Bring the dinosaurs back, the old men who do not have a leg in reality of living in the Territory anywhere’, bring them back ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I object to the ageist remarks the Leader of the Opposition has waged across this floor over the last 10 minutes. It is inappropriate and disgraceful; ageism is not acceptable in Australian society.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Get out a little more often, member for Araluen. People are calling them ‘the old boys’, calling them ‘the dinosaurs’ and members of the CLP are calling them that as well. When you live in Darwin - you do not live in Darwin and have been saying on TV, ‘Well, I don’t know. I don’t understand. I’m not from Darwin.’ We get that you do not understand. This is what Territorians are saying; this is being talked about in cafes, shops and in parks - dinosaurs. CLP members are saying, ‘They brought back the dinosaurs? Are they for real?’ Thank you for drawing everyone’s attention to it. I really enjoyed that.
So, missing the boat on housing, tearing up the first promise you made in your cost of living and affordable Territory policy point I am reading from - unbelievable.
Then we go to the second point, ‘utilities’. I quote:
The second point is utilities. The government then hikes up power, water and sewerage prices and goes into this pathetic - there have been about six different reasons and shades thereof as the announcements have rolled on, each of them ...
Ms Lee interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, you are on a warning!
Ms LAWRIE: ... having to blame Labor. Do not take any responsibility for your own decisions; you do not want to do that. Play the blame game, kick around the blame game because hiking up the price of utilities was your decision and a direct tearing up of your promise, commitment and contract with Territorians.
Territorians have been fairly reasonable about this debate. They have been ‘Terry-fied’. That is what they told me on the weekend; they are ‘Terry-fied’ and say it is ‘Terry-ble’. There are a few takes on ‘Terry-ble’ but this is a Chamber so I will be polite. People are creative, I like it. People are letting me know the talk is about being ‘Terry-fied’ and you are ‘Terry-ble’.
In relation to utilities, people are being reasonable; they are saying, ‘We are terrified; do not jack it up that much. We cannot afford it.’ Families, singles, pensioners, businesses, non-government organisations and charities have been hitting the airwaves. It is not Labor on its own. Of course, in opposition, we will speak for the people. You will not like that because it does not sit comfortably with the bubble and vortex you are living in – way out of touch with reality.
People are saying, ‘If you are hell-bent on jacking up the prices at least do it in increments, at least roll it out over a few years’. No, you will not do that. You are hell-bent on getting this revenue into the coffers of Power and Water. People are asking, ‘Why? We do not pay our house mortgage in two years, what is this all about?’
There was the bizarre interview on Channel 9 with the Treasurer when Jonathan Uptin asked her if she hoped people would forget about this in four years’ time. She said, extraordinarily, ‘No, no we hope they forget about it in two years’. Is that for real? Is this seriously just about the political expediency of giving a hard, nasty, painful hit to families and businesses now and hope people forget before the next election?
You are kidding yourself if you think getting hit with those quarterly bills with hikes of $2000 a year for families and $8000 a year for businesses - that is just the average business. A business in the manufacturing sector is probably looking at a hike of around $3000 a month not $8000 a quarter. Did you do any analysis across the different sectors of small businesses before you made this decision? We have seen no evidence of the analysis of hardship on families.
Will you be compensating people who, for medical reasons, are running air conditioners at home to keep a burns patient cool? Have you had a look at the genuine consequences of these decisions? I see you laugh, Chief Minister. This is real, present and the reality of people dealing with the consequences of your decision not Labor’s decision. It is your decision to do it in one hard, nasty hit rather than run it out as increments if you are hell-bent on your pathway.
The next one is labour costs. Downward pressure on labour costs in the CLP world equates to sacking people. It is code for the government’s labour costs because I have not seen any reduction in labour costs for the private sector. This must be public sector. Yes, there is downward pressure on labour costs because hundreds of Territorians have been put into unemployment by the actions of the CLP government.
We have a conservative count of at least 300 Territorians now unemployed because of the CLP job cuts. To the CLP they are not job cuts because they were on contracts; they were not permanent staff so they are not redeployees. Tell that to the mother who no longer has a job because Terry Mills is the Chief Minister. Tell that to the family who are down to one income or the public servant in the family too frightened to have lunch because they cannot afford to get the chop. ‘Terry-fired’ is being talked about across the public service in the Northern Territory. You are grinding this place into the ground because when people are going through this they stop spending.
Retailers are having the worst October on record. They had a very bad September and October was worse. I would hate to see the Christmas figures in the retail sector across the Northern Territory because not only are people scared about their jobs - hundreds have lost their jobs already - but with these hikes they cannot afford to spend. People are saying, ‘There goes the family Christmas holiday’. People are calling you, Chief Minister, much worse than ‘Terry-fired’ and ‘Terry-ble’. However, it is all water off a duck’s back to you because you are pretty good at showing you do not give a damn. You really do not care about the effects you are having on people’s lives.
You tore up the contract and are okay with that. You did not even flinch. You are feeling okay about what you are doing to people’s lives and to small business - sending them to the wall. The Chamber of Commerce said businesses will close. What are you saying to those businesses? How are you explaining the increases will not be in increments; you will not spread out the costs? Businesses and manufacturing have already put out tenders based on the old prices - based on what they might pick up in three months’ time. They will already wear the new price hikes. They cannot write this cost into those tenders; they are locked in and will be out of pocket.
Other businesses will pass these costs on to consumers. If you go to the pub, the childcare centre, wherever you go these costs will be passed on to consumers. It is not only the price hike in the utility bill, it is across-the-board cost of living increases. You have ramped up the cost for businesses and have not lowered the cost of living.
You heard the shadow minister for Transport talk about the additional cost to the transport industry as a result of your hikes. Outdoor recreation –have you explained to the sporting organisations of the Northern Territory who operate on pretty lean budgets how they will pay for the irrigation of their sporting fields. How much will hockey receive for the artificial turf because you have to water the turf to play on it, you have no choice. How much will they be compensated?
Are you going to reduce the cost of sport? We are still waiting for the sport vouchers. Our shadow minister issued a media release reminding Territorians of that promise and there has been deafening silence from the government. No keeping to that promise yet, at the same time, you are upping expenses for all the sporting organisations and they will have to increase the fees. The whole pretend promise you had around making it easier for kids and families to enjoy sport in the Territory, the great Territory lifestyle, you have reneged on already. You tore that up with everything else when you made these stupid decisions.
There will be downward pressure on the cost of tourism? Everyone will put their prices up because the vans people take to Kakadu will have to charge the tourists more. Will we have more tourists doing that? How will that work out? Those small operators - I have been to Kakadu recently - are coming though a lean period. Some of the smaller Indigenous tourism businesses there are really struggling. They are not getting the numbers to sustain and maintain the business. How will these extra costs help them keep their business open?
Government charges - wow! We will find out more about government charges in the mini-budget. You have torn up every other promise and that will be the next.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the member’s time has expired.
It was an opportunity to raise a matter of definite public importance and you have lowered the tone significantly and added nothing new. You had a censure this morning which did not gain much traction. Now you have another shot and use it under the guise of a matter of definite public importance. You could not even get that right. You cannot conceal your rank nastiness and are personalising and denigrating people across the Northern Territory. You had to have this matter of public importance corrected because you used nasty language in that. You are going to have to lift your tone and deal with the reality of the Northern Territory. This is a real challenge and if you think it is cast in such simple and obscene terms you have described - we are just blaming you guys and are doing whatever we like. We have to do this. It is a problem inherited; a problem we take responsibility for and make the necessary decisions.
It is not easy. It is something you are probably not accustomed to, making hard decisions for the right reasons. It is not about me. You can denigrate me, you can call me names, you can give me names of other people, I do not care because I have to make a decision.
The Country Liberals’ decision to increase commercial sustainability is certainly deliberate, definitely necessary, and definitely honest. At every step of the way, with every independent finding about the poor state of the Territory’s finances, we have kept the community up to date. Given the length and breadth of the debate in this House today on the tough but necessary action my government has taken on power and water prices, I would like to use this opportunity to focus on the cost of living pressures facing the Territory more broadly, and outline some of my government’s plans to tackle the high cost of living pressure. Specifically, I will outline our measures to dampen housing and rental costs and focus on growing the three-hub economy to ensure Territorians have greater opportunity to participate in the economic growth of the Northern Territory.
We have a long-term plan and, in some ways, it is a strange compliment you pay us when you cite the cost of living today, after 13 weeks in government. You are creating the impression we should have been able to fix this in 13 weeks. It is a compliment, but we are turning the ship around and know what we are doing. We are making hard decisions, but they are for the long-term benefit of the Northern Territory, make no mistake about that.
Your arguments simply do not stack up. You spend too much time trying to score some cheap and nasty point without establishing an argument, running it through and persuading anyone with the weight of that argument. There is no argument there at all; it is just nasty sniping across the Chamber. It is really low-level stuff.
We have some real challenges. Other jurisdictions have faced similar challenges. We have to show leadership in difficult times like this. Looking clearly at the problems, objectively, it is almost embarrassing to hear the Opposition Leader denigrate people – men are an issue, also their age - who have provided service. You have never really debated the RMB report ...
Ms Lawrie: You took it off the Notice Paper.
Mr MILLS: You have not discussed it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The opposition wanted to debate it last sittings. It was withdrawn from the Notice Paper by the Leader of Government Business.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: The material is in the open. By the nature of the ill-informed and shallow debates conducted by the Labor opposition, they are clearly uninformed or untroubled by facts and can construe or misconstrue data and information to suit some childish argument. I have no evidence of any serious analysis of the report provided which you have had access to. I would have expected, if you were serious and showed some intellect, you would have been able to use that report and find a fault or a flaw with it. However, you have done nothing with it except resort to cheap insults.
It shows you do not have the capacity to really analyse a problem and show a constructive path out of it or to hold us to account. You cannot do that. All you have is a cheap, nasty stunt which adds nothing to this debate and does not show any quality of leadership.
The fact I have heard no discussion from the opposition that has been informed by the RMB’s report is very telling indeed. You do not ask questions about it. You are very exposed when it comes to debt and do not want to talk about debt. We have given you something to talk about now: the Power and Water tariff increases which are necessary. However, you are on weak ground because of the high debt load: the debt burden bearing down on the Territory’s future. We have to deal with that.
You would have dealt with it because you had to, and there would have been outside pressure bearing down upon you if you happened to be - heaven forbid - Treasurer today. Your interstate colleagues would have required you to do something. They would not have been impressed by the weak arguments constructed in this Chamber to score some point by people on your back verandah telling you the nasty names they call the Chief Minister. You have to do much better than that because you have your federal counterparts who are responsible for disbursing the wealth of this Commonwealth and putting it into the hands of a responsible government which will take things seriously. It is certainly not the former Labor government. You are an embarrassment.
Ms Lawrie: Not true!
Mr MILLS: You are an embarrassment. How dare you aspire to statehood when you conduct your affairs as you have to date?
You have not even attended to a genuine matter of definite public importance. You use this as a cheap shot and advance the argument no further.
Let us get down to the issue of housing. This is also a very weak and vulnerable spot for the former government. You have placed us in a terrible situation. We are in a bind because we have a massive debt burden bearing down upon the Territory, make no mistake about that. Anyone with eyes to see and who is honest enough can see it, except the former Treasurer. The reality is it is all about the former Treasurer. Anyone from inside or outside the Territory can see it if they look.
At the same time, we have a problem with the failure to get on top of the land release program in the Northern Territory: no long-term strategic plan, which resulted in upward pressure on housing prices. Not only that, this furphy you have run about the schemes you had in place which you deliberately did not consult Treasury about when constructing them because you wanted a political fix. You wanted a sugar hit before you went into the election. You did not consult Treasury. You had another agency construct the scheme so you could advertise it and people would give you a round of applause because you had, somehow, solved the problem. However, you had the IMF and outside agencies saying, ‘Very dangerous scheme’. I have news for you - a matter of definite public importance ...
Ms Lawrie: You are making that up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I am not making it up. Schemes of that nature are dangerous. Read the NT News. I am sure you do these days. You would enjoy that. I will give you some interesting news I heard this afternoon. One of our developers desperately trying to provide more housing stock in our market informed me that with the requirement of needing enough pre-sales for approval and support from his bank, he presented the required number to the bank. The bank went through the pre-approvals. He said - it would be interesting for you to know this - the one in that group of pre-approvals not accepted was from your wonderful scheme. It was not accepted because it does not have the necessary guarantees to allow it to be trusted as an instrument ...
Ms Lawrie: It had the Housing department’s guarantee.
Mr MILLS: They did not rate it, which confirms it was a problem. It had a fundamental flaw at its heart. It is not sufficiently satisfactory to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: They do not rate it. Get one that is really backed up. Get a real one. Your scheme …
Ms Lawrie: Making it up again.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader!
Mr MILLS: I do not make it up. Home ownership in the Territory went down from 47.6% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2011. All the talk of economic growth and all the opportunities we had and affordability and ownership goes down. House prices went up because - you talk about the cost of living, why do you not talk about this - the previous government’s schemes increased the pool and the purchasing capacity increased demand. Labor schemes did not add to the housing pool and resulted in turnover of an existing housing market. You called it ‘northern suburbs churn’ in your speech. Ninety-three percent of the HOMESTART Extra loans were for existing stock. You added to the demand. You did not address the fundamental issue of supply. What happens then? You are supposed to be a Treasurer but do you understand basic supply and demand? You feed demand, increase prices, and that is exactly what happened, selecting the bits you do not like. Your schemes and talk about the cost of living pressure – let’s get real. Your schemes did not stabilise the housing market. Darwin has experienced the highest housing price index annual growth rate of all capital cities of 8.2% compared to Australia of 0.3%. Your failure to release land and your scheme that drove demand caused the problem ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you going to drive prices down?
Mr MILLS: You really have no answer to this and will duck and dive. You have no answer because it is the fact. You have not dealt with the core issue and have not accepted responsibility that you failed as Treasurer. You only have to look at the lines. When the debt increases, when we spend more than we have as income coincides with the time you became Treasurer.
Ms Lawrie: I had nothing to do with the global financial crisis timing.
Mr MILLS: Yes, okay, there you go.
Ms Lawrie: I had nothing to do with that.
Mr MILLS: The previous government’s subsidised scheme’s parameters were amended as prices increased. As prices increased they amended the scheme, increased demand and increased the cost to government. Good heavens! Money was required to feed into this thing causing prices to go up, political pressure was mounting - feed more money into it. It increases the costs of housing, puts it out of reach of Territorians, and increases our borrowings at the same time. You could not have had a worse scheme - failure to release land, construct a scheme which increases our borrowings and drives the costs of housing out of the reach of Territorians. You ignored the advice of Treasury experts from HOMESTART Extra, worsening the Territory’s fiscal balance nett debt by an estimated $59m in 2012-13 and $68m in 2013-14.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a radio interview on Monday, 19 November, accused the cap in our new, fiscally responsible programs as being too low. Does she really believe a mortgage of $750 000 is affordable? Do you believe that?
Ms Lawrie: For high-income earners.
Mr MILLS: You have to be kidding. How do you pay for that? It causes the housing market to increase, you have to borrow extra money to feed it, it increases our nett debt and causes housing prices to increase. You believe $750 000 is affordable. You think our cap is too low. You do not have an argument. You had your chance and you are making cheap shots.
Who was the former Labor government focused on helping? It says our cap is a little too low and Labor’s was $750 000. Who was the former Labor government trying to help? It was not people on low to middle incomes because it was causing the housing market to move out of their reach. You are feeding the system and driving demand upwards. You are not trying to help people on modest incomes at all. You are not helping the people who want to get into the housing market. It was moving out of reach, you could see it but you did not consult. You did not have a properly constructed scheme. You had a scheme which could not be more poorly constructed.
The high cap drove housing prices up and out of reach of the average worker. The policies of the previous government resulted in more pressure on housing prices not less, putting the purchase of a new home out of reach of low- to middle-income earners. You can check your own statistics if you want.
The new Northern Territory government can assist those in need and help people enter the market in a way which will see new housing being introduced. That is called increasing supply at the right place in the market. This will result in a removal of the pressure placed on the market by the previous government’s poorly constructed policies. The bottom line is we will increase the supply of new affordable homes to stop the population drain of Territorians. It is a compliment that you think we can achieve this in 13 weeks. We cannot necessarily do it in 13 weeks, but we can do it and that is the way we are going. We will stop the loss of essential workers we need to help our economy grow.
My government is already getting on with the job of restoring the balance between supply and demand pressures. I do not know if you are going to continue your tirade and attack on the government, but we know what we are doing and where we are going. We are, step by step, unfolding a new approach to deal with the problems we have inherited. The first one is the debt issue. Yes, you might want to run that stunt. I thought you probably had that nicely rehearsed tearing up the sheet this morning, but the top one says more money into your pocket.
First, we have to stop that money going to the banks in the payment of interest - $750 000 every single day. Our first measure is to get to the point where we at least live within our means and then we can start dealing with debt growth in the Northern Territory. These are responsible decisions which will, ultimately, bear a strong result for Territory families into the future. Our task, a difficult one, is to secure the financial future of the Northern Territory. I accept, as I have said all along, we do not take these decisions lightly. We understand it causes significant impact on Territory families. We are not deaf, blind, or uncaring, but we care enough to make difficult decisions in difficult times for us to be in a better position in time to come.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this matter of public importance on. It highlights, in discussion of the cost of living, some fundamental differences between the ALP and the CLP about how we approach some of the very basic things government does, the essential things government does, and the essential services government must provide.
First, I want to go back a little to my great grandad arriving in Tennant Creek in the 1930s. It was a dusty place, a remote place, a place where a community was slowly being built - just a few hundred people. No asphalt was laid through Tennant Creek until the 1940s during the war. Defence engineers from the military came through and laid asphalt on the Stuart Highway down through Tennant Creek. My great grandad, Con Perry, was in Tennant Creek in the 1930s trying to build a community. To do that, you need some essential things. Back then they did not have easy access to those types of things. Tennant was his home, but it was a community held back by lack of water. At that time they had to pump water from the creek, now known as Seven Mile Creek, and sell it by the gallon.
My great grandad’s lasting legacy in Tennant Creek was finding the first permanent water supply at Cabbage Gum Bore, a huge reserve of quality bore water. The town had a permanent supply of water and became a community. It was a fragile thing. There was a chance Tennant Creek would not be Tennant Creek if it was not for the fact it had access to an essential thing: water. Without water you cannot have a place; it is an essential service. You need it; it has to be provided and, on our side, we believe the provision of reliable power and water at a fair price is an essential service and something governments must do. That is how we approach the issue. We take into consideration many things when trying to work out how to provide reliable power and water to the people of the Northern Territory at a fair price.
Alternatively, we have the CLP, which has demonstrated quite clearly since coming to office that it does not see power and water as essential services. It sees them as something which must be provided at true cost plus a little for profit. It is a user pays system and if you cannot afford it, essentially, it is a luxury.
On this side we see them as essential services that must be provided reliably at a price which does not break the back of Territorians. The CLP, in a very short period of time, has decided it has to increase the price of power and water because they are non-essential services and must make a profit. It has to be provided at profit, and that has made a massive impact on the cost of living for Territorians. When you take into account the ordinary person going home at night, how will they pay for that? Power and water has to be provided at a rate people can afford. You cannot provide essential services at a price which breaks people or small business.
Unfortunately, we have reached this point very early in this term of government. The government is going to place a savage increase on the cost of power and water to a point where it will break the back of many ordinary Territorians and small businesses. You ask, what is the cost? The CLP put a numerical figure on it in the early days when it announced this increase of about $2000 for the average family and $7800 for a small business. In some ways, that does not remotely encapsulate the human cost this will have, especially if you look at the flow-on effects.
It is not just a family trying to find an extra $2000 next year to pay these bills, or an extra $8000 for a business, when you go to the baker for your loaf of bread, the bar to have a beer, drop your kids off at childcare or school - private schools in particular, you have to pay extra fees at your local school - these are all flow-on effects of the decision made by the CLP. It goes way beyond the power and water bill in the mail four times next year; it goes to ordinary activities. People do not have access to $2000. This is not something they can pay for out of their savings; they will have to stop doing things to pay for this.
Territorians are already talking to us about the things they are not doing next year. The big, obvious one is the Christmas holiday because they see $2000 - it makes sense. The Christmas holiday is the obvious thing they might not have next year. They are also talking about their children not participating in sport. Do they not play hockey or go to basketball? What things will they cut out? They will have fewer fishing trips next year. They might have to miss three or four fishing trips. They have to find a way to save the money the CLP wants to charge them. They are trying to factor in how to pay the power and water bills coming in four times a year next year.
They still do not know the flow-on costs because no one has done that work. In making this decision, the CLP did not work out the flow-on costs. What will the impact be at the baker, the brewer, the butcher, the childcare centre or for sport? The maths has not been done. Parents are already receiving letters from their childcare centre saying prices are going up by $4.50.
Louisa was on TV recently saying $5 off the cuff, but now, in writing, it is $4.50 as a result of these power and water charges. People are trying to get some idea of what savings to make to pay the quarterly power and water bill. They still do not know how much extra they need to find because of this.
We are hearing from many Territorians who are stressed. This increases tension within families. Families are tense; people are tense. They are doing the family budget trying to work out how they will survive next year. They do not know the full cost but they know it will be a lot. They have already worked out, obviously, the power and water bill side of it, but there are the flow-on effects. People are realising there will be extra bills next year - all the add-ons - and they do not know how much it is going to hurt and what they will have to stop doing. There are fairly basic things people will have to stop doing. They will stop sending their kids to sport. They cannot do it any longer. That is one of the decisions people are trying to make right now.
You do not find $2000 down the back of the couch or by turning a fan off once or twice. We had the charitable advice from the Chief Minister about having an air conditioner on for five hours instead of eight. We know of people - the Leader of the Opposition might want to talk about them in more detail - whose health situation means they have to run an air conditioner. I know someone who operates a machine who cannot stop doing that. What will they stop doing? There are some very tough, hard decisions coming over the next year as people work out how they can take the CLP’s medicine because it decided power and water are no longer essential services.
Power and Water is no longer saying you have a right to a reasonable price, it is saying you must pay. ‘This is what is best for you so you have to take the CLP’s medicine.’ People are getting - a double hit underestimates it - many hits. They receive one hit in the power and water bill, then multiple hits on everything else they do, and they are massive.
Business has to pass this on; this is way too big to absorb. Some businesses know they can no longer be competitive, particularly in the retail world. Most of the businesses I have heard from have been from the retail world where they say this fixed cost will hit them an extra 30%. However, the competition they are most worried about is not down the road or at Casuarina, it is online; they are not paying the extra 30%. Their direct competition suddenly has a 30% break on them. They are already worried enough about online and, now, suddenly, they have to pay 30% and the others do not. They are genuinely worried as they look at next year and try to work out how to survive. The retail industry, in particular, is trying to work out how to get through this because the competition suddenly has a massive advantage. They are already concerned about the growth in the online retail market and now, suddenly, they have been whacked and have no idea how to adjust their business to compete against online companies.
This will hurt. Businesses will be closed and jobs will be lost. The initial response from the Chamber of Commerce was, ‘This is going to hurt. Businesses will close and jobs will be lost.’
Margins are thin at the moment. They often are in small business. It is not an easy life being a small business owner. I have many family members in small businesses in Alice Springs. I have seen the impact it can have on a family; the tensions when you do not make enough money for a couple of weeks.
We are seeing an increase in tensions in families as workers have to cope with their household budgets. Your heart goes out to families with small businesses. They are in real pain and will struggle. This will be difficult.
You then start to look at broader community institutions. Schools are already talking about how they will budget next year. If advice has gone out I have not seen it. The school councils I have spoken with are waiting for advice on how or what assistance they might receive from the Education department to meet these costs because most of them have already found their efficiencies. They have already done the work over the last four or five years turning things off, stopping things and changing lights. All the really basic things and good habits have already been done. They are saying they cannot find any more efficiencies on their school campuses. They are not sure how to handle this increase in cost.
Private schools do not receive assistance from the Education department and are saying they will have to put up fees and will lose students to the public system. Parents will place students in the public system. Some people have chosen a private school based on faith. Parents who send their kids to Christian schools and Catholic schools made the decision to spend a little extra. They send their kids to a school that teaches their faith as well as providing a good, solid education. They are now saying, ‘I cannot afford the fees any longer. I am going to send my kids to the public school. There is nothing wrong with public schools, but I was hoping my kids would grow up in a school of shared faith.’
We are not sure of the impact in remote communities. How will people meet these increases? What will Indigenous organisations do?
Several EBAs are around the corner, how will they be negotiated? The cost of living usually ties in with the CPI. No EBA negotiation is easy, but you are looking at a similar ballpark. If 30% comes in it will have a massive impact on EBA negotiations.
I feel for people in remote communities where there is a much better grasp. Sometimes, in an urban area, we take for granted how critical power and water are. This is an essential service and you have a much better grasp of how critical it is when you live a long way from anywhere else. I do not know how this has been resolved or how people are affected due to this in very remote parts of the Territory. I have no doubt they grasp the point of power and water as an essential service and the need it to be provided at a reasonable rate. For them, in many ways, it is probably the difference in living. We take it for granted, but that increase will make a massive impact in regional remote areas a long way from anywhere. Your heart goes out when you think of people trying to work out how they will manage. Most of those people are on low incomes dealing with massive increases and it will really hurt.
Many pensioners have spoken to us. The CLP said they have been insulated. A pensioner does not believe a 15% slug on power or a 20% slug on water is insulation. We are talking about people. We are talking about thin margins. They have already made many savings. They have made many changes to their daily lifestyle over the years to ensure they can live within their means. There is no doubt pensioners are living within their means and are unsure how they will cope with this. People see through this pretty quickly because they know what their bills are. They know the bill they will receive; they had it last quarter, will get it next quarter and can do the maths pretty quickly. Everyone can calculate 30%.
Pensioners have done the 15%; they calculate down to the second cent. They know what they have. They know this will hurt, and they do not know how to deal with it. They have already made many sacrifices to live within their means and do not know how they will cope with this 15%. They are still trying to work out how. It has been several weeks and they still do not know. They are still trying to work out how they will survive on this.
This decision is making things very difficult for people to live in the Northern Territory. This is a very mean decision by a very mean government.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I relish the opportunity to talk in this parliament today about this definite matter of public importance:
We had a similar motion put to the parliament this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chief Minister and I have had, effectively, two bites of the cherry, as has the Leader of the Opposition. As a member of the Northern Territory parliament for just over two years, this has been one of the most fascinating days I have had in this Chamber. The low level of debate the opposition has provided on this issue which it claims is of definite importance to the community is probably the lowest during my entire time as a member of parliament.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition this morning, and again this afternoon, make deliberate personal attacks on people in the community. Both this morning and this evening, she made ageist comments about the gentlemen we have appointed to help us through this difficult time coming to government. She, unashamedly, continued to make ageist comments, even when I made a point of order. She obviously has a problem with elderly people in our community. These comments have been coming from the Leader of the Opposition for several months now through the media and now in the Chamber. We hear her attacking people on the basis of their age and position in society, even to the point of calling people we have appointed to assist us in government, I quote, ‘dinosaurs’.
The Leader of the Opposition has a case to answer. A very large proportion of the Australian community, and the Northern Territory community, are elderly. For the Leader of the Opposition, throughout the day, to make cheap, ageist comments about distinguished people in our community, who are old but still making a very productive contribution to this government, to this community, is low, low, low. It is probably one of the lowest debates I have ever heard in this Chamber.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to talk about how I, as Treasurer, a woman, act as a puppet of these dinosaurs; these old men who supposedly pull my strings and tell me what to do. The member for Barkly also chimed in on that topic insinuating I was a puppet of these elderly gentlemen we appointed to assist us.
I found those comments extremely sexist, repulsive, cheap and low. The opposition is trying to milk this unfortunate situation we, as a new government, find ourselves in to the extent where members have to make ageist comments and insinuate sexist remarks across the Chamber. That is the lowest point I have ever experienced in this Chamber and it is completely unnecessary.
We stood here today, I on two occasions, the Chief Minister on two occasions, and said publicly, honestly and openly, we take responsibility for this terrible decision we have had to make so early in our term of government. We realise it will have an enormous impact on certain sectors of the community, including the business community, as we heard in the drivel from the member for Fannie Bay. He made one valid point through his 20 minutes which was that people will be hurt by this decision. We know that, we accept responsibility, we acknowledge that. We unequivocally take responsibility for this decision. What responsibility does the opposition take for this decision? Absolutely none. As the government for 11 years they presided over the highest rents in the country.
I have a young man working for me upstairs who told me he pays $720 a week rent for a three bedroom home in Leanyer with one bathroom and one toilet. That is what the former Labor government presided over for 11 years and then had the hide to tell us we do not care about the cost of living. What did they do about the cost of living in the last 11 years? They spent money and put us into debt. We reached a point where our fiscal imbalance is way out of control. Power and Water is run into the ground and they claim the cost of living is going through the roof because we, in our very short time in government, under duress and extremely tough circumstances which we inherited from them - they claim we are responsible for the outrageously high cost of living in the Northern Territory.
It is a furphy, nonsense, misleading, and the whole day has been marred and scarred by the fact the opposition is delusional and takes no responsibility for the last 11 years of failures, mismanagement, misconduct and negligence.
Tonight we are continuing with this nonsense of a matter of public importance so the Leader of the Opposition can have her day in the sun, milk it for what it is worth, when we know, and most Territorians know, it is our responsibility that we have increased the tariffs, but who is to blame? It is the former Labor government. I have had many people e-mail or come into my electorate over the last week saying, ‘Robyn, this is really bad. We do not like it, we are going to hurt, but we understand it is the former Treasurer, the former government’s fault because they were such poor managers of our money for over 11 years.’
This argument is a continuation of the misleading negligence of the former government. People are completely and utterly over it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She was a little worked up so I let it go, but ‘misleading’ has been ruled out plenty of times in this Chamber and she has said it about six times. She was worked up so I let it go, but I am pointing it out. ‘Misleading’ has been withdrawn in the past.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Opposition Leader. Continue, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We have heard sexist comments, ageist comments, but for me to say ‘misleading’ is somehow unacceptable.
Mr McCarthy: We have heard about Energex. Wish you had never heard of Energex, Robyn?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Let me get to Energex. We have heard a plethora of factual errors and lazy mistakes coming from the Leader of the Opposition over the last week. Since we announced our tariff increases the Leader of the Opposition has had a fanciful delusional time with the media making up stories, squeezing stories out, pushing people before the cameras and the newspaper journalists, feeding them stories of absolute and utter nonsense.
The childcare story which came out a few days ago was one heck of a doozy. The Leader of the Opposition found this poor woman from a childcare centre and threw her in front of the camera saying, ‘Tell them how much these tariff increases will mean to your childcare centre!’ The poor woman, who we spoke to the next day said, ‘I felt under pressure. Five dollars per day per child is what I thought but, on reflection, I was wrong.’ The Leader of the Opposition picked up on that. She did not do our figures. She was only $200 000 out on the power bill of the childcare centre. An amount of $5 per day per child per week equates to about $72 000 a year in power bills. If that is 30%, then the total power bill per year would be $240 000. This is the drivel, the absolute nonsense.
Ms Anderson: Liar!
Mrs LAMBLEY: ... that has come out of the Leader of the Opposition’s mouth over the last week ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mrs LAMBLEY: You cannot stand the truth?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be quiet. Member for Nhulunbuy, what is your point of order?
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, I ask the member for Namatjira to withdraw the word ‘liar’. She knows it is a breach of standing orders.
Ms Anderson: Madam Speaker, I did not say ‘liar’ at all. I said ‘Deliar’.
Ms Lawrie: Come on, Alison. You said it! You are talking with a forked tongue again.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, please continue. Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, just a few days ago we heard the whole childcare story unfold - absolute nonsense, very misleading and very harmful. People who send their children to childcare are battlers, as we have heard time and time again today from the opposition. These people have children and they struggle. The Leader of the Opposition wheeling out that story is harmful, hurtful and very destructive to young families who are struggling. We have heard how our tariff increases will hurt Territorians, but pushing these incorrect stories, fables, fictitious lies is harmful and the opposition should think about the harm it is doing by creating hysteria and worry in the community.
Let us go to the Energex story. One of the obsessions coming from the Leader of the Opposition over the last week is about Ken Clarke, a former Under Treasurer of the Northern Territory, a skilled, intelligent human being we regard with the utmost respect. This man deserves respect, but all he has had from the Leader of the Opposition is denigration and humiliation. She has no respect for anyone apart from her gang that she talks to. It is inexcusable that someone of his standing in the community should be subjected to denigration and misleading information from the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Have you read the Public Accounts Committee report?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Leader of the Opposition, in order to shoot the messenger – it is not the argument we are talking about; it is not about the tariff increases. She has to shoot the messenger, the person who is telling the truth and conveying the information to the people of the Northern Territory. She cannot stand to hear the truth. Poor old Ken Clarke, who we put in to help us to get out of the mess ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that ageist comment.
Mrs Lambley: It is not an ageist comment; he is an elderly gentleman. I feel sorry for him because he has been unfairly subjected to abuse and ridicule by the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Would ...
Mrs Lambley: If you have nothing to say sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Deputy Chief Minister!
Ms WALKER: I believe I have the call, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You have the call, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Could you ask the Treasurer to direct her comments through you, through the Chair, not across the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, could you direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I have been doing so for most of my speech, Madam Speaker, and feel that comment was wrongfully directed. Never mind, I will do so and I thank you for your direction.
The issue of Ken Clarke has been raised numerous times by the Leader of the Opposition. She has a fixation with Mr Clarke; I am not sure why. Obviously, she has a long list of people she does not like, who she feels are anti-her, Labor, or whatever. The story about Energex and Ken Clarke was very misleading and factually incorrect. It was, again, an example of lazy mistakes.
Tonight it is another example of the opposition’s flimsy, haphazard, low-level type debate that it is trying to wield in the community to create hysteria and worry, which is shameful. We know this will be hard for Territorians. These tariff increases are unwelcome, but we stand by them. We stand by the fact it is the former government’s fault. The former Labor government should take responsibility for its part in the failings whilst in government.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly do now adjourn.
As part of my program of introducing senior members of the Northern Territory Bar Association to this House, I would like to discuss a person of eminent reputation, Mr Alistair Wyvill SC, or Senior Counsel. Alistair is a barrister at William Forster Chambers in Darwin and was first admitted in Queensland in 1984. Alistair studied at the University of Queensland where he obtained degrees in Economics and Law with honours. He completed his Masters in Law at University College, London, where he was awarded the Herbert Smith award for the highest overall master’s degree, which is truly a remarkable feat.
In 1986, he joined William Forster Chambers and practiced for 12 years as a barrister in the Northern Territory. In 1994, he travelled to Vietnam to conduct courses for Vietnamese judges in bankruptcy law and procedure as part of the Commonwealth government aid fellowship to that country. From 1995 to 1997 he lectured in public international law at the then Northern Territory University, now Charles Darwin University. In 1998, he joined the English Bar and practiced with St Philips Chambers which is the second largest barrister’s chambers in the United Kingdom. Between 2000 and 2008 he was a board member of the chambers. In July 2008 he returned to William Forster Chambers and was appointed senior counsel in 2009.
I intend, from time to time, to draw the attention of honourable members in this House to senior members of the Bar because it is important the Chamber appreciates the calibre of people in the legal profession in the Northern Territory. We have every right to be extremely proud of the people we have working at the Bar in Darwin. For a small jurisdiction we have some remarkable people.
I also draw members’ attention to Gregory John MacDonald who is only a couple of years older than me - a remarkable fellow. He was awarded the Chief Minister’s Public Sector Medal on 15 November 2012. He is a senior lawyer in the Solicitor-General’s Chambers. He has displayed unstinting dedication, service, and achievement in the public sector for over 30 years.
He was brought up in Darwin and commenced his legal duties in the early 1980s. He worked with the department of Law as a vacation student during his legal studies, employed variously as a salaries clerk, recruitment officer, Clerk of the Court and law clerk. He was an associate to Justice Mildren for 12 months following the completion of his law degree. Subsequently, he was employed as a solicitor for the Northern Territory, and worked for a period in private practice with Hunt & Hunt, then as an in-house counsel for the Northern Territory Police Force. He has been a senior legal practitioner for the Department of Justice for the last 10 years - Department of the Attorney-General and Justice as it is now known - and is much sought after for the advice and support he provides his clients.
Apart from his advisory practice, Greg has worked tirelessly and competently on many large pieces of litigation over the years. His efforts in all matters he is involved in extend well beyond the normal expectations of his position. Of particular note and in more recent times he has assumed primary responsibility for representing the government in relation to those persons who have committed serious crimes but are unfit to plead. He advised extensively in a recent inquiry into childcare and protection services and is the government’s principal legal advisor on public sector industrial relations issues. Greg is also a patient and generous mentor to junior practitioners. In short, his commitment to government legal practice has been exemplary.
We are fortunate to have such switched on, bright and intelligent lawyers working for us in the Northern Territory.
I also speak of Charlie White, a prison officer who recently retired. Last Saturday night I attended his retirement party. Such was the esteem his colleagues held him in, they organised a substantial party in the grounds of the old Fannie Bay Gaol where he started his career.
Charlie White arrived in Darwin when he was 14 and is married with three children and three grandchildren. Mr White was employed on the Commonwealth railway as a train driver. In 1975, the Commonwealth railways changed to the Australian National Railways Commission resulting in the loss of positions, including one held by Mr White. Mr White was offered a job as a prison officer which he declined and, instead, became a taxi driver for a couple of years.
Mr White, or Uncle Charlie as he is known, commenced at Fannie Bay Gaol on 31 August 1978. He was appointed prison officer on 28 February 1979. On 21 May 1979, he transferred to the new Darwin prison when it became operational and the prisoners transferred from Fannie Bay Gaol. Mr White was promoted to Prison Officer - First Class on 31 August, 1989. Uncle Charlie also worked at Beatrice Hill rehabilitation farm and Gunn Point prison farm. He transferred back to Darwin Correctional Centre on 27 June 1996, where he continued his duties. The social events organised by Mr White are legendary and provided an avenue for prison officers to socialise with their colleagues and families. This is necessary for people who work in a challenging environment such as Darwin Correctional Centre.
Uncle Charlie retired on 9 August 2012, with just short of 34 years service with the Department of Correctional Services and the people of the Northern Territory, a significant achievement. Uncle Charlie is the last serving prison officer from Fannie Bay Gaol. I note the promise by Commissioner Middlebrook to invite him to do a couple of shifts at the new gaol when it is complete with a view to him being able to say he worked at Fannie Bay, Berrimah and the new gaol at Howard Springs.
Mr White’s retirement was celebrated, as I said, last Saturday night at the old Fannie Bay Gaol and he was well supported by his colleagues from the Prison Officers Association. Mr White dedicated his career to the Department of Correctional Services and has demonstrated commitment, loyalty and dedication. He has been an inspiration and role model to younger employees and I thank him for what he has contributed to the organisation.
I wish him and his good lady wife, Mavis, the very best into the future. What struck me about Uncle Charlie particularly was the fact that after 24 years working in the prison environment he was able to demonstrate a measured disposition and a good and hearty sense of humour. I have said on many occasions I find prisons challenging environments and do not know if I could work in one successfully because of the concentration of types of people in prisons. It takes a special type of person with a special level of dedication to operate in that environment and maintain an optimistic view of life. It is a testament to Charlie that he did a wonderful job for 34 years and the most important thing is he managed to look after himself spiritually, emotionally and mentally and made a point of looking after those people around him. We are lesser for his retirement but it is well-deserved. I wish him and Mavis all the very best into the future.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I want to speak of my recent road trip to Alice Springs on the weekend of 10 November this year. The purpose of my trip was to travel the vast expanse of the Northern Territory and make contact with Territorians in our towns and communities along the way. I felt the trip was very successful and would like to share some of the moments with you.
The journey started in the wee hours of the morning with my first stop being Katherine to see my colleagues, the members for Arnhem and Katherine. I was unable to meet with Fay Miller, Mayor of Katherine, as she was in Alice Springs at a local government conference. A coffee at the local caf concluded the stop and I was soon on my way.
The next stop was Mataranka and I very much enjoyed Bitter Springs and Mataranka hot springs. It is typical of the Northern Territory that whilst at Bitter Springs I ran into none other than the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Northern Territory, Greg Thompson, who had been travelling Arnhem Land with a visiting Bishop from New South Wales and the Reverend Alan Courtney from Katherine. Bishop Thompson’s visitor spoke so highly of the attractions he had seen so far in the Territory that his congregation in New South Wales will hear stories of his trip for some time to come.
On leaving Mataranka hot springs it became apparent we had not only forgotten to refuel in Katherine but also in Mataranka. The blaring sign stating no fuel for 160 km was a timely reminder of the remote corners of our great Territory.
The journey proceeded to Larrimah where, of course, there is no longer a service station as it has not been rebuilt since it burnt down. We stopped in to see Fran at Fran’s Devonshire Teahouse, who was very happy to see us in the quiet tourist times. Fran made us a lovely roast and chutney roll, a glass of her secret recipe ginger beer, and promptly tasked us with picking up a delivery in Tennant Creek which we would drop back to her on our return from Alice Springs.
For those who have not had the pleasure of visiting Fran in Larrimah I will describe the experience for them. Larrimah has about six residents and is famous for the Pink Panther pub and the old police station and museum. Fran operates a lovely little caf out of a small adjunct to her home which is adorned with little statues of dogs, garden gnomes and teddy bears. During peak seasons, Fran gives her visitors a teddy bear with a little ribbon and her business card attached to it as a keepsake of their experience. She often receives letters from all over the world thanking her for her hospitality. Fran is known for making the world’s best pies. Fran is a woman with true heart who would not live anywhere else. A true woman of charity, she collects old books from school libraries to sell to tourists and donates the money back to the RSPCA. Fran raises thousands of dollars every year and is an icon in this quiet part of the world.
Proceeding with caution, conscious of our ever-decreasing fuel supply, we headed off the Stuart Highway and into the historical town of Daly Waters. A quaint place with much character and good humour, we gratefully fuelled up the car and chatted to bar staff. We were soon on our way and passed through Dunmurra, Elliott, Renner Springs, Three Ways, and stopped in Tennant Creek for the night. As we pulled into Tennant Creek I called the Tennant Creek museum and arranged to collect the box of books Fran had tasked me to pick up and drop back to her on my return - only in the Territory.
Sure enough, the box marked for Fran was waiting for us at the old mine museum and the manager told us that, sadly, tours only ran twice a week and only if four or more people had booked. It is a tough business when your annual trade is limited to only six months of the year.
I did not have much time to unwind from the trip and was recovering from the flu but headed straight to Fernanda’s Restaurant where we were greeted by Fernanda, an utterly charming and very kind woman. We had a lovely meal prepared by Fernanda’s son, and Fernanda shared her stories about the difficulty of running a business in Tennant Creek. She commented that while house prices had tripled during the time she had been living in Tennant Creek, businesses were rarely sold. She and her husband face the prospect of shutting the doors on the business, an experience Fernanda has already had as a result of her inability to sell the business. The food was exceptional and could be served at any restaurant in Darwin. The lack of investment in tourism in this region was evident and has been hurting Fernanda and her family for some time now.
I then attended the Tennant Creek local board meeting where I was greeted by civil-minded Tennant Creek locals. I was really impressed with how proactive the Tennant Creek local board was in directing the Barkly Shire Council to address issues of concern to the town.
After the meeting I met with board members who informed me I was the only member of parliament to have attended a board meeting. Board members shared their concerns and distress over the super shire scheme and the dysfunctional manner in which local boards operate in the broader Barkly region in communities like Ali Curung.
The following day we travelled from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs. Of course, the trip to Alice Springs would not have been complete without a visit to Wycliffe Well. I also stopped at Ti Tree for a good look at the farming enterprises taking place in the region. It was truly inspiring to see well-established vineyards, mango farms, and the development of extensions to those farms to meet demand.
My visit was only two weeks before the famous table grape picking season commences. The entrepreneurial spirit of the Territory is alive and well in Ti Tree. Farmers in this region have cleverly taken advantage of the frost-free seasonality of this special part of the Territory. Crop is developed to allow a niche market of table grapes for the Christmas/New Year season. This produces top quality fruit at top market prices for farmers. I congratulate them on their growing orchards and businesses.
I also welcomed the temperature drop as we crossed the Tropic of Capricorn. In Alice Springs, we travelled the Larapinta Drive and Namatjira Drive, taking in the picturesque surrounds of the west MacDonnell Ranges. A late swim at Ellery Creek Big Hole washed away any fatigue from the journey. It was sad there were not more visitors along these roads to enjoy the unique experiences Alice Springs offers. There was all but a handful of backpackers enjoying the crisp waters.
In Alice Springs I attended the Country Liberals’ annual conference and Central Council but made sure our government had a vibrant presence at the local McDonalds store for McHappy Day on the Saturday at lunchtime. My colleagues and I flooded McDonalds and adorned ourselves in balloons, aprons and donation buckets, where we rallied locals and raised much-needed funds for the Ronald McDonald House charity. We took Alice Springs quite by surprise that day, and the smiles on their faces at seeing their government putting its shoulder to the wheel were pleasant surprises.
I also thank the people of Alice Springs who shared their Remembrance Day service on Anzac Hill with us, which I attended with my colleagues and the leader of the coalition, Mr Tony Abbott. I also congratulate the Australian Air Force Cadets who did an exceptional job running the service. As a former army cadet, I understand how important their engagement is with the community and the RSL in ensuring future generations uphold the traditions and memories of our armed forces.
On the drive back to Darwin, I chatted to David and the boys from Aileron who showed me the $10 000 CCTV system they had to install in compliance with Labor’s failed Banned Drinker Register. I stopped in to speak to Bob from Barrow Creek, who shrugged his shoulders in acceptance the tourist season was well and truly dead, and enjoyed the food and hospitality at Woks Up in Tennant Creek; the food is famous throughout the region. I spotted an Indigenous man 70 to buy a Chupa Chups in Elliott while we refuelled, dropped Fran her box of books, popped by Wauchope, bought a famous pie in Mataranka, and enjoyed a swim at my favourite Territory swimming spot, Robin Falls.
The Territory is a beautiful place with its ever-changing scenery, its local characters, and sense of optimism in the face of so much hurt from the former Labor government. There is no doubt regional areas have and will continue to face tough times, but our government is conscious of the neglect it has suffered under the hands of Labor. Our mandate from the bush to govern for all Territorians will see real change, real action, and real growth through our regional towns and communities.
I thank everyone who welcomed me to their businesses and homes and hope to visit them again soon.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, tonight I put on record condolences to Patricia and Jonno, the step-children and two grandchildren of the late Greg Crowe. He was the most passionate man who devoted his life to the Northern Territory and to education. We are really going to miss him in the Northern Territory, especially my constituents at Santa Teresa community, Santa Teresa school, and every person who knew him through the education system and the Education department.
I will read something which has been e-mailed to me by the Santa Teresa school.
What a man he was, Madam Speaker. We will certainly miss him.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I have a similar condolence to Alison. It is with a sad heart I give this condolence. I have known this remarkable person for most of my life and have watched her grow into an inspirational leader. She was one of the first people in the community to aspire to buy her own home in her home community, one of the first to do so in any Aboriginal Indigenous community in Australia. She has left behind a legacy that will help many other Indigenous people find their own way in our contemporary society. She was totally devoted to our people, especially all those who she regarded as her children. I speak of the many she put through school and devoted her life to.
I recall attending Batchelor College in the mid-to-late 1980s with her as we went through our teacher training. When she was appointed Principal at Murrupurtiyanuwu Catholic School at Wirrumiyanga, Bathurst Island, I was among the many people who were very proud of her achievement. She was a strong believer in song and music and encouraged and helped many children to pursue this activity and pastime. She especially thrived on working with children from our country on the Tiwi Islands and was a very strong believer in incorporating her own culture with an education that would take our people into the future.
While celebrating her life and her huge contribution to our society, I am also very saddened she is not here to see the result of our work and commitment. I am also very saddened she will not be here as I move on as the member for Arafura. However, she will be an inspiration to me as well as many others. I am all the better for having known her.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Brennan
Member for Brennan
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be given to the member for Brennan, Mr Chandler, today, on the grounds of ill health. For the purposes of Question Time, any questions arising out of his portfolio areas should be redirected to the member for Katherine, Mr Westra van Holthe.
Motion agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 2
Message No 2
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from Her Honour the Administrator, Message No 2 notifying assent to bills passed in the October/November 2012 sittings of the Assembly.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Motion of Censure
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from censuring the Chief Minister and his government for lying to Territorians by promising to cut the cost of living and then increasing power and water bills by $2000 per family and $7800 per small business from 1 January next year.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept this censure motion and we ask that the media, if broadcasting, discontinue the broadcast other than through the Internet.
____________________
Distinguished Visitors
Ms Marion Scrymgour and Mr Allan McKay
Distinguished Visitors
Ms Marion Scrymgour and Mr Allan McKay
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we start the debate I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour, and also the Mayor of Litchfield Council, Allan McKay.
____________________
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move a censure of the Chief Minister and his government for lying to Territorians by promising to cut the cost of living and then increasing power and water bills by $2000 per family and $7800 per small business from 1 January next year.
It is extraordinary that the member for Blain campaigned, as his first and core commitment to Territory families, advertised in the newspaper and signed his name on a contract to Territorians, that he would cut the cost of living in full knowledge of the financials of Power and Water. In fact, it was so much in full knowledge it was the subject for hours before the scrutiny committee, the Estimates Committee of this parliament. In full knowledge of the financial situation of Power and Water - which is not as dire as the CLP would like to make out. They speak with forked tongue on this subject. They say Labor did nothing, we neglected Power and Water and it is all Labor’s fault. Yet, they campaigned against Labor’s tariff increases in 2009. They said Labor ran the organisation into the ground. They ignore the fact it took the Merv Davies’ report - 2007 adjustments in infrastructure requirements which added to the debt of Power and Water - infrastructure requirements because the CLP had run that organisation into the ground.
It was well-known that in the 1990s, before the CLP lost government, it was stripping staff out of Power and Water and not repairing and maintaining Power and Water to the extent it needed to be. It has been well-documented, and some of us have been around long enough to remember all these debates. In the last three years of the previous CLP government they took more out of Power and Water in dividend payments to government than they invested in Power and Water.
It was interesting in Question Time today that the Independent member for Nelson went to the heart of what is the core difference between the way Labor approached Power and Water - as an essential service - and the way the CLP is treating Power and Water - as a corporation that needs to be in profit. The CLP is putting profit before people. It is fattening the pig to take it to market to sell it off.
When the Chief Minister was asked in Question Time today to unequivocally rule out leasing or selling off Power and Water he did not. He used the weasel words of ‘we have no plan to’. Chief Minister, Territorians do not believe you, they cannot believe you because you had a signed contract commitment and you have already broken it; you have already torn it up. You have increased the cost of living for Territorians. There is a massive hike to their cost of living - $2000 a year. When he had the opportunity in Question Time today to spell out how families could meet some of this burden, he did not do it. He weasel-worded all over the place but did not go to the heart of the question.
In your taxpayer-paid advertisement in the newspaper today - the one which you know, Chief Minister, breaches the Public Information Act but you do not care about breaking a law, you are so arrogant in your role as Chief Minister. In a paid advertisement that breaches the Public Information Act you talk about comparisons with Tasmania. Seriously, what a joke! How out of touch are you? How many Tasmanians are running their air conditioners, jacking up their power bills? You sit there and laugh saying your family is doing its bit. How many people are in your household, Chief Minister? How do you compare your income situation and your household numbers to the average Territory family? It is a joke. You are ignoring the hurt and pain that is happening.
In 2009, when Labor made the first tariff adjustments in two decades, at least we had the decency to have an independent analysis done. We had the decency to show that independent analysis to the business groups and consumers who would be affected. Everyone got to read the Reeves report information - the executive summary. What do we have in comparison? No evidence from the CLP.
You say you are advised by the Renewal Management Board yet sitting on that board are members who are not even paying these bills in the Territory. Does Neil Conn have an account? Is he paying Power and Water bills? Is Ken Clarke paying Power and Water bills? Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, who you laud as some expert but who could never accept Australian accounting standards and would not introduce Australian accounting standards into the Territory budget. He could not accept that you do not just run a cash book; you need accrual, which brings all your liability onto the books. He would not do it; he refused to do it year in, year out.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is a commonly accepted procedure in this House where individuals have no defence that the person making allegations against them should be circumspect and cautious about those allegations. These are strident attacks on the integrity of a gentleman who has no capacity to reply in this House. I ask you to have the Leader of the Opposition temper her comments.
Ms Walker: It is a shame your former English teacher never had a right of reply.
Ms LAWRIE: It is true, and you know it is true.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a censure motion against government, not against Mr Clarke.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated Opposition Leader. Have you finished Leader of Government Business?
Mr ELFERINK: That is it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, could you please be careful with your comments?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I am simply stating that, as Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke never introduced the Australian accounting standards to the budgets of the Northern Territory. I will state another fact - another inconvenient truth for the CLP - the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory parliament found Ken Clarke had erroneously adjusted the budget papers for presentation purposes only. That is the Public Accounts Committee report. This is the man the Chief Minister and the Treasurer are taking advice from on the Power and Water financial situation and are paying $200 000 for just six months. Who is footing his accommodation bill while he is staying in the Territory? Is his accommodation being paid by the Department of the Chief Minister? There are big questions about the total package for Ken Clarke.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, she is reflecting on the integrity of Mr Clarke. I do not see him reflected in this censure motion. The censure is against the government, not Mr Clarke. I ask that she be asked to temper her approach in relation to an innocent man who cannot defend himself in this House.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on ‘an innocent man’. Territorians who are having their power bills jacked up by $2000 a year while these old CLP mates are providing that advice to the government do not believe he is an innocent man. They do not believe he is some benign grandfatherly type sitting on the top level of the department, Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Once again, a person who has no right of reply in this House is being stridently attacked by the Leader of the Opposition and she has not mentioned him in the censure motion. Perhaps she would like to amend her ill-drafted and ill-considered censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please temper your comments in regard to individuals.
Ms LAWRIE: The inconvenient truth does make them protest too much. This is where Territorians are going. We cannot believe this government is paying their old mates such exorbitant salaries for six months and, at the same time, hiking up our power bills. Are they for real? They cannot believe the Treasurer tells them on television it is all right; you will have forgotten about it in four years’ time. They certainly hope we will have forgotten about it in two years’ time. These are quarterly bills, Treasurer, and no one will forget when those quarterly bills are coming in at such hiked-up levels as much as you hope they will forget.
Territorians are making real decisions as to whether they pack up and leave the Territory. These are painful and hurtful decisions. I met a person recently who said to me, ‘I have been here since 1967 and this is the first time I am making a genuine considered decision to leave the Territory’. I had someone the other day say they have been here since 1969 and are thinking about their need to pack up and leave the Territory.
It comes whammy after whammy. The weekend before the power prices were announced the government announced the axing of two housing financial assistance schemes designed to get people off the rental roundabout and into home ownership. They obviously did not want much debate on those schemes because they went straight into announcing the power price hikes.
There is a reason they would not want much debate on those. We have since seen industry organisations say the schemes are meaningless. The price caps are too low, the new construction locks people out of the existing marketplace, many battlers - those low- to medium-income earners - rely on the old stock as their first point of purchasing. The government did not want scrutiny of the housing situation even though it rails and rails about the real cost and burden on Territorians and families - rent. The government scrapped the housing schemes designed to get people off the rental roundabout on the weekend and came smashing through with mean and unnecessary price hikes and what is the excuse? It is Labor; Labor did not do anything about it, Labor ignored the problem. Not true!
They arbitrarily whack up increases without a shred of analysis or evidence behind it - no documents tabled, no executive summaries or reports tabled. It is just, ‘Believe us, what we say is true’. There is no independent analysis, no independent experts providing evidenced-based advice. They jack up people's prices and hike them up by $2000 per family.
This is all after Terry Mills, the member for Blain, had gone to the election promising to cut the costs of doing business in the Territory. The impact on small business is $7800. Families will face a double whammy as prices increase everywhere: childcare, groceries, rates and rents. Again, you see the CLP wanting to blame someone else for the decision. They made this decision. They sign off on behalf of Robyn Lambley, the Treasurer. It was a decision made by the CLP yet they will not accept their decision.
We asked the director of a childcare centre what this would mean for childcare costs. They said they will go up $5. The member for Araluen issued a media release slamming me for getting the figures wrong when it was the director of the childcare centre who advised the rate. Lo and behold, on the Monday – the media release was issued on the Friday - someone provided us with a copy of a letter from the childcare centre which mentioned increases of about $4.50 a day.
The Treasurer says everyone is wrong and her maths is right. Even when she admits she does not understand maths, everyone else is wrong and she is right. Then, letters are coming from childcare centres.
You have what the Treasurer says in one area and reality in another. You are so out of touch with reality you do not understand parents are walking into childcare centres and receiving letters telling them their childcare fees are increasing by about $4.50 a day. It is quite extraordinary how out of touch they are and how they wantonly tear into and break their promises.
The day before the election the member for Blain said, and I quote, ‘A Country Liberals government will work tirelessly to reduce costs for Territory families’. This sentence will become famous as the biggest lie ever told to Territorians and his quote was just one of many. TV, radio, newspaper ads all promised to cut the cost of living - all lies when he had full knowledge of the financial position of Power and Water. It had been raked over at estimates in June just prior to the August election. Bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, but you knew the full financials of Power and Water in June while you were lying to Territorians about promising to cut the cost of living.
The first dot point of the five-point plan says more money in Territorians’ pockets. What makes it even worse is this was a deliberate lie because it became clear that while you were publically saying these words and putting them in writing in your ads, you were already privately planning to increase the cost of living; you already had Ken Clarke on your payroll providing advice. Everything you are using in government to justify the increase you knew before the election. You had the full financials before the election so why did you deliberately lie to Territorians because of your naked grab for power?
Have you explained to Territorians in the bush, where you campaigned for them, that they will have to meet all these power, water and sewerage price increases? Have you told them? Where is the communication around that? Do people in the bush know they will have to pay a whole lot more? Have you explained that to them? Did you do that on your aeroplane circuit just after the election saying, ‘By the way, we are jacking up your power, water and sewerage costs? Thanks for voting for me.’ It is unbelievable. You do not want people to understand what you are doing because you are not letting them know out in the bush what you are doing. Do not worry; we will do that for you.
The Power and Water debt position was sustainable. It takes about 8% of revenue to service debt across government and the non-financial sector. Most people would like to pay only 8% of their income to service their rent or mortgage. Moody’s has looked at Power and Water and, of course, Moody’s points to Power and Water because the infrastructure spend went up dramatically after the catastrophic failure at the Casuarina Zone Substation.
After decades of neglect under the CLP, Labor literally had to build the organisation. However, a wise government would repay that debt slowly over many, many years because it is not a profit-making business; it is an essential service. There is a stark difference between what the CLP believes Power and Water is and what Labor believes. Labor understands that power, water and sewerage are essential services. They are not the fat pig to take to market to sell to get a one-off privatisation slug into your books and then say, ‘Well, look at that, now we have the money to fund the unfunded election commitments’. The member for Arafura will be able to have his $20m port. The member for Stuart will be able to get the road sealed between Kalkarindji and Lajamanu as promised.
It is interesting when you go out bush and hear all the unfunded election commitments. We already have on the record the new Katherine Hospital - no change out of $130m for that; the sealing of the Port Keats Road - $200m-odd for that stretch of highway. You want Territorians to pay for the power, water and sewerage price increases so they can fund your unfunded election commitments through positioning Power and Water for sale.
As the debate went on and the CLP heard from Territorians directly about their anger at the disrespect and the hurtful, mean and nasty way in which they have been treated by this government, their claims became more and more hysterical. For example, the Treasurer recently claimed that without these increases the lights would go out - purely hysterical. They are carrying on the same way a four-year-old would carry on when caught lying. I gave an analogy on radio recently saying the Chief Minister is behaving like the naughty schoolboy in a schoolyard caught out having done the wrong thing, and this is wrong.
It is not too late to listen to Territorians. This is wrong in every way, Chief Minister; this pain you are inflicting on households and businesses and what it will do to the domestic economy is wrong. When you are a naughty schoolboy in the schoolyard and have been caught out, what do you do? You say, ‘They made me do it’, and that is exactly the analogy I have been drawing here, and everyone gets it. Everyone understands that you decide, Chief Minister, with your Treasurer, what the tariffs will be. Labor did not decide on these tariffs; they are CLP price hikes despite going to the election with a promise to cut the cost of living whilst knowing the full financials of Power and Water and despite having the opportunity in June to scrutinise at estimates the full financials of Power and Water.
This approach by the CLP government is clearly an ideological divide between the ALP and the CLP. We get that the delivery of power, water and sewerage in the Territory is not designed to be profit-making. We have a vast geographical land mass to deliver these essential services across. We have a very small population so the capacity to raise revenue is limited. Well, not unless, of course, you hike up the tariffs as the CLP is doing.
We understand schools and hospitals, which are critical services to Territorians, do not make a profit; they are subsidised by government. This is so families can afford to live in the Territory, small businesses can afford to operate in the Territory, and we have productive Territorians, all of which is good for our domestic economy.
We make no apology for investing in infrastructure at Power and Water. It was the first government in about two decades to do so. We make no apology for the infrastructure investment we have made in schools, hospitals, and across our health system and road network - infrastructure which has gone to the debt position of the Northern Territory. The budget books are there which show we were running counter-cyclical in capital works programs because we delivered the major projects of INPEX which would run capital private investment.
We were running counter-cyclical; we were predicting a very modest deficit in the out year of 2015-16. In GST recovery, we would have delivered a surplus if we were in for another year, not by hurting Territorians the way you are now, but by understanding there is recovery in the national GST. We made it clear in our financial statements that we would use additional GST revenue to pay down the deficit. We shaved $582m off the debt after eight surplus budgets in a row. We had a track record. However, we also recognised that the global financial crisis did hit.
The Chief Minister says there was no global financial crisis, and they sacked the member for Katherine at one stage in estimates when he was shadow Treasurer for saying there was no longer a financial crisis. However, you are wrong and the private sector understands this.
All the industry and organisations recognise government was doing the responsible thing in infrastructure investment to keep business doors open in the Territory. Infrastructure investment in Power and Water was critical; the Merv Davies’ report shows that in detail.
Infrastructure investment across the Territory, as a developing jurisdiction, was critical but also had a double effect of keeping the all-important construction sector in jobs and delivering growth economies in the Territory through those hard global financial crisis affected years. The example I give is the 2010-11 financial year. We recorded economic growth of 1.6%. Strip out the public spend from those figures and we would have flatlined. We would have been on the brink of recession. However, these are all inconvenient truths because it does not suit the rhetoric of the Chief Minister.
People ask me why he wants to quickly cut all this debt. I tell them he needs the money to pay for his unfunded election commitments in the bush.
In the Northern Territory election campaign both major political parties submitted their election commitments to Treasury. There was a stark difference between the two. Labor’s election commitments amounted to $200m. The CLP election commitments amounted to $400m, but there were election commitments the CLP had made which were not on the list or costing submitted to Treasury.
Were they bottom drawer election commitments? You made them, and have put a couple on the record in parliament since then, yet they were not part of the $400m in commitments you submitted to Treasury. Adding up those election commitments, there is a lot of money to find. We know of $400m through two commitments alone, and if you start to ratchet up those other roads and buildings across the bush you have promised you would hit $1bn pretty easily.
Locking up the drunks alone will be an interesting investment in correctional infrastructure, let alone finding the staff for those facilities and their recurrent cost. If you are going to put them in regional centres - the question has been asked but not answered – will you provide government employee housing for those staff? If so, you have a government employee housing cost.
This is the mean CLP cutting jobs across the public service, hiking up power prices to make Power and Water profitable so they get the dividends in. The Chief Minister, in Question Time today, lied to Territorians again. He said we took dividends for 10 years. We did not. Dividends stopped mid-2000s because we recognised the investment needed into Power and Water and therefore kept giving that organisation dividend holidays.
If you are going to talk about the situation, stop lying. Deal with the facts! However, for you the facts are an inconvenient truth. When you lie to Territorians by saying, ‘Labor ignored Power and Water and we have to clean up the mess’, the truth is that after the 2007 Merv Davies’ report we recognised we had to invest in Power and Water. The truth is for the last three years of the CLP government it financially stripped out more from Power and Water than it invested. Stop lying to Territorians.
You say Labor ignored it and did not adjust the tariffs when it should have. The truth is, it was the first time in 20 years. The Labor government - I was the Treasurer at the time and had to do it - in 2009 adjusted tariffs significantly and massively. That is why we could go on the CPI pathway thereafter. Stop lying to Territorians and pretending I am a supporter of the 50% increase!
The lie was perpetrated again in Question Time today, and the fool you have as a Treasurer seriously rewrites the book on a fool. Everyone is laughing about her and it is time you recognised that and sacked her. She appears on television and says, ‘Well, I do not know. I do not know Darwin; I am from Alice Springs.’ Then, in front of the media when asked simple questions, she says, ‘Well, I do not know. I am no good at maths’. Are you for real? She is the Treasurer of the Northern Territory. It is unbelievable.
She was asked by Channel 9, ‘Do you hope Territorians forget about this in four years’ time?’ ‘Well, we hope they forget about it in two years’ time.’ People cannot believe the bungling incompetence of this Treasurer. Does she know Ken Clarke is on the Energex board whilst advising about Power and Water? Does she know Shane Stone is director of the Energex board? Is she such a fool that she is being led down a path by the Ken Clarkes and Shane Stones of the world? Are you that incompetent?
The problem is Territorians are paying for your incompetence. You are not listening to Territorians when they say, ‘Do not hit us with a 30% electricity hike in year one, at least do it in increments’. I had no intention of doing this to Territorians. I was clear in my commitment on a CPI pathway. I was reassuring the board we would conduct a five-year review of all operations of Power and Water. We conducted one in 2009, and were more than prepared to do it again in 2012-13. I would never sell Power and Water; I would never fatten it up for profit to sell it; I would never slug Territorians with the price hikes you are because I understand it. I understand we live here; we have families here and have to meet our bills. I understand small businesses constitute more than 80% of businesses in the Territory and need to make ends meet to be profitable. Small businesses are contributors to our economy, I understand that. I raise a family here; I live and work among people in this community.
I have been the Treasurer for the past five years and understand the financials. I understand how, over time, you can ameliorate costs; you can run your capital counter-cyclical. I understand how you can reduce the costs of government. Efficiency dividends were hiked up under my time as Treasurer without needing to sack public servant; we had a staffing cap in place. I understand all the mechanisms at hand to be fiscally responsible and I am watching irresponsible and stupid decisions being made.
I ran into someone yesterday who gave me their example. The wife was sacked because she was a public servant on a contract. She has lost her income. Even though the Chief Minister believes no Territorians have been sacked, she is unemployed thanks to your job cuts. The father of the family, which has many kids, is taking care of the aged pensioner living with them and is on the chopping block. He works for the public service on a Commonwealth contract and is hearing redeployees will be put into Commonwealth contract positions and those in the Commonwealth contract positions will be sacked. There will be no income for this household through your actions, Chief Minister, and, at the same time, the cost of utilities will go up by $2000 a year.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the Leader of Opposition.
Mr Mills: No, you cannot have an extension of time in a censure.
Motion negatived.
Ms Lawrie: You are gagging on a censure. You are setting a new low!
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): With respect Opposition Leader, you had 30 minutes to outline your position and prosecute your case. You came to a withering halt and needed an extension of time because you started wandering after 15 minutes and became nasty, so your call.
We have accepted this censure because we are accountable and have had to make difficult decisions. I hope you stay to hear some stuff and understand it; however, that may not be your style because these matters are not of particular concern; it is a short-term nasty hit that can be achieved to get a nice reception when you go to the shopping centre and delude people. You have conjured this up, you are feasting off it, but it will not sustain you and will certainly hurt those in the community who put their trust in you.
This censure is opportunistic, plainly, and hypocritical. It is based on a newspaper campaign; one we do not dismiss as unimportant, make no mistake about that. We respect our local newspaper, we believe in freedom of speech and we listen to it, but this government will not be governed by e-mail or petitions. We have to make difficult decisions. We have explained that and will continue to do so.
After 13 weeks in office we were left with the same situation a number of other new governments have faced when seeing some hard decisions need to be made. Generally, it comes to our side of government to make those hard decisions and that is what we have done.
To unpack the Opposition Leader’s argument is quite messy because there is not much there once the huff and puff is finished. There are some wild assertions and the type of thing the Opposition Leader would earnestly engage people in and feel their pain, but would deceive them because the false assurances are no assurances at all. They are quite deceptive because the Opposition Leader knows full well, but is, perhaps, not particularly concerned.
What struck me about the Opposition Leader’s comments is she asserts they had a plan to pay down debt over time. Everything was going to be okay because they had a plan. We, then in opposition, had no knowledge of that plan though we called upon it time and time again. They were going to pay this back over time we now hear. However, it was a secret plan. Even after the calls from the then opposition to reveal the structure of this plan, no structure was forthcoming. The argument of the Opposition Leader reinforces the reality of the debt problem by acknowledging that reality and saying it was going to be dealt with over time, but time unspecified - no detail, no structure to that plan, just trust the empty assurances of the former Treasurer, now Opposition Leader. Not only that, she reveals in her censure motion how that was going to be achieved. Wait for it mums and dads across the Northern Territory, that was going to be achieved by more GST coming in which would help us!
Once again we find ourselves in a position held by the former Labor government which reveals it at its core. It wants the Territory to be a mendicant state. It does not take responsibility as a mature jurisdiction, like other states and territories, to manage its own affairs responsibly. We are being given resources from the Commonwealth by hard-working Territorians, and Australians, to acquit well in the Northern Territory. Our default position is to put our hand out and expect more money so we can fix this problem then artificially maintain a scheme which causes debt to grow and never respond to it except to say, ‘We have a forward plan and that is for someone else to give us some money’.
That is not the way a business operates at its core, not the way a family operates at its core when it has to manage its responsibilities, and certainly not the type of leadership we would expect from a government to try to get some core strength in our community when facing up to real issues. All communities go through difficult times and there have to be adjustments; this is one. It is not an easy adjustment to make, but to default to sheer and rank nastiness, hypocrisy and opportunism as a primary platform further weakens any capacity for the community to recognise there needs to be a response in these challenging times.
We now have an acknowledgment there is a debt problem. The former Treasurer knew this and conceded as much. It is acknowledged here with no substantiation there was a plan to deal with this over time unspecified and no structure to that plan. The plan was the Commonwealth would give us more money and we would then be able to sort the problem out. Then, of course, the real problem was never the responsibility of the former Treasurer; the global financial crisis caused the problem; we were never really responsible. However, any analysis - and it is even reinforced by the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper which identified the area of strong growth.
Australia and the Northern Territory have been protected in many ways from the effect of the global financial crisis because of our placement within the region. We are in a stronger position. It weakens the argument of the former Treasurer to foist up the global financial crisis as the real cause of the problem. All of these weak arguments run by the former Treasurer are reinforcing the reality - the inconvenient truth for the former Treasurer - that there is a very serious debt problem. However, because we are situated in this region, and the former Treasurer should know this, we were largely shielded. There was an effect, make no mistake, but not to the degree it affected other places. Many commentators now define what the former Treasurer described as the global financial crisis as a north Atlantic crisis. That is where it hit the hardest. There was some effect here, but nowhere to the magnitude - the former Treasurer likes to conceal her need to be responsible for managing our own affairs here and now - nowhere near the same impact other jurisdictions had to face. However, it does not exempt a former Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister from the responsibility to manage our affairs well.
All of this combined reinforces that the Opposition Leader knows we have a real challenge which has been faced up to by this government in a manner we know will not win the short-term support of Territorians. We believe, because it is necessary and will strengthen us in the long term, it will allow the Territory to grow and respond to the great opportunities waiting for us. However, we have to be in a far better position.
Make no mistake, other states and the Commonwealth are looking at the Northern Territory - not only the rating agencies, but other jurisdictions are also managing challenging times - to see whether the Territory, in all its talk about being a state and punching above its weight and all that type of rhetoric, can walk the walk and talk the talk. We have to make those hard decisions and we will continue to do so.
As a new Chief Minister, I accept responsibility for this and can see where we are going. I can see where the Opposition Leader is going - trying to magnify this issue to harvest as much political capital from it as possible. However, it does not serve the long-term interest of the Northern Territory.
Where are we going? First, we acknowledge there was a need to get our law and order issues under control; we are set on a path. We want people to be responsible so we dealt with the Banned Drinker Register and can now focus on behaviour. We are putting in place a means to deal with that. We have increased allocations which will be revealed in the mini-budget on the law and order front.
However, when it comes to cost of living, the key problem is not power and water. It contributes to the underlying problem; that is, the cost of housing. You will have debate in this parliament tomorrow on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s role is to get us to a place where we establish a planning framework so we can release land we can properly resource through a new scheme - the creation of new stock. The issue has been the failure to increase the supply of housing. We have the younger people and if they can have new housing stock they can get into at an affordable rate that will make the biggest difference. That is where we are going. This is not a one act play.
The Opposition Leader would like to keep us in this spot for the rest of our term, but we are going places. We have to do this so we can strengthen our core business and stand amongst our Commonwealth peers running our business in a similar way, responsibly passing on benefits where we can, but ensuring the debt levels are manageable.
At the same time, we are moving as swiftly as we can to ensure people on modest incomes will be able to access affordable housing. After 13 weeks we have put those planks in place. Those planks will continue working relentlessly to deliver on the long-term needs of the Northern Territory.
We know where we are going. We know the pain people will be experiencing right now and some measures will be outlined to assist families in adjusting to this impost. That is to come and we are not blind to it. I hope, over time, Territorians will begin to understand the necessity of this important decision.
The Opposition Leader has acknowledged there is a debt problem, even though all the words around that tried to conceal it in a duplicitous argument. Essentially, she has agreed there is a debt problem. If anyone were to look at the former Treasurer’s publications between the budget handed down and the pre-election fiscal statement, there was nearly $100m growth in debt, but that is ignored and diminished because, ‘We can deal with that because the Commonwealth will give us some money’. That is not a responsible way.
There is an acknowledgement there is a debt problem. There is also a plain acknowledgement - anyone can see this with all the noise coming from the Opposition Leader - this would have been responded to by tariff increases. Make no mistake about it, that was going to happen.
The censure motion from the Opposition Leader will be judged, by anyone who hears it, by the venom contained in the attacks on individuals - slandering, mocking and belittling people, talking down in such a nasty tone that it does not assist what is a real issue in the Territory. It does nothing to strengthen the core of our community when the truth is known by the former Treasurer. In their gut most Territorians understand this, we have spoken to most heads of departments and people in agencies and they knew there was a serious problem.
Anyone from outside looking in knew there was a serious problem and were just waiting for leadership. Granted, it will be hard; however, yours is not the kind of leadership the community want nor needs at this time. We started off with a run up to a grand censure - the first censure for this Opposition Leader - and it is laced with nastiness and venom. That will not auger well for the opposition. If it wants to play a meaningful role in bringing this Territory together that is not the person to follow because that will not help anyone.
You will have increased nastiness around the traps. You will receive text messages attacking the government. Good, go for it! We will continue on because we have assessed the situation, just as the former Treasurer has, and we will be making responses.
The former Treasurer asserted that we knew everything. No, we did not. Welcome to opposition. We had a concern about levels of debt. If you want to gain some credibility, check it. We suspected there was a problem, as most people around the traps knew and were talking about. However, the true nature and breadth of that problem was not known until we undertook a proper assessment. Attack those who made that assessment! Run through any circles at any level trying to run these people down and you will be laughed at. You will be seen for what you are: cheap and nasty. These people have high credentials. That is already an attack point. Go for your attack points if you like, but this is the real business.
An assessment was made and we found the unfunded liabilities of this former government were enormous and they demand a response.
Now people begin to plead ignorance, ‘We do not know. You have not put your case well enough, new government’. We have presented the report in parliament; it is there for anyone to read. We placed material in the NT News so people can assess that. Yes, we were criticised for doing that. We have to do it so the information is out there. It is a part of our duty to communicate with the wider community that there is another argument being run and there is another reason for this, and of course nobody wants it. However, there is a reason for it and if there was a way around it we would not do it, but we have to.
So we outline that, we communicate as best we can. I wonder how many people in the opposition have honestly read the RMB report tabled during the last sittings. How many have followed up the footnotes and checked for yourselves or are you just involved in politics? You want to score a point or two, get your jollies and cheer out the back and think, ‘The people like us. We have a petition.’ You have provided no leadership, nor have you shown any authenticity when it comes to dealing with complex issues. I urge you to read it. In your quiet moments look at it and make your own judgments privately. Sure, you might be in the game of politics. Go for it.
The former Treasurer is simply ignorant when it comes to maths and we have many cases of this. The former Treasurer is astonishing. It is like she is telling the truth and you feel you should not challenge because it sounds like it is said with real authority – 8% in the column in today’s paper – ‘8% is all it costs, quite manageable. Trust me, 8%.’ Where does this 8% figure come from? It sounds good. Where does it come from?
Has anyone in opposition checked that? I hope Territorians are checking this, but, sadly, they expect their leaders to give them numbers and facts they can bank on, that mean something, that assist people in understanding this. Where does the 8% come from? Heaven knows. It would be a good opportunity for this Opposition Leader, who is trying to gain some support in the community, to start telling the truth and explain herself.
When we do some investigation into the context of the article it appears the payment of interest is only 8% of revenue and is quite manageable. It would be if that was the case but, when it comes to the Power and Water Corporation, its revenue for 2011-12 was $560m and 8% of that is $44.8m interest; however, the actual interest is $75m. That is not 8%; it is more than double that. Where does this figure come from? We have an Opposition Leader who can trot out figures and make people back off and believe that must be the case because she said it with such conviction. Beware; be very careful!
We have heard the Opposition Leader declare publicly a $5 per day per child increase in childcare fees was needed to cover the proposed increase. She made that assertion. She has now moved and, with a typical lack of courage, puts a person in the line of fire. Someone else said that, so that person is attacked. That is another gutless technique to run the public message and, when caught out, you put someone else in the line of fire and say, ‘It wasn’t me, it was this person here’, and they feel bad about it. They are exposed by this Opposition Leader who is so opportunistic and hypocritical.
For the Opposition Leader to run this in the marketplace and have everyone saying, ‘Yes, yes, that’s terrible. That’s how much it’s going ...’ and engender hysteria and fear so you can gain a point - a Year 10 high school student could have done the sums on that one. If there is a $5 increase every day as asserted, is it because of power? Should it be tested to see whether that is the case? If it is power as asserted, that would mean the childcare centre has a power bill of $0.25m when it is only $15 000. If you follow that argument through, even a Year 10 Maths student could have worked that out. However, that does not worry the Opposition Leader because you can then run the argument to engender hysteria, fear and support for your campaign. That is not a very good basis upon which to build a case.
Running arguments like that, this Opposition Leader has the temerity to tell us how we should be fixing it. All of this comes back to the point that the Opposition Leader acknowledges there is a debt problem, but tries to squib around the edges and conceal it - acknowledge there is a debt problem, claim there is a plan to deal with it but there is no such plan; no evidence of a plan even though you are held to account and have now revealed the grand plan was to put your hand out and hope the GST would bail you out of the problem. That is not the way to run the Territory with its wonderful future, to hope someone will pay you out. She has acknowledged tariffs needed to be increased, which has been revealed and outed.
Watch this Opposition Leader, who will do anything to block this inconvenient fact. She will do everything she can to get people to believe these documents are not true. They are true and many will back it up. Be careful putting your trust in the Opposition Leader because she has run a pretty fierce campaign, but one which will not take people anywhere. It has to be based on fact.
There was going to be an increase by the former government. I am not blaming the former government; however, there was going to be an increase. The board was very concerned, so much so members tried to speak to the former Treasurer. I understand she was not available so the former Chief Minister had to take the call and acknowledge there was a problem which needed to be responded to. You only have to look at other jurisdictions. You could see the same thing happening. There had to be a response to a difficult decision. Gosh, it would be an unpopular decision so best not make it; lie low and deal with it after the election. The dishonesty of this troubles me.
We now have the allegations in concert between the Opposition Leader and the local paper claiming some type of conflict with Mr Ken Clarke being on the board of Energex. We start raising this as an attack point. Attacking people as a means to prosecute your case is pretty low-level stuff. The paper does not mention the previous government appointees on the board of Power and Water. Several of them sit on boards or have been on boards of major Australian power companies. Mr Clarke was a consultant for the NT government in the housing portfolio as well as serving as Under Treasurer in the early stages of the Martin government. He was their man, but I am sure he will say without reserve Energex has no interest whatsoever in buying the Power and Water Corporation. This is another furphy which has popped up - run that argument as though we have some malicious intent rather than going about our business and sorting things out so we can secure the future. Raise this, is it true? No, it is not true. Energex would not take it even if it was offered for nothing. No one would.
Governments source their experts from among respected people within the industry. However, the Leader of the Opposition would be more likely to hire the senior executive of a credit card company to review our finances because all our cards have been maxed out. She would like to conceal that from view and hope someone will dump some money on the Northern Territory and, somehow, claim credit for it. We saw that year after year. GST revenue poured into the Territory and she claimed personal credit for it. When the money dried up, the previous government blamed the global financial crisis and had strange language about having to do a downward adjustment of our forward expectations. That means you expected to get more GST, ‘We are hungry for GST, but not as much came as we expected so we are in a terrible problem but it is not our responsibility to live within our means; it is the responsibility of someone to bail us out. Fortunately, we have the global financial crisis which is the cause of all this’ ...
Ms Walker: Eight surplus budgets, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Look, you missed it. In those eight surplus budgets you always had more money than you expected and more arrived. You take personal credit for the eight surplus budgets, but during those eight surplus budgets you put nothing aside, made no preparation, you were warned again and again to live within your means and make provision for a rainy day. You failed to do so, spent, then spent again and claimed personal credit for this achievement, which was a flow of money from outside into the Northern Territory. You went around like big shots thinking you had done something flash and then you looked back on that wonderful era when you were just reinforcing yourselves as mendicants with no responsibility for the long-term interest of the Northern Territory rather than your short-term interest - live off the fat of the land and make no provision. You lecture us about promises which have been made. We will live up to promises and ride this one all the way through. However, we will run the Territory properly; we will be honest with Territorians and make the unpopular decisions because they have to be made.
We see children who deserve something better than they have had for the last 10 years. Our promises have been honest and we will work with Territorians to achieve them. We know where we are going, and the first thing we have to do is be true about this and recognise there is a problem. The Opposition Leader knows darn well we have a problem and we are dealing with it.
If the roles were reversed what would we have? Heaven knows, but it would certainly be influenced by the self-congratulatory approach of the all-important Labor government if it was in charge of this. It would be about them, how great they are, and how they have managed to do this. Heaven knows how you would have managed it. You have a different approach and people might not like it. You can throw all the words you like at us, we will continue because we have our eye on the long-term interest of the Northern Territory.
This is but 100 days, and we have a plan and are continuing with it. The key issue is cost of living; having money in the pockets of Territorians. We will ensure we handle those interest repayments - that debt - so money can flow through our community for the benefit of Territorians and they can have an affordable place to stay. We will work with that.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is good to be able to participate in this censure motion debate and finally come face-to-face with the CLP over the issue. The Leader of the Opposition received a very strong reaction when she used the analogy of a schoolboy in the playground being caught out doing the wrong thing. As a manager of juvenile conflict resolution over 30 years, I have done much work with people in schoolyards and other places trying to manage conflict. The body language coming from the other side was incredible. The Chief Minister was certainly in a difficult spot. I read the psychology of that difficult spot as being very uncomfortable with this specific challenge.
It is not only coming from the opposition, it is coming from Territorians. It is Territorians telling politicians, ‘Got it wrong guys, got it wrong! Take it easy, guys, you are pushing too hard, you are not thinking.’ The Treasurer was unnerved by the assertion there were old boys upstairs pulling the strings. That was very interesting body language. The Treasurer finally came to ask whether she was being told the truth. That was the question going through the Treasurer’s mind.
The member for Port Darwin was the best with the grimace over the election promise of the Port Keats Road. As a shadow Treasurer, he had some trouble with his own maths. However, he is a wise Territorian and understands $1m per kilometre and the promises made will come back and haunt this CLP government big time. He understands that, and his grimace and flinch in the chair were poetry to me. I happen to be an expert at reading naughty boys who get caught out in the schoolyard and refuse to ’fess up to the truth. That was a moment I will share with this parliament which influenced my contribution to this debate.
The one at the back was equal first. That was the member for Sanderson, who had a sudden awakening when he realised he has four years on Hansard, on the public record with the same story over and over again about all the people in Sanderson leaving the Territory because of the cost of living pressures from this ‘irresponsible government’. Four years I sat here. I spent more time in this Chamber than all those people over the other side. I spent my time studying hard, listening and learning about representing Territorians. The member for Sanderson has on the public record - go back and read it - four years, time and time again. I sat here late at night listening to the same dirge.
When the Leader of the Opposition challenged the government over this issue, about listening to Territorians, about cost of living pressures and being responsible elected community members, the member for Sanderson shifted in the saddle big time. I took great delight because I thought, ‘That is a member of parliament who has nowhere to hide’, because we will go back through the Hansard. I believe the member for Sanderson is challenging his own Caucus with this because he has four years on the record saying, ‘If you put too much pressure on too hard, too soon, people will leave’. Territorians are telling not only the opposition but people right across their community that they are fearful of this as a policy; they feel it is too much, too hard, too soon and it should be done in a more responsible way.
The Leader of the Opposition has put forward how Labor would do it, how Labor was going to do it, but this new government knows better.
This morning’s contribution from the Chief Minister seems to suggest he does not listen, he does not want to listen, which allows for those wonderful conspiracies that there is a third party in this debate pulling the strings. That is of great concern. We will go through this session with some more monumental changes made by this government: the hand-picked Planning Commission and Environment Protection Authority. We have already had the hand-picked Tourist Commission. We are now looking at a government which refuses to listen and is going headlong into whacking Territorians with significant utilities increases which will raise the cost of living. I wonder where the rural members are in this debate.
Where are the regional CLP members, the new Indigenous liberals of the Northern Territory, because people in the regions are telling me they have great concern? I will participate in this debate representing people from the regions as I move through Alice Springs, the Barkly and, most recently, over the weekend, in Darwin. I have consolidated much public advice and opinion on the issue the Leader of the Opposition has brought to this parliament for a very important debate.
The Treasurer said in Question Time today, ‘It will be hurtful and harmful to every Territorian’. The member for Nelson brought the Treasurer back to account with another question which showed how out of touch she is and the conflict she has involved herself in. In one breath she is telling Territorians in the regional and remote areas - and this is from Question Time on 31 October 2012. The question came from the member for Nelson. The Treasurer thanked the member for his question and said:
- There will be no change to Indigenous Essential Services. Those communities will not be affected by any increases in tariffs.
Today the Treasurer tells me, as a person from the regional and remote areas, all Territorians will be affected by the tariff increases in power, water and sewerage. I am wondering what is happening with the puppeteer pulling the strings, or the number of puppeteers. I engage in thoughts that this could be really dangerous politics if this is the truth because I have lived through this.
I lived through the CLP old guard of the 1980s and the 1990s as a public servant. I was a public servant whose career was capped by a vindictive government out of touch with reality, which was eventually thrown out with a massive debt and was controlled by a third party - by others who were pulling the strings - the old guard of the Northern Territory.
The Treasurer has been contradictory and I am concerned, as a person who lives in the regional and remote areas. I believe constituents are concerned. We are not on the street scaremongering as the Chief Minister suggested, we are listening to Territorians. When people talk about price hikes of 30%, 40%, 25%, they have legitimate concerns; they are Territory families.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, as it is 12 noon, do you wish to continue at a later time?
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Debate suspended.
PETITION
Cyclist and Pedestrian Safety
on Charles Eaton Drive
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 106 petitioners praying that Charles Eaton Drive be made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- Ministers for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and for Transport
This petition concerns the safety of cyclists and pedestrians along Charles Eaton Drive. While Charles Eaton Drive is predominantly used by motorists, including trucks and buses, a significant number of cyclists commute along this road. Pedestrians, including children, regularly walk along and across the road. There is no shoulder for most of the length of the drive, and it is bordered by loose gravel. Consequently, cyclists are forced to share the lane with motorists who often overtake dangerously close to cyclists. These actions force cyclists off the road and onto the unstable gravel which in some areas drops to a sloped gradient. Such actions can typically result in a cyclist being seriously injured. The recent tragic death of a cyclist who was hit by a car while crossing at the McMillan Road/Charles Eaton Drive intersection highlights a black spot for users of Charles Eaton Drive.
The undersigned therefore call on the ministers responsible for road safety to:
1. make Charles Eaton Drive safer for cyclists and pedestrians by providing a cycle path along its full length, or at least properly constructed (non-erodable) shoulders of sufficient width for safe cycling on both sides of the road, and
2. install traffic lights to service pedestrians and cyclists who need to cross at the McMillan Road/Charles Eaton Drive intersection.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and Government
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rejoin the debate on the censure motion of the Chief Minister and the government. I quote the Chief Minister’s response to the debate, ‘We will not be governed by petitions’. It was very interesting that a petition was just presented, and the Chief Minister, in his response, told this House, ‘We will not be governed by petitions’, and went on to elaborate.
However, let us go back to the issue in debate: these tariff increases. I questioned the new regional members of the CLP asking them where they were, how they participated in the discussions, and how they were when the discussion went to protecting the lower socio-economic groups across the Northern Territory, particularly in the regional and remote areas.
The issue of broken promises is important in politics. It is important for community leaders, especially community leaders elected on their vision and promises. If promises are given to drive down the cost of living, prevent cross-border migration and grow the Territory, and then they are broken with very shallow strategies about fast cash grabs in the utility sector for possible ulterior motives, then that breaks the promise. Promises are important to people, and important to people in the bush as well, and the Borroloola story is a good one for election promises.
The then Leader of the Opposition, who I had never seen in the Gulf Country before, decided to fly in and make some promises. The big promises were that he would break up the land councils, scrap the shires, and build a business centre in Borroloola which would accommodate Centrelink, for instance. There were also promises about roads to outstations. I asked some of the identified community leaders, ‘Would you believe a guy who has dropped in from an aeroplane with two television crews to sign a whole heap of promises before a Territory election?’ These are grassroots people in the Gulf Country who I have been associated with for over 30 years. That is how I let out in response to the political stunt pulled in Borroloola.
However, the promises are okay, because the promises went down the track to Tennant Creek. The promise is for a youth centre, which is a great idea. The CLP government will be delivering a youth centre in Tennant Creek. The promises were for a family crisis centre - absolutely. This will be a new concept, like the Barkly Work Camp is a new concept in corrections. That is a great promise and I welcome it. You guys will now deliver that and the people of Tennant Creek are expecting it because it was promised by the CLP candidate, much to the disappointment of the unfortunate member for Braitling who woke up on Sunday morning, but we will not go back to that.
Alpurrurulam in the eastern Barkly - a very strong promise - the shire will be scrapped and the resources will be returned to create the Alpurrurulam Community Government Council, and they know what they want. They want civil construction plant and equipment. They were promised that and it will have to be delivered, unless, of course, those people who represent the CLP are prepared to say, ‘No, it was only gammon. We didn’t really mean it. We are doing our best to rack up the cash to deliver it, but the priorities will be X, Y and Z.’ Let us see where Alpurrurulam in the eastern Barkly sits in the mini-budget and the subsequent budgets of this new government.
I was privileged to drive on the Lajamanu road the other day and see the work the previous government had done to it. Then to hear there was a commitment to seal that road - that is a great commitment. That will be 112 km at $1m a kilometre: $112m. I am sure the member for Port Darwin, when he flinched on the Port Keats Road, will do a double take when he realises the number crunch on these remote roads promised in the election. Let us ensure we are honest with people and, if we make promises, we deliver. It is as simple as that.
Let us talk about the cycle of regional and remote communities in relation to regional towns. Under this government there has been a combination of effects. We will talk about Tennant Creek. The combination of effects has led to another massive price hike in power, water and sewerage to the residents of the regional and remote areas. It has been a compounding effect of other policy decisions and the first one was, ‘We will slash public sector jobs’. In the election there was a promise there would be no job cuts but, ‘We will slash public sector jobs’, and that has started. The precursor to slashing jobs in Tennant and the Barkly was to cut HDA and travel budgets.
Immediately, a small identified community at Tennant Creek – there are many battlers in Tennant Creek and many people trying to do their jobs suddenly started to come under the pump, the psychology of which was, ‘How secure am I? How secure is my future, and how secure is the future for my family here?’ The business and consumer community collided and there was a downturn in confidence.
With a small economic base like Tennant Creek, when public servants stop buying sandwiches at the caf for lunch that has a big impact. We are not talking about a big town like Alice Springs or a city like Darwin or Palmerston. We are talking about a regional centre which immediately suffered these effects. This was policy implementation by a new government - smash, crash from day one, and the confidence started to be eroded.
The Alice Springs Centralian Advocate ran some interviews the other day. I was really pleased to read about the Tennant Creek businesses that responded. There is no doubt about us in Tennant Creek, we are battlers with a, ‘We will survive’ attitude. The businesses interviewed spoke rationally. They know it is coming. They said they are not doing too badly at the moment, there is a bit of uptake coming into the festive season, but the power, water and sewerage hikes will hit them. However, they will not pass that onto the consumer, they will bear it.
The businesses will realise the consumer base has dwindled. The consumer base has shrunk because the confidence has gone and, where we are in the Territory, people in the cycle of a regional town - Territory stories this government refuses to accept or listen to are about planning for Christmas and New Year, for the annual holiday to visit families down south, and then about planning to pay all the bills when they get back. I have lived like that for 30 years. That is the cycle we go in. We have our festive season or we go away on trips, we come back, and then we have to have a serious plan about paying the bills, as the Chief Minister says.
We will find not only has the business sector been hit with higher costs, but it does not want to pass them on. However, you know how economics works. The consumers have lost confidence. We will come back to massive hikes in the utilities charges. It defines the difference in policy and that is the crux of this debate. It is about how Labor policy is to continue to grow what I call a new frontier not the last frontier.
I used to talk about the last frontier, and I only wish I had arrived 20 years earlier. Now I talk about the new frontier, and it is about ensuring we keep that momentum going because the Territory is a growth place for northern Australia, the future is bright, yet a new government has reduced confidence. It has smashed people and continues to bulldoze its way, its ideas and what it believes.
We talk to people on the streets in Alice Springs, the Barkly and Darwin. I was happy to go into the heartland of the Chief Minister’s electorate on the weekend and talk to people in Blain. They came to a local park because they wanted to talk to elected community representatives about how to get some sanity back into this debate. They were not saying to the Treasurer, ‘Can it!’ They were saying, ‘Get real! Get rationale and understand what this means to Territory families!’
There was a guy with a young family who works hard for a living in the transport industry and we deconstructed the challenges which would be put onto families in that area. He told me with a 40% hike in water he will have no choice but to turn off the water to the garden at home. I thought he might look at conservation measures and other ideas around better water usage. He said he could go down that path but, essentially, something he was proud of, has been working on for 30 years, will have to be cut back.
Imagine what will happen when that translates across the Northern Territory. Tennant Creek did not have the green belt when I arrived, but it has now. Here is the battler who is truly focused on trying to do the right thing. The Chief Minister really concerned me when he assumed we waste water. Statistics once again - Territorians waste much water. In Tennant Creek we are pretty conservative with our water and are also about creating a green belt in the town and an amenity which …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes …..9….. Noes …..15…..
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Ms Finocchiaro
Mr McCarthy Mr Giles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Walker Mrs Lambley
Mr Wood Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, as I usually do with censure motions because they are put together by someone else and worded in ways I do not always agree with, I will not be voting on this motion. However, I will be putting my point of view about the issue of the increase in water, sewerage and electricity tariffs.
I have never liked the word ‘lying’ because, in many ways, it is an offensive word. I believe the government has broken its promise, which is a different thing. My concern about this debate - and we will probably have a debate today and tomorrow - is that the broader picture in relation to debt and what it means to have debt in a place like the Northern Territory is missing.
The reason I asked the Chief Minister a philosophical question today was because I have not heard enough from the government about the foundations on which it is making statements. What is its understanding of debt; what is its understanding of the supply of essential services? Is there a debate about whether essential services should be subsidised? I have a couple of documents here today which deal with the very same issue. We have not really discussed the basis on which much of what I call the later debate is occurring. We have not really had a chance in this parliament to discuss that.
For instance, why do we have to have a surplus in four years time? Is it essential? There is nothing wrong with debt. I had a mortgage that went for 19 or 20 years; I paid off my house ...
Mr Elferink: That is the point, you paid it off.
Mr WOOD: Hang on! Running the Northern Territory is not quite the same as running a house because government continues to buy houses, if you want to look at it from that point of view. It continues to have infrastructure …
Mr Elferink: And you did no repairs on your house? You did not put in a driveway?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: The issue is whether debt is a bad thing in a growing economy. The previous government built this building and State Square, the court house, the original Yulara resort, what is now the Crowne Plaza, and it went into debt. There was quite a time when governments were in debt and the reason - I am talking about in the CLP days - was to keep the economy going. Is that a bad thing? I imagine during the time this government went from surplus to debt, the very same argument put by the CLP for building this and the other buildings I mentioned was to keep the economy going to ensure we did not lose our workforce.
I remember the same arguments from the government about spending large amounts of money on infrastructure for the very same reason: to keep the economy going in times of a global economic crisis, and that is what it did. It said it had the highest infrastructure spending of all time. Of course, that had to come to an end. If we kept going down that path, we would have been well and truly broke.
We make the assertion debt is bad. The question is whether it is manageable debt. That issue needs more discussion. The other issue is why do you have to have this debt wiped out by 2015?
I was reading a statement which said we will have a surplus ...
Mr Elferink: A surplus is not getting rid of debt. That is financial illiteracy, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for all things technical ...
Mr Elferink: For God’s sake, get it right man.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, desist interjecting!
Mr WOOD: The debate about that is occurring after the government has made some drastic decisions which, regardless of all the good arguments the government might put forward as to why, you hit people today with a $2000 a year debt where families are working their butts off to pay existing rents or mortgages. You will hurt them not only financially; you will put mental strain on some of those families which will push them to breaking point.
I have not heard anything from the government except what the Chief Minister said today. It is the first time I have heard something at least recognising there will be an impact on families. He said they are trying to cushion the effect for those people who will be struggling with the implications of this $2000 increase in costs for families.
Not enough of this has being debated. Not only will they have a $2000 a year increase for the provision of essential services, there is no doubt there will be ongoing costs because the cost of goods and services affected by the increases in electricity, water and sewerage will be passed on to the same people. It will not be just a $2000 increase; it will be more than that. I am interested to know if the government, when working out the increase to power, water and sewerage, has done some sums to see what long-term effect this will have on families.
It is all right to say people on this side are taking a popularist point of view and we have to be realistic. I am not saying we should not have to do our best to pay for the cost of electricity, water and sewerage. My question to the Chief Minister was: is there any reason you have to have full cost recovery? Is that what the government wants? Within the cost of running Power and Water there has been large infrastructure expenditure. There has been an upgrade of the generating plants at Channel Island, two new Rolls-Royce generating sets built at Weddell, an upgrade of the generators at Katherine, a replacement generator - I do not know if it has been put in or not - for Tennant Creek, and in Alice Springs there is a large new power station. None of that would be cheap.
If we are talking about whether the government has done anything, it certainly has put money into infrastructure. The Casuarina substation - I do not know how many million dollars that cost - blew up. The Snell Street substation needed repair. Obviously there has been a huge amount of money, capital expenditure, put into upgrading the provision of essential services in the major centres in the Northern Territory.
Does the government intend that those costs be paid for quickly or are they to be spread over 20 or 30 years? Has that been included in the government’s increase in power, water and sewerage? Could the government tell me how much it costs to run Power and Water on an annual basis - that is, the running of Power and Water, fuel, wages, repairs and maintenance and all those things. How much does it cost to run those annually, as distinct from paying off the cost of the infrastructure I mentioned? We will then have some idea what the government is trying to achieve with this increase.
I am concerned that not much of this discussion has occurred previously. Much of it has been in the political arena. Around or after an election there is much, ‘you said this and we said that’. However, there has not been enough discussion about the philosophy of this government in relation to the provision of what I call essential services for the community. They are human rights because every person has the right to water, sewerage and electricity at a reasonable price in this day and age.
Ms Lee interjecting.
Mr WOOD: There must be something in my ear, I can hear something; it must be a bee.
This will hurt people. My question is not whether power and water prices should go up it is why they have to go up instantly. Why cannot the load be spread over a longer period? You cannot belt people over the head with an increase like this and not expect people to be hurt, and they will be hurt. Once upon a time in years gone by the CLP was a family-orientated party which worked with small business. I hope it has not forgotten the foundations it had back in the 1980s and early 1990s. One of the reasons why it ended up in opposition was it became too cosy with big business and forgot the little people. What concerns me in this case is the little people have been left behind in this debate. They will pay and this will hurt many families severely. Two-thousand dollars a year will have a big impact on them.
I am interested to see how people can possibly offset some of these charges, especially in relation to solar power. The government, and the previous government, would promote the idea of solar power but even this area has not been debated fully. The Power and Water Corporation has said you can have up to 5 kW of power on your roof. However, there are questions about how that would affect income for Power and Water and if there would be a budgetary effect should people be allowed to go higher than that. Again, there are other parts of this debate which we have not looked at. We have only concentrated on a section of the debate and, while it is extremely important we concentrate on what the government has done, there was not enough time before the government made this decision to talk about the role of Power and Water and the government in providing essential services at a reasonable price to the community.
The Chief Minister also said - I could not quite follow the logic - more affordable housing. I have yet to see what affordable housing means as I believe affordable land will give you affordable housing. Affordable housing, on its own, will not exist if the land is too expensive. Whilst that may allow people to have a little more money to spend on power and water if their house were to be a fraction cheaper, for existing Territorians who are paying high rents, paying their mortgages, this will make no difference except it will be even harder to pay their mortgage. They will have less money to pay off their mortgage and less money they can use for other things because their rent will still be the same. In fact, the rent will probably go up because of the changes to power, water and sewerage. In this debate we have not had a detailed analysis from the government of what the effect will be, which is disappointing.
The CLP used to be a promoter of the family and of small business. We have heard small business will be affected to the tune of $7800. I have not heard anyone from the government deny that.
I heard the butcher at Humpty Doo might go out of business if he has to pay this extra charge because he is a specialist butcher. Many butchers charge higher prices for their meat than the big supermarkets. Has there been any indication from the government it has looked at the effect these charges will have on those small businesses? This is what your bread and butter, as a Country Liberal Party, used to be: the family and small business. I had hoped you would have looked at those effects and come back to the parliament presenting an analysis of what this will mean and the overall costs.
If you say in the long term things will be good for the Northern Territory because we are taking the hard decisions, you also need to show how that will happen. The promises in the papers - I have all the stuff the government put out during the election – are about reducing the cost of living.
If you say you believe you will reduce the cost of living but will increase the cost of power and water, it would be nice to hear how you will do it because you have already upped the cost of living. If you say in the long-term this will be better for Territorians, show us how. What is your plan to offset this cost - not only offset it neutrally, but negatively? Where will there be savings? You have increased the cost of living by $2500 per year. You promised to reduce the cost of living, which means you have to find savings for Territorians of at least $2500 in other areas so other parts of the economy are not as expensive. You made that promise. You said you would reduce the cost of living and, basically, if you do not we can kick you out. I do not want to, in four years’ time, be worrying about whether you get kicked out or not. I want to ensure, if you say something in relation to the cost of living, people can believe it.
The lower cost of living is the key on one of the glossy brochures about the long-term plan the Country Liberals were putting forward. It says:
- The Country Liberals have a strong plan to better manage government spending, cut waste and deliver services for local families.
The first item is lower the cost of living. I have no problem with waste duplication that is good. The government should be aiming its policies to reduce wastage. This says lower the cost of living and I have not seen anything to show how that will occur.
I would like to see some admission this will hurt families. Before the amounts were announced by the government the lady in charge of Somerville said these charges would really hurt people. I have not heard anything from the government to say how we will help those people hurt by this. This is a human issue; this will hurt people.
Will it drive people over the edge? That concerns me. Financial issues drive people to the end of their tether. I hope the government understands that will happen, and I would like to hear what it will do to help those people. The Chief Minister said he will outline some proposals to help offset the effects. I would like to hear those policies. What will help cushion the effect on families? It is not only families, but single parents, especially one income families. This will really hurt.
The government cannot say, ‘Well, we have to make the tough decisions’. You have to add a little compassion. Whilst the economic rationalist might say, ‘Well, that’s bad luck’, you have to look at what effect this will have on families, on individuals, and you have to clearly state in this debate what you will do about it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Katherine. I am being spoilt as an Independent.
We have not had enough discussion about what the government is doing. It says we have to move out of debt; we have to pay off this debt. I do not have a problem with that. I have a problem with saying it has to be done overnight, and that is the impression people are getting. They are saying, ‘We have to pay off the Power and Water debt’. We should be trying to reduce the debt of Power and Water, but do we have to do it instantly? Can we lessen the burden on families by doing it so they can adjust to it?
I have not heard discussion about the makeup of Power and Water. Infrastructure is one big cost, capital expenditure is a big cost, and the running of Power and Water is also a part of the equation.
I do not always like the tone of censure motions. I am not accusing the Chief Minister of lying, but he has broken a promise. Members of parliament and government can break promises. People accuse Julia Gillard of breaking a promise. They accuse her of lying about the carbon tax. People have the right to change their minds, but they have to admit what they said before is not quite the same as what they say now. That, to me, is breaking a promise people elected the government on. There were so many glossy brochures about reducing the cost of living.
If the government can show us it can reduce the cost of living whilst, at the same time, bump up the price of power, water and sewerage, please tell me and I will be convinced you can reduce the cost of living. At present, I do not believe, from what has been said, you are keeping to your promise. I feel for families. My daughter is one of those who struggles with rent in Palmerston and has three children. This will hurt people and families severely, and I am concerned we will lose people from the Territory. People will come under severe mental strain because of this increase in the cost of living which the government promised it would lower.
I am happy to listen to the rest of the debate. I do not agree with the wording and, traditionally, do not vote on censure motions. However, people will understand my thoughts.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, we came to government on 25 August this year, only 14 weeks ago. Very quickly, it came to our attention that, despite the reports which were made available publically and to us in opposition about the Power and Water Corporation, things were much worse than we ever imagined.
Yes, we have been assisted in this process by the Renewal Management Board, a group of distinguished, professional people, most of whom have committed significant periods of their life to the Northern Territory, and came back willingly to lend us a hand in what they knew would be an enormous exercise: planning and managing our way out of a financial predicament. No one imagined it being as bad as it is.
Dr Neil Conn, head of the Renewal Management Board, provided a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce before the election outlining the seriousness of the financial situation in the Northern Territory. I made myself available to attend that presentation. He left a group of about 300 or 400 people in deathly silence. People were absolutely shocked and dismayed by what Dr Conn presented to them. He gave the people at that breakfast presentation a very stark picture of where the former Labor government has led Territorians: into a financial situation which is indeed bleak, member for Nelson. People will tell you it is not as bad as we are painting, not as bad as the Renewal Management Board maintains, not as bad as people will have you think.
I sat in silence with the hundreds of other people in the room that morning absolutely gobsmacked at what I was hearing. Since 2008 the former Labor government kept spending well beyond the means of the Territory. Revenue was dropping and expenditure was increasing. We have ended up with a fiscal imbalance a population of 233 000 people cannot sustain.
As the Chief Minister mentioned, we are paying $750 000 per day in interest repayments on a nett debt close to $3bn. If we keep spending the way the former Labor government spent over the last four or five years, we will end up with an enormous debt of around $5bn by the end of our term of government in 2015-16.
Coming to government we were dismayed and alarmed by the seriousness of the financial predicament of the Northern Territory. We were faced with making very difficult decisions early in our term. Mind you, we are at the 14 week mark now. The point where we realised we had to make some very difficult decisions, particularly around the Power and Water Corporation, was probably around week five or six. It was glaringly obvious the main problem facing the Territory budget was the Power and Water Corporation. It contributes 40% towards the fiscal imbalance; 40% of the problem with the Territory’s finances is due to the problems in the Power and Water Corporation.
I am giving this explanation mainly for the benefit of the member for Nelson who claimed he did not understand why and how we made these decisions. I am also giving this explanation for the benefit of Territorians. Most people would have heard this explanation before because, fairly consistently over the last 14 weeks, members of this government have been trying with great difficulty to explain a very complex situation.
The reason we target Power and Water Corporation is because it contributes 40% towards the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance at the end of each year is added to the nett debt of the Territory; it is cumulative. At the end of this year we might have a fiscal imbalance, we suggest, of around $800m and that will be added to the nett debt which is climbing, climbing, climbing, compliments of the former Labor government.
Power and Water Corporation contributes a significant amount to that debt and a significant amount to the fiscal imbalance. We found very early in our term - within weeks of coming to office - that the Power and Water Corporation is in a very precarious financial situation, one that is commercially and financially unsustainable and is bordering on the point of insolvency.
This is a story you did not hear from the former Labor government. This is a story the now Leader of the Opposition chooses not to talk about because it is unpalatable, embarrassing, and something she does not want to take any responsibility for, but it is the truth. It is the state of play we are faced with as the new government of the Northern Territory. If we had our way we would be back in 2008 where the former Leader of the Opposition was in a situation of having an almost bottomless pit of GST revenue, where there was a manageable level of debt. She had money to play with, and it was wonderful. It must have been exhilarating spending on things like water parks; spending money on enjoyable and necessary things the Territory wants and requires.
However, we are faced with a situation where there is no money in the bank, no money in the coffers, and the debt is at the highest level ever in the history of the Northern Territory. We are faced with the biggest problem of all: the Power and Water Corporation. We have no money to splash around to impress the people of the Northern Territory. We have no money to exercise anything but restraint and very conservative measures when it comes to how we manage the finances of the Territory.
Our situation is completely foreign to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition as a group. They did not take responsibility for where they have landed us. During their term they did not take time to reflect on the fact things were becoming worse, their level of spending was unsustainable, and very difficult decisions needed to be made fairly soon to rein in this escalating problem.
One decision we made and are talking about today, and which the opposition has censured us about, is to increase electricity, water and sewerage tariffs across the board. We have made this decision with hands on our hearts. It is, undoubtedly, the most difficult decision this government will make in its four-year term. It was a difficult decision because it will deeply hurt and affect most Territorians. Some Territorians - we know who they are - will not be too bothered by this, but most Territorians will feel it. People in this room will feel it. We have not made this decision lightly. We have tried to keep it as minimal as possible, believe it or not. The figures we have come up with are not about full cost recovery which is what the member for Nelson suggests. This is about getting us out of a financial debacle with the assistance of other mechanisms so the Power and Water Corporation can start to function at a reasonably financially sustainable level. It will not make the Power and Water Corporation commercially sustainable; it will not even come close to that.
The Power and Water Corporation has identified $30m worth of operational savings and $52m in capital deferment. A total of $82m has been identified within the Power and Water Corporation as its contribution towards getting out of this financial mire it has found itself in. The other part of the equation which has been brought to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer, for many years is the necessity to increase electricity, water and sewerage tariffs to a level which brings revenue to a point which allows the corporation to function effectively.
With me I have the latest copy of the corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. I doubt whether the former Treasurer has even laid eyes on this. This is the latest one signed off in April 2012, during her term. These documents are released annually. Throughout this document there would be about 20 references to the fact tariffs needed to be increased above and beyond the level of the CPI. The year before, in the 2011-12 Statement of Corporate Intent of the Power and Water Corporation, the same messages were echoed. Revenue had to be increased beyond the level of the CPI. In 2011-12, 2012-13, 2010-11 and 2009-10 the messages were plain and clear right through these documents. For the last four or five years the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, was informed it was essential that revenue increases, through tariff increases, be put in place. Revenue had to be increased. Tariffs had to be increased to provide the revenue Power and Water Corporation needed to reach the minimal level of financial sustainability.
What did the former Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, do? She embarked on what could only be described as a minimal and token effort to increase the revenue generated by the Power and Water Corporation. She chose to increase tariffs by a minimal amount. The only exception was in 2009, when she increased tariffs by 18%. Congratulations to the former Treasurer for having the courage to do that in 2009 because it takes courage. This government knows it takes an enormous amount of courage to make a decision like that. Politically it is unsavoury, unpopular, and risky to make that decision - even 18%.
The former Treasurer decided to implement much lower tariff increases, reflecting CPI increases, with the exception of 1 July 2012, when the government implemented tariff increases commensurate with the CPI increase. Added to that was the carbon tax of the federal government.
It was only in 2009 that the former government implemented a tariff which could have reasonably increased revenue to a level which met the needs of the corporation in order for it to break even - to pay for its expenses. The years that followed demonstrated no commitment whatsoever to fulfil her part of the deal.
It was recommended strongly in the Reeves report released in 2009 that she needed to substantially increase tariffs. She did not do that, and the years that followed really signified the complete financial demise of the Power and Water Corporation.
The former Treasurer, the portfolio minister, undertook quite an ambitious capital works program. Once again, if I refer you to the Statement of Corporate Intent last financial year – 2011-12 – 62% of what was a considerable spend on capital works was paid through borrowings and from 2011 to 2013, the forecast is 78% of the capital works program would have been paid for by borrowings. These are alarming figures. A corporation of this kind should not be borrowing any more than 50% of capital works expenditure through that means. However, 62% for last year and 78% for 2011-13 are staggering figures, very risky and very irresponsible.
The member for Nelson mentioned the capital works program and what was going on there. Yes, the former government was forced into a corner on that score. It had to make some major investments into the Power and Water Corporation in order to upgrade the facilities, the infrastructure, because of what happened at the Casuarina Zone Substation. However, when you embark on such an enormous capital works program you also, as a business manager, have to think about revenue. The only source of revenue the former Treasurer had in mind was to borrow the money, which demonstrates to me and anyone else who has had a hand in business that she really had no idea.
However, I will leave the technical, complicated explanation there because the message I am trying to give the people of the Northern Territory is, when you talk about who is responsible for the decision on tariff increases, the government is responsible. We take full responsibility for the very difficult decision we made last week to increase the electricity, water and sewerage tariffs. However, what responsibility does the former government take in all this? I have heard no sense of responsibility on its part whatsoever. The former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, has shirked it all off and plays the innocent party in all this, milking it for what it is worth.
There is a sense of karma here; what goes around comes around. You were not re-elected. People did not have faith in how you were managing the Northern Territory. We will prove to Territorians over the next four years that we will manage things, we will get back on track, and we will reduce the cost of living.
Motion negatived.
NORTHERN TERRITORY ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY BILL
(Serial 7)
(Serial 7)
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today about the environment as there is nothing more important. The Territory has one of the most enviable lifestyles in the world based around our beautiful natural environment and unique cultural heritage.
Growing up in the Territory, I had amazing experiences mainly based around our adventures exploring our Territory. In the south, with the beautiful town of Alice Springs nestled in the MacDonnell Ranges, one of my strong memories of Alice Springs was participating or watching sport from Traeger Park sports precinct looking out at the ranges, particularly around sunset. It is simply stunning and, when I think of Alice Springs, this memory often comes to mind.
As you travel up the track through our beautiful desert country, you move into the subtropical then tropical savannah country with Kakadu and Litchfield National Parks and, to the east, the Arnhem Land coast is an untouched treasure. I have been lucky to experience many of these places and thank the traditional owners of these lands for sharing their special place with me so I can appreciate how important our environment is.
The Northern Territory is a vast unspoilt country of beauty. We are in a unique position in the Territory with so much of our land untouched by development. We have a tourism industry based around this vast and undeveloped landscape. People travel from all over the world to visit an untouched natural place of cultural and physical significance. It is something so many can only dream of: the natural beauty largely left untouched for thousands of years. Therefore, when it comes to legislation about our environment, we must ensure it is strong and well thought out, not rushed. We will not get a second chance with our environment if we get it wrong.
I and my family, like many Territorians, live here for the unique lifestyle based around our natural environment. Where else on your day off can you easily visit Litchfield National Park, or spend the day on the harbour visiting places such as Mica Beach, which is unspoilt. Indigenous Territorians have been here for many thousands of years and have a unique and deeply personal connection to the Northern Territory landscape.
Any measures to improve the long-term protection of our environment – physical, cultural and social – are a good thing. The environment is our most precious asset and without a safe, clean and sustainable environment our future is bleak. As the Territory develops and expands we must ensure we protect our uniqueness and ensure future generations of Territorians have access to this same unique lifestyle we enjoy today compared to our southern cousins.
In the Northern Territory we have a special responsibility: our largely unspoilt environment, both urban and regional. We do not want to repeat the mistakes made in southern jurisdictions. On our visits down south Territorians see many examples where legislation and poorly thought out development has not protected the environment and has caused people living in the area problems. The poor planning on Sydney’s northern beaches not only created a traffic nightmare, but the huge high rise developments along some of the beaches have, at times, looked like they would be swallowed up by the beaches and ocean. Only through great expense and time have they been saved.
This legislation we are debating today not only has a role to play in protecting our environment from large commercial development, but also needs to protect our quality of life in an urban setting. One element missing from the legislation is noise pollution. Both domestic and commercial noise pollution can cause great harm to the surrounding social environment. In such a warm climate we need to encourage tropical living, yet an ill-placed or noisy pool pump or air conditioner can often mean windows have to be kept shut, defeating tropical-style housing development. Industry needs to have strict guidelines in place so it has a clear framework around noise pollution. We must protect the community from unacceptable noise, whether it is commercial construction or domestic noise.
We take for granted we have an abundance of water, particularly in northern Australia, but water security is becoming one of the biggest environmental issues we face across Australia. Long-term water supply is a challenge for government in both residential and commercial development.
It is not clear if the new EPA will have this as a major environmental issue to consider when providing sound advice to both government and Territorians more generally on ecologically sustainable development. Development needs to be carefully guided.
I am conscious of our development challenges in the Territory, particularly in remote areas, and job creation in the bush is one of our key objectives. However, we need to be careful of a legacy of issues left from activities which are not well thought out or managed and left for taxpayers to fix in the future.
In the 1940s and 1950s, we saw uranium mining which is still being cleaned up today in the Jawoyn country in southern Kakadu and, more recently, gold-mining activity at Mt Todd which has left untold damage and financial cost to Territorians. As a mother, I am very conscious of leaving unsolved problems for future generations, hoping science will somehow solve them. We must be careful we do not leave a burden for future generations.
There is much change in our environment: increasing acidity in our salt water affecting our sea life, sea levels rising, and changing weather patterns. The loss of biodiversity, including some unique animal and plant species, potentially some unique to the Territory, is a threat. Under this new EPA, who is paying attention to these emerging environmental issues? As a society, we are much more conscious of environmental issues. Does this EPA have a key role in this change or is it purely an assessment of proposals and a regulatory body? Will the Environment Protection Authority have a role in protecting our environment from invasive plants and animals?
These are some of the concerns of Territorians we will have questions about in the committee stage. This legislation seems far more about assessing development projects and less about proactively providing protection for the environment. Development is important, but it must be balanced with protecting our unique environment and ensuring a sustainable quality of life.
This legislation has been promoted as reducing red tape and integrating planning and environmental protection across government, but what is meant by ‘integrating’. My consultation with Territorians has highlighted community cynicism about that, particularly with the political appointments to the head of these two critical bodies. One of the major problems we have with this legislation is the automatic appointment of the Chair of the Planning Commission on the Environment Protection Authority. This creates a risk to the independence of the EPA and a conflict of interest.
One must question why this is necessary and if it is aimed at ensuring projects get special or preferred consideration, such as Arafura Harbour. By increasing the focus of the EPA to assessment and regulation, we are shifting the role of the EPA. The existing EPA has the role of looking at emerging and cumulative issues. How would the work of Charles Darwin University, CSIRO, or our own Parks and Wildlife people help inform the work of the new EPA in ecological sustainable development, particularly with an eye to broad-scale environmental issues?
In the past we have seen the introduction of species, for example, gamba grass for pastoral improvement. This has had a huge cost to the community and the environment. Who would review and provide advice on these types of issues and look at the introduction of new species into the Territory?
Prevention is always better than cure rather than repeating the mistakes of others, particularly here in our special Territory. One of the most important responsibilities of a government is to support economic development, but not at an all-cost approach. We must have an eye to the future on behalf of future generations.
Our concern is not focused on reducing red tape and more certainty for business, but getting the balance right and the need for consultation and engagement with our community about the proposed changes.
The role of the government in protecting our environment is vital. We must have in place legislation which ensures all members of our community play their part in protecting the environment. I question the speed of the introduction of this legislation and what consultation has taken place. In looking at this legislation we consulted a number of stakeholders, and I thank them for their time and input.
We can see what you are aiming for in increasing independence of the EPA and giving the executive powers of assessment, compliance and enforcement. We recognise your move to ensure the EPA is not subject to ministerial direction, but who is representing the grassroots community values and perspectives in this new legislation?
In carrying out its work protecting the environment, how will cross-cultural perspectives on environmental values and notions of wellbeing be determined and included as part of the core business of the new EPA? How can the community ask for a review of environmental assessments and conclusions of the new EPA? This is an area of major concern.
The legislation aims to provide improved compliance and enforcement through greater autonomy. However, this is not necessarily a given if the work is not resourced properly. I will be looking to the mini-budget to see what level of resources will be available to the new EPA and what administrative support will be provided in the context of job cuts across the NT public service. We will be watching, over time, to see where the advice to the EPA comes from and the mix of views which informs its work: advice from our own skilled workforce and a knowledgeable community, or a panel of consultants.
In your second reading speech you said there will be no new regulatory functions required for the EPA. Perhaps there needs to be, and this is an example of the potential benefit of more opportunity to improve this legislation if we had more time for consultation rather than rushing the legislation through.
Many Territorians are concerned about one agency having both an assessment and compliance role as proposed in this legislation. Some believe it is better to keep those roles separate. The public needs to have confidence in the EPA. This key issue could have been canvassed through proper public consultation.
You talk about being open and accountable, yet I have huge concerns around the independence of the new EPA. At first glance it seems attractive to have the authority independent of government, but confidence in that arrangement is not helped by the hand-picking of board members.
The Chair of the EPA has been appointed with no advertisement or calls for expressions of interest, although it was part of the 100-day plan to do so.
It seems we have two political appointees for the Chair of the EPA and the new Planning Commission. The notion of independence as a major selling point to the bill is brought further into doubt when you look at the powers and delegations in clause 36.
What qualifications would be sought in the members of the EPA, particularly in respect to issues relating to the quality of life? Who will bring this advice and make these judgments? Also, it is not clear how assessments and recommendations may be appealed. This is one of a number of questions I will clarify in the committee stage.
The bill provides for the EPA to focus on mitigation, remediation and continuing improvement. The important thing is transparency and the work of good people supporting the EPA, and how effective the authority will be in doing its job.
We will be watching the funding provided to the new EPA. In relation to the government’s commitment to continually improve, the current EPA Act provides for a review of the legislation after five years. This new legislation is silent on that type of review.
I want to again stress the importance of consultation around the legislation with the business community, environmental NGOs and land councils, particularly if they represent more than 50% of the Territory’s land mass.
Being environmentally sustainable means using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources. We need an ecological process where life depends on and maintains a total equality of life for now and in the future.
The definition of this is not in the bill, which is in other states’ bills and nationally. By not including reference to these guiding principles, it is not as comprehensive as we have found in other legislation. In committee stage, I will ask questions around the absence of these precautionary principles.
The community deserves more opportunity to discuss and comment on issues like this. The community would feel more comfortable and confident after an opportunity to discuss this legislation as the environment is one of the most important things we should be concerned about.
I do not apologise for suggesting the legislation be slowed down and subject to wider consultation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill presented by the honourable Chief Minister. I want to congratulate the member for Nightcliff on what was clearly a very well thought through argument in this parliament.
You obviously went to pains to go through the bill, dissect each part of it, and come up with some very relevant points you feel need to be raised at committee level. I encourage you to take the opportunity during committee stage to ask all those questions and seek clarification. Well done, member for Nightcliff.
This government has an unashamed commitment to sustainable economic development in the interests of providing opportunities for all Territorians. We also have an equally strong commitment to accountability, transparency and meaningful regulation of the environment.
My ministerial responsibilities of Mines and Energy and Primary Industry and Fisheries are integral to the development of jobs, wealth and a better lifestyle for Territorians. There are multiple mining projects in various stages of development or expansion, including the iron ore province at the Roper, Phase 3 of McArthur River Mine, rare earths at Nolans Bore as well as Mount Peake and Moly Hill in Central Australia to name but a few.
From a primary industry perspective, the Australian Agricultural Company’s abattoir at Livingstone will be a significant development for the Top End. This government is committed to advancing the expansion of the Ord River irrigation area into the Territory.
While the government is strongly supportive of these projects going ahead, it does so in the context of a rigorous environmental assessment and regulatory process. I have made no secret of the fact the Northern Territory is open for business, and so it should be. After languishing in so many areas for years, the signal to the broader community, the investment community, those who would invest in the Northern Territory, to grow our economic capacity is very clear.
However, part of the message I have been delivering to the broader community is we are open for business but not at the expense of the environment. We will continue to regulate and monitor environmental processes around all developments occurring across the Territory whether they be in the mining sector, the primary industry sector, or others.
The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, the EPA, will deliver that rigorous assessment process in an independent and accountable manner. When talking about independence of an EPA, shortly after the election in August I was cleaning out my parliamentary office on the fifth floor and came across an old manila folder with a pile of papers in it. On the front it had ‘independent EPA’. This is something we have been talking about for many years. We believed, in opposition, the EPA needed something more; it needed more teeth, more scope, and needed to do things it considered necessary in determining environmental protection for greater parts of the Northern Territory. We have achieved that in this bill.
It should be noted that not only will the NT EPA be an independent body, but there are also clear requirements about transparency in relation to assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. There are quite a number of references to the ‘responsible minister’. In many cases, matters which fall from the EPA to departmental level and through ministers will fall onto my desk; I will be the responsible minister. I am quickly going to run through the provisions in the act which fall into the category of scenarios.
Where the responsible minister has received a report and made a determination consistent with the assessment report, the minister must advise the NT EPA within seven days. That is a normal reporting process. Where the responsible minister makes a decision contrary to an assessment report, the minister must notify the NT EPA of the reasons why and table that explanation in this House within six sitting days. Similarly, where the minister responsible for the NT EPA makes additional comments on the assessment report before providing it to the responsible minister, the minister for the NT EPA is obliged to follow the same process; that is, where the comment is consistent with the assessment report the minister must advise the NT EPA within seven days. Where that comment is contrary to the assessment report, the minister is required to inform the NT EPA of the decision why and table the explanation in this House within six sitting days.
This is an excellent example of the level of transparency which has never occurred in environmental regulation in the Northern Territory before. Before the election and during the election campaign the Chief Minister, formerly the Leader of the Opposition, told Territorians time after time that we would be an honest, open, accountable and transparent government. The bill before the House is an example of the commitment the Chief Minister made to Territorians.
However, it is acknowledged there may be times when a recommendation of the NT EPA may be difficult or impossible to achieve within the operational requirements of a developmental project. Under those circumstances, Territorians can take comfort from the fact they will have a clearer explanation about what occurred and that the government accepts full responsibility and accountability - wait for it, there is that word again, ‘accountability’ - for that decision. We will not shy away from our responsibilities; we take accountability very seriously.
I have a strong expectation that the departments for which I am responsible will have a cooperative relationship with the NT EPA in relation to projects which undergo environmental assessment. This model of a strong independent NT EPA is a critical framework which will support responsible development.
In general terms, the NT EPA will be able to provide advice to the minister, either at the request of the minister or on its own initiative - that is important, on its own initiative - on a variety of critical environmental issues. These include achieving appropriate and effective environmental policy and management for the Territory, legislation related to the environment and its administration, issues affecting the Territory’s capacity to achieve ecologically sustainable development, emerging environmental issues, the cumulative impacts of development on the environment, or any other matters related to the objectives of the NT EPA.
There is a further transparency obligation on the minister in relation to advice provided by the NT EPA. The critical point is, as a genuinely independent body, the NT EPA will have a very broad scope to provide advice to the Territory government on environmental issues which will need to be considered as the Territory grows under this government’s policies. The NT EPA will also be resourced properly for the first time and will have complementary regulatory responsibilities under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. I note the comments from the member for Nightcliff about watching the mini-budget to see if that will appear. The commitment that it will be resourced properly has been given.
Delivery of this legislation is a key component of this government’s program for Territory development in a responsible and transparent manner. An independent EPA is something the Northern Territory has lacked. We called for it from opposition many years ago. Today, 27 November 2012, I support this bill and expect it to be passed this afternoon.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill. In researching this bill I went back to the original EPA inquiry report. There were four options in that report. One was to leave things as they were, B was my option, C was the CLP’s option, D was the ALP’s option and guess which option has now come forward? It is C which was very similar to what has been put forward today.
When we brought out the recommendations for this inquiry we all agreed on them. It was not a minority report; however, having four options I guess you covered that. Everyone had their own version of what the EPA should look like. I believed the EPA should be more like the Development Consent Authority because it dealt with issues on a continual basis. The CLP wanted an independent environment commissioner and the ALP got what it wanted, which is more or less what we have today. I do not necessarily agree that the last EPA was not independent. You could argue this one might be more independent and I will get to that later, but the people on the previous one, generally speaking, looked at issues independently, and you can see that from some of the reports.
I remember the hard work Mr Andrew Tupper put into the development of the EPA. We have to remember this was the first time we had an EPA; it was evolving. Some of the changes which occurred later were due to the good work of the member for Brennan, who put forward, in opposition, a number of amendments. The previous government was willing to put those amendments to parliament and there were changes to the existing EPA.
I will not be supporting this bill, not because I am against having an EPA; it is good we have an EPA. I do not believe it can be independent while the Chair of the EPA will be part of another organisation - the Planning Commission - and the Chair of the Planning Commission will be on the board of the EPA. The EPA has to be at arm’s length from those other organisations because, notwithstanding they might be good people who represent those positions, it will be perceived that the EPA can never be truly independent as it should be.
I should go back one step. The Chief Minister, in his second reading speech, said in the very first line the purpose of the bill was to establish an independent Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority with executive powers for environmental assessment, compliance and enforcement. It will not achieve that and I will explain my reasons.
People might have heard me on the radio when I used the well-known example of proposals in years gone by to develop Ludmilla Creek, called the Arafura marina proposal. I use this as a hypothetical case because no decision has been made, but it is a case people know. The Planning Commission might decide, in its review of some strategic development in the Northern Territory, that Arafura marina is a good thing to look at and decide to investigate the proposed development and make a decision. That decision is made by the board, but two of the people on the board are the Chair of the Planning Commission and Chair of the EPA. For argument’s sake, the Planning Commission recommends this is a great thing for the Northern Territory; it should go ahead, it has great financial spin-offs for the Northern Territory, for business, for people wanting to keep their boats there, people who want to live next to a canal, and it will improve the lifestyle of the Northern Territory.
Then the EPA decides to look at it. ‘Ludmilla Creek is a nice little creek on Darwin Harbour with mangroves and many fish. For years people have enjoyed the area for recreation and fishing. We should look at it from an environmental perspective.’ Two people who have already been part of the decision-making process on the Planning Commission will be making decisions on the same proposal the EPA is looking at. The Chair of the Planning Commission, who is on the EPA board, will now make a decision about whether this is an environmentally suitable development. The Chair of the EPA, who is on the Planning Commission, will also be part of the decision-making process.
How can anyone believe they will not have a conflict of interest? The government must know there will be a conflict of interest. It has put in clause 24, which excludes any challenge by anyone in any court or tribunal over a decision made by those people which would normally be regarded as a conflict of interest. It excuses that in clause 24 of the bill which, to me, is an admission by the government there is a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest you do not have an independent EPA.
If there is an argument that we need a planner, let us employ a planner who is not on any other board. Find a planner and put that person on the EPA. If you want an environmental person on the Planning Commission, you can employ a person with environmental credentials who has nothing to do with the EPA. That way you will be truly independent. That way it will apply in practice.
Clause 24 admits you have a conflict of interest which will destroy the perception of this body being independent. That is sad because even though I have other issues, I could have lived with those. This one I cannot live with. There is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.
The other concern I have is - this was part of option C in the original inquiry into the EPA - the government has gone on a more regulatory role, an enforcement role, by taking over the department of Environment. You have now expanded the role of the EPA and it can be argued that is good or bad. The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the NT Horticultural Association opposed an EPA when this was discussed. Business did not like the idea of an EPA. The findings of the committee said largely, industry and business did not support the creation of an EPA in the Northern Territory. They were concerned it would add more bureaucracy and limit the growth of business.
It is interesting to see we have given the EPA a bigger role than it had before. You have a series of government departments and many of them - some may not affect the environment - can affect the environment physically - the Department of Infrastructure might want to put a highway through the mangroves somewhere, or the department of Education might want to put a building on a fairly sensitive area.
The EPA could look at those departments, if it was a large enough development, and assess if there was an environmental impact. Also, the previous EPA was able to look at the department of Environment to see if it was doing its job. A classic example is the Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court flooding. I wrote to the EPA and it conducted an investigation into the role of the department in relation to how that parcel of land was able to be subdivided.
Now the department is part of the EPA, who checks that? That was important because, in the case of Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court, an independent body said, ‘Department, you are not doing your job. Your job is to be the regulator, to enforce, to ensure planning and developments are done according to the act.’ The EPA could make that public and you hope the department would pull its socks up and do what was required.
I am concerned we now have no one to check the checker. They have taken the department under their wing and who will investigate to ensure they are doing their job? That was the advantage of having the EPA away from the department. There are other issues I will go into in the committee stage.
I am disappointed there does not appear to be any place - it may be intended, but I do not see it written as in the old legislation - where the public could be given some indication their request to the EPA is to be considered. Under section 5B(1) of the old act, the public was included. That is not in the new bill.
I wrote to the EPA about 16 months ago about a large drain at Berrimah Business Park. People might have noticed when they go past the old Coonawarra naval base there is a big park on the side and all the water from that park has been, by design, made to flow into Knuckey Lagoon. I had a letter from a constituent who said he was concerned that in the big Wet the water was already close enough to his house. What would happen if we had much extra water?
I also had concerns about pollution and siltation coming from that development because the drain was being poorly designed. It was the usual old-fashioned developer style of drain - get the water, get it off quick and who cares where it goes. It was a concrete invert in the middle of a gravel drain.
I wrote to the EPA and they investigated it. My question is: as a member of the public, would I have any rights under this legislation, as before, to ask the EPA to look at an issue I might raise? Also, what is on the books from the previous EPA the new EPA has said it is not going to continue with because the drain has not been finished yet.
My understanding is that letters went out to people who were involved in the design for their comments. A draft report was written and letters went out asking for comment on the report. I am concerned that all the hard work over the last 16 months has died because the new Wet Season is with us. The drain is the same old drain, except they put some hay bales down to restrict the amount of siltation. However, my concern is, in this day and age when we start putting water into a conservation reserve - Knuckey Lagoon - the standards should be high regardless, especially the standards for releasing water from what is more or less a commercial/industrial area. They should be pretty high before you are allowed to release water into a sensitive area like that.
We need to protect areas like Knuckey Lagoon. It is one of those magic areas very close to Darwin. People drive past but sometimes do not realise the importance of the area. If you ever go there at sunset, down Fiddlers Lane where Adina Poole, my good friend lives, watch the number of pelicans, magpie geese, jabirus - all types of birds congregate in that area. It is a wonderful area very close to Darwin, and I will throw my two bobs worth in: I hope it is not part of the infill. However, I move on from that.
I will raise some of these issues during the committee stage. Chief Minister, I have a fundamental issue with it. I do not disagree in general with what you are doing. Whilst I might have some issues here and there, I could probably live with those. I cannot accept that, by having people on one board and on the other board, you can claim it will be truly independent. In the eyes of the public, that will always be seen as a conflict of interest. As I said, clause 24 of the bill admits there will be a conflict of interest.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to further discuss some of these issues if I need to during the committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I join the debate on this new bill. I have communicated this to the electorate in Barkly, circulated it to a number of people and asked them to make comment on the bill. I have some comments which will translate into questions as well, where constituents are keen to find out more about government and its new legislation.
As I have communicated in the electorate, new governments bring in new legislation and that is normal. However, when we have the calming speech of the member for Katherine and the underlying sentiment of ‘trust me’ that is fine. I compliment him on a nice speech without any cynicism. I remember when they were in opposition, ‘who wrote it for you’, the ‘fifth floor spin’ and all the negativity which went on year after year - all the good old tricks. I will not go anywhere near that because I learnt so much about it in four years of having the privileged position of working in the government.
The ‘trust me’ line I do not buy, nor did the constituents I circulated the proposed legislation to. They said they cannot buy the ‘trust me’ line because this legislation is far too important and will impact on the Territory’s future.
I had a very privileged position in the previous government being the Minister for Lands and Planning and, therefore, became associated with environmental protection and the previous government’s Environmental Protection Authority. I started to connect a few dots when I was researching this legislation, this bill before the House. I started to reflect on the change. If it is not broken why do you have to fix it? I understood it is a new government and wants to put its stamp on the Territory, or should I say restamp the Territory after a period in the wilderness. I remember the 27 years before that. The old DNA and values have re-emerged. Therefore, legislation needs to be properly scrutinised.
As I connected the dots, I thought of my experiences as the Minister for Lands and Planning - the development community, and the tension between good economic sustainable development which acknowledges the constraints and delivers for the environment. It was certainly a great learning curve and a very good experience with the Territory community. I remember a clich I put out early in the piece. The Urban Development Institute of Australia invited me to a Saturday meeting and they were challenging me. There was an understanding I was a hick from the bush and what the hell was I doing in this position?
With good challenges around the table, I put out the clich that I grew up in Sydney and wanted to see cranes on the skyline. That was picked up and celebrated for a number of years following. From dropping that clich on the table that day to what I subsequently learnt over the years, there is a great responsibility for putting cranes on the skyline or, for that matter, any development throughout the Northern Territory.
I also picked up on the member for Nightcliff as a home grown Territorian, a young mother raising a young family. There was passion in her contribution to the debate about getting it right and ensuring we hand over to the next generation, and generations after that, a very responsible outcome when we talk about getting the balance right between development and the protection of the environment.
We go back to connecting the dots. I remember the continual mantra of the then opposition about failure to release land. It was a continual line of failure to release land. I started to take a big interest in the greater Darwin area. I had a good knowledge of the rest of the Territory, but I really needed to learn quickly about the greater Darwin area. Those were enjoyable days. I continue to revisit projects the previous government put in train which are rolling out now and represent good development for the greater Darwin area. Darwin is the capital of northern Australia, and do not forget the city of Palmerston.
However, the mantra was about failure to release land and the continual attacks on what government was not doing while I was out there kicking dirt, seeing these developments take shape and learning about the constraints - the important areas where there are critical constraints to development.
Yet the opposition in those days was making statements and the now Chief Minister said, ‘I flew into Darwin and looked at all the land down there’. He was highly critical of government because it was not developing it, did not know how to develop it. In the job working with experts, I understood the reasons there were serious constraints around developing ‘all the land down there’ and why it was so important to get it right.
The Environment Protection Authority was a major stakeholder in these processes. It made assessments and put forward advice, scientific knowledge, and background relating to social, cultural and economic scientific explorations around development proposals. That was all factored into the complex decision-making processes of government. They were team processes. It was not supreme ministerial authority; it was a partnership with the public sector listening and consulting with the community, it took on board the development community and accepted advice on the serious environmental issues that needed to be factored in.
I remember a very significant development I was involved with as the minister. All the outcomes seemed good but there was a major challenge around sewerage: effluent disposal. As I took the time and energy to learn about it I started to understand the complex nature and the challenges. The developer wanted to take a different route, very much a shortcut, at a reduced cost and tried to convince government it would be okay. Reflecting on that, I am glad we took the long way around and worked our way through the development. It achieved its objectives in the long run; it is up and running and the outcome for effluent disposal was appropriate. It took a bit longer, cost much more, but it delivered for future Territorians, as the member for Nightcliff said in her contribution to debate about ensuring you get the balance right.
This bill is recreating an Environment Protection Authority and the member for Nelson has highlighted a number of concerns. I share those concerns, and some of the constituents in the Barkly have questions in other areas.
To go back to the start, it is an honourable bill with honourable intention; however, it focuses purely on industry. When I relive the auditory assaults I had in this House, elsewhere, and in the media from the then opposition, it is not so much about fast-tracking, cutting red tape or focusing on one sector of the community, it is about being holistic, inclusive and consultative.
Good planning needs to be based on good consultation. One thing the previous government did right, with all the criticism going on - there are many things - was the Enquiry by Design process when planning for the new city of Weddell and the new suburb of Kilgariff. That was a very good learning curve and the current government needs to factor in the lessons learnt. Enquiry by Design is important in the consultative process and taking the community with you as opposed to stepping outside of community consultation and making the decisions in a more closed or closeted environment. The member for Nelson deconstructed some of the structural issues around the new Environment Protection Authority and mentions the crossover between the chairs.
The politics of that is the member for Katherine says ‘trust me’ and the election campaign from the CLP said ‘trust us’. They delivered certain promises yet, within the 100 day period, promises have been broken. Important elements of the design have been changed relating to the appointment of both chairs, one to the Environment Protection Authority and one to the Planning Commission. As a Territorian, as a constituent who raises some concerns, I say, ‘Hang on a minute, I was told one thing then it was changed. Then it is fed back to me that both these appointments are very credible appointments.’ That is good, but it does not reflect generating community trust, the train of community consultation, information, education and awareness as we go through this process together.
Connecting the dots and the auditory assaults I endured through those years about releasing land, releasing land, releasing land, you will have to forgive me for developing the conspiracy theory that perhaps there is another agenda and perhaps that word in the bill ‘integration’ is not in the best interests of good environmental or planning outcomes. Maybe it is a political way of doing business, but the Chief Minister talks strongly in the House about politics clouding things, politics degrading outcomes, and politics getting in the way of serious debate.
I looked at how this started to roll-out through a process of promises, a process of election of a new government, and now a process of steamrolling this through the House. I will never forget as long as I live the statement from the member for Greatorex, ‘Well, we have the numbers, we are going to do this whether you like it or not’.
That resonates with me as a Territorian and I talk about it to my family and constituents. I draw a clear point of reference as an opposition member and say that is not a credible way to do business or take Territorians with you as a government in this very important area. The member for Nelson will have some good questions around that, and I am interested in the minister responding because that was a letdown. I am sure the minister will give that credibility and talk about how integration between these two commissions, which will share the principle office, will deliver better, credible outcomes, and ones which are community consultative and will ensure we get the balance right.
That is my experience, and there is not too much alarm in that. That is rational and fair ground for questioning of this legislation. I will be interested in how the minister advises this House, which is basically advising the Territory, that this is good, this is the way to do business. We will have to broaden the definitions to go much further than industry.
The wording of the bill talks about a perception of inefficiencies and unresponsiveness to industry in regard to the original EPA established in 2008 under the previous government, which had more expanded powers in 2010 - that growing organism, that policy development. The member for Nelson talked about review. I remember learning in this House very early that new legislation is naturally reviewed. It is a good process, a credible and accountable process. The member for Nelson talked about the concern - he has not picked that up and I was not able to find it either - where there are opportunities for this to be reviewed and revisited. When we focus on inefficiencies and unresponsiveness to industry, we have to go back to the drawing board and talk about delivery for Territorians and future generations of Territorians.
There will be a couple of questions on process. A constituent of mine has really gone into the legislation and talked about process around the Environment Protection Authority and its meetings, its quorums, and how it does business. There are a few questions I must ask on behalf of that constituent. We will slowly talk about this legislation delivering better outcomes for the environment.
The member for Katherine spoke, importantly, about the big ticket items: resource development, which relates to regional development. That is a space I am very interested in, having spent more than half my life in that area. It was interesting when the member for Katherine talked about ministerial responsibilities and how it will be a team effort and be inclusive. I look forward to having that explained to me because in the resource sector it will be very important to get the new oil and gas sector right.
We are not only talking about the incredible opportunities coming offshore which will also develop offshore, but about the oil and gas sector in Central Australia. If anybody is familiar with the Beetaloo and Georgina Basins, the exploration programs for oil and gas in those areas are quite extensive and represent great development for the Territory, particularly around domestic power generation. However, it will be bouncing around the member for Katherine’s ministerial office, processed under the new Environment Protection Authority, and there will need to be very serious research and sound decision-making to ensure we maximise the opportunities and do not set the Territory up for failure in the future.
In the semantics of the bill, I was a little concerned where it says, in the case of other than environmental assessment outcomes, the minister has six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, including reasons for any decision not to accept that advice. I am interested in other than environmental assessment outcomes and it would be good if the minister could clear that up in the response to this House and the Territory.
I am also keen to hear what the member for Nelson was talking about: where the community features in the processes between the Environment Protection Authority and the minister’s role. These things will be teased out in the committee stage.
One of the things I found interesting in the writing of this bill was that much energy has been put into describing the Administrator’s role. Having once been in a very privileged position as a minister in government, I attended Executive Council meetings with the Administrator and saw how the process of appointments put forward works, where the lead minister would advise Her Honour on appointments. This bill has gone into great detail putting that as something almost new, or has raised the bar on accountability or rewritten the Administrator’s role. I am sure the minister will be able to explain it because I will be asking questions such as, ‘What is new?’ That is how it happens; that is a very important part of the legislative process. If members of this new EPA are hand-picked, what is the crossover? Will the Administrator be more involved in the selection criteria, or will the lead minister of the government have some other mechanism of presenting these hand-picked members and delivering their credibility to the Administrator? I am interested in that and am sure the minister will supply that information. If I am still really confused, he will have to forgive me and I will ask some more questions in the committee stage.
It is about not only giving me confidence, but the constituents I represent and the Territory community as a whole. That is about it from me. I welcome the opportunity to further learn about the new government’s Environment Protection Authority and look forward to other questions as well. At the end of the day, we are all about ensuring we get this right because, if there is one thing we all agree on, this is the best part of the country. We all have our own stories to tell and, as elected community representatives, we shoulder enormous responsibility in what we do and the decisions we make. As the Chief Minister has said on many occasions, politics should not cloud these ultra-important areas of Territory development.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak and look forward to learning further about this bill.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I give my support to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Bill. This bill will establish an independent authority not driven by government or its ministers. It will remove the confusion existing between the current EPA and the government Environment department. It will bring the Territory in line with most other states. Queensland is the only state which does not have an independent EPA. As the Chief Minister has already said, the EPA was part of the 2012 election campaign.
My questions this morning about the quarantine waste incinerator at East Arm show the problems associated with lack of independence of an Environment Protection Authority. The continued operation of this dangerous sub-standard incinerator at East Arm would not happen under the new EPA. It does not surprise me, given the level of the previous Labor government’s neglect and maladministration. Continued use of the incinerator is another example of the previous government looking at short-term actions to paper over a problem rather than implementing long-term solutions which would be in the interests of all parties in the NT.
While it publicly spruiked its so-called open and accountable environmental credentials, in reality it was the complete opposite. Labor’s environmental monitoring and protection agency was, effectively, a toothless tiger. Bad news never made it to the minister’s desk or the news and, subsequently, did not reach the public arena. The new EPA will be completely independent with free and frank advice being provided to both government and Territorians. This advice to Territorians will be free of government interference and spin.
The unearthing of the significant environmental breach surrounding the incinerator which had the potential to cancel flights and destroy the holiday plans of Territorians only came about because this government released the shackles on the current EPA and allowed it direct access to the government and its ministers. This morning a solution to the incinerator was forecast, but if the previous Labor government had not bandaided its bad-news issues this problem would not have developed. The former EPA did not meet the needs and expectations of the community. This new authority will address the community’s concerns and remove confusion. Bad news such as the incinerator will become public and independent of government massaging and spin.
Most people can also remember the train derailment at the Edith River this year, or was it late last year?
Mr Westra van Holthe: 27 December.
Mr HIGGINS: I live at the Daly, as we all know, and had this bill been implemented I would have felt much more at ease knowing I was receiving independent reports on the environmental implications rather than government-massaged spin. Everyone I spoke to around that area, and some further upstream, were very suspicious of the reports coming out at the time. Under this new bill information will be released independently. As for the environment, I have been a member of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and previously the community reference group set up by the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin. I have a good handle on the water issues and implications of land clearing in the Daly catchment and see this new EPA as a good, solid independent authority which will support the work already done by this committee and a mechanism to get some complete independent advice, again without government massaging.
This EPA is part of the overall package of transparency and accountability with the independent planning authority, which I also see as a key driver behind the development of the NT through areas outside Darwin such as the Daly: plenty of water, plenty of land, but no development. Compliance and transparency being implemented as part of this new independent authority being established is supported. Thank you.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Daly on a fantastic contribution to this debate. It was much better hearing his contribution than the previous speaker, who did not seem to add any value at all. I will pick up on the incinerator at Darwin port. Two very important questions were raised today, one to me and one to the Chief Minister, about environmental concerns in the Northern Territory and, hence, the need for us to move to a fully independent EPA.
When I was advised the incinerator was not meeting environmental guidelines and standards it was immediately closed down. For the previous six years the former Labor government - the one with the green credentials but that did not espouse them – was quite happy to let the incinerator continue its operations with dioxins and furans emanating into the atmosphere without any respect for the environment or the people who worked at the port. It was left to us to fix, but it is left to us to fix everything. It does not matter whether it is the incinerator, road problems, AMS problems or problems across the board. There is no money for the Arafura Games or no planning, no money for homelands, and nothing done to try to improve the shires in the bush.
It is left to us to fix it all and the opposition has the hide to talk about us trying to correct the deficit and the problems with the debt as we hold the coffers. We have a model to improve the environmental credibility of the Northern Territory and the opposition wants to throw rocks at us, throw daggers, when we are trying to do the right thing. We are the Country Liberals and we are doing the right thing for the environment and the opposition wants to throw stones.
The opposition had the non-independent EPA and we are moving towards an independent EPA. I would have thought the green-loving commies on the other side would be applauding and congratulating us for all our hard work in standing up for the environment: true independence. No, they throw stones and get grumpy. That is the way they do it. I was feeling dumber by the minute as the member for Barkly was talking, but it is positive to see the member for Daly give a sound contribution because in his region he wants development and jobs. He has water and prime land for development and jobs - a sustainable vision and future for the people of the Daly region. That is what he wants and the independence of the EPA, as put forward by the Chief Minister in his guise as minister for the Environment, represents opportunities in that space.
This says to the rest of the Northern Territory, and Australia, ‘We will develop, but in an environmentally responsible way’. That is what we want. We want development. We want to look after our environment. We do not want what happened at the port where we put at risk planes coming to the Northern Territory from overseas, visitors, people sitting around at Christmas time saying, ‘I can’t go anywhere because Labor did not address the incinerator issue. We did not have a biosecurity solution. We were not protecting our borders’, but we know Labor does not protect our borders. We know Labor has problems protecting our borders. That is a national thing. That is the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Labor, through its veins.
I want to provide encouragement to the Chief Minister for the passage of this bill. It is a very good bill. It is independence for the EPA, independence for our environment, and provides a sound footing and future for all generations in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading speech.
A number of issues have been raised, questions to be answered, most of which will be covered during the committee stage, but I will run through some of them broadly. First, the appointment of Dr Freeland to the position was raised a number of times by members opposite and the Independent. Dr Freeland, as outlined in the second reading speech, is eminently qualified. If we take an objective view, it was a wonderful thing Dr Freeland was available. That was a quality decision made in full view of the community; it was not hidden. I understand I may have trespassed on some sensitivity; however, it was a decision made in full view of the community, strengthened by the merits and the opportunity to have Dr Freeland serve the Northern Territory in this way. Dr Freeland’s qualifications were outlined in the second reading speech.
The Independent member for Nelson made reference to the previous EPA and spoke of Mr Tupper. He has done a fantastic job and will continue to serve the Northern Territory. He also commented he thought they were able to provide independent advice. It is not a reflection on their intellectual or professional capacity: they were. However, what we have provided is legal independence. It is a significant change. You may be independent-minded and free to provide your professional commentary on environmental matters, but the distinction here is the legal independence. That is significant and is illustrated most tellingly by the member for Daly in his contribution, also the member for Braitling.
We would not be able to hide from view the problems at the port with the dioxins being pumped into the atmosphere with this structure we have in place. It could not be hidden, whereas the previous system could be concealed from view and managed politically. There is a significant difference and this is a structure we put in place; a mechanism to serve the best interests of the Northern Territory.
The objects of the bill are very clear and must be complied with. The wording is consistent with the national strategy. The role is to provide an assessment of proposals.
Once again, we raise the hypothetical of a development being considered. It is the role of the EPA to comply with the objects of the act; it has clear requirements of what it is to assess and it is of an environmental nature. I will get to the matter of the Planning Commissioner being involved in a moment.
The concern raised by the member for Nelson, who has done quite an amount of work on this, then echoed by the member for Barkly, is whether the community will be involved. The Environment Centre NT had the same concern. Of course they will be involved because the capacity for own initiative investigation is prompted largely by members of the public raising their concerns. There is nothing to stop the public from seeking an investigation, and they do it regularly with the pollution hotline. Now the EPA has the power to address these issues. There is nothing to restrict that; it is quite plain there. That is the purpose of this. Endeavouring to read into this all types of conspiracies - it is a vehicle to drive development and short cut environmental assessment and investigation. It is quite the opposite.
The final argument raised by the member for Nelson and echoed by the member for Barkly is that the Chair of the Planning Commission is involved and on the EPA. You use the argument there is a legal reference to. But it is not an indication so much of the conflict of interest, it is so it can function, otherwise it would not be able to and those seeking to block or run their own agenda could use that mechanism to disallow or call into question the findings of the EPA. It is for that purpose the Planning Commissioner has the capacity to participate, but his participation should not be used as a tool to block or restrict the capacity of the EPA to comply with its objective. Its purpose is to conduct investigations: own initiative, sourced from the community, or to provide advice to the minister.
The key issue is it is in full view of the community; it is not concealed. It is legally independent, it must make a report, and that report must be responded to. If the government, the minister, differs in their view and will not take that recommendation, that cannot be concealed. It must be made public. That is significant and has been well illustrated by the problem we have had at the port. It would be a very difficult political matter for this government, or any other government, to manage that and conceal it from view.
There are natural concerns. Part of the objective of this new government is to allow people to gain some confidence in the instruments there to assess matters of concern in the environment. I note the concerns raised by the member for Nightcliff, who specifically referred to noise pollution. Those matters can be referred. They are own source, own initiative investigations which can be prompted by complaints or concerns raised by the public. It has the capacity, therefore, to investigate. However, the beauty of this is it is legally independent and the government cannot control it. It must respond publicly.
Having the presence of the Planning Commissioner on the EPA, you could see it in the worst possible light. However, you mentioned many times, member for Barkly, the need to get the balance right. Issues need to be considered in a planning context, and it would help in the deliberations to have the view of the planning context in which a decision is being taken. Not to influence, but to inform and strengthen the deliberations, the considerations and the ultimate decision of the EPA. The EPA must comply with the objects of the act. Of course, there is the positive. The Planning Commissioner would be informed of the environmental concerns and issues when making planning decisions with the EPA being represented on the Planning Commission. It allows the environmental issues to be properly considered in an integrated and streamlined way so we get the balance right, the left hand and the right hand understand each other’s sensitivities and we can get that balance right in the best interest of the Northern Territory and the broader Territory community.
Madam Speaker, we will be going into committee stage where some of those matters could be further investigated.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill 2012. Is it the wish of the committee that it be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: I will go through some of this bit by bit. I am referring to the functions and powers. Clause 8(4) says:
- In addition, the NT EPA must integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental and social equity considerations in its decision making.
Social equity is a very interesting term. Is there any reason why that term is not put into the definitions in this bill? It is not an easy term, but could there be a reference to what it means?
Mr MILLS: Are you seeking clarification as to why it was not in the definitions?
Mr WOOD: I could probably ask you what you think it means and if that meaning should be in the definitions so people know what it means.
Mr MILLS: This harmonises with the national strategy. I understand social equity to mean ensuring we can balance the needs of a community in relation to those who have and those who have less. That we have equality in our community is a consideration and is a part of its conclusion; it is a part of the definition which flows from the national strategy.
Ms FYLES: While we are talking about definitions, this bill employs a definition of ecologically sustainable development promoted by the Commonwealth government and accepted nationally. Will the guiding principles established by the Commonwealth government to underpin this definition of ecologically sustainable development be included with the administrative policies and guidelines of the new EPA?
Mr MILLS: Because it is listed in the national strategy and there is a connection it does not have to be repeated; one is connected to the other.
Ms FYLES: While we are on that, I note you have not included the application of the precautionary principle as the federal government and a majority of other states have.
Mr MILLS: They are embedded in the objectives of the EPA and the Territory has already signed off on those matters so it is understood to be the case. The connection between the principles of ecologically sustainable development is reflected in the language used, but it is also the underlying agreement that has been signed between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth.
Ms FYLES: To clarify, because other states have included them, is there a reason why we have not?
Mr MILLS: It is already included by definition and fact. Not having it mentioned specifically does not mean we are now exempt from the agreement or the national strategy which we are a part of. It is not absolutely necessary.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in relation to your decision-making processes what comes first, the environment or the economy?
Mr MILLS: To use your famous words, ‘To get the balance right’.
Ms FYLES: The functions of the new EPA include encouraging community involvement and engagement. I cannot see where community involvement is engaged. Minister, who has the government consulted regarding this new legislation? I have several questions on this area.
Mr MILLS: There has been broad consultation for many years. We wanted a better system which was truly and legally independent so the community could grow in confidence that there is a capacity for independent assessment. In regard to the community’s involvement and capacity to have issues of concern assessed, that is part of it, as I described in my closing comments of the second reading speech. Because of the capacity for the NT EPA to have own-initiative investigation it can be freely prompted by members of the community who would be encouraged to make those concerns known. However what happens now is there is real power for those matters to be investigated. Before, they did not have the power they will now be given for thorough investigation and public disclosure.
Ms FYLES: Regarding that consultation, land councils represent a large part of the Territory’s land mass. Were they consulted on this legislation?
Mr MILLS: This has been in play for quite a long time. Members of the team carried the platform of the party across the Northern Territory and there were opportunities for anyone with concerns. These things were publicised. I remember talking about this in 2005. There has been plenty of opportunity for people to be involved, most recently with the Environment Centre NT.
Mr WOOD: Clause 8(3) says:
- In exercising its powers and performing its functions, the NT EPA must:
...
(b) ensure transparent processes and provide certainty to business.
Has the government considered meetings of the EPA, at times, could be open to the public? I give the example of the DCA, which makes similar decisions although you do not hear how it votes. There is an opportunity for people to attend meetings of the DCA. Could there be an opportunity for people to attend meetings of the EPA?
Mr MILLS: That is a very good question because the NT EPA is a separate legal entity. If it deems it appropriate or necessary to have a public hearing there is nothing to prevent that.
Mr WOOD: In the case of the DCA, the normal process is that meetings are open to the public. Parts of the meetings are closed, but the discussions are open to the public to hear what is happening. I encourage that because the word is ‘transparent’, and I will give you an example. Today the PAC had public hearings and I congratulate the government for doing that. The same should happen with the EPA. If you want it to be an independent, open and transparent authority, it would be nice to have as the default that meetings would be public.
Mr MILLS: If it gets through parliament it will be a separate and legal entity which will have to comply with the object of the act and will be transparent. It will have the capacity to do that if it wishes. If it is necessary to engage the community to achieve the goal of providing an objective report to the parliament fine; however, the primary task is to investigate and then make a report. Where the transparency comes in is it is not concealed from view. That report comes to the people’s parliament and is televised and people will see what goes on. There is plenty of opportunity - we are handing something to the opposition here. If we choose not to comply with the recommendation in part or whole you know exactly what we have done and can hold us to account because it is open and transparent. It is a different system.
I know, member for Nelson, you wanted it to be like the DCA. There is an element where it could be like the DCA, but we are after transparency and to have it in the public space where, if I am the minister and do not agree with the recommendation, there is no way I can conceal that and you can hold me to account. You can ask me questions in Question Time.
Ms FYLES: You highlighted in your second reading speech that the bill will result in more independence and transparency. Why does the bill not require the EPA to publish summary records of its meetings?
Mr MILLS: We will be responding to the recommendations and decisions made by the Northern Territory EPA. It is a separate entity, completely independent, but when it comes to the point of making a decision and a recommendation, that is the object of the exercise. As a supplementary, there will be an annual report.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority will have to get the balance right and its recommendations will be tabled and followed. Does it have a monitoring role?
Mr MILLS: The important difference is the DCA will make decisions and the EPA makes recommendations. Those recommendations are for us to comply or not comply with. If we say, ‘Yes, we accept that recommendation’ that enacts a process. Let us say a mine has been approved, or a process has been authorised and given the all clear by the Mines minister, the NT EPA will monitor that as required. There is the ongoing need for investigation to ensure these matters are being properly followed through and there is adequate investigation: powers which are invested in the NT EPA.
Ms FYLES: How will the government ensure the EPA stays connected with regional issues and those priority environmental issues of concern, particularly to Indigenous Territorians?
Mr MILLS: We do not regard Indigenous, urban or remote as different to anyone else. As environmental issues need to be investigated and recommendations made, it is fully open to all Territorians. We will be, as much as we can, letting people know wherever they live they have a part to play in this. With our move towards more localised decision-making, they will be made aware of this so they have capacity to raise their concerns to the NT EPA, which may prompt an investigation.
We want to let all Territorians know this system is in place to serve their interests and they have the capacity to understand its recommendations, perhaps even contribute to an investigation. The Beetaloo Basin as the member for Barkly quite rightly raises, will be regional and there will be the opportunity and perhaps the requirement - not that I can direct, I can suggest the NT EPA looks at that because we want to ensure the environmental issues concerning the whole Territory are properly protected, guided, and that adequate recommendations are made for government to decide yea or nay.
Mr WOOD: I want to move to Part 2 Division 3. I do not know if that is moving too far ahead. It is constitution and membership.
Minister, this is not about personalities, it is about process. I am not having a go at Dr Freeland, I raised this in Question Time. You said you would open up expressions of interest and applications for the appointment of the Chair of the EPA. This legislation does not exist yet; we have not passed it. What is Dr Freeland’s title at the present time?
Mr MILLS: Deputy Chief Executive of Lands, Planning and the Environment. However, I have signed something so, if this comes into play, he is not any more.
Mr WOOD: I hope your signature is not the only one because membership of the NT EPA consists of five members appointed by the Administrator by Gazette notice. I imagine you put the Administrator in there to be - I might not know all the ways - the independent person who appoints the five members of the board. My issue is - regardless of Dr Freeland, I am not trying to bring that into the debate - clause 10 (2) says:
- The Administrator may appoint a person to be a member under subsection (1)(a) only if:
(a) the person is not a public sector employee; and
(b) the Administrator is satisfied that the person has skills, knowledge and experience in one or more of the following areas ...
Perhaps by putting the word ‘Administrator’ in you are saying the Administrator only picks the one the government selects. Why are there not 10 people and the Administrator can pick five members without any interference from the government, if that is the way this is written and intended to be independent? It says the Administrator appoints the five members. If that is the case, why is the Administrator not given five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 possibilities all with those qualifications and you leave it up to the Administrator to make that independent decision rather than the government?
Mr MILLS: That is a novel approach. It is inherent in this because, in giving consent, the Administrator must be satisfied those being appointed fill, as a whole, all the requirements of an NT EPA which are specified in the act. You are asserting there is a possibility of the government putting all its favourite people into one group and saying, ‘Here, sign this off’. However, the Administrator has to be satisfied these recommendations fulfil the skill set required.
We have a task of due diligence; we have to support the objects of this act. A recommendation is made in good faith then the Administrator, before giving consent, has to be satisfied under subclause (3)(a) whether the person brings particular skills, knowledge or experience in regional areas or issues, Indigenous issues, or in working with a community and so on. Ultimately, that decision is made by the Administrator. We make recommendations, but the decision is guided by the act. We need to have that full skill set within that group.
Mr WOOD: If I read this the way it is written, the Administrator appoints five members. If I go over the page it says:
- The Administrator must appoint one of the appointed members to be the chairperson of the NT EPA.
Is it possible the Administrator may not pick Dr Freeland because it says the Administrator must pick one of those five?
Mr MILLS: It is entirely possible, member for Nelson, but the government will, as I said in the second reading speech, be making a recommendation. However, the final decision rests with the Administrator.
Mr WOOD: I wonder what would happen if she did not accept your recommendation?
Mr MILLS: Well, 1974.
Mr WOOD: I hope it does not cause that much trouble.
Mr MILLS: The Governor-General.
Mr WOOD: There is a process, but the process is slightly twisted because you have already said Dr Freeland will be the chair.
Mr MILLS: He will be recommended to the Administrator.
Mr WOOD: My concern is you have only picked one person. You have said that gentleman is fine, he has all the qualifications, but by not doing what you said, which was to open up expressions of interest, you have not allowed yourself to find someone - I am not putting Dr Freeland down - who may have more qualifications and be more skilled. In other words, you said that is the reason you put that in the promise. Obviously you were going to have a choice. By taking the one man decision, have you not avoided the possibility of getting someone who may have better qualifications? That was what was intended during the election.
Mr MILLS: The intention was to let the community know we were deadly serious and would, ultimately - whatever process was used and I described it plainly, and I accept what is written there is not exactly what happened - find a very good person for the position and we have found one. I accept it is not exactly what was said but the objective has been achieved. Yes, hypothetically, possibly, maybe, but we had to get on with it otherwise we may not have had the opportunity to make this recommendation to the Administrator.
Ms FYLES: While we are on membership, ecologically sustainable development requires using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so ecological processes on which life depends are maintained. The bill requires the assessment of quality of life as part of the assessment of ESD and that membership of the EPA includes skills in social analysis. What kind of skills experience will be sought in this area of social analysis? Who did you have in mind for this role? I have a list which I am happy to take one by one, or I can read them and you can answer them.
Mr MILLS: I cannot provide you with the names of people. We would still have to work through that, but I want this to work. I want good people with the appropriate skills to make this work and achieve one of our key objectives, which is to have the community develop increased confidence in instruments like the NT EPA. I will have that in mind as we go through that process.
I am guessing you think I have a list of people I am rushing off to and they are all CLP members. There is nothing like that at all; that is not the type of process we are going through. Perhaps it tells more about our opponents than it says about us.
Ms FYLES: How will cross-cultural perspectives on wellbeing be determined?
Mr MILLS: Appropriate skills, life experience, qualifications and track record. These are important decisions. When we come to making recommendations we will weigh that up carefully and see what we get.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have spoken about the appointment process with the Administrator. What is different about the current Executive Council process government uses to appoint members of boards?
Mr MILLS: There is no difference; it just has to be specified in the act. This describes how it works and the Administrator is the one who makes the decision, which is fairly normal. It is not something exotic. It is an independent body and we describe in the act how it works.
Mr McCARTHY: It took a fair bit of the bill, which is what drew my attention to it. I continually ask, ‘What is different about this?’ The member for Nelson has asked some interesting questions about how these people will be selected. Is the process different where you will be advising the Administrator of their credentials, background and qualifications?
Mr MILLS: As Chief Minister, I make decisions. I sign off on decisions, but I receive recommendations and a profile. I have to weigh up and make the decision yes or no. The Administrator will do the same. The Administrator knows what is to be achieved here - the final check. The Administrator has the authority to sign this off because it is fully independent and recommendations are provided. As I receive recommendations and make decisions with certain allocations of responsibilities I have, in this case we describe the role the Administrator has. Point 1 says the Administrator has to be satisfied, but recommendations are provided.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I recently saw in the newspaper an advertisement for the Planning Commission as an expression of interest process. Is that how you will be conducting this process with the EPA?
Mr MILLS: Yes, possibly.
Mr McCARTHY: Will you be accepting expressions of interest from across the Territory, nationally or could it be internationally?
Mr MILLS: Possibly.
Mr McCARTHY: From that process will you have a shortlist to be considered by the Administrator?
Mr MILLS: If you read the bill you can see the breadth of skill is really quite special. We need to have a body of people who have the capacity to address a wide range of issues with high-level skills, whether they be scientists, demographers or whatever, but they are all specified: environmental science, management, social and economic analysis and so on. We are looking for the best to serve the Northern Territory. That is what we will do and once we have that list we will make the recommendations.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you. Can you define ‘we’ for us?
Mr MILLS: We, the government.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, will this be a Cabinet process?
Mr MILLS: I guess so. Ultimately, it will be recommendations made to the Administrator.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in relation to the selection criteria, how will you process the applicants in an expression of interest process when you say ‘we, the government’? Will that be done by the department, you, or by Cabinet ministers?
Mr MILLS: If you are asserting our real intent is some political process, this says we want the right people with the broad range of skills. I will be requiring my department to assist in this process. We want the best people for this job and these assertions probably say more about the way you operate than we operate. We want the best people for this job.
Mr McCARTHY: With respect minister, I have been involved in the ExCo process as I outlined in my contribution to debate: a very privileged position. I asked some questions around how you plan to process that. It is quite an extensive part of the bill. I am not sure if you are aware of those processes and your answers are not really giving me any confidence.
Mr MILLS: Not giving you any confidence? Is that what you said?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, minister. I am asking legitimate questions, reasonable questions, and your answers are creating more questions than answers.
Mr MILLS: Ask another question then because I ...
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, how will you shortlist applicants in the expression of interest process?
Mr MILLS: To use common sense, I would be seeking recommendations too. Ultimately, I would take responsibility for a recommended list which would then go to the Administrator. However, I want to ensure I serve the Territory well by having a list of recommended people to serve on the NT EPA who can do the job.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, what you are describing for the parliament and the Territory is that it will be the existing Executive Council process.
Mr MILLS: We said that at the start. There is no real difference here other than we require a very broad range of skills and diversity which comprises this unique body. It is a reinforcement of its independence how this process occurs and is written down for you, so there is no real difference.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister, you answered my question: there is no real difference.
Ms FYLES: One of the government’s selling points for the new legislation is it provides integration of the Planning Commission and the EPA. The community is quite cynical about the political appointments announced to head these two critical bodies: the automatic appointment of the Chair of the Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency and vice versa. This is presented as integration but puts at risk public confidence about independence. My constituents are questioning why this is necessary. Is it aimed at ensuring special projects, such as Arafura Harbour, receive preferred consideration? When will the government come clean with who it has in mind for membership of the EPA?
Mr MILLS: As soon as possible. We want this to work; there is no conspiracy plan. It is to ensure we have the independent capacity for thorough investigation of matters of an environmental nature as outlined in the objects of the bill.
I understand questions could be raised, as invariably they will, about the recommendations to the Administrator. However, I am strongly confident that in time people will see the quality of these decisions and I am backing that. My objective is to strengthen the community’s confidence in the decisions we have made because they are in their best interest. That is why we will make quality recommendations to the Administrator, but time will bear this one out.
Ms FYLES: The community does not have confidence that will happen, but we will move on. Clause 24 seeks to prevent any legal challenges to decisions involving the Chair of the Planning Commission as a member of the EPA. Why was this felt necessary?
Mr MILLS: I covered that at the end of the second reading speech. It is so it can operate, otherwise with this not being covered off - it is advice we sought - it could provide the means for a person or persons to interfere with or obstruct the deliberations and investigations of the NT EPA by providing a legal challenge.
Ms FYLES: Have you obtained legal advice that this is a defensible arrangement and would stand a legal test?
Mr MILLS: Yes, we certainly have.
Ms FYLES: What is the potential NT government exposure should this protection be challenged and found wanting, for example by an aggrieved developer or any other community action?
Mr MILLS: I could not advise you on that other than to say this has been covered off. We are secure in our confidence we can allow this NT EPA to do what it is set up to do if passed through this parliament.
Mr WOOD: On that same note, Chief Minister, you said earlier the reason for the Planning Commissioner to be on the EPA was not to influence but to inform. If that is the case, why do you need the Chair of the Planning Commission to be a member? Why not ask the Planning Commissioner to attend a meeting to inform the EPA but have no voting rights in the EPA?
Mr MILLS: The NT EPA makes recommendations and informs or is informed. The object of the exercise is to have all aspects considered. Environmental recommendations are made in a planning context as well. We want to have as many eyes look at this as possible. One process will inform the other process so we can get the balance right. One will strengthen and add to the other. It is to strengthen it and allow us to have both processes adequately informed and the line drawn in the right place.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, I am trying to find the clause. The EPA is able to ask anyone to attend a meeting to give it advice. The person it invites could be the Chairman of the Planning Commission, who would give advice to the EPA then leave the room. Now the Chairman of the Planning Commission is not only giving advice but is voting on the EPA. Clause 24(2) identifies that:
- A relevant decision must not be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called into question in any court or tribunal merely because the person took part in the Planning Commission's deliberation or decision.
That lets both the Planning Commissioner and the Chairman of the EPA off the hook when it comes to having a disclosure of interest requirement as under clause 22.
Is that not the government admitting there is a problem with conflict of interest, one which could be avoided? I mentioned before you could have other people talk about the issues. Another option is the Chairman of the Planning Commission can be invited at any time the EPA wishes but is not part of the vote so, therefore, does not have a conflict of interest problem at all. He informs the EPA - that is what you want - but is not involved in the vote. That is the issue I have.
Mr MILLS: There will be many eyes looking at this and, ultimately, it will be the eyes of the parliament - the opposition, the government - and the wider community. We are committed to an integrated and streamlined process which gets the decisions made efficiently and effectively with proper and respectful regard for the objectives of the act.
The clause you have referred to, rather than substantiate your concern it points to a conflict of interest, is there so both chairs can participate in the process. The objective is integrated and streamlined decision-making so we can instil, ultimately, greater confidence in the community about the processes we go through, weigh all issues carefully, and draw the line in the right place. The clause is simply to allow the chairs to participate without legal challenge and bogging the whole process down.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, that is the reason I oppose it. It covers up the conflict of interest. The Chair of the Planning Commission is not the only planner in town. If the EPA wanted planning advice, it could have obtained a planner. If the Planning Commission wants environmental advice - because the Chair of the EPA swaps his hat and moves over to the Planning Commission from time to time - you could get a qualified environmental person to inform the Planning Commission, just as you could have a qualified planner inform the EPA without having this conflict of interest.
Mr MILLS: I do not accept it is a conflict of interest. The purpose of this is to have a more holistic approach to decision-making which results in a recommendation to the government. At the end of the day, a recommendation is made to the government and, as a result of the process you may have some concern about - it may be swaying things one way or the other - we have the opportunity in the parliament to have that sorted out in full view. Nothing is hidden.
I accept there is a high level of cynicism. ‘We would like to break these things up, have slow decision-making so we do not get the lines drawn in the right place, do not have efficiency and confidence but everybody is having a say and we end up with no decisions being made.’ That is not the way we will operate.
We want to ensure issues are weighed up carefully; that as many eyes as possible weigh them; the NT EPA has the objects it has to adhere to, it has an act, if passed through this parliament, which will guide its deliberations; and it will make a recommendation to the government. The government has to give an open report on that. We have plenty of opportunity to deal with this and it is not just at that point.
One process feeds the other process. Planning and environment have a connection. We want to ensure we can get that connection, not one over the other, but to have more integration and greater streamlined processes around decision-making so we can move things on and get the line drawn in the right place swiftly, rather than have complicated processes that end up with no swift or efficient decision-making and a community that increasingly loses confidence in the process. That is one of the issues we have faced so far.
There is a good reason why the two are connected, and a good reason for that clause to allow them to operate as two chairs. The purpose is to allow the operation: one process to feed the other process because planning and the environment occupy a similar and overlapping space.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, I am not asking the government to slow down the process. I am saying the makeup is, by its very nature, not doing what you said it would - be an independent EPA - because those two bodies will, at times, be dealing with the same issues. Public perception - and perception is important here - is that you have people making decisions on two bodies about the same issue. They will see that as not being independent.
Minister, in regard to membership, if you had removed the Chair of the Planning Commission and put another person there under clause 10(2)(b) who had experience in planning, full stop, you would have been able to put a planner there who did not necessarily have any connection with the Planning Commission. You still would have a fast process, but you would have removed any potential to have the EPA seen by the community as not being independent. That is what I am getting at. I am not saying you should not be doing this, I see that as a perception which will not go away.
The other important area we have forgotten is the EPA is not just about advice. You say in the first line of the second reading this will have executive powers for environmental assessment, and compliance and enforcement. You can tell me if I am wrong, but the EPA has now taken over the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. All those people on the EPA, technically, will make decisions in relation to that act and your amendments later in this act deal with many issues where the NT EPA - I will give an example. The Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, Part 5, Environment protection approvals and licences and best practices licences, section 33, Additional matters to be considered in granting best practice licences, should now read:
- The NT EPA must not grant a best practice licence to a person unless the NT EPA is satisfied that, in relation to the activities specified ...
The NT EPA has a far bigger role than just giving advice. It is now taking over what you said in your second reading and, therefore, that makes it even more important that there is no potential conflict of interest or perception of one. That is why I am concerned we have gone down this path. Why could we not just have a planner with good experience and leave the Planning Commissioner independent.
Mr MILLS: Because of our commitment to integration, streamlined processes and having one relate to the other. We see it is most appropriate that the two key people, in their professional capacity and being independent, have the capacity to relate one process to the other.
I understand your concerns. I understand perceptions will be out there, but I trust that time will help relieve some of those anxieties and reduce cynicism.
Mr WOOD: It is an important part of our discussion, but I will use the example of integration. People who deal with homelessness: Somerville Community Services and St Vincent de Paul both deal with homelessness but have different aspects. They come together at a meeting and you do not expect St Vincent de Paul to be voting on Somerville issues or vice versa. They come together to share, to inform, but Somerville would vote on its issues and St Vincent de Paul on its. In other words, they are integrated but they do not become part of the voting system for each body. Even though I am not against the concept of integration, the issue is they can vote. That is what makes the integration, potentially, seem to be biased.
Mr MILLS: If you want to follow your analogy through you should be talking about NTCOSS. That is the vehicle where the different interest groups would come together and make that recommendation rather than the two NGOs.
Mr WOOD: I move on, unless you want to keep going.
Ms FYLES: You have assured us the public can initiate work by the EPA. The current act allows for this in section 5B, the new bill does not. When will an issue become important enough for the attention of the EPA?
Mr MILLS: When it is important. It can be brought to the attention of the NT EPA, there is nothing precluding that. It has the power of investigation of own-initiative and that clause encompasses the capacity for any voice in the community to raise concerns that can be taken up for investigation by the NT EPA. There is no preclusion there at all.
Ms FYLES: The current act, again section 5B, allows for the public referral of issues to the EPA but the bill does not. How can stakeholder organisations initiate attention to the EPA?
Mr MILLS: Telephone, hot lines. It will not be hidden from view. This is there to serve the interests of the community and there will be capacity for anyone with a concern to make the appropriate contact. If members of the public are not happy with the support they are getting from the NT EPA, they can contact the Environment minister who can act on their behalf and make that known to the NT EPA. We are trying to get a process which works.
Mr WOOD: He cannot tell them what to do.
Mr MILLS: I could ask for advice.
Ms FYLES: While we are talking about administrative matters, under Part 5 clause 36, Delegation, the bill has been promoted by the government as introducing increased transparency and independence. Why does clause 36 of the bill allow the EPA to delegate any of its powers and functions under the act to a single member of the EPA, a public sector employee, or a chief executive officer? How would the public know about any of these delegations of powers under this clause?
Mr MILLS: Clause 36?
Mr WOOD: Would you mind if we take that later? I have a series of questions before that.
Ms FYLES: Sorry, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. Unless you want to answer that now, minister? I will go back to clause 24, that’s all.
Mr MILLS: That was 36?
Ms FYLES: Yes.
Mr MILLS: A delegate is subject to the directions of the substantive holder of the power or function being delegated. How the power is used when delegated is dealt with administratively through the directions from the substantive holder of the power to the delegates. This is consistent right across government.
Mr WOOD: Can I ask a question on that? How does that fit in with who can be a member of the planning authority when clause 10(2) says:
- The Administrator may appoint a person to be a member under subsection (1)(a) only if:
- (a) the person is not a public sector employee;
Mr MILLS: That does not result in them becoming members of the NT EPA.
Mr WOOD: By delegating, are you not making them ex-officio members?
Mr MILLS: No, it is like you are charged with some responsibility. Do X, Y and Z, but you are not a member of the NT EPA.
Mr WOOD: This bit takes some explaining. It is clauses 27 to 29 and I had to work through this one. I thank the acting CEO for the briefing we had. This is in relation to advice and you said everything will be transparent. Clause 25 says the EPA must give advice at the request of the minister, and the EPA may advise the minister on its own initiative. In advising the EPA, it must take a number of things into consideration.
If I switch to clause 25, Advice of NT EPA:
- (1) The NT EPA must, at the request of the Minister, advise the Minister about any of the following matters:
Clause 27(1) says:
- If the NT EPA gives advice to the Minister under section 25, the Minister must, as soon as practicable, but within 6 months, after receiving the advice.
do certain things. You must give the NT EPA a written response to the advice, and:
- (b) If the Minister has not followed, and does not intend to follow, the advice - include in the response reasons why the Minister has not followed, and does not intend to follow, the advice.
The next line says:
- (2) The NT EPA may make copies of the written response available to the public in the way it considers appropriate.
Keep that in mind for a minute. Clause 29 says:
- (1) After the NT EPA gives advice or a report to the Minister under this Part, it must make copies of the advice or report available to the public in a way it considers appropriate.
Mr MILLS: It is up to the minister. We are required to. It may also be covering issues of commercial-in-confidence.
Mr WOOD: If we remove the commercial-in-confidence and the minister has, as it says, not followed or does not intend to follow the advice, ‘include in the response reasons why the minister has not followed and does not intend to follow the advice’, the EPA ‘may’ make copies of that response, not ‘must’ as distinct from further down where they ‘must’ give copies of the advice they have given the minister to the public. There is a ‘must’ for the EPA but, when the minister does not agree with the advice, it is only a ‘may’ make that available to the public. It is a complicated area and I am happy to go through it again.
Mr MILLS: Do it again.
Mr WOOD: There are two clauses. The clause under Part 3, Advice and reports of NT EPA - it has taken me some time to get my head around it. One clause is about advice given to the minister. Another is about quality reports. If we deal with the advice section, clause 25(1), the NT EPA must, at the request of the minister, advise the minister on a range of issues.
The minister then responds to that advice - the advice it gives the minister under clause 29(1) - you have to zip around on this - says after the NT EPA gives advice or a report to the minister under this Part, it must make copies available to the public in whichever way is considered appropriate. The EPA, when it gives advice to the minister, must tell the public what advice it has given the minister. The minister might reject that advice, so it goes back to the EPA under clause 27 which says:
- (1) If the NT EPA gives advice to the Minister under section 25, the Minister must, as soon as practicable, but within 6 months, after receiving the advice:
- (a) give the NT EPA a written response to the advice; and
(b) if the Minister has not followed, and does not intend to follow, the advice - include in the response reasons why the Minister has not followed, and does not intend to follow, the advice
- (2) The NT EPA may make copies of the written response available to the public ...
It must tell the public what advice it has given the minister, but it may only say what the minister’s response was. Why is the minister’s response to the advice not made public, as it is required further down?
Mr MILLS: I assume in that transaction there may be matters of a commercial-in-confidence nature between the two parties. However, advice does not necessarily require action or decision by a minister. There may be correspondence between the two which does not require the minister to do anything. It is when it comes to the point of recommendation and advice to a minister that requires an action that is not complied with, then it follows. However, it may be advice which does not require an action; it may be for information.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but if you read clause 27(1)(a), the minister may give the NT EPA a written response to the advice. He might say, ‘For such and such reasons, I do not accept the advice’.
Further down it says the NT EPA must withhold from the public information of a commercially confidential nature, and may withhold other information from the public if it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for doing so. If you take those two bits out that according to this the EPA can withhold, why can it not tell the public the other reasons the minister did not accept the advice? It has ‘may’; everywhere else it has ‘must’. It is this bit here. If it said, for instance, ‘the NT EPA must make copies of the written response available to the public in a way considered appropriate; however, the NT EPA must still withhold information’ etcetera, I would be happy. Considering, minister, you spoke about transparency and how people want to know what happened, there is a bit in here which could, in theory, hide - and I am saying this in a nasty way - but the public will not have the ability to find out why the minister rejected the advice. That seems to go against what you are trying to do; having an independent EPA which is transparent.
Mr MILLS: The advice provided to a minister that requires an action is in full view. If there is advice received from the NT EPA to a minister which may not require action and is for information, it is not necessary, on all occasions, to have everything made public. There could well be toing and froing which does not attend to our core objective. Information, advice and recommendation has been made which requires a response or action from the minister and, if that is not complied with, that explanation must be made known.
I am sure there will be plenty of interaction which does not require action on the part of government. That is what that covers.
Mr WOOD: I will not labour it, but there is a loophole which could be closed off with some changes to what can and cannot be declared.
This may be something technical, minister. Clause 29(1) says:
- After the NT EPA gives advice or a report to the Minister under this Part, it must make copies of the advice ...
Why is there a need for that? When you look at clause 29(4):
- The Minister must table a copy of the advice or report (excluding information of a commercially confidential nature) in the Legislative Assembly within 6 sitting days after receiving it.
Mr MILLS: That allows for the provision there could be some gap between sittings.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Minister. Clause 29(5) says:
- This section does not apply if the advice or report is of an administrative or preliminary nature.
Can you give us some idea what a preliminary nature would be? What does that mean? A preliminary nature in relation to what? How broad can a preliminary nature be? Is it just a one-liner or …?
Mr MILLS: Preliminary nature is an initial investigation which does not result in sufficient information or advice for a decision or action of government. The point of the exercise here is, when a recommendation of a substantive nature is completed which then requires a response of government, that should be. However, there could well be an earlier phase of that process, a process in play which is not a completed or mature process, which results in a recommendation to the government requiring an action. It is preliminary, it does not require any action. It is to inform or advise.
Mr WOOD: Minister, clause 32 relates to confidentiality of information. Is that wording the same as confidential information? I might be splitting hairs here. Are we dealing with confidential information or are we talking about the confidentiality of information?
Mr MILLS: In the course of an investigation by the NT EPA, it may be privy to information which cannot be shared widely because it may be confidential relating to a particular proponent. The investigation is to focus on something very specific. In the course of the investigation focusing on a specific objective - the objects of the act – it may procure other information which is deemed to be confidential. It is not, therefore, required to pass on that confidential information but to report on the specifics of the investigation.
Mr WOOD: Clause 32 states:
- (1) A person commits an offence if the person:
- (a) obtains information while exercising a power or performing a function as a member; and
(b) engages in conduct that results in the disclosure of the information.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who discloses the information:
(a) for the exercise of the person’s powers or the performance of the person’s functions as a member; or
(a) obtains information while acting on behalf of, or performing duties for, the NT EPA under this Act; and
I need some clarification. For argument’s sake, I am a member of the NT EPA and am also a member of the Planning Commission. I receive confidential information as a member of the NT EPA and then pop across to the Planning Commission and tell people on the Planning Commission about that confidential information. Am I excused from breaking the law by clause 32(2)?
- Subsection (1) does not apply if the person discloses the information:
- (a) for the exercise of the person’s powers or the performance of the person’s functions as a member; or
I have been acting as the NT EPA person and have sat as the NT EPA person on the Planning Commission. Am I allowed to use information I received on the NT EPA on the Planning Commission and vice versa?
Mr MILLS: In the course of an investigation, confidential information is known to those members of the NT EPA. One of them in particular - it might be the chair - goes to the other and says, ‘I have confidential information which assisted the NT EPA to come up with a recommendation which was made to the government. I have this confidential information and am happy to share it because I am now in a different space.’ No way!
The objective is the weighing of information - some of it may be confidential - to make a recommendation. That is the objective of the exercise. You cannot take confidential information and use it in another space and receive some kind of shelter. No way!
Mr WOOD: I understand that; however clause 32(2) says:
- Subsection (1) does not apply if the person discloses the information:
- (a) for the exercise of the person’s power or the performance of the person’s functions as a member ...
Is the performance of the person’s function as a member, which also includes representation on another body, excluded because that person is still acting in one of those functions? One of the functions of the NT EPA chair’s job is to work on the Planning Commission. That person is exercising that function as a member of the Planning Commission. Are they, in that capacity, excused from this clause of the bill?
Mr MILLS: The measures are specific to this bill and do not transfer.
Mr WOOD: I understand that and am not trying be a nuisance, but I would like to clarify it and have it written in the Hansard. It says it does not apply if the person discloses for the exercise of the person’s powers or the performance of the person’s function as a member, but in performing his or her function as a member, the Chair of the EPA has representation on the Planning Commission. Are you are saying that person’s function as a member stops outside the NT EPA?
Mr MILLS: Correct.
Mr WOOD: That is what I wanted to clarify.
What happened to those matters which have been looked at by the existing EPA, presuming it has not completely disappeared? The example I gave was the drain at Berrimah Business Park.
Mr MILLS: Yes, I should have raised that in my concluding remarks in the second reading speech. All ongoing investigations will be completed.
Ms FYLES: The current act requires a review after five years of operation and tabling of that review in the Legislative Assembly: section 26. Why is the new legislation silent on such a review?
Mr MILLS: It can be reviewed at any time.
Ms FYLES: Section 5A of the current act contains provisions requiring review and assessment of the effectiveness of agency responses and the implementation of action under the EPA act. This bill does not have that review. Why should the EPA not be able to review the effectiveness and make those reviews public?
Mr MILLS: Do not forget there is an Ombudsman. If there are problems which can be reported, an Ombudsman plays a part in this as well.
Ms FYLES: In the second reading speech you said there will be amendments to legislation regarding water and container waste later in the year. If this needs to be developed, why not hold this bill until the new year, consult more widely and bring it forward as a total package?
Mr MILLS: We have made a commitment to establish the fully independent NT EPA, to set a new framework and new level of confidence in the Territory community, and to have integrated decision-making. It complies with our election commitment to have this legislation presented to the Territory parliament and, hopefully, passed shortly so we can comply with what we said we would do in the Territory election.
Ms FYLES: Division 2 clause 8(3)(a) highlights the community’s involvement and encouragement. I do not mean to harp on about this, but this bill is lacking in the role the community can play. Why is the new NT EPA being required to ensure, rather than encourage or facilitate community involvement and engagement? To ‘ensure’ you can simply place something on a website and have ticked that box; however, at a grassroots level, really encouraging and facilitating the conversations around community involvement.
Mr MILLS: To be frank, by giving these powers and full legal independence and open reporting to the Territory parliament, we are not setting this as a community facilitation role specifically. There is plenty of opportunity for members of the community to raise concerns which can then be investigated. There is nothing to preclude the NT EPA taking up an investigation brought to its notice by members of the community. The purpose of the bill reflects the broader powers of the new NT EPA and recognises it is a regulatory body and may not always be in a position to be a community facilitator. Others will play that role. There is capacity for members of the community to raise concerns with hotlines and the like. There is capacity for the minister to seek advice on matters of community concern. There is capacity for members of parliament to raise similar matters of concern and seek advice from the NT EPA.
The community is not blocked from this. Remember, we are enhancing the capacity of the NT EPA to conduct investigations and provide recommendations. The community will have plenty of opportunity to raise concerns and have them investigated. The primary function of the NT EPA is investigation not facilitation.
Ms FYLES: Under the new EPA arrangements, who will be paying attention to emerging environmental issues?
Mr MILLS: We all will. If any matter requires investigation we now have the capacity for it to be independently assessed. Additional resources go to the NT EPA to monitor and investigate matters of concern. There are plenty of groups, plenty of people who monitor, investigate - we still have a department which is able to monitor, investigate and consider. As I said, there are community groups. The role of the NT EPA is to investigate matters of concern.
Ms FYLES: Will the EPA have a role in addressing broad-scale issues affecting our environment, for example, invasive plants, or is it more focused on site-specific issues?
Mr MILLS: Its role is to investigate matters of concern and make recommendations which require an action, ultimately, from government.
Ms FYLES: Under these new arrangements, how would we see the impact of seabed mineral exploration and mining on sea country and cultural heritage assessed?
Mr MILLS: As it needs to be investigated it will be. If it were to be undertaken, the processes which have been outlined here would be in play. If a recommendation is made in full which requires action from government, government then has the requirement to either accept that recommendation or, if not, disclose the reasons for not doing so.
Ms FYLES: Will the EPA have a budget and be given additional resources? Can you clarify that?
Mr MILLS: Yes, indeed. It has an allocation of an additional $500 000 to allow it to do its task.
Ms FYLES: How will the new EPA work in responding to incidents of public concern? One example already spoken about today is the Edith River copper concentrate spill last Wet Season. Can you take me through that under these new arrangements?
Mr MILLS: If a matter needs investigation it will not be investigated so much as it was before - if this receives passage - by a department but by a fully independent body which makes full and open disclosure so we are all informed and the government is then held accountable.
Its greater power is its independence. Rather than being an arm of the government, and the results of those investigations perhaps being controlled or managed by the government in the interests of the government - that is no longer the case. It is open, it is out, it is in full view and recommendations made in a case such as that are then in full view of the public.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in the case of other than environmental assessment outcomes, the minister has six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the NT EPA, including reasons for any decision not to accept the advice. Could you give examples of other than environmental assessment outcomes?
Mr MILLS: Emerging environmental issues, cumulative impacts of development on the environment, a whole range of issues that are outlined in Part 3 of the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, is that an improvement on what currently exists?
Mr MILLS: Absolutely.
Mr McCARTHY: Can you outline that for me?
Mr MILLS: I have been explaining this for several hours now. It is, by nature of its independence and its independent legal status which requires an action of government on its recommendations, to be fully disclosed, not managed by government.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In relation to completing my sheets I will take back to the Barkly for the constituents, regarding membership - this is Division 3 - we are talking about five members and a chairperson, which makes six members of the NT EPA, yes?
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Mr McCARTHY: In the absence of a chairperson, another member elected by the members present at the meeting is okay, yes?
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Mr McCARTHY: Is a quorum four?
Mr MILLS: Yes, four.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. The chairperson is absent and, therefore, there are four people and the vote goes two each way and the delegated chair has the casting vote. Would that be correct, minister?
Mr MILLS: There are five on the NT EPA, one is missing and one is the Chair of the Planning Commission. That is six. We have two away, have we?
Mr McCARTHY: We have a quorum of four, minister.
Mr MILLS: We have four, they take a vote and it is divided down the middle. I guess the chair would have the casting vote.
Mr McCARTHY: That is good. Thank you for clarifying that for me, the Territory and my constituents in the Barkly. Is that really appropriate when we are talking about major issues around environmental protection?
Mr MILLS: You have this fairly amplified. Remember, the gathering is going to weigh a final recommendation on an exhaustive process. It is quite unlikely you would be scratching to get a quorum when making a final decision. There will be plenty of meetings and plenty of decisions made along the way which would inform a recommendation. You could argue the line you have, but it is extremely unlikely when the purpose of the NT EPA is to make a substantive recommendation at the end of an investigation which will require action from the government. To go down that line, yes, there may well be a case where there are four people in the room and it might be split down the middle and there is a casting vote. You then have a recommendation from the NT EPA which has not been properly considered and not reflective. Now, come on! There will be plenty of meetings and there will be plenty of discussions. This body would be able to work that out. Ultimately, there is a final recommendation made and I am sure they would not be scratching for a quorum when it comes to a final decision.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have many hypotheticals there but this is in the bill, this is what Territorians are looking at, and this is of concern. I have not taken any notes around that answer. I will use Hansard to talk about this; however, do you see this could be a problem for such an important decision and an important organisation?
Mr MILLS: I would see it as a greater problem if it was not referred to because it would mean the ongoing operation of the NT EPA could not continue and it could not meet to deliberate and come up with some recommendation that feeds a process. It would be a greater problem if we did not have a provision in there so it could meet.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, it is new, innovative, independent and integrated with planning. Do you believe all these initiatives could be let down with a simple process like the quorum at a meeting?
Mr MILLS: No. Let us say there is your doomsday scenario where they are scratching to get a quorum together, they are divided down the middle, there is a casting vote and we are unsure whether that was reflective of the true nature because the other person was not there and he or she was going to say something. At the end of the day, it is a recommendation to the government and the government has six months to respond to that, and must respond to it. If you are not certain about it you make an investigation. The buck stops with the government, ultimately, but we have to let the system operate.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, how would you handle a situation like that? Would it be, first of all, made known to the minister that the decision was made with a quorum of four with a split vote and a casting vote of the chair?
Mr MILLS: I could not tell you. I would be weighing it on the quality of the advice I receive and making a decision on that basis.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, let us hope it would not involve 15 000 hectares of mangroves in the Northern Territory or anything monumental. Do you consider this will have to be looked at in the operation? It is a new bill to create a new authority and this needs to be looked at carefully to ensure something you seem to think is trivial does not trip up what you are telling the Territory is monumental.
Mr MILLS: I want to ensure I receive quality advice so we make quality decisions.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, in regard to review of legislation, you have not put a time frame on it. If this was a problem could it be a trigger for a review of the legislation?
Mr MILLS: If this machine, which we believe is pretty good, turns out to have a problem, talk about it and we can bring amendments to fix it because the object of the exercise is to provide a better vehicle than we had in the past. As a new vehicle comes into the marketplace and something needs to be corrected; this is the parliament, we will sort it out. This has happened before. We want it to work and believe it does. We thank you for having tested as many aspects of it as possible, but these things can be revisited at any stage by way of amendment, review, reconsideration and debate. We are a parliament.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister.
Mr MILLS: That is all right.
Mr WOOD: Two questions, minister. As you know, under clause 28(2) the NT EPA may, on its own initiative, inquire into and report to the minister on any aspect of environmental quality in the Territory. Would the EPA be allowed to look at the proposal for a nuclear waste repository – to take it out of dump terminology - at Muckaty Station?
Mr MILLS: In short, yes.
Mr WOOD: We could store waste, but I would encourage our EPA to look at the issue because it is a current topic. Will it have the power to do it, considering the Commonwealth is involved, or will there be an overlap? I imagine the Commonwealth has to do it as well and I did not know how that would work in practice.
Under the existing EPA, it could check the department to see whether the legislation was current, capable of doing what it was supposed to, and see if the department was doing its job. Who do we have now to check the department is doing its job?
Mr MILLS: The Ombudsman has not gone away.
Mr WOOD: That is what the present EPA could do and was one of its functions: to see that legislation was adequate, from an environmental point of view, and departments were doing what they were supposed to. I accept the Ombudsman - that is the only other option at the present time.
Minister, I do not have any more questions and I thank you for your answers. Do you understand where I am coming from?
Mr MILLS: I understand.
Mr WOOD: The EPA is really important. I would not have sat on the inquiry if it was not; however, I have those concerns.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Freedom of Information, Privacy Protection and Public Interest Disclosures in the Northern Territory
Annual Report 2011-12
Continued from 31 October 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this report was tabled in the last sittings and the Attorney-General spoke to it. Having reviewed what he said in Hansard, I am unsure if he is going to resume his comments because he only referred to one part of the report.
Nevertheless, this is an important report. This is a very important office in the Northern Territory with regard to avenues for transparency and accountability. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures came about under Labor. Forgive me, I cannot tell you what year that was. I have had very little access to the Internet in the Chamber today so I have not been able to track down the date. It is sufficient to say it exists. It is a very important body which gives members of the public an opportunity to understand and access freedom of information through this process.
When the Attorney-General spoke about this in the last sittings he raised some very important points. I concur with him on the points he made, particularly with regard to matters around procurement. I want to go back a step, and this is why I am expecting the Attorney-General to return to resume his remarks, because we have an opportunity for people to raise matters of concern and they can be investigated.
Going back to the Attorney-General’s comments in Hansard, I could not help but think that they were negative. That is not to say some of the matters raised are not serious. He quoted from the message from the Acting Commissioner Allan Borg; the Commissioner is Ms Brenda Monaghan, who has taken leave from that position to fill another role. I know them both to be very good operators by reputation. We can selectively quote from these reports, and the Attorney-General had a very important quote about how procurement is an essential function across the whole of government and has been identified in jurisdictions across the world as the process most likely to engender corrupt conduct.
There is a sentence which precedes that, an important qualifier from Mr Borg:
- Although most public officers are honest, loyal and working in the public interest, the Office has identified several areas of concern.
Without putting the kybosh on all of our public servants involved in the procurement sector as somehow being dodgy or untrustworthy, let us be very clear here, as Mr Borg says in his opening remarks, most public officers are honest, loyal and working in the public interest. It is important to make that clarification.
In chapter 2 of the report, Mr Borg cites – this is about the public interest disclosures and there are eight matters included in this report which have been investigated by the commission. It is important these are on the public record. They highlight that wrongdoing has been identified and investigated, as the Attorney-General noted. Some of these matters have been referred to police for investigation, and that is as it should be.
The Attorney-General said that these matters are of the gravest concern, as they are. He said:
- The procurement process in the Northern Territory needs to be, like Caesar’s wife, not only beyond reproach but seen to be beyond reproach. Unfortunately, something has gone fundamentally wrong with the procurement system when gifts and kickbacks are being received.
I do not disagree with that. It shows there is something wrong but it is more than system failures we are talking about. There is human error - serious errors of judgment that people make. As much as we can have transparency, accountability, laws enacted, codes of conduct; and all of those things which act as deterrents to people doing the wrong thing, sadly, there are people who will do the wrong thing for personal gain or whatever reason.
However, I wanted to make that qualifier. Many years ago when I worked in the mining sector when Alcan became the owner of the operations at Gove, in my role in communications in the HR department, given we were part of a huge global organisation, there was the roll-out of a worldwide code of conduct. It was a massive process. In the corporate sector there are many opportunities, basically, to do the wrong thing; gain through the employer from whatever activities employees may find to do so. Ultimately, in the corporate sector, if you get caught doing the wrong thing you will lose your job. That is probably no different in the public sector.
I found that when the company rolled out a worldwide code of conduct it really opened up discussions amongst the workforce about what was regarded as appropriate behaviour, what was not and, importantly, what channels employees should go through if there was uncertainty about courses of action. That is very much what the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures look after. That is a really important transparent process in our democracy that we need to have in place.
I will not go through the entire report. This is a public report; anybody can access it. You can read it on the Internet. You can read the types of matters the commissioner investigated. It is confidential insofar as there are no names. It also provides statistics on the data around freedom of information requests, about the avenue people may pursue through the commissioner’s office when they have had access to information under FOI denied, and the reasons behind that.
Ultimately, the commissioner cannot resolve everything. The commissioner resolves some things but needs to, ultimately, make decisions about matters in accordance with the act as to what he or she can investigate and deal with and what they cannot. Then, perhaps, they can refer those complainants on to another avenue where they may receive an answer to what it is they are looking for.
Chapter 3 is an important one. It is only a page, but it is a really important measure that was implemented under Labor about protecting and supporting disclosers. Of course, this is about whistleblowers. This is about allowing people an opportunity, with complete privacy and confidentiality, to raise a matter with the commissioner that they see is not right without any threat of reprisal. It is interesting to note that the commissioner writes in this chapter:
- The vast majority who contact this Office are very aware of the importance of the step they are taking and many find the ordeal of being a ‘whistleblower’ extremely stressful.
That is a shame. People should be confident they can raise a matter - be a whistleblower - if they see that is important. Obviously, it is a step people take very cautiously and with some hesitation.
It is interesting when you sit on the opposition benches with shadow responsibilities across numerous portfolios and get to understand exactly what is involved in the role, for instance, of Attorney-General and Justice. I was reading in Chapter 3 about FOI complaints to the commissioner in 2011-12. There was one example provided of a prima facie decision delivered in 2011-12. There are a couple of examples of investigations undertaken but this one proceeded to mediation and a hearing. It was to do with a complainant who had applied for access to a submission handed to the Legislative Assembly’s Select Committee on Youth Suicides in the NT from last year.
I was a member of that committee. Given the sensitive nature of the subject we were dealing with, we received many submissions which were agreed by the committee to be kept confidential and not to be shared in the same way you would in parliamentary committees: to go into in camera mode. It is interesting to see that issue came before the commissioner and, ultimately, the result was the complainant was not able to access that document.
Finally, the office also plays an important role in educating and providing public awareness. In order to do that, it works across other offices as well, including Consumer Affairs, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and, no doubt, others. The more we promote to people that this office exists and the role of the commissioner the more we can hope to see transparency and accountability in our community. I commend this report to the House.
Mr GILES (Infrastructure): I listened intently to the member for Nhulunbuy. She was very gracious in identifying the concerns and raising the issue that these are not acceptable.
She spoke about human error in this process and how the findings of corruption and so forth are not good enough. As Minister for Infrastructure, my portfolio is subject to some of these comments and it is important for me to respond, particularly about what we have done to date.
It is important to reflect on the missing elements of the member for Nhulunbuy’s speech, particularly about leadership, decision-making, and being in control of your department. That is not to say things will not go wrong here or there; that will always happen, but these fundamental flaws through some of the departments show a clear sign of ineptness and the failure of the previous government and its ministers to lead. You do not have to go too far to reflect on the incinerator issue at the port. For six years the current Opposition Leader and deputy opposition leader were both ministers for Transport and Infrastructure. They extended the life of the incinerator polluting our environment with no concern - not in charge, not on top of their game. The Asset Management System is a shining example of incompetence and something this parliament will see more and more of.
It is very important we put a line in the sand in relation to the failures of the Asset Management System to date. The previous minister, the member for Barkly, and before that the Opposition Leader, were not in charge of their portfolios. There was supposed to be $14m to build a whole new system for asset management. It was scoped at $28m, brought back to $24m, $32m has been spent and we are only running at 11 % capacity.
AMS is a disaster, a basket case. I will be happy to talk more about that tomorrow and I anticipate there will be something in the paper. I understand Alyssa Betts was at the Public Accounts Committee today busily taking notes about Labor’s failures with the Asset Management System. The Leader of the Opposition buries her head in her books because she must be embarrassed and ashamed. She was not in control of her portfolio, neither was the member for Barkly when Minister for Transport and for Infrastructure. Today he spoke about the EPA, about how his proudest moment was as Minister for Lands and Planning; he did not talk about transport or infrastructure. Is it any wonder AMS blew out to be the basket case it is today? They were not in charge of their portfolios.
We are now trying to go through, line by line, every expenditure item to see what has gone wrong to date. Hauling in this behemoth of a system is incredibly difficult.
However, moving to the public interest disclosure report, it is not good enough that public officials seek to shirk their responsibility, bend the rules, and all the other findings in the report. I will go through a number of responses from the Department of Infrastructure. I want to send a clear message that it will not be tolerated. We will put in place all the measures we can to avoid future offences, and where we find gaps in the future we will respond because we will be in charge of our portfolios.
The Department of Infrastructure has implemented the recommendations of the commissioner. We have developed a package of policies to address the recommendations, including things like the gifts and benefits policy, the fraud prevention framework, improper conduct policy and procurement policy. We are developing and implementing training across the department to mitigate risk and enforce the importance of public service ethical behaviour. Specific matters have been referred to the police for investigation and those matters are continuing. There is training on workplace behaviours incorporating our code of conduct, conflicts of interest, improper conduct policy, reporting procedures, and the gifts and benefits policy. That training is occurring in the department and for all new staff members.
We have revised systems to increase the level of control. We have separated the budget and expenditure approvals to ensure they are not the same. A Department of Infrastructure procurement policy has been developed and our Department of Infrastructure procurement procedures have been revised to ensure strict compliance with the procurement directions. For example, ensuring necessary quotes are obtained for smaller projects and exemptions should be sought for urgent projects only. This revision of the procurement process provides a complete end-to-end process mapping and subsequent risk management solutions to try to avoid the situation we were put into in the first place.
We have developed a statement on integrity and ethical behaviours which we are sharing with external parties so the private sector, or the general public, understand the position we are in and how we seek to make improvements in this area. We are improving the quality of tender documents to ensure specific firms are not favoured and cull levels are appropriate. More importantly, out of this whole process, without going through every individual thing we have put in place, we are implementing a cultural change process which ensures the organisation has a new culture of not just customer service, but a culture of discretion which separates any conflicting interest of officers away from the contracts.
The findings in the public interest disclosure report would be quite concerning for any member of the public, any member of this Chamber, and for any minister, but as the Minister for Infrastructure, it is more concerning to me than anyone else. These issues have been raised within my department particularly. A small group of people has been involved in this behaviour.
The chief executive of the department has my full confidence in ridding the department of these scourges of corrupt activity. I will continue to receive updates from the chief executive about the implementation process. I continue to receive information on how the reform process is going. We have put in place a process whereby staff can provide anonymous feedback within the department when they feel there is an issue. It is an internal blow the whistle campaign where they can provide information straight to the chief executive or the public interest disclosure. That is a very good opportunity to seek to remedy the situation we are in at the moment.
I go back to the point: the commissioner has found issues and the department is acting on them. We have put in place a range of responses. Police are still investigating and there may be further action in that regard; however, the point is it was allowed to reach this point in the first place.
We are in the same boat of not being in control across a range of areas. Power and Water, the previous government was not in control; the Asset Management System, the previous government was not in control; the Arafura Games, the previous government was not in control; the same in health and all our other portfolios. The previous government took its eye off the ball. That is not a blanket statement to throw political spin. We are seriously going around with a dust pan and broom trying to clean up the mess. This is one huge mess. There is corruption: an estimated 35 to 40 people in a gang acting corruptly within a government department. It is a serious issue which was completely out of the sight of the previous government.
The AMS, which was supposed to cost $14m, is costing $32m and only operating at 11%. It should have been $14m, now they are asking for another $30m-plus to keep it going. Who has been in control? How can it blow out this badly?
Rent is lost from public housing. Contractor confidential information is going into the ether. This is what has been happening and no one has been in control. I thought the member for Fannie Bay might have had a few questions at the Public Accounts Committee meeting today, but he sat very limp because he knows his government allowed this to happen.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would caution the member for Braitling. It is a breach of privilege to carry on in that fashion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you would stick to the script of the statement.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of what I am and am not allowed to say in this Chamber. I am raising the point that the previous government was not in charge of its portfolios, and am reflecting that I thought the member for Fannie Bay might have asked some different questions. It is very interesting that he did not pursue that line.
However, I want the general public to understand we are moving towards putting in place a better framework to ensure these things do not happen in the future. There will always be accidents, but it is our job, as a government in a leadership position, to ensure we have the appropriate mechanisms in place to stop this happening in the first place.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I conclude this debate and thank honourable members for their input. I have listened carefully to the words of members in this House and continue to be concerned. I agree with the member for Braitling’s comments; clearly someone was not aware of what was going on.
When this annual report hit my desk I was astonished to read it and almost spat my cornflakes across my desk. I was on the phone to the public disclosure commissioner within minutes of having read the substance of this report and some of the matters raised.
To remind honourable members, one cannot but have a shiver run up your spine when you read things like:
- ... investigations have revealed that in some public bodies, a clan mentality exists within certain small workgroups where improper conduct is tolerated and supported, with a ‘get the job done regardless’ attitude and where the giving and receiving of gifts and benefits is a common practice.
When I realised what was going on I raised this issue with my colleagues. The member for Braitling identified this probably reflected on areas in his department. He knew about it within weeks of taking over the department. I knew about it within weeks of taking over as Attorney-General because I read the material coming across my desk. I read the draft of this report.
The part which concerned me about the draft report was there was no reference to police. I advised Mr Borg that I was worried the mere reference to these people having resigned seemed to be sufficient in his report. Mr Borg was kind enough to inform me he had referred the matter to police and it was being dealt with. Nevertheless, I immediately wrote to the Chief Minister and informed him. Within weeks, three ministers knew what was happening.
Once again, I do not want to speak in too much detail beyond what I have already described. Needless to say, if you are a responsible government you ask the question: is there anything else? This report is limited to the financial year 2011-12. This report only deals with specific matters which occurred in that one year period. This office has been around longer than one year. I asked Mr Borg to brief me in relation to some of the issues he was facing.
There are a number of matters not in this report which are of concern. One matter involves, potentially, millions of dollars worth of contracts. I will not say anything more about it at this stage, but one of the things which struck me was Mr Borg explained there was a resourcing issue in his office. I reassured Mr Borg I would get straight on to it. Consequently, I spoke to staff in the Chief Minister’s office and we are addressing it.
I do not know whether the allegation about millions of dollars in contracts is true or not; that has to be established by an investigation. However, there is sufficient information to require additional resources be given to the commissioner with a view to attending to that matter in particular, as well as other matters. To that end, I have committed this government - in consultation with the Chief Minister’s office - to providing those extra resources.
The original plan was to get police to do it, but there are some problems with Chinese walls between the two operational pieces of legislation. Therefore, we will be seeking professional investigators, who will probably be retired policemen, to assist with the investigations into these matters. What concerns me is that if what I am informed of is correct, and if what is in this report - which I have now no reason to doubt - is correct, Mr Borg’s assertion that there are work groups where improper conduct is tolerated and supported, and where the giving and receiving of gifts and benefits is common practice, somebody somewhere did not have their eye on the ball over the last full financial year in which the former government was in power.
When I became Attorney-General, I was astonished at the amount of things piling up on my desk which had not been attended to by the former Attorney-General. It is almost like the office had been vacated for months. It was an office which, essentially, had been vacated for months and all manner of things had been neglected by the former government. I do not know why, but if you do not have the presence of mind to attend to matters of such magnitude as the ones raised by Allan Borg, the Acting Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, there is something fundamentally wrong with your administrative capacity.
We are not talking about mere incompetence in this report; we are talking about allegations of corrupt behaviour. I find it incomprehensible that we found ourselves with reports like this on our desks, collectively, within weeks of coming into power. I find it hard to imagine how the former government could not have known, or at least been alerted to, some of these things. When in opposition, you hear these things all the time and you tend to take these allegations with a grain of salt by virtue of the fact every procurement process produces more losers than winners.
Generally speaking, you accept people are hurt and upset when they do not win contracts. Every so often you get information where you think, ‘Oh! That does not sound quite right.’ You try to pursue it but never get much joy, particularly from opposition. On this occasion, we find ourselves in a situation where some of the rumours we heard in opposition have more than a kernel of truth to them. We, as a government, will send an unequivocal signal, and I listened very carefully to the member for Braitling make exactly the same noises. We will not in any way tolerate corrupt activity; we will root it out and expunge it.
I believe the message is starting to get through because when I was at the Parap Markets at my usual stall someone seeking government contracts said, ‘You are scaring the public servants too much because they will not even have a cup of coffee’. Whilst I thought that was a little extreme, I am not too upset they have taken that approach because it shows a level of probity is starting to operate.
I would never argue or determine acceptance of a cup of coffee was a corrupt act, but for all those public servants who will be reading this Hansard transcript, or may be listening now, if you are involved in the procurement process and somebody offers you something, err on the side of caution. There is nothing wrong with the normal social behaviour of accepting a cup of coffee; not much corrupt activity can flow from that. I would have a public servant in the procurement process ask themself, ‘Is there an expectation based on the thing I am being offered? What would a reasonable person consider to be appropriate activity?’ If the answer to the question is that you are uncertain, do not do it. That is the benchmark I would expect public servants to apply. Judgment has to be called for but, as in the matters outlined in this report, seeking and accepting the gift of electrical appliances from a period contract holder is not on the right side of this discussion.
I am staggered that in the Northern Territory I would have to deal with an issue of this nature and apparent magnitude. One of the matters described in this report is currently under police investigation and we will see what the results of that are. The other matters subsequently raised with me by the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures will be investigated so the criminality, or otherwise, of those disclosures can be established. I am disappointed that we have to deal with an issue like this; however, we have been confronted with it and will be strident in our pursuit of it.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s
October 2012 Report
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s
October 2012 Report
Continued from 30 October 2012.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): As Leader of the Opposition I comment on the Auditor-General’s October 2012 report to the Legislative Assembly. I want to thank the Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, for his very thorough report. He canvassed quite a few issues in the October 2012 report going to a series of audits he has undertaken, and I will go to those audits and his comments in the report.
Pages 20 to 31 make good reading. It is his project summary in relation to the Darwin Correctional Precinct. It shows the rigorous assessments and the financials run through a public sector comparator in accordance with Infrastructure Australia PPP Guidelines. The Auditor-General found no concerns with the procurement process, and has also recommended that the Department of Infrastructure manage the project until completion. Then, of course, the Department of Correctional Services will take over.
The report, understandably, recognises the importance of the long-term oversight of the facility. This is a critical issue, and I ask the government to turn its attention to the role of Correctional Services going forward in oversight of the facility. It talks about the capacity of the facility and, again, we look forward to seeing in the upcoming mini-budget funding for Correctional Services, given the current government’s clear policy of locking up drunks.
In relation to the McMinn Street duplication - pages 32 to 35 - the report raises concerns about the contract variations, the project delays, and the significant cost overrun. The cost came in at $8.7m against the tender amount of $4.5m. The delays were a series of unidentified underground services, wet weather delays, unexpected high-voltage connection costs, and the discovery - to top it off - of a WWII bomb crater, then further wet weather as a result of the delays in dealing with the bomb crater.
Mr Elferink: I do not believe it was a crater, to be honest.
Ms LAWRIE: There is certainly conjecture out there, member for Port Darwin. It was declared a bomb crater and it held everything up. The cost increases were also impacted by significant project scope changes to deal with all these issues. The department raised the government’s concerns with the contractor at the time. The contractor’s systems were identified as the major contributing factor.
The report also looks into the Tiger Brennan Drive extension. I call that Stage 3, which is the overpass area on Berrimah Road. It talks about very modest overruns in Stages 1 and 2, which could be explained by the need to follow the new requirements after the adoption of the Austroads Guide to Road Design which replaced the VicRoads design guide.
The Auditor-General goes through the Department of Health grants to non-government organisations for primary health services - pages 42 to 48. Concerns have been raised about the grant management system - the GMS - and policies relating to funding and accountability for NGOs undertaking primary health services on behalf of the department. I welcome and recognise the efforts contained in this audit to improve GMS and accountability. I hope the new framework referred to regarding health as per the new Minister for Health’s announcement pays attention to the Auditor-General’s comments of being cognisant of the need for accountability, especially in contracting external and private providers. It would be a pity, and a dire shame, to see the significant steps forward in dealing with grants to NGOs as described in the audit take any retrograde step.
The Mandorah Ferry takes up pages 49 to 64. The Auditor-General undertook internal and external inquiries into the tender process. The internal procurement contract review found that while better record keeping and greater transparency would have improved the outcome, due process was followed. The external procurement process investigation focused on the second request for tender and identified problems with forward planning and risk management by the agency. It would have been ideal if the process had commenced much earlier. Best efforts were made in the time available to meet both community expectations and to ensure due process in what became, ultimately, a very difficult market environment.
Calibration of speed detection devices and breath testing equipment - pages 74 to 80. Most of us would know the court case arising from this. The Auditor-General looked at the NSW and Northern Territory review of calibration procedures and identified a lack of policies and procedures which still need to be addressed. I draw this to the government’s attention.
The Auditor-General saw an improvement in record keeping and accountability mechanisms. I welcome those actions by the police; however, speed detection devices and breath testing equipment are regularly tested and calibrated by suppliers or other authorised agents such as the Victorian police.
Finally, I draw members’ attention to the Project Employment Scheme - pages 81 to 83 - focusing on the public employment section of the government. The Auditor-General - I welcome this - has concerns that this employment scheme for people with disabilities under the Willing and Able Strategy policy setting is not providing measureable outcomes. What has happened to important programs such as the Willing and Able Strategy since the CLP has come in? I look forward to an update from the Minister for Public Employment on that. I am concerned that with the focus on job cuts the government may well lose the focus on the all important Willing and Able Strategy. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report, in particular, the findings and recommendations from the compliance audit undertaken in respect to performance reporting by the former Department of Resources, specifically, the performance indicators contained within the agency’s 2010-11 annual report.
Although the Auditor-General found the records supporting the performance information presented in the department’s annual report were reasonable, areas of improvement were identified. Further, although the Auditor-General acknowledges that with the restructure of the department the specific recommendations contained within the report are redundant, there is no doubt that the findings and recommendations provide valuable information and guidance for the new agencies.
The following issues were highlighted: the need for management to review the nature of performance indicators reported, including the nexus between budget papers and the annual report; the need to provide evidence of independent review and assessment of reported performance indicators; and the need to maintain sufficient and appropriate documentation to support all reported performance indicators.
The former Department of Resources was provided with a copy of the draft findings of the audit earlier this year. I understand the recommendations of the Auditor-General were referred to the department’s Risk Management and Audit Committee, the RMAC. I am advised the RMAC has begun the process of reviewing the agency’s performance indicators and examining how to improve the linkages with the agency’s corporate plan as well as developing meaningful, measureable, verifiable and robust performance indicators. The new agencies formed - the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the Department of Mines and Energy - will continue this work. I understand that as soon as the new audit structures have been established to service the new agencies the review of performance measures and indicators will be progressed in time for inclusion in next year’s budget papers.
I thank the Auditor-General for this report and the important contribution these reports make in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of delivering government services. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
New Health and Hospital Services Framework
New Health and Hospital Services Framework
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, Territorians want a health system which meets their needs. They want their little Paul’s tropical ear fixed so he can get back to school; someone to manage cousin Joe’s worsening diabetes so he can get back to work and feed his kids; Aunty May’s cancer be dealt with in Darwin; Mrs Smith across the road can one day get that hip replacement she desperately needs; there will be an ambo there the next time grandad has an angina attack; and there will be someone they can go to for advice to stop their kids from getting crook.
They also want choice. They want to use their private medical insurance with a doctor of their choice. They want to know if they need surgery there are more places to go than just the public hospital. They want to know there are good medical facilities and services in our regions. They want to go to a GP for treatment rather than queuing for hours at the emergency department if the illness can be treated at a clinic instead of the hospital. These things are what people expect from our health system.
They also know, because of our small population, there are procedures and treatment that may never take place in the Territory, but they expect our health system will be highly competent in dealing with our most common ailments. They also expect us to grow these competencies with visiting specialists and our own people so we do not have to fly to the other side of the continent if we are really sick. I know people expect this because I expect it too. Territorians have another expectation: they expect me to deliver on this.
Since being given the honour of being appointed Minister for Health, I have spent many hours talking with patients, clients, staff, clinicians, our non-government partners, the private sector, and key health system stakeholders. I have developed an enormous amount of admiration and respect for the people who work in our health system. I am amazed at the level and quality of services they deliver - many in difficult situations and locations - and they do it with compassion and dedication. They are ordinary people doing the extraordinary.
My gratitude extends to all staff in roles which support the frontline workers, from the kitchen and ground staff in our hospitals, nurses out bush, to senior executives in the department, and the many people who work in private clinics. They all do an incredibly important job.
A constant theme to emerge from my discussion across the Territory is the desire for our staff and service providers to be given greater responsibility for operational decisions which affect them and their clients; for red tape and bureaucracy to be reduced; to be able to use their initiative and be allowed to be innovative where appropriate; and for services to be more closely connected to the communities they serve.
Since becoming responsible for the Health portfolio, I have discovered - and it saddens me to report it – that our Health infrastructure is in a terrible state of disrepair across the Territory and the system is disconnected from the people in the communities it serves. Nobody is working out of big flash offices, hospitals, or clinics and, typical of Labor governments, there has been an overreliance on business rules, systems, and bureaucratic red tape. Our hard-working staff have very little buy-in and, as such, innovation and initiative is stifled. I am surprised staff morale is not affected more.
The previous government put in place a structure within the department which centralised decision-making and control. It took away important input and influence from our communities across the Territory. It is a top-down hierarchical structure which does not support innovation or seamlessly integrated services.
A lack of innovation and initiative was demonstrated by the previous Territory Labor government when, for years, across Australia all governments were reforming their health systems. Our Northern Territory government did not. Labor left us with a health system almost a decade behind the rest. The previous government members should hang their heads in shame. Not only were they lacklustre when it came to reforming how our health and hospital services were delivered, but they were happy to sit by and idly let their federal masters ignore the needs of Territorians. They did not have the backbone to stand up to federal Labor to get their fair share of the Australian government funding the Territory requires and is entitled to.
The Northern Territory accounts for 1 % of Australia’s population, but 2 % of all public hospital admissions in Australia. This one piece of data is an indicator of sickness. We have Australia’s sickest people by a factor of two. We have the country’s longest waiting times for elective surgery. Admission into a hospital from the emergency department can sometimes take an entire day or more. We have an explosion in the number of chronic disease cases every year, and Indigenous Territorians continue a downward spiral in health outcomes. This is further evidence of just how sick our health system is and how afflicted our people are.
However, Canberra’s response to this much higher level of need is to fund the Territory at a much lower proportion than any other jurisdiction. The Commonwealth’s share of total government funding for health in the Northern Territory is 43%. This is the lowest rate in the nation and compares to the national average Commonwealth funding share of 62%. I am reliably informed this gap in funding could be as high as $600m per year. Ironically and perversely, those states with the healthiest people have the lion’s share of national health funding. Did we hear a peep from the former Territory Labor government about this disgraceful level of support from their comrades in Canberra? This miserable level of funding is compounded by the fact the Territory has the lowest number of GPs in Australia. In urban areas in the Territory, there are 66 GPs per 100 000 people compared with the national average of 92. In rural areas, the Territory has 51 GPs per 100 000 compared with 84 nationally.
This much lower number of GPs in the Territory results in a far greater burden on our hospitals and other publically provided health services. It has also reduced the Territory’s access to Medicare funding. I would even go as far as to observe that while there are GPs in Sydney making a living from treating people with hypochondria, ingrown toenails and sunburn, many practitioners in remote parts of the NT are treating the whole gambit of life-threatening chronic diseases. This is yet another example of Australia’s health system unfairness.
Labor simply never understood the role a robust and efficient private sector could play in our health system. They could not comprehend there are good synergies with an active private sector working in concert with our public system. Hospitals have a real desire to free up beds for those in greater need, whilst it is a desire of those in private practice to grow their businesses and free up space in public hospitals. Happily for me, there are people in the NT who have taken responsibility for their own health to the extent they want to pay for the treatment option of using private health providers. These people reduce the strain on the public health system and the taxpayer and should be applauded, not treated as outlaws as they have been by the former Labor government.
Private practitioners who bulkbill are in even greater demand and an expansion in these services will see a real reduction in waiting times at emergency departments. Our experience to date demonstrates this. The poorly designed Palmerston GP Super Clinic dealt with over 9000 admissions in the last year and the small bulk billing practice in Casuarina saw almost 60 000 people in its first six months of operation.
The former government ignored these vital services and put up roadblocks to discourage further operators in the marketplace. Its focus was almost exclusively on the public sector. Remember, private providers are, potentially, our partners in helping reduce the burden on our public system. Rather than do anything to nurture and develop private practices, the previous government pathetically put out its hand to accept capital money for one-off trinkets from the federal government. Labor never cared about the ongoing operational costs associated with these trinkets. Even though there was no operational funding, it was just something else we could put on our credit card.
The $18.6m medi-hotel at Royal Darwin Hospital is a classic example of this. The facility was due to open shortly. However, there was no money to run it. Territorians have had to find $5.5m annually, and staff at our premier hospital are expected to perform the role of hotelier. Another example is the dialysis bus in Central Australia which was a $2m gift from federal Labor that costs more than $200 000 to run. The previous NT government never budgeted for those costs and created an expectation of an ongoing and expanded dialysis service.
A further example which I had to put a stop to is another medi-hotel at Gove hospital of all places. It was proposed to build a federal Labor-funded $5.8m 12-bed patient accommodation unit without a budget to run it. Just put it on the card, as usual. Is it any wonder the former Labor government left us with such spiralling debt? These are just some examples of its poor decision-making and inability to strike a proper deal for Territorians. There are plenty of others I could cite.
I do not intend to sit on my hands like the previous minister with the same health and hospitals system I have inherited.
Honourable members, you can be assured that, unlike the former minister, I will not be shying away from my duty to structurally reform our health system. I will do my utmost to support and nurture private practice and to force the Commonwealth to increase its funding to the Northern Territory health and hospital systems to bring us at least close to the national average level.
The reforms I am about to detail are significant, contemporary and, most importantly, well overdue. As Health minister, I am determined to reform the health system to ensure the needs of Territorians are being met and health workers have the tools to do the job. Frontline workers should be empowered to make local decisions which suit their communities’ needs and are supported by a Territory-wide system which provides the platform to ensure they can deliver safe, quality services in our community.
These reforms will provide an opportunity to better integrate services between the private sector, the primary care sector and the hospital sector to improve our patient and client journeys. The reforms I am announcing today will provide all of this. In considering these issues, I have also reviewed the requirements placed on the Northern Territory as a consequence of the National Health Reform Agreement with the Commonwealth, and have reviewed arrangements in place in other jurisdictions.
The new service framework I announce today is contemporary and based on the principles of:
ensuring community responsiveness; better coordinated and integrated services
Putting these principles into action requires significant structural change in our health services, hospitals and the department. Put simply, there will be a Territory-wide client-focused service delivery system comprising health and hospital services. Operational management for service delivery will be vested in two health and hospital boards, one in the Top End and one in Central Australia.
The boards will have management responsibility initially for hospitals and, later, for broader health services in their regions. The management boards will have representation from the Gove, Katherine, and Tennant Creek communities. The Department of Health will be much leaner and more efficient. It will have a more traditional role of policy advice and support to the government, Territory-wide planning, clinical governance, negotiating and monitoring performance agreements with the new health and hospital boards, negotiation with the Commonwealth, and managing Territory-wide services such as population, health and disease control.
An important element in ensuring a Territory-wide system which delivers consistent and quality services will be the establishment of the Health and Hospital Services Council. Within the overall system plan, the council will provide strategic advice on Territory-wide service and system issues, quality performance and accountability. Council membership will include the chairs of hospital boards including chairs of the advisory committees from Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Gove hospitals, the chief executive of the Health department, and other senior health sector representatives.
These changes are far-reaching and provide a significant progression from the complex and over-managed centralised structure which was a hallmark of Labor administration over the last decade. These changes will restore responsibility and authority to regional areas and reduce the management levels involved in decision-making. They will empower those at the coalface to make decisions which are timely and responsive. This level of responsibility and accountability is far greater than what Labor gave the current hospital network boards. In view of the significance of the changes, responsibility will be devolved to the boards in a staged way first, for hospital services and later for health services. Systems will be delivered to support the boards to take on this significant task.
These changes will bring our health and hospital system into line with contemporary practice in Australia. Change as significant as this needs to be implemented carefully and with consultation. However, I want it to be done as quickly as possible as I am committed to making these changes for the benefits of patients, clients, staff, and our key service partners.
These changes will be supported by detailed plans and a time line with realistic and achievable milestones. Significant input will be sought from clinicians and other service providers. Changes to the Department of Health will commence early in 2013. I anticipate the health and hospital boards will commence their formal responsibilities from 1 July 2013. Progressive transfer of health services to these regionally-based boards will also commence in 2013. Full transfer of health services is expected to be completed by the end of 2014.
To further explain these reforms, I am commencing a roadshow in early December to regional service areas to talk through the changes, why they are needed, and the benefits to patients, clients and staff. Furthermore, I have tasked the Chief Executive, Mr Jeff Moffet, with leading the implementation of these changes.
In closing, these changes will make a real difference to everyone involved in our health and hospital systems. Most importantly, our Territory patients will have greater access to better connected and coordinated services through a comprehensive regional management structure. The changes will make a real difference to our frontline people, who will now be empowered by the devolution of authority and responsibility to make local decisions which are responsive to the unique needs of their individual patients. The changes will also make a real difference to staff in the Health department, who, without having to deal with the service delivery issues, can realign their focus on core support services, policy and planning responsibilities.
I would like to offer my thanks to all those staff, service providers, and consumers who have taken the time to talk to me and give me their thoughts on how to improve health and hospital services in the Territory. Their advice has been invaluable in helping me develop this new service system for the Northern Territory, and I am looking forward to further engagement and discussion with them into the future.
A final but very important point: in all my discussions with people over the past few months regarding the current state of health and hospital systems in the Northern Territory and my intention to reform it, not one person has asked me, ‘Why are you doing this? Why are you even considering changing the system? The system is perfect.’
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not going to be an easy road. However, I am looking forward to working to the best of my ability as Health minister to achieve the very best health system possible for all Territorians. I commend the statement to the House and I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his first statement in the House on the very important issue of health services. I was looking forward to hearing what he thought of the department. There is no doubt the system needs to be changed and was on the way to being changed. I knew there would be the usual anti-Labor rhetoric going back years and claiming everything was the fault of the previous Labor government. I was really looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the department. Does he have Tollner’s grand plan? I received the statement and realised Tollner’s grand plan is more like Jim Hacker’s grand plan, if you remember Yes Minister.
The statement is welcomed. There are no details in the statement. I am looking forward to more details in the future. It is disappointing as a taste of the things to come with cuts to services and facilities. I am sure we will see more of that in the mini-budget.
I agree with the minister: Territorians deserve a health system which meets their needs. In the past 10 years, the Labor government did exactly that: restructured, improved, and put in place a health system to serve Territorians. It has not been and is not a perfect one, but it is much better than what we found in 2001.
At that time we found a system with facilities which needed to be upgraded. Wards were closed by the CLP government. That system needed more doctors and nurses, and had no renal dialysis facilities outside Darwin, Katherine, and Alice Springs. The department had a fake budget, with the books cooked by the then Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, who admitted he did it. That is why he did not remain Under Treasurer for much longer.
The minister made a number of admissions in his statement about our health system. Finally, he admitted we have the sickest population, we do not have enough GPs - as I said over the past three or four years I was minister - and limited bulkbilling was taking place in the Territory. At the same time, he shows he has to learn much more about the system. He made much of the private health providers in the Territory. There are none! GP numbers in the Territory are the lowest in the nation. We have one private hospital in Darwin. Private providers do not come to Darwin or, if they are here, they leave. What happened when the paediatrician at the Darwin Private Hospital quit? Every person who used his services has to go to Royal Darwin Hospital.
However, let us look at his plan. He mentioned a new framework for health but, unfortunately, it is a framework which will blow out administrative costs at the expense of frontline services. The proposal seeks to push responsibility into communities and, at the same time, covers his back. It will not be the minister’s responsibility. I am for letting the community have a say. I was the minister who instructed the department to have extensive consultation with Territory people about the proposed health and hospital boards. The department wanted one. I insisted it talk to the people and, as a result, we have the Top End and Central Australia health and hospital boards.
I always supported health professionals - the nurses, the health workers - anywhere they worked in the Territory. That is the reason we embarked on a recruitment drive for more doctors and nurses when we came to government. We now have the highest number of doctors, specialists and nurses in the Territory.
The minister made some interesting points and claims about the funding from the Commonwealth. He said we receive a lower amount of money from the Commonwealth than any other state. We receive about 43%. I remind him, he was in federal parliament when his mate, Tony Abbott, as Minister for Health, changed the funding formula for the states and territories from 50:50 to 30% Commonwealth and 70% territories and states. That means we had to pay 70 for every $1 spent in the health budget, because Tony Abbott removed the 50:50 ratio and made it 30:70. We clawed it back to nearly 50:50, and we progressed with the Commonwealth to argue for more funding.
He made comments about infrastructure being in a state of disrepair. I suggest he travels around the Territory and looks at some of the facilities. I would like him to visit Royal Darwin Hospital to see the new upgraded facilities: the new upgraded emergency department with a new children’s section. He can see the re-opened wards at Royal Darwin Hospital, the ones which were closed when the CLP was in government. He can see the power distribution area for Royal Darwin Hospital.
Look at the ungraded emergency department at Katherine! Look at the state-of-the-art emergency department in Alice Springs! Look at the Tennant Creek Hospital, one of the smallest hospitals in the Territory. Labor spent millions of dollars to upgrade it. Look at the renal dialysis facilities in Alice Springs, minister. The previous government provided facilities which are the envy of other states and, as a result, people from Western Australia and South Australia come to Alice Springs to be treated rather than being treated in their own state.
Should I remind the minister of the fiasco which occurred during the upgrade of Alice Springs Hospital? This government is now in court with a company which was upgrading Alice Springs Hospital in the CLP days. At the same time, should I remind you, minister, it was you and your party which objected to the upgrade of the children’s ward at Royal Darwin Hospital when the Commonwealth decided to fund the upgrading - a ward which should not be upgraded, but should be completely remodelled and a stand-alone paediatric ward built at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The minister states the Labor government did not invest much in health and, as a result, the health of people spiralled downwards. Well, you must be the only person in the Territory who does not know anything about the health improvements of Indigenous Territorians. Should I remind you about the reduction in infant mortality for Indigenous children? Should I remind you of the reduction of anaemia in Indigenous children? Should I remind you of the reduction in cervical cancer in Indigenous women, member for Fong Lim? Should I tell you Indigenous people in the Territory undergoing renal dialysis now have the same life expectancy as people in Adelaide, Perth or Sydney? That did not happen by accident; it happened because the Labor government invested in the health of Indigenous Territorians.
You mentioned the renal bus which we funded - $200 000 - to travel around Central Australia. The member for Namatjira said, ‘Shame’. You should be ashamed. That bus provided services to your own people. When they could not come to the city, the bus went to them and treated them. It was a CLP minister who said on an ABC program, ‘If they do not come to town, they can die in their communities’. It is on the record and you should be ashamed you do not stand up for your own people. Enough is enough! We had enough of your rhetoric and double face. You never stood up for your people only yourself.
We know very well, especially after watching the 7.30 Report on Friday, of allegations the current member made a promise to bring back full-strength beer. I suggest you watch the 7.30 Report. It is very, very interesting. We can hear more about that.
The whole proposal today by the minister is nothing more than a smokescreen to cut funds to hospitals and clinical services. The minister used his statement to announce cuts to the dialysis service in Central Australia and health accommodation in Gove. He must be the only minister who does not know that having people in a hospital is more expensive than putting people in the Hilton. The cost per person per night in a hospital bed is more expensive than putting people in the Hilton. It takes a great deal of money, effort and staff to look after people in hospital when they do not need to be there. These people now can be accommodated in a hostel at a significantly reduced cost. I suggest you talk to some of the people in the department, even some people outside the department. Some of your colleagues in other states, irrespective of whether they are Liberal or Labor, will tell you exactly the same.
Minister, you say the department will be a traditional department. Can you please explain what a ‘traditional department’ is? Is it a department which is going to lose many people so it does not have the capacity to support the boards? Will it be a department which will pay the bills with no responsibility for recruitment? Will it be a department to serve the minister?
You talk about the private sector and I welcome your interest. I tried many times to bring private providers to the Territory, be it GPs or others. I argued with the federal government and, as a result, we had an increase in subsidies from the federal government for people to be relocated outside urban centres. We had people provided with significant assistance to relocate to the Northern Territory but, you are quite right, some doctors are prepared to treat hypochondriacs in Sydney where they make more money rather than work in the Territory.
The only private hospital in the Territory is Darwin Private Hospital. You can have a baby there or some minor operations. When things get tough, people from the private hospital are wheeled to Royal Darwin Hospital because it has all the necessary facilities to provide for people with serious health problems.
You refer to trinkets provided by the federal government. Is the medi-hotel at RDH a trinket? Is the proposed medi-hotel in Gove a trinket? Is the medical school in Darwin a trinket? Is the oncology centre in Darwin a trinket? I do not think so. At the same time …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Do not laugh. You started your political future with that oncology centre and could not deliver because your mate, Tony, would not give you the money. Kevin Rudd and Damian Hale finally came up with the money and we now have the oncology unit.
Is the promise to provide a hospital in Palmerston a trinket? I wonder if the Chief Minister thinks the same and is prepared to say to the people in Palmerston he will not accept the Commonwealth trinket and then establish Palmerston Hospital.
There were a number of commitments in the pre-election campaign from the CLP but I cannot see any in your statement. There is no reference to cardiac services. Where is the money for Katherine hospital? The member for Katherine was telling people they would have a brand new hospital. It is very interesting you have made this statement before the mini-budget. I bet it is because, after the mini-budget, you will announce the slashing of services, breaking election commitments, and the things you promised will never be delivered.
At the same time, you say you want to reduce expenditure. How can you do that when you have to find $4.5m for the hospital to pay for the 30% increase in power, water and sewerage charges? At the end of the day, you might be getting money through the bills for power, water and sewerage, but you have to provide money in your budget for hospitals, clinics, schools, and all the other public facilities which use electricity and water.
You mentioned you are going to cut red tape and bureaucracy, but what will you put in place? The press release your CEO put out today mentioned that the functional chart showed there will be two health and hospital services. They will be, for the first time, managed by statutory management boards. That is very good. They were already in place but, at the same time, there will a Territory health and hospital service council which will report to the Health minister, a smaller more focused Department of Health, and a system-wide corporate support bureau. You had the Department of Health and two boards, now you have a Department of Health, two boards, a corporate support bureau, and a hospital services council as a fourth group where you had two before. How the hell are you going to cut bureaucracy when you replace two entities with four? When you do it please let me know. It will be a really good joke to tell at Christmas and I wish you much luck.
I am afraid your intentions are good but you have been taken for a ride. Mark my words; your administrative costs will be enormous.
Today you have raised more questions with your statement. I accept your good intentions because, like you, we had a system which needed to be fixed. Unlike you, I enjoyed being Health minister. You were given the poisoned chalice by the Chief Minister to keep you occupied so you did not try to take his position; I told you that from the very beginning. It is a very good portfolio, although, unfortunately, a thankless task. You will never get a thank you from anyone because the health sector is used by people in need, people who are stressed, people who require assistance and, in some cases, irrespective of what decision is given, the outcomes will not be positive.
Minister, your statement raises more questions than answers. You want to convert the boards to fully autonomous boards. I will tell you a story. A few years back I visited a Health minister in a southern state and asked him to explain why he continued with fully autonomous boards. The government allocated money to them and told them to spend the money and run their own services. He told me he did not have to worry about anything in the health system, it was all the boards’ responsibility and he had nothing to worry about. I suspect this is your grand plan. Jim Hacker’s grand plan is independent boards, get rid of the responsibility – ‘I enjoy my life’. I wish you luck, minister, but I will be following the advancement of your plan. I will be asking questions. I will be talking to people and the difference is, I talk and I listen. You talk, but you do not listen very much.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a number of matters very close to my heart. One is an area I have worked in and devoted much of my time to over many years: the health of my people. I welcome the minister’s statement today as it gives direction and a commonsense approach lacking in recent years. Being one of the largest components of the Territory’s budget, we need to look very closely at gaining efficiencies without compromising this very important part of our responsibility as a government.
For far too long I have witnessed a haphazard approach to the delivery of health services in the bush. In saying this, I make it very clear that the people working on the front line are doing a fantastic job under very trying circumstances. The reason I say haphazard is there is such a disjointed approach to health. So many organisations working in the health area answer to a boss, a manager, who is often sitting in an office in Darwin or another major centre and is making decisions on matters they can be totally out of touch with.
In the Katherine region we have three health organisations all working to the best of their ability, but this new approach should help those organisations coordinate their activities. If we can decentralise the day-to-day management decisions, it will definitely benefit the people on the ground and allow them to adapt as situations demand. The end result will be a better service to our clients. For example, Katherine hospital is able to do elective surgery. We can upgrade that. We can work towards the future of Tennant Creek Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and Katherine hospital instead of sending our patients to Darwin for elective surgery and other stuff.
Regional services need to connect more and provide a better service to our constituents or clients. It is the priority of this government and I am here to help in that process. I am very disturbed, I might say disgusted, at the level of funding provided by the federal government. When you see the average disparity of nearly 20% in the federal funding allocated as described by the minister today, you can only ask, ‘What are you doing to the people in the bush?’ We have some of the most disadvantaged people in Australia living in the Territory and blind Freddy can tell you to deliver the same service to someone from Bulman, for example, will cost much more than to someone from the urban areas of Melbourne or Sydney. No wonder my people have a much lower life expectancy than people from southern states.
I vow to never give up getting a fair go for the people of the bush. We need to be funded fairly if we are ever going to close the gap, which is a catchcry from the Labor federal government. I can only wonder why the previous Labor government in the Territory did not take up the fight with its federal counterparts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a new government now and members will not be sitting on their hands. The minister’s statement is a step in the right direction and I strongly support the statement today.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement of the Minister for Health which announced a tremendous and much-needed reform to our healthcare system. The organisational restructure and fundamental cultural change which will occur in the healthcare sector over the next 18 months will transition the Territory’s healthcare system from sickness to health.
Growing up in the Territory, I am only too aware of the sentiments in our community about the level of care available to Territorians. I do not believe there is a person in this Chamber who has not heard someone say, ‘When in pain get on a plane’. In fact, that sentiment has become an ingrained part of life for Territorians. Today is the day when our government says enough is enough.
As a legal practitioner practising in litigation, I have come across, all too many times, patients who have suffered as a direct result of the poor staffing levels of our hospitals, the lack of resources, the strain placed on our medical personnel who are forced to work unsafe hours just to get through waiting lists, mismanagement, and waste. No one wins in litigation; the health sector loses, the medical practitioner loses and, most of all, the patient loses.
Over the last 11 years, the Labor government did a disservice to Territorians. It has robbed us of valuable opportunities and run our health system into the ground. It seems that Labor governments all have something in common: the legacy they like to leave of debt, destruction, and fundamental mismanagement of public money and public services.
The Territory healthcare system is abominable. We have all heard the stories from nurses who are out there every day, all night long, seven days a week, 365 days a year, delivering the best care they can to patients across the Territory. We have all heard their plight at the waste in the public health system, the mismanagement of resources, the layers and layers of bureaucracy.
I was speaking with Anne and Cath from the Palmerston 50+ Tuesday Club last week about their first experiences of nursing in the 1960s. It was very interesting to hear their stories about the shortage of beds in hospitals, the lack of funding and resources to deliver proper healthcare, and the helplessness of a situation where they were merely treated as the wound dresser, being dictated to by ‘know-all’ hierarchies whose creature comforts shielded them from service delivery. As I reflect on the conversation I had with these two women, whom I respect greatly, I cannot help but think we in the Territory have not come all that far in how we deliver health services these days.
What the Minister for Health has revealed today is a comprehensive plan to grab the current health organisational chart and flip it on its head. Our government will be putting the clinicians on the top of the chart; they will be the focal point of health service delivery because they are the people on the front line in our hospitals, clinics, and remote health facilities facing the full wrath of the Territory’s health needs.
The model of having two boards responsible for service delivery is not rocket science; it is logical and makes perfect sense for the Territory. The boards will be given budgets, they will be separate entities from the department, and will be responsible for health service delivery within their jurisdictions. This set-up will remove the layers and layers of bureaucracy currently in place. An example is this: a nurse in Yuendumu does what he or she can with the resources available at the time. A patient comes into the clinic with a range of health issues including mental health, transmittable disease, and disability. Instead of the nurse picking up the phone and making one call, they must first, under the Labor system, track through numerous layers of management. Those layers then have to track through silos of other health service providers to find the person or the answer they need, which is then fed back down the chain to the nurse in Yuendumu who, by this stage, is surely well and truly over it. Is there any wonder retention of staff is such a huge issue in the bush?
Under our health reform, the nurse will form part of a team of people with the requisite experience to get the answers in one call. The reform empowers the nurses to make the decisions they need to when they need to. This was affirmed today by Diane Walsh, Chair of the General Practice Network NT on ABC radio this morning. I quote from the transcript.
- I think anything that really gives control of the health system back to the users of the system can only be a good thing. So letting the people who actually use the services at a local level actually have some input into the governance of the system and, therefore take on the accountability for that, surely really allows the system to better address the real needs of that service whether it is in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, out in Gove, wherever that system is working with those people.
Not only was the Labor health system clunky, overregulated and layered with complication, it was grossly underfunded. We have all heard of the notorious way in which Treasurer’s Advances were written out when departments needed topping up. Health is no exception and a culture of ‘top ups’ has ensued. The $60m deficit the Department of Health operated under in the last financial year will be no more. Our health boards will be given a real budget, one which properly delivers the services needed right across the Territory. It will be the board’s job to administer that budget and deliver health services in a way which emulates the private sector focus on operating with efficiency, to budget, and a core focus on service delivery.
The board will be responsible and accountable with its budget and deliver on promise. There will be no ‘top ups’, no Treasurer’s Advances, and no culture of ‘when we run out they will give us more’. There will be no more putting it on the credit card for the Department of Health. This will mean, by its nature, the board will have an interest in treating Territorians in their own community, whether that is Palmerston, Gove, Maningrida or Alice Springs. Hospital, especially Royal Darwin and Alice Springs, should be the last resort. This, of course, is in the interest of all Territorians who deserve to have access to comprehensive health care in their region. It makes perfect sense to utilise the resources we have to their full potential and relieve the burden on the public system where we can by ensuring appropriate localised treatment is administered, thereby reducing admissions to our hospitals.
The Minister for Health spoke of the importance of private sector involvement in health services and, despite what the former Minister for Health said in his response to the statement, ‘private sector’ are dirty words to Labor believers. The Country Liberals understand the importance and value the private sector can bring to all sectors of our community and our economy.
I will explain the value in the context of increasing GP services and bulkbilling in Palmerston. As always, Labor raised the hope and expectation of Palmerston residents about the capability of the would-be GP super clinic. The self-fulfilling prophecy Labor created, championed, and spun in support of its then fearless leader, Kevin Rudd, has left Palmerston residents disillusioned and, even worse, robbed of a service they expected and needed. What many Palmerston residents do not understand through absolutely no fault of their own is the Palmerston GP Super Clinic is not a Northern Territory government asset. It is a facility operated by a private partnership between Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. To this extent, it is a business. The problem is it has not been functioning well as a result of design flaws with the building due to lack of proper planning and consultation, and poor management. The federal government has abandoned the super clinic and provided little more than seed funding for the venture. This all equals fewer services for Palmerston residents.
Robyn Cahill has been seconded from the Department of Health to the GP super clinic to put in place a rigorous operational and management plan which will ensure that the GP super clinic functions as intended and delivers optimum services to Palmerston residents. Since her secondment, service delivery at the GP super clinic has markedly increased and will continue to increase well into the future.
The Northern Territory government provides the finances to cover the costs of the nurses and doctors who staff the Palmerston Urgent Care After-Hours Service which operates from 10 pm to 8 am, seven days a week. This is a commitment to Palmerston to deliver 24-hour medical services to the people in the area.
The positive message about the value of private practice is one Territorians rarely hear about due to the hysteria of the opposition and its obsession with scam campaigns to the media. Let it be known to the people of the Northern Territory, specifically the people of Palmerston, of which I am one, that increases to private medical practice in our beautiful city will create competition which will bring the price of attending a doctor down and will also, by the nature of competition, see the increase of bulkbilling in medical practices.
Territorians have been fed falsehoods by Labor for too long. Labor has created a culture whereby Territorians believe the Northern Territory government is there to prop up services, stick its nose into areas where it should not, when, in fact, if we decrease the red tape for business and encourage private practice we will see the opening of many more clinics in Palmerston that bulkbill.
The Northern Territory has the lowest level of bulkbill services in the country compared to our southern counterparts. Why? Not because state governments subsidise private practice but because natural competition means in many circumstances private practices which bulkbill are more commercially viable than those that charge $80 per visit. That concept is incomprehensible to Labor but is the truth. We have seen an example of this in the northern suburbs where private GPs have opened a doctors surgery and bulkbill patients without handouts or subsidy. This is the future of GP care for the Northern Territory, and I will fight for this as the direction of GP care in Palmerston. We are a place of families, young people, hope and community, and we will have access to bulkbilling once again through natural competition in the private sector.
The GP super clinic saw 90 000 through its doors last year. This demonstrates a need for private practice in Palmerston. I hope to see an increase of services to the super clinic such as a day surgery like the one recently opened in Casuarina. Darwin Day Surgery has two operating theatres run by a private practice where there are no waiting lists, where Territorians can get the benefit of their private health cover which, at present, is virtually non-existent. This will relieve much of the strain on the public health system. I am confident our government will foster an increase in private health services in Palmerston as it has in the northern suburbs.
The only option for the reform of health services for this minister and this government that is not on the table is to do nothing.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Madam Speaker, I support this visionary statement the Minister for Health has brought to the House this evening. I congratulate not only the minister but this government for having the foresight to be different and create a system. It is well-known we have different people with greater needs in the Northern Territory.
I want to talk briefly on a certain part of the minister’s statement which really affects my people and has affected my immediate family. I want to quote from the minister’s statement some of the things he said about renal dialysis.
- Another example is the dialysis bus in Central Australia which was a $2m gift from federal Labor that costs more than $200 000 to run. The previous NT government never budgeted for those costs and created an expectation of an ongoing and expanded dialysis service.
This is the part which really hurts us. The expectation has been put there that the renal bus is going to every community and will take every renal dialysis patient out of Alice Springs back into country to see their grandchildren and their family. I know this because I deal with my family who are on renal dialysis in Alice Springs and, unlike the former Minister for Health, these people travel around in my car. As the local member, I take them back to country when the bus cannot go onto country. I take them for their sorry business, I take them to sports weekends, and I take them back to visit their families. I had an uncle on my community who chose not to go on renal dialysis so he died. That was his choice and, along with the family, we supported him to ensure he had the most comfortable care at home because he did not want to leave his country, his family and his grandchildren and move into Alice Springs to access the renal dialysis machine.
These are the impacts on Aboriginal people in the communities. To half-heartedly fund something which sets these people up with the wrong expectation - thinking they are going home when this bus is not going to the communities - will kill these people. I do many things with my people, with renal dialysis people. I take them back to country to visit their family, back for sorry business, back for ceremonies and they travel inside my car. They camp inside my house and their extended families, when they come to visit, camp with me and drive around with me.
At no stage did the former minister see any of these people on their communities or visit them in their homes. Did he at any stage talk to renal patients apart from turning up for a camera shot when a patient was hooked up to a dialysis machine? No. He does not know the expectation he set up and the failures of the system. Those are the things the new minister outlined in his statement this evening.
The former government did not have the foresight to do anything. All it did was create anxiety amongst people in remote Aboriginal communities and the Northern Territory, and the huge expectations it put on the shoulders of the most vulnerable people in the Northern Territory. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
The former Health minister has the audacity to say Labor did this and Labor did that. Labor has done nothing except increase the expectation of the most vulnerable people that they will have a bus service to take them back to their country to visit their grannies and families on remote Aboriginal communities. A good friend of mine, Ken McGregor, walked from Alice Springs to Yuendumu, from Yuendumu to Papunya, from Papunya to Mount Liebig, from Mount Liebig to Kintore and to a Western Australian community called Kiwirrkurra to raise awareness and money for Aboriginal people with renal disease and to ensure it was highlighted across the country that Aboriginal people were suffering from renal failure at a greater rate than anyone else.
For the former government to put so much expectation with all the lies about the bus to take people back onto country is not Territorian. It is not the style we, as Territorians, see and appreciate. We have so many people, not just in hostels, but in private homes in Alice Springs, Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek, who access renal dialysis machines. It is not just patients we are talking about. We are talking about them bringing their wives and children into town because they do not want to leave their families behind on the communities. They know they have to go to renal three times a week. Did the former minister deliver food to them when they were out of food or money? No. He has the gumption to say we do not care about people; we do not speak out for them. He thinks he does. He has never spoken up for people. He had a system which failed the Northern Territory, failed Aboriginal people and failed every Territorian. He should be absolutely ashamed, as the former minister, to condemn my colleague, the Minister for Health, and this government which has foresight into correcting the wrongs of the Labor party and identifying a better way to deliver health services in the Northern Territory so all Territorians benefit from the good health service this visionary government has put together.
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Health, and this government for bringing to this House something very unique for Territorians because we are different to any other state or territory. We are Territorians. As the minister outlined, we have a big cohort of Aboriginal people on the list with critical illnesses like diabetes, amputees, and children with failure to thrive. That is the kind of Territory it is. It is an absolute shame that for 10 years we were locked up by the Labor government not really doing anything, not really moving forward, just taking in all this debt it has left the Northern Territory with. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Health and congratulate him for his announcement of returning decision-making to regional Territory and the hospitals.
These are his words:
- These changes are far-reaching and provide a significant progression from the complex and over-managed centralised structure which was a hallmark of Labor administration over the last decade.
- ... state of disrepair across the Territory and the system is disconnected from the people in the communities it serves.
I never saw the previous minister for Health in the regional centres. I never saw him care about our people’s health. We will take our minister out bush with us and expose him to all that is left from the Labor Party days, when a minister who was supposed to look after our people’s health never gave a hoot about our people. Alcoholism, renal failure, diabetes, heart failure, name anything ...
Ms Anderson: Child neglect.
Mrs PRICE: Child neglect - everything has risen. For the 11 years Labor was in government it did not care. The previous government did not find out what was happening in the regional centres, what was happening to Territorians who deserve the best in health, transport, housing, and everything that should be provided to them as Australians.
Little did the then Minister for Health, the member for Casuarina ...
Ms Lee: That is all he is now.
Mr Giles: That is him; that is the one.
Mrs PRICE: Yes. Little did he realise the day the 7.30 Report people were out there that it was my niece’s funeral. I held back from saying what I needed to say out of respect for my cousin whose niece had died.
I made it clear that the social club in Kalkarindji was a great opportunity for people to sit, talk, socialise, and I thought it was the best social club in that part of my electorate. The 7.30 Report clearly stated I did not confirm or deny I made promises to keep full-strength beer. I would rather him listen to what the 7.30 Report said my comments were ...
Ms Anderson: The ninth member of the Labor Party.
Mrs PRICE: That is right. The casualties on that road and the alcoholism - has he driven that road and seen all the green cans along the highway where people stop and drink their nine cartons, 16 cartons, or whatever? Does he really understand what that is all about?
My niece’s funeral put a stop to that. Until people know how to decide for themselves - as government we have said we will give them the choice. It is their choice to decide what they want in their communities and we will support that; I will support that.
To my learned colleague, I am going to Kalkarindji to talk to Roslyn Frith because she is my in-law and we can talk things through. I bet he would not know how to do that.
We will always go and talk to people about any issue that comes up. Whether it is housing, health, or shires, we will do our best, and will ensure it is done properly. I have listened to Labor for 11 years ...
Ms Anderson: Telling lies.
Mrs PRICE: ... telling lies and talking about how it will improve Aboriginal health, housing, roads; I have been here for the whole lot. That is why I joined the Country Liberals; I had heard enough rubbish.
Madam Speaker, I feel sorry for the previous member for Arnhem because the former government did not use her wisely.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, I support this statement. It is great to see some real reform coming through in our health sector. There is more in the first page of this document than ever came out of the Labor Party in the last 11 years with regard to health reform and where we stand.
Member for Stuart, you do not have anything to worry about because the minister said in his statement he would be travelling across the Territory with Jeff Moffett, Chief Executive of the Department of Health, in the coming months talking to many staff and key stakeholders about the new structure. It is in the first page of this document: a new service framework for health and hospital services in the Northern Territory. I was the shadow Health minister for five-and-a-half years and feel like I am giving the same speech over and over in this House. I am pleased the Minister for Health has embraced a very strong Country Liberal platform and policy. He has brought it into the House, will continue to do so, and roll-out what we believe to be a great new world for health service delivery across the Northern Territory.
We do not need fundamental health reform, at least we should not. The reason we reached a situation where the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd, announced a great new health and hospitals reform package, which was really just smoke and mirrors for a change in funding arrangements but touted as the greatest health reform since Medicare, was not because our health system was broken, it was the result of long-term state Labor government incompetence. It was as simple as that. Here, we had long-term Labor governments - wall-to-wall Labor across the country, states and territories - which had been in power for decades, in some cases, close to two decades. Is it any wonder we reached a point where the new prime minister at the time said, ‘Enough is enough! We need to do something because people are not receiving the health service delivery they deserve.’ It is a fundamental right that every Australian receives adequate health care when required. It is a core responsibility of any government to deliver that to all Australians. We reached a point where that was not happening. People were waiting extraordinary lengths of time for elective surgery or emergency surgery.
In some cases, the Northern Territory was dragging the chain in nearly all areas of elective and emergency surgery. All categories: Category 1, Category 2 - even Category 1, at some point. We were one of the worst offenders in the country in delivering emergency medical treatment to those who presented at the hospital ED. It was the same with elective surgery. We saw people waiting days, months, weeks, years even. In fact, we still have people on the waiting list, waiting for years to have elective surgery. If an elective surgery or a complication arising from the issue or medical ailment is not treated in time, it can lead to serious complications, sometimes death.
We should not need fundamental hospital reform. If hospitals and our health system across the country were managed properly, adequately and resourced appropriately, we would not be at this point. We would have one of the best hospital systems in the country, one of the best in the world; there is no reason why we should not. There is no reason why Australian jurisdictions should not have the best healthcare service delivery anywhere in the world. While it is pretty good to live in this country, some things have fallen by the wayside. Health service delivery is one of those as a result of long-term Labor government incompetence. That is what it has come down to.
We have spoken at length about the debt and deficit situation we face in the Northern Territory. We are one of the worst per capita; we are worse off than Queensland. Everyone has said, ‘Queensland has had it financially. How will it dig itself out of that hole?’ We are in a worse situation. When you look at our debt and our debt income ratio, every Territorian owes more than every Queenslander.
It should not come as any surprise that our health and hospital system and our healthcare service delivery is under such pressure. We need hospitals with clout. We need hospitals which have power to make decisions on the ground. We have said that in this Chamber for a long time - since I was shadow Health minister. It has emerged in this paper from this government, led by the Health minister of the Northern Territory: a new service framework for health and hospital services in the Northern Territory is exactly what this is.
That is empowering our regional hospitals, putting the decision-making where it should be - on the ground - so no longer does the hospital have to win the argument. Now head office has to win the argument. If something arises at a hospital in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, or Gove, that hospital will be empowered to make a decision based on what best suits it and the community.
It is pretty simple and it works. No longer do we have the ivory tower - head office as it would be in the capital city - making decisions - often bad ones that are not in the best interests of communities which will be on the receiving end of them. It is a pretty simple philosophy: empower your local regions in all areas. It does not have to be only health and hospitals either; it should be right across the Northern Territory. All agencies should have some clout and decision-making power. The whole place has been downgraded over the last 10 or so years.
As an example of how the decision-making or the power base has shifted from the regions and moved to the centre up north, let us look at sport and recreation – a very simple analogy. The most senior person in Alice Springs in Sport and Recreation is an AO5. They do a great job - this is not a blight on the person – but have very little decision-making capability. Tennant Creek is similar. Katherine has a similar situation.
Once upon a time we had senior people across the Northern Territory in all departments whether it was Tourism, Parks, Sport, Museums and Art Galleries, Local Government, you name it; there were people in positions to make and execute decisions. The Territory, regionally, has been downgraded over the years and anyone with any talent or promise was quickly moved to Darwin. It was great for Darwin, probably great for them too, but it was not too good for the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory.
Now we see a shift in that. This government has been elected to re-empower the regions and to re-resource and re-respect the regions - to put respect in the resources where they belong, and that is for the whole of the Northern Territory. It is not about Darwin versus Alice Springs. It is not about Tennant Creek versus Katherine. Those days are gone I hope. They are certainly gone while this government is in term.
We are talking about the whole of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is one product. That is what is for sale. Am I slipping into my tourism mode? I might be, member for Katherine, nevertheless, it applies across the board.
We now have a health and hospital system which applies across the board. It is about Katherine hospital and Alice Springs Hospital making decisions based on what best suits that community. That is how you deliver high-quality healthcare to those who need it most. You allow the community to make those decisions. You allow the community to hire the staff required to suit its best needs.
Another part of this plan is - it goes hand in hand, does it not - is re-empowering our hospitals but not necessarily through management. I have touched on the management side, but also the service delivery itself. One of the big problems we face in the NT, particularly with Royal Darwin Hospital, is the pressure on RDH for elective and emergency surgery. Alice Springs, surprisingly, does pretty well. It might come as a surprise to some. During my time as shadow Health minister I knew Alice Springs did not do too badly when it came to elective and emergency surgery. Emergency times often blowout because it is a very busy hospital, but it meets its elective surgery targets quite well. However, there is still much pressure on Alice Springs, and an enormous pressure on Darwin and, sometimes, Darwin cannot cope.
What is being put forward in this plan, and will be rolled out by the Health minister with the full support of this government, is to allow elective surgery to take place in some of our underutilised hospitals. Katherine Hospital is a wonderful facility: a 60-bed hospital which is often underutilised. There must be something in the water in Katherine; people seem to be pretty healthy. Nevertheless, there is a marvellous facility which is often going to waste.
What is being proposed is those who have an elective surgery need can have surgery performed in Katherine. If you are in Darwin, you can go to Katherine. It suits the regions as well. If you are the member for Arnhem, if you are out in Arnhem Land and you do not want to travel to the big smoke as it were, you can have surgery performed much closer in the Katherine regional hospital. I understand it will be performed by a series of strike teams which will fly into these hospitals and stay for any length of time with an anaesthetist, a head nurse and a surgeon. More importantly, another string to this whole bow is your local GP can be there as well. The GP you see in Darwin can be in the hospital so there is continuity of care. This is so often lost when we centralise our health services and everyone in the Northern Territory has to fly to Darwin or Alice Springs.
Those people will be placed around the Northern Territory. If you are in the Barkly region you do not have to go to Alice Springs; you can go to Tennant Creek to have elective surgery performed. It makes sense. We have hospitals that can cope with it. We have communities wanting it and this is what the government will do. It will re-empower those regions, reutilise the regional hospitals, particularly Gove, Katherine and Tennant Creek. Gove is a great facility and quite a busy hospital. There is a busy maternity ward in Gove, but the other two, particularly Tennant Creek and Katherine - at this stage Tennant Creek does not have a maternity section and having babies in Tennant Creek is discouraged.
That is not part of this plan, but nothing is off the table when it comes to regional health service delivery with this government. We need to leave no stone unturned and ensure we look at the best possible way to deliver health services in the Northern Territory. We should be punching above our weight. We should be leading the way. We have some of the most unique circumstances of any jurisdiction. There are some statistics I had laid out – 1% of Australia’s population, but accounts for 2% of all public hospital admissions. One piece of data which is an indicator of acuity or sickness - we have Australia’s sickest people by a factor of two. There are some more stats which are quite telling.
The Commonwealth’s share of total government funding for health in the Northern Territory is 43%. This is the lowest rate in the nation and compares with the national average Commonwealth funding share of 62%. It is unbelievable, is it not? It really is staggering. Read through some of that stuff and it is jaw dropping. If you look at the types of ailments, the chronic disease we face in the Northern Territory - we should be punching above our weight. Of course, we need more money and better health service delivery. More money is always something governments will want; they will always go to the Commonwealth and say they need more, and the Commonwealth should provide more when it comes to health service delivery, particularly in a jurisdiction such as this. The Health minister will continue thumping his fist on the table demanding we get as much as we possibly can to deal with our circumstances in the Northern Territory.
A fundamental job or core business of government is to deliver the best possible services. This is being done. This government has gone back to the drawing board and emerged with a new plan for the future of health and hospitals in the Northern Territory. It is called A New Service Framework for Health and Hospital Services in the NT, November 2012. It is a great read and will be a wonderful new plan for the Northern Territory.
As I said, we do not need fundamental health reform as touted by the previous government. We do not need all those health and hospital reforms that came after Kevin Rudd was elected. It was remarkable; not only did he deliver it late but he delivered it tenfold. There were folders and folders of minutiae about how the states and territories could deliver better hospitals because the government knew best. How many nurses does the federal government employ? How many doctors does the federal government employ? The answer is none. It is a core responsibility of state and territories to deliver that. It is the core responsibility of the Commonwealth government to help fund those initiatives.
We need hospitals with power, hospitals with clout, and that is what this plan is all about.
I have highlighted bits and pieces from this speech to get them on the record. I will repeat them word for word as they deserve to be said again:
- A constant theme to emerge from my discussion across the Territory is the desire for our staff and service providers to be given greater responsibility for operational decisions which affect them and their clients; ...
That is pretty simple stuff:
- ... for red tape and bureaucracy to be reduced; to be able to use their initiative and be allowed to be innovative where appropriate; ...
Allowed to be innovative:
- ... and for services to be more closely connected to the communities they serve.
The new service framework the Minister for Health announced today is contemporary and based on the principles of:
- ensuring community responsiveness; better coordinated and integrated services
Again, it is pretty simple; this is not rocket science. I was going to say it is not brain surgery; however, that might be a little too corny. It will be effective. It is what the regions and the health sector have been screaming out for over a very long time.
Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful plan. This will go a long way towards delivering some of the best health and hospital services we have ever seen. It is a once in a generation opportunity to really do something. I commend the statement to the House.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the contributions from members on both sides of the House about the proposal put forward by our new Minister for Health to find a way forward for better delivery of health services in the Northern Territory. I am sure we all welcome that. I thank the minister for bringing the statement before the House, and for describing in his opening paragraph what Territorians want.
Let me add to the opening paragraphs of his statement to put on the record what I believe Territorians want, those Territorians for whom, unfortunately, private health insurance is beyond reach, for whom access to a public hospital can be difficult because of remoteness and weather conditions and, while they may want or need to see a GP, they will instead visit their Aboriginal Health Worker who we know to be skilled and valuable professionals providing an excellent service. Also, why would they not want to be treated on country?
We need more Aboriginal Health Workers. The member for Arnhem appreciates that; she is an Aboriginal Health Worker with more than 10 years’ experience. I am sure her patients are missing her. I hope the position she vacated has been filled by another Aboriginal Health Worker and, in the meantime, another Aboriginal Health Worker is going into training so we can have a continuous supply of these people in our remote communities.
I am pleased the Minister for Health has encapsulated what Territorians want for their families - for little Paul, for Joe, for Aunty Mary - I reckon you wrote this bit, minister - for Mrs Smith or for their grandpa …
Mr Tollner: What makes you think I did not write the whole speech?
Ms WALKER: I could definitely see bits of you in there, minister.
People in the bush want a health system which continues to meet their needs too. Let me add to that list of Paul, Joe, Mary and Mrs Smith. Little Yinimala’s mum wants his ear infection to be treated and cleared so he can listen and learn at school. Yalmay wants to see a renal dialysis unit in Nhulunbuy, not just the self-care option, so she and her husband can return to their home at Yirrkala to be with children and grandkids and not have to live in Nightcliff. Danganbarr wants to see the Miwatj Ngalkanbuy health clinic at Galiwinku upgraded. Garrwitju wants to see her community health service retain its strong independence as a provider of health services to the Marthakal homelands people. Old man Gawirrin wants to see the day when our health system focuses more on wellness than sickness and, with it, strong hope for long and healthy lives for future generations of his family, not the ongoing battles with chronic disease which are symptomatic of the lives of too many Territorians. Let us face it; it is not just health issues we are dealing with here, we are talking about a multitude of issues which impact on Aboriginal Territorians’ lives.
These Aboriginal Territorians who represent more than 80 % of hospitalisations in the Territory and only 30 % of the population also want and deserve a health system, and are entitled to a health system which meets their needs now and well into the future.
The minister talks about the honour of receiving the portfolio of Health. We all know it is a very tough gig tackling the Health portfolio. Even though I have never held it, I have been in this House long enough to observe - and have been an observer of parliaments around Australia and the world - and see what they tackle. We all know you are up for one tough gig, minister. I wish the minister well in his new role. He will see he now has to come up with solutions and find ways to overcome the challenges in this portfolio and deliver services. He will see the importance of a collaborative relationship with the Commonwealth. There is no doubt, with his announcement today, he has hit the ground running.
However, it could have been much worse; the member for Greatorex could be Minister for Health. He did little in opposition when shadow for Health, and added nothing positive or constructive to debates about health in the Territory other than to whinge and whine, to sling mud and insults, and to bemoan the fact he had to be in Darwin when all he really wanted was to get home to Alice Springs. It is small wonder he could not be trusted with the Health portfolio.
It is no surprise the Minister for Health chooses to find fault in the health system he and his government have inherited. That is what happens with a change of government. It was not and is not a perfect system here or in any other jurisdiction, nor will it be when the minister vacates the portfolio one day or when there is a change of government. I will remind him not only today, but over the next four years, of the many positive initiatives Labor delivered to improve and grow health services in the Territory and in the bush, even more so since we have had a Labor federal parliament: the introduction of renal dialysis to the bush; new and refurbished primary healthcare clinics; and an oncology unit and comfortable supported accommodation by way of Barbara James House in Darwin to allow people from the bush to receive cancer treatment in the Territory and not have to travel interstate. Let us not forget, importantly, the growth of regional health services currently under the umbrella of AMSANT.
Members opposite can and will cite instances in their own electorates where health services and infrastructure have not been up to the mark. I have no doubt there are stories members have shared and will continue to share in this House. That is the job of any elected member.
The health system and infrastructure Territory Labor inherited in 2001 had been underfunded and ignored for too long under the decades of CLP. I am sure our new minister will no doubt find fault in what he inherits. No doubt some of his criticism will be justified.
I am not convinced the minister’s statement is inclusive enough of all Territorians regardless of where they live. Let us hope details of this bold new plan will evolve. Certainly, the word ‘Indigenous’ rates one mention in this statement and, of course, the devil will be in the detail. What is sorely lacking in the statement is the role of Aboriginal medical services. The minister talks about input from communities across the Territory but fails to mention the current and growing role our regionalised health services have achieved with good support from the Commonwealth.
The minister’s statement talks about consumers of health services having choice. For Aboriginal people in the bush that choice is limited, even for non-Indigenous people. Private health insurance is not a choice they have. Accessing surgery and having, ‘more places to go to than just the public hospital’ is not a choice most Indigenous Territorians have. Going to a GP is likely to be less of a choice for many people who, in the face of rising costs of living under this new and out of touch heartless government, will gravitate to hospital accident and emergency units and super clinics which bulkbill. There are no super clinics in the bush and if you live in Galiwinku or Gapuwiyak, it is a long way to the nearest GP private clinic.
Choice, by virtue of our demographic and geographic conditions, is limited. While choice is something people are less able to exercise in the bush when it comes to health, having a say in the running of what is available is very important and where I see choice - choice as in having a say, having ownership, and allowing people to have control of their medical service.
The portfolio of Health is, as I am sure the minister is discovering, a massive one. It is probably the single biggest portfolio by way of budget allocation in government and is inclusive of a raft of things from infrastructure to services to staff and the list goes on. However, what plans are there to manage the complexities of chronic disease knowing, as I mentioned before, around 80% of hospital admissions are Aboriginal people and the majority are in hospital with multiple health issues. There are fears that the announcement today about health reforms may take us back to the case mix model. Surely, not back to the future on that one, and I would be interested to hear the bush members’ take on this one.
The minister started by talking about what Territorians want from health. He also made the astute observation that people expect him to deliver. There is much meat to be put on the bones of the health and hospital reforms announcement today. What people will be looking for is the minister, ultimately, taking responsibility for direction and success. How will these boards look? What structures of governance, decision-making, reporting and transparency will be in place around them? What authority do they truly have? Are they statutory bodies? How will the funding model work? Ultimately, we wait to see how this works.
I note some of the comments in the media today from key stakeholders such as the nurses union, where their spokesperson talked about proposed reforms to the health system saying she can see pluses in reducing the flow of patients from communities to hospitals and vice versa. I could not agree more with that. She said, on behalf of her members, she has concerns until she knows what a smaller Department of Health means. Does it mean a department which has had its budget cut?
A focus on regions is a good thing, but I am worried things are so hospital-centric. When we see so many dollars going to hospitals we want to ensure it is not at the expense of preventative care. There is much evidence supporting the fact that money must go into preventative care, health and wellbeing programs.
If I could make a quick digression on this point, where are the report and recommendations at with the new government from the inquiry into youth suicide in the Northern Territory? It is an incredibly important health and social issue. It was the result of a bipartisan committee of this parliament and, if we are serious about addressing people’s emotional health and wellbeing, we cannot avoid the body of work addressing the terrible state of affairs in the Territory when it comes to suicide, knowing we have the highest rate in the nation. It is not just about investing in this area but, more than ever, recognising the best outcomes and the best success with programs to address youth suicide will come when groups and communities have ownership and control. However, they cannot do it without support from government. That concept of grassroots programs with buy-in from grassroots not top-down typifies where you will see success, not just with suicide prevention programs, but programs full stop.
I cannot let the minister’s comments about the visitor accommodation designated for Gove hospital pass. When you say, ‘I have put a stop to it’ does that mean the $5.8m allocated by the Commonwealth for construction has been put on hold or returned to the Commonwealth government? Where is this at and where is it heading to?
I, for one, as the local member, will fight tooth and nail to ensure visitor accommodation on the campus of Gove hospital is delivered. Gove hospital has 30 or so beds, services the northeast Arnhem region and around 90% of patients are Yolngu. The hospital’s maternity ward oversees more than 200 deliveries a year. Women from remote communities are required to come into Gove in the 37th week of their pregnancy. You could be there for at least three weeks if there is nothing wrong other than that you are soon to have a baby and need to have somewhere comfortable to stay. In every likelihood you would have a carer with you. I call on the minister to ensure this facility is delivered for the benefit of Yolngu patients who travel from across the region for admission to Gove hospital for whatever reason it might be. As I said, they are often women travelling with a carer - someone there to support them, perhaps to assist with language, and keep them company while they are away from their community.
The member for Arnhem has many constituents who come to Gove hospital for treatment who travel with a family member. They come from Groote, Ramingining, Numbulwar and Milingimbi. I do not believe the member for Arnhem could accept that the visitor accommodation for Gove hospital will not eventuate.
I trust the minister is not planning to put the kybosh on other federal money allocated for northeast Arnhem Land. There is $13m allocated from the feds for a long overdue upgrade to Gove District Hospital’s accident and emergency. It is a costly project, but when you are trying to do a brownfields project on a facility more than 42 years’ old with restricted space it is quite a challenge.
On top of that there is around $7m allocated for a new clinic at Galiwinku, Elcho Island, where the existing clinic operated by Miwatj - something of a rabbit warren - is well beyond its use-by date and, in relation to functionality for staff working there, is incredibly difficult.
Whilst there is no funding allocated to it I want to throw in Gapuwiyak health clinic, which is long overdue for an upgrade. I was there last week, as was the member for Arnhem. We were both at an event opening a training centre and the clinic - you walk through the front door straight into a treatment room. It is a rabbit warren, not adequate, and certainly not contemporary. Our federal minister for Indigenous health, Warren Snowdon is across it. I hope money is allocated to that clinic in the future. Perhaps the member for Arnhem knows more about that than me.
You love reminding us you won an election on the back of the vote of Aboriginal people and you keep telling them you are listening. However, do not forget I have retained my seat for Labor and, in opposition, will be holding you to account. I will expose your shortcomings and will be letting Yolngu people in my electorate, and beyond the boundaries of my electorate, know you have withdrawn their visitor accommodation at Gove hospital and certain bush members on that side have allowed it to occur.
For the new Minister for Health it is about turning the rhetoric of this statement into reality; I will not hold my breath. With the mini-budget to be handed down next week, I am not expecting any good news just more cuts, broken promises, and perhaps another reason for people to tear up the CLP’s worthless contract. Making the announcement is the easy part, delivering on the commitments, as you will discover in government, will be much harder. However, I look forward to seeing your reforms materialise.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support this ministerial statement by the new Minister for Health in the Country Liberals government. Like the member for Nhulunbuy, I have listened carefully to the debate and taken note of some of the more impassioned contributions by bush members on this side of the House.
I was listening to the member for Stuart talk about how her experiences out bush led her to join the Country Liberals and, like many other people in the bush, move away from the Labor Party - that traditional heartland support the Labor Party always expected from Aboriginal people out bush. While thinking about that, I cast my mind back to a question I had been throwing around in my head for a number of years. I often wondered what it was about the Labor Party that attracted the Aboriginal vote. I belaboured that for a long time because I do not understand the thinking of those on the left side of politics. I understand the right side because that is where I sit. However, it is a struggle to understand what anybody really sees in the way the left runs its political agenda.
I am digressing a little from the health statement, but it ties into what the member for Stuart said. About three years ago I did a charity walk from Pine Creek to Katherine to raise money for several local groups: the YMCA and Rotary. It was a tough two-and-a-half days, and I ended up with blisters all over my feet and all the rest of it. I finished on a Saturday, and had my feet bandaged up in thongs as I could not put shoes on. I remember going to Nitmiluk Gorge for the 20th anniversary of the hand back of the gorge to Jawoyn people and listening to a number of speeches. The federal minister for Health, Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, was there and turned the occasion into a political beat up. He harked back 20 years and talked about how the CLP, as it was then, opposed the hand back of the gorge and how there was inherent and latent racism in the town at the time. In short, it was completely unnecessary and totally uncalled for. It incensed me so much that, at the end of official proceedings, I hobbled - I remember this because I was hobbling on very sore feet - up to minister Snowdon and got stuck into him over the inappropriateness of his speech on what was supposed to be a joyous occasion.
It prompted me to write a letter to the prime minister complaining about the way Warren Snowdon dealt with it. I was thinking about the construct of the letter and what I was going to say. There must have been an epiphany, a defining moment, which led me to gain an understanding of why the traditional heartland of the Labor Party was vested in the Northern Territory with many regional and remote Aboriginal people. The Labor Party, for the last 40 or so years, whenever in government, assumed the role of the vanquisher. It would keep Aboriginal people repressed and depressed.
It does it craftily through policy, through its left politics - the social agenda, ‘We will feed you, clothe you, house you, give you welfare money, all you need and, by the way, you do not have to look for a job.’ It is all those types of things.
As the member for Stuart pointed out, nothing in the health system has improved for Aboriginal people during 11 years of Labor. I see the parallels. The Labor Party would see you repressed by way of policy and then, by way of raising your expectations, come along as a knight in shining armour and say, ‘We are going to now fix it all for you’. That is how I saw this relationship; however, at the end of the day, the Labor Party was long on rhetoric but short on delivery. That is where we find the health system in the Northern Territory: very short on delivery.
It was interesting, although I digressed a little. Obviously, the prime minister did not write back to me but I finally figured it out. Social agendas such as those run by the Labor Party across this country, certainly in the Northern Territory, have done nothing to improve the lives of anyone here, let alone Aboriginal people. It is no wonder, finally, Aboriginal folk are waking up from the long Labor sleep and realising there is better out there and it vests with the right side of politics.
I want to move to the Minister for Health’s statement. The new service framework for health and hospital services in the NT will help to provide Territorians with access to health services they should rightfully have. It will do this by allowing staff and service providers to have more responsibility for operational decisions which affect them and their clients, to use their initiative and be innovative, to be more closely connected to the communities they serve, and will reduce red tape in the overall bureaucracy.
The Labor government created a highly centralised health system which took these responsibilities away from the people who should have them. It took the decision-making away from regional centres and placed it in a massive bureaucracy in Darwin. That is true, not only for the health system under the former Labor government, but for other major departments as well, including education.
I want to talk about Katherine hospital, a great regional hospital. It is one of the best, if not the best hospital in the Territory. The children’s ward and the women’s maternity ward at Katherine hospital are the best in the Northern Territory. Moreover, women who have their children at Katherine hospital rave about it. Local and visiting women are all, without exception, highly complimentary of the maternity services provided through Katherine.
Some women have given birth at Katherine hospital, left the region, and then returned specifically to have their second or subsequent child in the Katherine maternity ward. The reputation of Katherine maternity ward precedes itself. It is a great hospital only three hours from Darwin.
What really makes for a good hospital? Is it the buildings? I would not think so; buildings, after all, are just buildings. Parts of Katherine hospital are more than 75 years old, and the hospital has been subject to upgrades and expansions over many years. In good time, there will be a requirement to renew Katherine hospital.
The Leader of the Opposition has said she will hold the member for Katherine to account for the promise of a new hospital. It will not happen in this term; it will more likely be in the long term, Leader of the Opposition. I will tell you why and you can interject ...
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Start, Leader of the Opposition, and I might not stop. You left the Northern Territory in such a diabolical financial position I am surprised we will be able to make any future plans for the Northern Territory. When we came to government we did not know whether we were Arthur or Martha based on what you left behind: the horrible legacy of the Labor government. The worst Treasurer the Northern Territory has ever seen vests in the member for Karama.
In answering what makes a good hospital, let us go back to something I heard decades ago relating to churches. A church is just a building. The people, the gathering, the parishioners make up the church. For all intents and purposes, you could gather a bunch of parishioners under a shady tree and that would constitute a church. By extension, a good hospital is not the buildings but the staff. The doctors, nurses, orderlies, administration staff, cooks, cleaners and everyone else makes the hospital what it is. It is the quality of the staff at Katherine District Hospital that makes it such a stand-out health facility in the Northern Territory. The local member and this government appreciate the great work the staff of Katherine hospital do every day. Keep it up!
The trouble with Katherine hospital is it is half empty and largely underutilised. The former Labor government wasted this excellent resource. Katherine Hospital - the member for Greatorex and minister for Tourism said before - has a bed capacity of 60 and today, 27 November 2012, it is almost at capacity. In one breath I said the hospital is underutilised and half empty, yet in the next breath I said it is just about at capacity today. Let me tell you about that.
The answer demonstrates the abject failure of the previous Labor government to adequately resource the hospital. While Katherine Hospital has a bed capacity of 60, it is resourced to a capacity of 40 beds, which is two-thirds of its bed number. That is all the staff the former Labor government provided for Katherine hospital. There might be 36 or 37 patients there today, but there are still 20 beds beyond that which could be utilised if funding was provided to staff those 20 beds. That, of course, is another legacy of the former government, one that becomes a challenge for the new government, to find ways under the prevailing budgetary conditions to change the dynamic, the structure, the delivery of core services within the health sphere of the Territory. Changing those at Katherine Hospital is part of that. Perhaps we have to think outside the box.
I do not want to digress into the abysmal state of the Territory’s books; I have already touched on that - the Leader of the Opposition, worst Treasurer in the Northern Territory and all that stuff.
I want to go out of the box now. While Royal Darwin Hospital has waiting lists out the door, Katherine hospital has virtually no waiting list and has empty beds. I was pleased to hear the minister for Tourism talk about bringing patients from Darwin to Katherine and having a strike force of medical professionals attend. Lo and behold, they might be able to use some of the 20 vacant beds at Katherine Hospital and reduce pressure on RDH. The former Labor government’s preference for building bureaucracy over the provision of providing frontline staff is no more evident than at Katherine hospital. While the bureaucracy grew - we know public service numbers rose about 25% in the last six or seven years - Katherine hospital remained at two-thirds capacity.
Sometimes I seek answers to questions like that, but perhaps it goes back to something the member for Barkly alluded to earlier today: the different way we think. We think government should provide frontline services, yet the former Labor government thought we needed centralised bureaucracies. On the basis of different thinking, I can live with that although I do not agree with it; however, there is a difference in philosophy between the two sides.
Going back to the hospital, I wonder what those 20 extra beds coming online in Katherine might do for the queues and waiting time at RDH. Let us say this takes thinking outside the box. I was sitting in the government lobby listening to the Health minister conduct a radio interview on the phone. Lo and behold, we had not discussed this particularly, but he was telling the journalist how we can use Katherine hospital to take the overflow from RDH. It is pretty much the same as the message from the member for Greatorex and what I am conveying. This frames the differences between the two sides of the House. The former Labor government had no vision whatsoever and the new government is prepared to look at something new, something innovative, and bring some health reform to the Northern Territory, something sadly needed after 11 years of inaction, ineptitude and failure of the former government to deal with the health system as a whole.
I often give credit where it is due. Sometimes I have given credit to the member for Casuarina, the former Minister for Health and former minister for Resources. I gave him a pat on the back from time to time for some of the things he did over the years. I am now getting a picture that is changing my view.
Look at the legacy left behind by the former Minister for Health and the former minister for Resources. Departments have dwindled away; they have been cut back. For example, the Department of Resources faced with year after year cutbacks in full-time equivalent staff. Of course, that affects morale. I wonder whether the former Minister for Health, in that responsibility, shot the hell out of morale in Health at the same time he was shooting the hell out of morale in the Resources department. Those things affect Territorians in the health system and their capacity to deliver. Many of these people would not bother coming to work because of the former government’s policies. In the health arena, I am sure that would have been no different.
The new service framework announced by the Minister for Health to decentralise the Territory’s health system and bring the bush back into the decision-making chain means hospitals like Katherine will become part of a wider health network which will include RDH. The new service framework also integrates all health services in the Katherine region: mental health, community health, age and disability services, private GP services and access to specialists. To satisfy the query raised by the member for Nhulunbuy earlier, it also brings into account Aboriginal health services in Katherine and remote areas of the Northern Territory. This will lead to better coordination and better overall services to clients and patients generally, as decisions will be made on the ground and linked to the overall Top End and hospital systems.
The development of regional and management structures for our hospitals will help to bring decision-making back to the regions and the bush, and help to alleviate the pressure on Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals.
Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by the Minister for Health today. This is a sign of things to come. This government is about driving the Territory forward, making necessary changes and fixing the many legacies left by the Labor government - as so aptly described previously today, walking around with a dustpan and brush picking up the bundles of do-do left behind by the former government.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who spoke on this statement today. I am impressed by the level of input I have received, not just from members on this side, I also thank members on the other side.
Member for Casuarina, I am glad you spoke. You gave me a heads-up on some areas to be aware of and I thank you for that. Of course, I do not agree with some of your points. I am stunned that, although you were in government for 10 years and we have a health system the way it is now, you tend to still blame former Country Liberals governments prior to the turn of the millennium. However, when the emperor has no clothes, so be it. However, member for Casuarina, I thank you for your input. There are a few other things I will speak about later.
I particularly thank the member for Arnhem for her contribution. Clearly, as an Aboriginal Health Worker she has much to offer these debates. I am very keen to talk with her and continue contact with her and people she knows in the industry to ensure I am kept abreast of things.
The member for Drysdale spoke very well. It is interesting to see her take on developments in Palmerston, somewhere which is very controversial due to the future of Palmerston Hospital. I am keen to have that resolved in the coming months and get my head around what is going on there.
The member for Casuarina said we only have one private hospital in the Northern Territory but was prepared to throw $110m at a pretend hospital in Palmerston. We have not done any research on it, but I would have thought with $110m you could leverage something like a proper hospital by considering a public/private partnership with one of the other providers. It seems the former Health minister laments the fact we only have one private hospital in the Northern Territory; however, I never heard him say, when he was Health minister, he would try working a different way to get another private hospital into the Northern Territory.
Thank you very much, member for Drysdale, for your contribution, it is much appreciated.
Members for Namatjira and Stuart, thank you for your contribution. I was a little concerned about the dialysis. I understand what an emerging issue it is; how important it is to Indigenous people across the Territory. I have a saying I often use: you cannot pull your socks up if you have none on. Clearly, this escaped the opposition because it did not care there was no money or whether the Northern Territory was bankrupt. You only have to look at its actions to know it does not care about the finances of the jurisdiction. It does not matter about the money, just do it! There are so many instances around the Northern Territory where that has shown up.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution; she spoke very well. Her view that there has to be a medi-hotel in Gove has me beat. There is already the Walkabout Lodge in Gove as well as other accommodation centres. Why we need to build a medi-hotel in Gove is beyond me, particularly when there are no ongoing funds for it. There is no way of paying for it and to disregard that minor fact speaks volumes about how the former government got us into the situation we are currently in with debt up to our ears and in trouble everywhere.
Thank you, members for Namatjira and Stuart, I appreciate your contribution, as always.
The member for Greatorex spoke well and forcefully. It is always a pleasure to listen to the member for Greatorex and, as a former shadow for Health, the member for Greatorex brings fantastic insights into health service delivery. I was humbled to receive his glowing support.
Member for Nhulunbuy, the issue in relation to Aboriginal Health Workers is incredibly important. If you do not believe I devoted enough time in my ministerial statement to talk specifically of Aboriginal Health Workers I apologise. I have a great interest in what occurs in the bush, in remote clinics, and in Aboriginal medical services as well. They are an important part of our health system and I am keen to work with them.
I understand, member for Nhulunbuy, that not everybody in the Northern Territory has private health cover. However, you need to understand there are many people in the Northern Territory who do. The policies of successive federal governments mean many people will automatically have private health cover because it is in their financial interest to do it. These days, if you are earning a certain income and do not have private health cover you pay an extra Medicare levy, which often is substantially more than you would pay for private cover. In many cases, people in the Northern Territory will have private health cover.
The fact there is only one private hospital in the Northern Territory should not matter. The member for Casuarina needs to understand, whilst he sat around for years lamenting the fact there were no private practitioners and very few bulkbilling services, he could only come up with reasons why we could not have them. He never looked for reasons to have them or how we could get them. I have been amazed over recent weeks at the amount of people coming into my office looking to set up clinics, practices, wanting to start businesses in the Northern Territory who said it was too hard under the previous regime.
I will not name it, but the operators of a recently opened clinic in Darwin’s northern suburbs said, ‘For two-and-a-half years we were banging our head against the wall with government just to open this facility. We wanted to get it going. It has taken us two-and-a-half years of hard work to get through the mountain of red tape and bureaucracy to open this clinic.’ That is a function of government.
Member for Casuarina, whilst you can lament the lack of private practitioners in the Northern Territory, you did nothing in the time you were Health minister and neither did any of your colleagues in government who held the Health portfolio. You have not done anything to encourage private practice in the Northern Territory. I find it appalling when you say, ‘People do not have private health cover’. This is the downward spiral syndrome you have, ‘No one has private health cover, what is the point of private doctors? Government has to provide everything.’ It is always the simple answer for Labor, ‘Government provides everything’. That system cannot continue to operate in the current climate.
I have been touched today at the response the government has received to the new framework I announced. It has been quite overwhelming. Doctors, specialists, nurses, people from all walks of life have commented to the media saying how thrilled they are that change is imminent. I have only heard two negative comments. Kay Densley, I am reliably informed, one of the comrades at the CPSU, warns this is a cover for sacking workers. The other voice of opposition, of course, is the member for Karama who says this is a smokescreen to dodge responsibility. She says it is a smokescreen to sack workers and will lead to budget blowouts.
We have heard it all from the member from Karama. For the last three months she has been in Chicken Little heaven. She has been saying, ‘The sky is falling in, everyone is going to lose their job. Look what the new government is doing. Look, look!’ It is Chicken Little heaven for the member for Karama. She has a million and one reasons why the sky is falling in. Good on her! She seems to have hit her straps. It is a job she will enjoy. She can do it for another four years at least. Leader of the Opposition, good on you for having a good old cry and whinge, I would not have expected anything less from you. That is what you did in government. You have now taken up the cudgels as the leader, a position you have always coveted and are performing well. The sky is falling in - Chicken Little heaven!
Aside from that bit of negativity, there has been a high level of support for the changes I have signalled. I am somewhat concerned at that because, frankly, an enormous amount of work has to be done. The former Health minister rightly said there is much to do and it is a complex portfolio. The member for Nhulunbuy also acknowledged it is a complex portfolio. I do not take these changes lightly. It will take a huge effort by a large number of people dedicated to the cause to make this plan work. A range of legislation needs to be drafted. A range of people need to be consulted in every nook and cranny of the Northern Territory. We need to talk to people to ensure the system will work.
I am also very optimistic because this structure has a better chance of working in the Northern Territory than anywhere else. In my travels around the Territory talking to health workers, people in the health sector, all the support workers, I have been blown away by their competence, the way they work, the way they operate and the way they do their jobs. We have some fine people who do a great job of looking after us when we are sick, really know their stuff, and are very impressive people.
At the moment they are constricted by the system they work in, which is the most centralised health system in Australia. The system left by the former government is the most centralised system in Australia. We have 230 000 people in one-sixth of Australia’s land mass and you want to encourage initiative, innovation, and people to adapt to the unique circumstances they find themselves in. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work in the Northern Territory. I am confident the people we have in our health system are exactly the type of people we need working in a system which encourages initiative and the ability to adapt to the circumstances they find themselves in.
This is simply a framework. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, much meat needs to be put on the bones. I call on all Territorians to help put that meat on the bones. I am very keen to talk to people. I will be travelling with the Chief Executive of the Health department, Mr Jeff Moffet, and a roadshow to talk to people in the health sector and get as much feedback as we can to ensure we deliver the best service possible in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Cost of Living in the Northern Territory
Cost of Living in the Northern Territory
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received the following letter from the member for Karama:
- Madam Speaker
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance - the CLP’s deliberate, mean and unnecessary increases to the cost of living in the Northern Territory.
Yours sincerely
Delia Lawrie MLA
Leader of the Opposition.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this matter of definite public importance goes to the issue of cost of living. As we saw, the Chief Minister has literally torn up his contract with Territorians. He went into the election with a cost of living promise. He signed his name to that contract and has now torn it up. In his election material on the cost of living, the Chief Minister said people are leaving the place they love because they cannot afford to live here any longer. How ironic! He tears up the contract, the promise he made, and makes it far more expensive for Territorians to live here and enjoy the great Territory lifestyle. He went on to say, ‘A Country Liberal government will turn that around’. You have to be joking! You are making families find an additional $2000 a year in their family budget because you will not do the work of a responsible and sensible government to work with Power and Water to drive efficiencies through the organisation and do what every government does: pay down debt over time rather than slug Territorians in one hard hit. Go straight to the pain. You, in your strange manner, seem to think everyone has to take their dose of cod liver oil because that is the right thing and you are the responsible man to do it. It is a disgrace. You are completely ignoring everything people are saying to you because you live in your bubble. You are in your bubble of, ‘I know what is best for people and they will to have to put up with it because I know what is right’.
In the cost of living commitment the Chief Minister said:
- We will make the Territory a more affordable place to live through policies that put downward pressure on the cost of living - particularly in the areas of...
I will go through them – ‘housing’.
Let us look at the actions of the Chief Minister in housing. One of the first actions was to scrap the housing finance schemes designed to put Territorians into home ownership. He scrapped My New Home, scrapped HOMESTART Extra. They have gone. Bad luck, you are on the rental roundabout. In their place - I thought it was curious to announce major policy, particularly housing policy, on a weekend, but my curiosity was not disappointed when I saw it and thought, ‘No wonder they tried to sneak that through on a Saturday’. It was a shocker.
The government scrapped the schemes put in place to make housing affordable, getting people off the rental roundabout and into home ownership. What did it put in their place? A housing scheme everyone in industry has basically said is useless; it completely misses the mark of housing finance. A price cap of $550 000 does not cut the mustard. It is pointless and does not give people the opportunity to sell their house in the northern suburbs and upscale into Muirhead. No, they are priced out of that marketplace altogether.
Real estate agents are saying the scheme should be, at a minimum, $650 000. Labor had $750 000 because we knew people would want to buy into Muirhead creating a churn through the northern suburbs of Darwin - prime real estate. If you are looking at the Palmerston market, the industry is saying $650 000 would have been the appropriate cap.
You completely missed the mark probably because you did not check with anyone in industry first. That has been your form, Chief Minister. Every action you have undertaken in a policy announcement you have done in a vortex of your own internal advisors. You have not gone to industry to find out from people at the coalface, people who understand the industry. You have not found out whether any idea you have is workable, because the workability is flawed. It is not there.
The two housing schemes you have introduced are not allowing people to go into old stock in the marketplace and completely cut out the ground from underneath low- to middle-income earners.
It is a crazy situation when, in the first 100 days of government, you are going against your cost of living commitment to Territorians. I know you want to use the Power and Water debt situation, but you have no excuse for scrapping the housing schemes and coming up with a very shabby poor cousin of the Labor schemes. Every argument you ran against My New Home exists in your HomeBuild Access. Those arguments are in the scheme, but you got the price caps wrong because you did not bother checking the real estate pages of the NT News to see what house and land packages are going for in Palmerston. You are in your bubble of arrogance, of listening to the old boys who have come out of the dark ages - decades ago. They do not have to be on a senior’s pension because they have Uncle Terry taking care of them with their $200 000 for six months.
CLP people around Darwin are asking, ‘What was wrong with us? We are here; we are living in the Territory. We are successful business people, we are successful in the bureaucracy, why did he bring the dinosaurs from down south and listen to them? What was wrong with us for those key positions?’ They are disappointed. They say this is back to the 1990s and cannot believe how backward looking the CLP government is. It is no more backward than the step it took on housing, literally pricing people out of the marketplace of home ownership with the ridiculous price cap.
That went straight into the broken promise of cost of living because you completely missed the mark with your housing scheme. You do not have any friends in industry lining up to say it is any good. They were looking for a scheme; looking for something to stimulate the housing market and construction. They were really hoping you might get there. You failed. Not only did you fail industry, you failed the mums and dads who wanted to get out of the rental roundabout and into home ownership. You failed the young tradie who was looking for a leg up into home ownership. You have completely missed the mark ...
Ms Lee interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: We have a running commentary from the member for Arnhem. She will get her opportunity in this debate. That is pathetic sideline from the back of the Chamber.
The government missed the mark in understanding a housing assistance scheme to get people off the rental roundabout and into home ownership. You tore up the first promise on cost of living. Housing is gone: My New Home scrapped, HOMESTART Extra scrapped.
You do not want the battlers, the low- to middle-income earners getting into home ownership. We get it. You are a party for the wealthy. You do not quite understand the battlers, that environment and scenario, so you are definitely going to scrap schemes designed to help them. That is exactly what you have done; you have left them in the rental trap.
What will happen with rents now? Under these bold initiatives and HomeBuild Access, will people see reduced rents? Are we seeing any of the new 2000 stock promised? No; none. Council after council is announcing it is jacking up its rates because of the power and water price hikes. Darwin has said at least 3%, Palmerston is saying 6%, and everyone in the rental market knows that once council rates increase landlords put the rent up. One of the consequences of your price hikes in power and water is that rents are going up.
So, rather than deliver on the cost of living promise for housing, you have done the exact opposite. You still believe in your bubble with advice from the old boys who have not lived in the Territory for a long time but you brought them back out of retirement. ‘Do not worry; there is no contemporary here I want to listen to. Bring the dinosaurs back, the old men who do not have a leg in reality of living in the Territory anywhere’, bring them back ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I object to the ageist remarks the Leader of the Opposition has waged across this floor over the last 10 minutes. It is inappropriate and disgraceful; ageism is not acceptable in Australian society.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Get out a little more often, member for Araluen. People are calling them ‘the old boys’, calling them ‘the dinosaurs’ and members of the CLP are calling them that as well. When you live in Darwin - you do not live in Darwin and have been saying on TV, ‘Well, I don’t know. I don’t understand. I’m not from Darwin.’ We get that you do not understand. This is what Territorians are saying; this is being talked about in cafes, shops and in parks - dinosaurs. CLP members are saying, ‘They brought back the dinosaurs? Are they for real?’ Thank you for drawing everyone’s attention to it. I really enjoyed that.
So, missing the boat on housing, tearing up the first promise you made in your cost of living and affordable Territory policy point I am reading from - unbelievable.
Then we go to the second point, ‘utilities’. I quote:
- ... through policies that put downward pressure on the cost of living - particularly in the areas of ...
The second point is utilities. The government then hikes up power, water and sewerage prices and goes into this pathetic - there have been about six different reasons and shades thereof as the announcements have rolled on, each of them ...
Ms Lee interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, you are on a warning!
Ms LAWRIE: ... having to blame Labor. Do not take any responsibility for your own decisions; you do not want to do that. Play the blame game, kick around the blame game because hiking up the price of utilities was your decision and a direct tearing up of your promise, commitment and contract with Territorians.
Territorians have been fairly reasonable about this debate. They have been ‘Terry-fied’. That is what they told me on the weekend; they are ‘Terry-fied’ and say it is ‘Terry-ble’. There are a few takes on ‘Terry-ble’ but this is a Chamber so I will be polite. People are creative, I like it. People are letting me know the talk is about being ‘Terry-fied’ and you are ‘Terry-ble’.
In relation to utilities, people are being reasonable; they are saying, ‘We are terrified; do not jack it up that much. We cannot afford it.’ Families, singles, pensioners, businesses, non-government organisations and charities have been hitting the airwaves. It is not Labor on its own. Of course, in opposition, we will speak for the people. You will not like that because it does not sit comfortably with the bubble and vortex you are living in – way out of touch with reality.
People are saying, ‘If you are hell-bent on jacking up the prices at least do it in increments, at least roll it out over a few years’. No, you will not do that. You are hell-bent on getting this revenue into the coffers of Power and Water. People are asking, ‘Why? We do not pay our house mortgage in two years, what is this all about?’
There was the bizarre interview on Channel 9 with the Treasurer when Jonathan Uptin asked her if she hoped people would forget about this in four years’ time. She said, extraordinarily, ‘No, no we hope they forget about it in two years’. Is that for real? Is this seriously just about the political expediency of giving a hard, nasty, painful hit to families and businesses now and hope people forget before the next election?
You are kidding yourself if you think getting hit with those quarterly bills with hikes of $2000 a year for families and $8000 a year for businesses - that is just the average business. A business in the manufacturing sector is probably looking at a hike of around $3000 a month not $8000 a quarter. Did you do any analysis across the different sectors of small businesses before you made this decision? We have seen no evidence of the analysis of hardship on families.
Will you be compensating people who, for medical reasons, are running air conditioners at home to keep a burns patient cool? Have you had a look at the genuine consequences of these decisions? I see you laugh, Chief Minister. This is real, present and the reality of people dealing with the consequences of your decision not Labor’s decision. It is your decision to do it in one hard, nasty hit rather than run it out as increments if you are hell-bent on your pathway.
The next one is labour costs. Downward pressure on labour costs in the CLP world equates to sacking people. It is code for the government’s labour costs because I have not seen any reduction in labour costs for the private sector. This must be public sector. Yes, there is downward pressure on labour costs because hundreds of Territorians have been put into unemployment by the actions of the CLP government.
We have a conservative count of at least 300 Territorians now unemployed because of the CLP job cuts. To the CLP they are not job cuts because they were on contracts; they were not permanent staff so they are not redeployees. Tell that to the mother who no longer has a job because Terry Mills is the Chief Minister. Tell that to the family who are down to one income or the public servant in the family too frightened to have lunch because they cannot afford to get the chop. ‘Terry-fired’ is being talked about across the public service in the Northern Territory. You are grinding this place into the ground because when people are going through this they stop spending.
Retailers are having the worst October on record. They had a very bad September and October was worse. I would hate to see the Christmas figures in the retail sector across the Northern Territory because not only are people scared about their jobs - hundreds have lost their jobs already - but with these hikes they cannot afford to spend. People are saying, ‘There goes the family Christmas holiday’. People are calling you, Chief Minister, much worse than ‘Terry-fired’ and ‘Terry-ble’. However, it is all water off a duck’s back to you because you are pretty good at showing you do not give a damn. You really do not care about the effects you are having on people’s lives.
You tore up the contract and are okay with that. You did not even flinch. You are feeling okay about what you are doing to people’s lives and to small business - sending them to the wall. The Chamber of Commerce said businesses will close. What are you saying to those businesses? How are you explaining the increases will not be in increments; you will not spread out the costs? Businesses and manufacturing have already put out tenders based on the old prices - based on what they might pick up in three months’ time. They will already wear the new price hikes. They cannot write this cost into those tenders; they are locked in and will be out of pocket.
Other businesses will pass these costs on to consumers. If you go to the pub, the childcare centre, wherever you go these costs will be passed on to consumers. It is not only the price hike in the utility bill, it is across-the-board cost of living increases. You have ramped up the cost for businesses and have not lowered the cost of living.
You heard the shadow minister for Transport talk about the additional cost to the transport industry as a result of your hikes. Outdoor recreation –have you explained to the sporting organisations of the Northern Territory who operate on pretty lean budgets how they will pay for the irrigation of their sporting fields. How much will hockey receive for the artificial turf because you have to water the turf to play on it, you have no choice. How much will they be compensated?
Are you going to reduce the cost of sport? We are still waiting for the sport vouchers. Our shadow minister issued a media release reminding Territorians of that promise and there has been deafening silence from the government. No keeping to that promise yet, at the same time, you are upping expenses for all the sporting organisations and they will have to increase the fees. The whole pretend promise you had around making it easier for kids and families to enjoy sport in the Territory, the great Territory lifestyle, you have reneged on already. You tore that up with everything else when you made these stupid decisions.
There will be downward pressure on the cost of tourism? Everyone will put their prices up because the vans people take to Kakadu will have to charge the tourists more. Will we have more tourists doing that? How will that work out? Those small operators - I have been to Kakadu recently - are coming though a lean period. Some of the smaller Indigenous tourism businesses there are really struggling. They are not getting the numbers to sustain and maintain the business. How will these extra costs help them keep their business open?
Government charges - wow! We will find out more about government charges in the mini-budget. You have torn up every other promise and that will be the next.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the member’s time has expired.
It was an opportunity to raise a matter of definite public importance and you have lowered the tone significantly and added nothing new. You had a censure this morning which did not gain much traction. Now you have another shot and use it under the guise of a matter of definite public importance. You could not even get that right. You cannot conceal your rank nastiness and are personalising and denigrating people across the Northern Territory. You had to have this matter of public importance corrected because you used nasty language in that. You are going to have to lift your tone and deal with the reality of the Northern Territory. This is a real challenge and if you think it is cast in such simple and obscene terms you have described - we are just blaming you guys and are doing whatever we like. We have to do this. It is a problem inherited; a problem we take responsibility for and make the necessary decisions.
It is not easy. It is something you are probably not accustomed to, making hard decisions for the right reasons. It is not about me. You can denigrate me, you can call me names, you can give me names of other people, I do not care because I have to make a decision.
The Country Liberals’ decision to increase commercial sustainability is certainly deliberate, definitely necessary, and definitely honest. At every step of the way, with every independent finding about the poor state of the Territory’s finances, we have kept the community up to date. Given the length and breadth of the debate in this House today on the tough but necessary action my government has taken on power and water prices, I would like to use this opportunity to focus on the cost of living pressures facing the Territory more broadly, and outline some of my government’s plans to tackle the high cost of living pressure. Specifically, I will outline our measures to dampen housing and rental costs and focus on growing the three-hub economy to ensure Territorians have greater opportunity to participate in the economic growth of the Northern Territory.
We have a long-term plan and, in some ways, it is a strange compliment you pay us when you cite the cost of living today, after 13 weeks in government. You are creating the impression we should have been able to fix this in 13 weeks. It is a compliment, but we are turning the ship around and know what we are doing. We are making hard decisions, but they are for the long-term benefit of the Northern Territory, make no mistake about that.
Your arguments simply do not stack up. You spend too much time trying to score some cheap and nasty point without establishing an argument, running it through and persuading anyone with the weight of that argument. There is no argument there at all; it is just nasty sniping across the Chamber. It is really low-level stuff.
We have some real challenges. Other jurisdictions have faced similar challenges. We have to show leadership in difficult times like this. Looking clearly at the problems, objectively, it is almost embarrassing to hear the Opposition Leader denigrate people – men are an issue, also their age - who have provided service. You have never really debated the RMB report ...
Ms Lawrie: You took it off the Notice Paper.
Mr MILLS: You have not discussed it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The opposition wanted to debate it last sittings. It was withdrawn from the Notice Paper by the Leader of Government Business.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: The material is in the open. By the nature of the ill-informed and shallow debates conducted by the Labor opposition, they are clearly uninformed or untroubled by facts and can construe or misconstrue data and information to suit some childish argument. I have no evidence of any serious analysis of the report provided which you have had access to. I would have expected, if you were serious and showed some intellect, you would have been able to use that report and find a fault or a flaw with it. However, you have done nothing with it except resort to cheap insults.
It shows you do not have the capacity to really analyse a problem and show a constructive path out of it or to hold us to account. You cannot do that. All you have is a cheap, nasty stunt which adds nothing to this debate and does not show any quality of leadership.
The fact I have heard no discussion from the opposition that has been informed by the RMB’s report is very telling indeed. You do not ask questions about it. You are very exposed when it comes to debt and do not want to talk about debt. We have given you something to talk about now: the Power and Water tariff increases which are necessary. However, you are on weak ground because of the high debt load: the debt burden bearing down on the Territory’s future. We have to deal with that.
You would have dealt with it because you had to, and there would have been outside pressure bearing down upon you if you happened to be - heaven forbid - Treasurer today. Your interstate colleagues would have required you to do something. They would not have been impressed by the weak arguments constructed in this Chamber to score some point by people on your back verandah telling you the nasty names they call the Chief Minister. You have to do much better than that because you have your federal counterparts who are responsible for disbursing the wealth of this Commonwealth and putting it into the hands of a responsible government which will take things seriously. It is certainly not the former Labor government. You are an embarrassment.
Ms Lawrie: Not true!
Mr MILLS: You are an embarrassment. How dare you aspire to statehood when you conduct your affairs as you have to date?
You have not even attended to a genuine matter of definite public importance. You use this as a cheap shot and advance the argument no further.
Let us get down to the issue of housing. This is also a very weak and vulnerable spot for the former government. You have placed us in a terrible situation. We are in a bind because we have a massive debt burden bearing down upon the Territory, make no mistake about that. Anyone with eyes to see and who is honest enough can see it, except the former Treasurer. The reality is it is all about the former Treasurer. Anyone from inside or outside the Territory can see it if they look.
At the same time, we have a problem with the failure to get on top of the land release program in the Northern Territory: no long-term strategic plan, which resulted in upward pressure on housing prices. Not only that, this furphy you have run about the schemes you had in place which you deliberately did not consult Treasury about when constructing them because you wanted a political fix. You wanted a sugar hit before you went into the election. You did not consult Treasury. You had another agency construct the scheme so you could advertise it and people would give you a round of applause because you had, somehow, solved the problem. However, you had the IMF and outside agencies saying, ‘Very dangerous scheme’. I have news for you - a matter of definite public importance ...
Ms Lawrie: You are making that up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I am not making it up. Schemes of that nature are dangerous. Read the NT News. I am sure you do these days. You would enjoy that. I will give you some interesting news I heard this afternoon. One of our developers desperately trying to provide more housing stock in our market informed me that with the requirement of needing enough pre-sales for approval and support from his bank, he presented the required number to the bank. The bank went through the pre-approvals. He said - it would be interesting for you to know this - the one in that group of pre-approvals not accepted was from your wonderful scheme. It was not accepted because it does not have the necessary guarantees to allow it to be trusted as an instrument ...
Ms Lawrie: It had the Housing department’s guarantee.
Mr MILLS: They did not rate it, which confirms it was a problem. It had a fundamental flaw at its heart. It is not sufficiently satisfactory to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: They do not rate it. Get one that is really backed up. Get a real one. Your scheme …
Ms Lawrie: Making it up again.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader!
Mr MILLS: I do not make it up. Home ownership in the Territory went down from 47.6% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2011. All the talk of economic growth and all the opportunities we had and affordability and ownership goes down. House prices went up because - you talk about the cost of living, why do you not talk about this - the previous government’s schemes increased the pool and the purchasing capacity increased demand. Labor schemes did not add to the housing pool and resulted in turnover of an existing housing market. You called it ‘northern suburbs churn’ in your speech. Ninety-three percent of the HOMESTART Extra loans were for existing stock. You added to the demand. You did not address the fundamental issue of supply. What happens then? You are supposed to be a Treasurer but do you understand basic supply and demand? You feed demand, increase prices, and that is exactly what happened, selecting the bits you do not like. Your schemes and talk about the cost of living pressure – let’s get real. Your schemes did not stabilise the housing market. Darwin has experienced the highest housing price index annual growth rate of all capital cities of 8.2% compared to Australia of 0.3%. Your failure to release land and your scheme that drove demand caused the problem ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you going to drive prices down?
Mr MILLS: You really have no answer to this and will duck and dive. You have no answer because it is the fact. You have not dealt with the core issue and have not accepted responsibility that you failed as Treasurer. You only have to look at the lines. When the debt increases, when we spend more than we have as income coincides with the time you became Treasurer.
Ms Lawrie: I had nothing to do with the global financial crisis timing.
Mr MILLS: Yes, okay, there you go.
Ms Lawrie: I had nothing to do with that.
Mr MILLS: The previous government’s subsidised scheme’s parameters were amended as prices increased. As prices increased they amended the scheme, increased demand and increased the cost to government. Good heavens! Money was required to feed into this thing causing prices to go up, political pressure was mounting - feed more money into it. It increases the costs of housing, puts it out of reach of Territorians, and increases our borrowings at the same time. You could not have had a worse scheme - failure to release land, construct a scheme which increases our borrowings and drives the costs of housing out of the reach of Territorians. You ignored the advice of Treasury experts from HOMESTART Extra, worsening the Territory’s fiscal balance nett debt by an estimated $59m in 2012-13 and $68m in 2013-14.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a radio interview on Monday, 19 November, accused the cap in our new, fiscally responsible programs as being too low. Does she really believe a mortgage of $750 000 is affordable? Do you believe that?
Ms Lawrie: For high-income earners.
Mr MILLS: You have to be kidding. How do you pay for that? It causes the housing market to increase, you have to borrow extra money to feed it, it increases our nett debt and causes housing prices to increase. You believe $750 000 is affordable. You think our cap is too low. You do not have an argument. You had your chance and you are making cheap shots.
Who was the former Labor government focused on helping? It says our cap is a little too low and Labor’s was $750 000. Who was the former Labor government trying to help? It was not people on low to middle incomes because it was causing the housing market to move out of their reach. You are feeding the system and driving demand upwards. You are not trying to help people on modest incomes at all. You are not helping the people who want to get into the housing market. It was moving out of reach, you could see it but you did not consult. You did not have a properly constructed scheme. You had a scheme which could not be more poorly constructed.
The high cap drove housing prices up and out of reach of the average worker. The policies of the previous government resulted in more pressure on housing prices not less, putting the purchase of a new home out of reach of low- to middle-income earners. You can check your own statistics if you want.
The new Northern Territory government can assist those in need and help people enter the market in a way which will see new housing being introduced. That is called increasing supply at the right place in the market. This will result in a removal of the pressure placed on the market by the previous government’s poorly constructed policies. The bottom line is we will increase the supply of new affordable homes to stop the population drain of Territorians. It is a compliment that you think we can achieve this in 13 weeks. We cannot necessarily do it in 13 weeks, but we can do it and that is the way we are going. We will stop the loss of essential workers we need to help our economy grow.
My government is already getting on with the job of restoring the balance between supply and demand pressures. I do not know if you are going to continue your tirade and attack on the government, but we know what we are doing and where we are going. We are, step by step, unfolding a new approach to deal with the problems we have inherited. The first one is the debt issue. Yes, you might want to run that stunt. I thought you probably had that nicely rehearsed tearing up the sheet this morning, but the top one says more money into your pocket.
First, we have to stop that money going to the banks in the payment of interest - $750 000 every single day. Our first measure is to get to the point where we at least live within our means and then we can start dealing with debt growth in the Northern Territory. These are responsible decisions which will, ultimately, bear a strong result for Territory families into the future. Our task, a difficult one, is to secure the financial future of the Northern Territory. I accept, as I have said all along, we do not take these decisions lightly. We understand it causes significant impact on Territory families. We are not deaf, blind, or uncaring, but we care enough to make difficult decisions in difficult times for us to be in a better position in time to come.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this matter of public importance on. It highlights, in discussion of the cost of living, some fundamental differences between the ALP and the CLP about how we approach some of the very basic things government does, the essential things government does, and the essential services government must provide.
First, I want to go back a little to my great grandad arriving in Tennant Creek in the 1930s. It was a dusty place, a remote place, a place where a community was slowly being built - just a few hundred people. No asphalt was laid through Tennant Creek until the 1940s during the war. Defence engineers from the military came through and laid asphalt on the Stuart Highway down through Tennant Creek. My great grandad, Con Perry, was in Tennant Creek in the 1930s trying to build a community. To do that, you need some essential things. Back then they did not have easy access to those types of things. Tennant was his home, but it was a community held back by lack of water. At that time they had to pump water from the creek, now known as Seven Mile Creek, and sell it by the gallon.
My great grandad’s lasting legacy in Tennant Creek was finding the first permanent water supply at Cabbage Gum Bore, a huge reserve of quality bore water. The town had a permanent supply of water and became a community. It was a fragile thing. There was a chance Tennant Creek would not be Tennant Creek if it was not for the fact it had access to an essential thing: water. Without water you cannot have a place; it is an essential service. You need it; it has to be provided and, on our side, we believe the provision of reliable power and water at a fair price is an essential service and something governments must do. That is how we approach the issue. We take into consideration many things when trying to work out how to provide reliable power and water to the people of the Northern Territory at a fair price.
Alternatively, we have the CLP, which has demonstrated quite clearly since coming to office that it does not see power and water as essential services. It sees them as something which must be provided at true cost plus a little for profit. It is a user pays system and if you cannot afford it, essentially, it is a luxury.
On this side we see them as essential services that must be provided reliably at a price which does not break the back of Territorians. The CLP, in a very short period of time, has decided it has to increase the price of power and water because they are non-essential services and must make a profit. It has to be provided at profit, and that has made a massive impact on the cost of living for Territorians. When you take into account the ordinary person going home at night, how will they pay for that? Power and water has to be provided at a rate people can afford. You cannot provide essential services at a price which breaks people or small business.
Unfortunately, we have reached this point very early in this term of government. The government is going to place a savage increase on the cost of power and water to a point where it will break the back of many ordinary Territorians and small businesses. You ask, what is the cost? The CLP put a numerical figure on it in the early days when it announced this increase of about $2000 for the average family and $7800 for a small business. In some ways, that does not remotely encapsulate the human cost this will have, especially if you look at the flow-on effects.
It is not just a family trying to find an extra $2000 next year to pay these bills, or an extra $8000 for a business, when you go to the baker for your loaf of bread, the bar to have a beer, drop your kids off at childcare or school - private schools in particular, you have to pay extra fees at your local school - these are all flow-on effects of the decision made by the CLP. It goes way beyond the power and water bill in the mail four times next year; it goes to ordinary activities. People do not have access to $2000. This is not something they can pay for out of their savings; they will have to stop doing things to pay for this.
Territorians are already talking to us about the things they are not doing next year. The big, obvious one is the Christmas holiday because they see $2000 - it makes sense. The Christmas holiday is the obvious thing they might not have next year. They are also talking about their children not participating in sport. Do they not play hockey or go to basketball? What things will they cut out? They will have fewer fishing trips next year. They might have to miss three or four fishing trips. They have to find a way to save the money the CLP wants to charge them. They are trying to factor in how to pay the power and water bills coming in four times a year next year.
They still do not know the flow-on costs because no one has done that work. In making this decision, the CLP did not work out the flow-on costs. What will the impact be at the baker, the brewer, the butcher, the childcare centre or for sport? The maths has not been done. Parents are already receiving letters from their childcare centre saying prices are going up by $4.50.
Louisa was on TV recently saying $5 off the cuff, but now, in writing, it is $4.50 as a result of these power and water charges. People are trying to get some idea of what savings to make to pay the quarterly power and water bill. They still do not know how much extra they need to find because of this.
We are hearing from many Territorians who are stressed. This increases tension within families. Families are tense; people are tense. They are doing the family budget trying to work out how they will survive next year. They do not know the full cost but they know it will be a lot. They have already worked out, obviously, the power and water bill side of it, but there are the flow-on effects. People are realising there will be extra bills next year - all the add-ons - and they do not know how much it is going to hurt and what they will have to stop doing. There are fairly basic things people will have to stop doing. They will stop sending their kids to sport. They cannot do it any longer. That is one of the decisions people are trying to make right now.
You do not find $2000 down the back of the couch or by turning a fan off once or twice. We had the charitable advice from the Chief Minister about having an air conditioner on for five hours instead of eight. We know of people - the Leader of the Opposition might want to talk about them in more detail - whose health situation means they have to run an air conditioner. I know someone who operates a machine who cannot stop doing that. What will they stop doing? There are some very tough, hard decisions coming over the next year as people work out how they can take the CLP’s medicine because it decided power and water are no longer essential services.
Power and Water is no longer saying you have a right to a reasonable price, it is saying you must pay. ‘This is what is best for you so you have to take the CLP’s medicine.’ People are getting - a double hit underestimates it - many hits. They receive one hit in the power and water bill, then multiple hits on everything else they do, and they are massive.
Business has to pass this on; this is way too big to absorb. Some businesses know they can no longer be competitive, particularly in the retail world. Most of the businesses I have heard from have been from the retail world where they say this fixed cost will hit them an extra 30%. However, the competition they are most worried about is not down the road or at Casuarina, it is online; they are not paying the extra 30%. Their direct competition suddenly has a 30% break on them. They are already worried enough about online and, now, suddenly, they have to pay 30% and the others do not. They are genuinely worried as they look at next year and try to work out how to survive. The retail industry, in particular, is trying to work out how to get through this because the competition suddenly has a massive advantage. They are already concerned about the growth in the online retail market and now, suddenly, they have been whacked and have no idea how to adjust their business to compete against online companies.
This will hurt. Businesses will be closed and jobs will be lost. The initial response from the Chamber of Commerce was, ‘This is going to hurt. Businesses will close and jobs will be lost.’
Margins are thin at the moment. They often are in small business. It is not an easy life being a small business owner. I have many family members in small businesses in Alice Springs. I have seen the impact it can have on a family; the tensions when you do not make enough money for a couple of weeks.
We are seeing an increase in tensions in families as workers have to cope with their household budgets. Your heart goes out to families with small businesses. They are in real pain and will struggle. This will be difficult.
You then start to look at broader community institutions. Schools are already talking about how they will budget next year. If advice has gone out I have not seen it. The school councils I have spoken with are waiting for advice on how or what assistance they might receive from the Education department to meet these costs because most of them have already found their efficiencies. They have already done the work over the last four or five years turning things off, stopping things and changing lights. All the really basic things and good habits have already been done. They are saying they cannot find any more efficiencies on their school campuses. They are not sure how to handle this increase in cost.
Private schools do not receive assistance from the Education department and are saying they will have to put up fees and will lose students to the public system. Parents will place students in the public system. Some people have chosen a private school based on faith. Parents who send their kids to Christian schools and Catholic schools made the decision to spend a little extra. They send their kids to a school that teaches their faith as well as providing a good, solid education. They are now saying, ‘I cannot afford the fees any longer. I am going to send my kids to the public school. There is nothing wrong with public schools, but I was hoping my kids would grow up in a school of shared faith.’
We are not sure of the impact in remote communities. How will people meet these increases? What will Indigenous organisations do?
Several EBAs are around the corner, how will they be negotiated? The cost of living usually ties in with the CPI. No EBA negotiation is easy, but you are looking at a similar ballpark. If 30% comes in it will have a massive impact on EBA negotiations.
I feel for people in remote communities where there is a much better grasp. Sometimes, in an urban area, we take for granted how critical power and water are. This is an essential service and you have a much better grasp of how critical it is when you live a long way from anywhere else. I do not know how this has been resolved or how people are affected due to this in very remote parts of the Territory. I have no doubt they grasp the point of power and water as an essential service and the need it to be provided at a reasonable rate. For them, in many ways, it is probably the difference in living. We take it for granted, but that increase will make a massive impact in regional remote areas a long way from anywhere. Your heart goes out when you think of people trying to work out how they will manage. Most of those people are on low incomes dealing with massive increases and it will really hurt.
Many pensioners have spoken to us. The CLP said they have been insulated. A pensioner does not believe a 15% slug on power or a 20% slug on water is insulation. We are talking about people. We are talking about thin margins. They have already made many savings. They have made many changes to their daily lifestyle over the years to ensure they can live within their means. There is no doubt pensioners are living within their means and are unsure how they will cope with this. People see through this pretty quickly because they know what their bills are. They know the bill they will receive; they had it last quarter, will get it next quarter and can do the maths pretty quickly. Everyone can calculate 30%.
Pensioners have done the 15%; they calculate down to the second cent. They know what they have. They know this will hurt, and they do not know how to deal with it. They have already made many sacrifices to live within their means and do not know how they will cope with this 15%. They are still trying to work out how. It has been several weeks and they still do not know. They are still trying to work out how they will survive on this.
This decision is making things very difficult for people to live in the Northern Territory. This is a very mean decision by a very mean government.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I relish the opportunity to talk in this parliament today about this definite matter of public importance:
- ... the CLP’s deliberate, mean and unnecessary increases to the cost of living in the Northern Territory.
We had a similar motion put to the parliament this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chief Minister and I have had, effectively, two bites of the cherry, as has the Leader of the Opposition. As a member of the Northern Territory parliament for just over two years, this has been one of the most fascinating days I have had in this Chamber. The low level of debate the opposition has provided on this issue which it claims is of definite importance to the community is probably the lowest during my entire time as a member of parliament.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition this morning, and again this afternoon, make deliberate personal attacks on people in the community. Both this morning and this evening, she made ageist comments about the gentlemen we have appointed to help us through this difficult time coming to government. She, unashamedly, continued to make ageist comments, even when I made a point of order. She obviously has a problem with elderly people in our community. These comments have been coming from the Leader of the Opposition for several months now through the media and now in the Chamber. We hear her attacking people on the basis of their age and position in society, even to the point of calling people we have appointed to assist us in government, I quote, ‘dinosaurs’.
The Leader of the Opposition has a case to answer. A very large proportion of the Australian community, and the Northern Territory community, are elderly. For the Leader of the Opposition, throughout the day, to make cheap, ageist comments about distinguished people in our community, who are old but still making a very productive contribution to this government, to this community, is low, low, low. It is probably one of the lowest debates I have ever heard in this Chamber.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to talk about how I, as Treasurer, a woman, act as a puppet of these dinosaurs; these old men who supposedly pull my strings and tell me what to do. The member for Barkly also chimed in on that topic insinuating I was a puppet of these elderly gentlemen we appointed to assist us.
I found those comments extremely sexist, repulsive, cheap and low. The opposition is trying to milk this unfortunate situation we, as a new government, find ourselves in to the extent where members have to make ageist comments and insinuate sexist remarks across the Chamber. That is the lowest point I have ever experienced in this Chamber and it is completely unnecessary.
We stood here today, I on two occasions, the Chief Minister on two occasions, and said publicly, honestly and openly, we take responsibility for this terrible decision we have had to make so early in our term of government. We realise it will have an enormous impact on certain sectors of the community, including the business community, as we heard in the drivel from the member for Fannie Bay. He made one valid point through his 20 minutes which was that people will be hurt by this decision. We know that, we accept responsibility, we acknowledge that. We unequivocally take responsibility for this decision. What responsibility does the opposition take for this decision? Absolutely none. As the government for 11 years they presided over the highest rents in the country.
I have a young man working for me upstairs who told me he pays $720 a week rent for a three bedroom home in Leanyer with one bathroom and one toilet. That is what the former Labor government presided over for 11 years and then had the hide to tell us we do not care about the cost of living. What did they do about the cost of living in the last 11 years? They spent money and put us into debt. We reached a point where our fiscal imbalance is way out of control. Power and Water is run into the ground and they claim the cost of living is going through the roof because we, in our very short time in government, under duress and extremely tough circumstances which we inherited from them - they claim we are responsible for the outrageously high cost of living in the Northern Territory.
It is a furphy, nonsense, misleading, and the whole day has been marred and scarred by the fact the opposition is delusional and takes no responsibility for the last 11 years of failures, mismanagement, misconduct and negligence.
Tonight we are continuing with this nonsense of a matter of public importance so the Leader of the Opposition can have her day in the sun, milk it for what it is worth, when we know, and most Territorians know, it is our responsibility that we have increased the tariffs, but who is to blame? It is the former Labor government. I have had many people e-mail or come into my electorate over the last week saying, ‘Robyn, this is really bad. We do not like it, we are going to hurt, but we understand it is the former Treasurer, the former government’s fault because they were such poor managers of our money for over 11 years.’
This argument is a continuation of the misleading negligence of the former government. People are completely and utterly over it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She was a little worked up so I let it go, but ‘misleading’ has been ruled out plenty of times in this Chamber and she has said it about six times. She was worked up so I let it go, but I am pointing it out. ‘Misleading’ has been withdrawn in the past.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Opposition Leader. Continue, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We have heard sexist comments, ageist comments, but for me to say ‘misleading’ is somehow unacceptable.
Mr McCarthy: We have heard about Energex. Wish you had never heard of Energex, Robyn?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Let me get to Energex. We have heard a plethora of factual errors and lazy mistakes coming from the Leader of the Opposition over the last week. Since we announced our tariff increases the Leader of the Opposition has had a fanciful delusional time with the media making up stories, squeezing stories out, pushing people before the cameras and the newspaper journalists, feeding them stories of absolute and utter nonsense.
The childcare story which came out a few days ago was one heck of a doozy. The Leader of the Opposition found this poor woman from a childcare centre and threw her in front of the camera saying, ‘Tell them how much these tariff increases will mean to your childcare centre!’ The poor woman, who we spoke to the next day said, ‘I felt under pressure. Five dollars per day per child is what I thought but, on reflection, I was wrong.’ The Leader of the Opposition picked up on that. She did not do our figures. She was only $200 000 out on the power bill of the childcare centre. An amount of $5 per day per child per week equates to about $72 000 a year in power bills. If that is 30%, then the total power bill per year would be $240 000. This is the drivel, the absolute nonsense.
Ms Anderson: Liar!
Mrs LAMBLEY: ... that has come out of the Leader of the Opposition’s mouth over the last week ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mrs LAMBLEY: You cannot stand the truth?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be quiet. Member for Nhulunbuy, what is your point of order?
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, I ask the member for Namatjira to withdraw the word ‘liar’. She knows it is a breach of standing orders.
Ms Anderson: Madam Speaker, I did not say ‘liar’ at all. I said ‘Deliar’.
Ms Lawrie: Come on, Alison. You said it! You are talking with a forked tongue again.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, please continue. Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, just a few days ago we heard the whole childcare story unfold - absolute nonsense, very misleading and very harmful. People who send their children to childcare are battlers, as we have heard time and time again today from the opposition. These people have children and they struggle. The Leader of the Opposition wheeling out that story is harmful, hurtful and very destructive to young families who are struggling. We have heard how our tariff increases will hurt Territorians, but pushing these incorrect stories, fables, fictitious lies is harmful and the opposition should think about the harm it is doing by creating hysteria and worry in the community.
Let us go to the Energex story. One of the obsessions coming from the Leader of the Opposition over the last week is about Ken Clarke, a former Under Treasurer of the Northern Territory, a skilled, intelligent human being we regard with the utmost respect. This man deserves respect, but all he has had from the Leader of the Opposition is denigration and humiliation. She has no respect for anyone apart from her gang that she talks to. It is inexcusable that someone of his standing in the community should be subjected to denigration and misleading information from the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Have you read the Public Accounts Committee report?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Leader of the Opposition, in order to shoot the messenger – it is not the argument we are talking about; it is not about the tariff increases. She has to shoot the messenger, the person who is telling the truth and conveying the information to the people of the Northern Territory. She cannot stand to hear the truth. Poor old Ken Clarke, who we put in to help us to get out of the mess ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that ageist comment.
Mrs Lambley: It is not an ageist comment; he is an elderly gentleman. I feel sorry for him because he has been unfairly subjected to abuse and ridicule by the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Would ...
Mrs Lambley: If you have nothing to say sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Deputy Chief Minister!
Ms WALKER: I believe I have the call, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You have the call, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Could you ask the Treasurer to direct her comments through you, through the Chair, not across the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, could you direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I have been doing so for most of my speech, Madam Speaker, and feel that comment was wrongfully directed. Never mind, I will do so and I thank you for your direction.
The issue of Ken Clarke has been raised numerous times by the Leader of the Opposition. She has a fixation with Mr Clarke; I am not sure why. Obviously, she has a long list of people she does not like, who she feels are anti-her, Labor, or whatever. The story about Energex and Ken Clarke was very misleading and factually incorrect. It was, again, an example of lazy mistakes.
Tonight it is another example of the opposition’s flimsy, haphazard, low-level type debate that it is trying to wield in the community to create hysteria and worry, which is shameful. We know this will be hard for Territorians. These tariff increases are unwelcome, but we stand by them. We stand by the fact it is the former government’s fault. The former Labor government should take responsibility for its part in the failings whilst in government.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly do now adjourn.
As part of my program of introducing senior members of the Northern Territory Bar Association to this House, I would like to discuss a person of eminent reputation, Mr Alistair Wyvill SC, or Senior Counsel. Alistair is a barrister at William Forster Chambers in Darwin and was first admitted in Queensland in 1984. Alistair studied at the University of Queensland where he obtained degrees in Economics and Law with honours. He completed his Masters in Law at University College, London, where he was awarded the Herbert Smith award for the highest overall master’s degree, which is truly a remarkable feat.
In 1986, he joined William Forster Chambers and practiced for 12 years as a barrister in the Northern Territory. In 1994, he travelled to Vietnam to conduct courses for Vietnamese judges in bankruptcy law and procedure as part of the Commonwealth government aid fellowship to that country. From 1995 to 1997 he lectured in public international law at the then Northern Territory University, now Charles Darwin University. In 1998, he joined the English Bar and practiced with St Philips Chambers which is the second largest barrister’s chambers in the United Kingdom. Between 2000 and 2008 he was a board member of the chambers. In July 2008 he returned to William Forster Chambers and was appointed senior counsel in 2009.
I intend, from time to time, to draw the attention of honourable members in this House to senior members of the Bar because it is important the Chamber appreciates the calibre of people in the legal profession in the Northern Territory. We have every right to be extremely proud of the people we have working at the Bar in Darwin. For a small jurisdiction we have some remarkable people.
I also draw members’ attention to Gregory John MacDonald who is only a couple of years older than me - a remarkable fellow. He was awarded the Chief Minister’s Public Sector Medal on 15 November 2012. He is a senior lawyer in the Solicitor-General’s Chambers. He has displayed unstinting dedication, service, and achievement in the public sector for over 30 years.
He was brought up in Darwin and commenced his legal duties in the early 1980s. He worked with the department of Law as a vacation student during his legal studies, employed variously as a salaries clerk, recruitment officer, Clerk of the Court and law clerk. He was an associate to Justice Mildren for 12 months following the completion of his law degree. Subsequently, he was employed as a solicitor for the Northern Territory, and worked for a period in private practice with Hunt & Hunt, then as an in-house counsel for the Northern Territory Police Force. He has been a senior legal practitioner for the Department of Justice for the last 10 years - Department of the Attorney-General and Justice as it is now known - and is much sought after for the advice and support he provides his clients.
Apart from his advisory practice, Greg has worked tirelessly and competently on many large pieces of litigation over the years. His efforts in all matters he is involved in extend well beyond the normal expectations of his position. Of particular note and in more recent times he has assumed primary responsibility for representing the government in relation to those persons who have committed serious crimes but are unfit to plead. He advised extensively in a recent inquiry into childcare and protection services and is the government’s principal legal advisor on public sector industrial relations issues. Greg is also a patient and generous mentor to junior practitioners. In short, his commitment to government legal practice has been exemplary.
We are fortunate to have such switched on, bright and intelligent lawyers working for us in the Northern Territory.
I also speak of Charlie White, a prison officer who recently retired. Last Saturday night I attended his retirement party. Such was the esteem his colleagues held him in, they organised a substantial party in the grounds of the old Fannie Bay Gaol where he started his career.
Charlie White arrived in Darwin when he was 14 and is married with three children and three grandchildren. Mr White was employed on the Commonwealth railway as a train driver. In 1975, the Commonwealth railways changed to the Australian National Railways Commission resulting in the loss of positions, including one held by Mr White. Mr White was offered a job as a prison officer which he declined and, instead, became a taxi driver for a couple of years.
Mr White, or Uncle Charlie as he is known, commenced at Fannie Bay Gaol on 31 August 1978. He was appointed prison officer on 28 February 1979. On 21 May 1979, he transferred to the new Darwin prison when it became operational and the prisoners transferred from Fannie Bay Gaol. Mr White was promoted to Prison Officer - First Class on 31 August, 1989. Uncle Charlie also worked at Beatrice Hill rehabilitation farm and Gunn Point prison farm. He transferred back to Darwin Correctional Centre on 27 June 1996, where he continued his duties. The social events organised by Mr White are legendary and provided an avenue for prison officers to socialise with their colleagues and families. This is necessary for people who work in a challenging environment such as Darwin Correctional Centre.
Uncle Charlie retired on 9 August 2012, with just short of 34 years service with the Department of Correctional Services and the people of the Northern Territory, a significant achievement. Uncle Charlie is the last serving prison officer from Fannie Bay Gaol. I note the promise by Commissioner Middlebrook to invite him to do a couple of shifts at the new gaol when it is complete with a view to him being able to say he worked at Fannie Bay, Berrimah and the new gaol at Howard Springs.
Mr White’s retirement was celebrated, as I said, last Saturday night at the old Fannie Bay Gaol and he was well supported by his colleagues from the Prison Officers Association. Mr White dedicated his career to the Department of Correctional Services and has demonstrated commitment, loyalty and dedication. He has been an inspiration and role model to younger employees and I thank him for what he has contributed to the organisation.
I wish him and his good lady wife, Mavis, the very best into the future. What struck me about Uncle Charlie particularly was the fact that after 24 years working in the prison environment he was able to demonstrate a measured disposition and a good and hearty sense of humour. I have said on many occasions I find prisons challenging environments and do not know if I could work in one successfully because of the concentration of types of people in prisons. It takes a special type of person with a special level of dedication to operate in that environment and maintain an optimistic view of life. It is a testament to Charlie that he did a wonderful job for 34 years and the most important thing is he managed to look after himself spiritually, emotionally and mentally and made a point of looking after those people around him. We are lesser for his retirement but it is well-deserved. I wish him and Mavis all the very best into the future.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I want to speak of my recent road trip to Alice Springs on the weekend of 10 November this year. The purpose of my trip was to travel the vast expanse of the Northern Territory and make contact with Territorians in our towns and communities along the way. I felt the trip was very successful and would like to share some of the moments with you.
The journey started in the wee hours of the morning with my first stop being Katherine to see my colleagues, the members for Arnhem and Katherine. I was unable to meet with Fay Miller, Mayor of Katherine, as she was in Alice Springs at a local government conference. A coffee at the local caf concluded the stop and I was soon on my way.
The next stop was Mataranka and I very much enjoyed Bitter Springs and Mataranka hot springs. It is typical of the Northern Territory that whilst at Bitter Springs I ran into none other than the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Northern Territory, Greg Thompson, who had been travelling Arnhem Land with a visiting Bishop from New South Wales and the Reverend Alan Courtney from Katherine. Bishop Thompson’s visitor spoke so highly of the attractions he had seen so far in the Territory that his congregation in New South Wales will hear stories of his trip for some time to come.
On leaving Mataranka hot springs it became apparent we had not only forgotten to refuel in Katherine but also in Mataranka. The blaring sign stating no fuel for 160 km was a timely reminder of the remote corners of our great Territory.
The journey proceeded to Larrimah where, of course, there is no longer a service station as it has not been rebuilt since it burnt down. We stopped in to see Fran at Fran’s Devonshire Teahouse, who was very happy to see us in the quiet tourist times. Fran made us a lovely roast and chutney roll, a glass of her secret recipe ginger beer, and promptly tasked us with picking up a delivery in Tennant Creek which we would drop back to her on our return from Alice Springs.
For those who have not had the pleasure of visiting Fran in Larrimah I will describe the experience for them. Larrimah has about six residents and is famous for the Pink Panther pub and the old police station and museum. Fran operates a lovely little caf out of a small adjunct to her home which is adorned with little statues of dogs, garden gnomes and teddy bears. During peak seasons, Fran gives her visitors a teddy bear with a little ribbon and her business card attached to it as a keepsake of their experience. She often receives letters from all over the world thanking her for her hospitality. Fran is known for making the world’s best pies. Fran is a woman with true heart who would not live anywhere else. A true woman of charity, she collects old books from school libraries to sell to tourists and donates the money back to the RSPCA. Fran raises thousands of dollars every year and is an icon in this quiet part of the world.
Proceeding with caution, conscious of our ever-decreasing fuel supply, we headed off the Stuart Highway and into the historical town of Daly Waters. A quaint place with much character and good humour, we gratefully fuelled up the car and chatted to bar staff. We were soon on our way and passed through Dunmurra, Elliott, Renner Springs, Three Ways, and stopped in Tennant Creek for the night. As we pulled into Tennant Creek I called the Tennant Creek museum and arranged to collect the box of books Fran had tasked me to pick up and drop back to her on my return - only in the Territory.
Sure enough, the box marked for Fran was waiting for us at the old mine museum and the manager told us that, sadly, tours only ran twice a week and only if four or more people had booked. It is a tough business when your annual trade is limited to only six months of the year.
I did not have much time to unwind from the trip and was recovering from the flu but headed straight to Fernanda’s Restaurant where we were greeted by Fernanda, an utterly charming and very kind woman. We had a lovely meal prepared by Fernanda’s son, and Fernanda shared her stories about the difficulty of running a business in Tennant Creek. She commented that while house prices had tripled during the time she had been living in Tennant Creek, businesses were rarely sold. She and her husband face the prospect of shutting the doors on the business, an experience Fernanda has already had as a result of her inability to sell the business. The food was exceptional and could be served at any restaurant in Darwin. The lack of investment in tourism in this region was evident and has been hurting Fernanda and her family for some time now.
I then attended the Tennant Creek local board meeting where I was greeted by civil-minded Tennant Creek locals. I was really impressed with how proactive the Tennant Creek local board was in directing the Barkly Shire Council to address issues of concern to the town.
After the meeting I met with board members who informed me I was the only member of parliament to have attended a board meeting. Board members shared their concerns and distress over the super shire scheme and the dysfunctional manner in which local boards operate in the broader Barkly region in communities like Ali Curung.
The following day we travelled from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs. Of course, the trip to Alice Springs would not have been complete without a visit to Wycliffe Well. I also stopped at Ti Tree for a good look at the farming enterprises taking place in the region. It was truly inspiring to see well-established vineyards, mango farms, and the development of extensions to those farms to meet demand.
My visit was only two weeks before the famous table grape picking season commences. The entrepreneurial spirit of the Territory is alive and well in Ti Tree. Farmers in this region have cleverly taken advantage of the frost-free seasonality of this special part of the Territory. Crop is developed to allow a niche market of table grapes for the Christmas/New Year season. This produces top quality fruit at top market prices for farmers. I congratulate them on their growing orchards and businesses.
I also welcomed the temperature drop as we crossed the Tropic of Capricorn. In Alice Springs, we travelled the Larapinta Drive and Namatjira Drive, taking in the picturesque surrounds of the west MacDonnell Ranges. A late swim at Ellery Creek Big Hole washed away any fatigue from the journey. It was sad there were not more visitors along these roads to enjoy the unique experiences Alice Springs offers. There was all but a handful of backpackers enjoying the crisp waters.
In Alice Springs I attended the Country Liberals’ annual conference and Central Council but made sure our government had a vibrant presence at the local McDonalds store for McHappy Day on the Saturday at lunchtime. My colleagues and I flooded McDonalds and adorned ourselves in balloons, aprons and donation buckets, where we rallied locals and raised much-needed funds for the Ronald McDonald House charity. We took Alice Springs quite by surprise that day, and the smiles on their faces at seeing their government putting its shoulder to the wheel were pleasant surprises.
I also thank the people of Alice Springs who shared their Remembrance Day service on Anzac Hill with us, which I attended with my colleagues and the leader of the coalition, Mr Tony Abbott. I also congratulate the Australian Air Force Cadets who did an exceptional job running the service. As a former army cadet, I understand how important their engagement is with the community and the RSL in ensuring future generations uphold the traditions and memories of our armed forces.
On the drive back to Darwin, I chatted to David and the boys from Aileron who showed me the $10 000 CCTV system they had to install in compliance with Labor’s failed Banned Drinker Register. I stopped in to speak to Bob from Barrow Creek, who shrugged his shoulders in acceptance the tourist season was well and truly dead, and enjoyed the food and hospitality at Woks Up in Tennant Creek; the food is famous throughout the region. I spotted an Indigenous man 70 to buy a Chupa Chups in Elliott while we refuelled, dropped Fran her box of books, popped by Wauchope, bought a famous pie in Mataranka, and enjoyed a swim at my favourite Territory swimming spot, Robin Falls.
The Territory is a beautiful place with its ever-changing scenery, its local characters, and sense of optimism in the face of so much hurt from the former Labor government. There is no doubt regional areas have and will continue to face tough times, but our government is conscious of the neglect it has suffered under the hands of Labor. Our mandate from the bush to govern for all Territorians will see real change, real action, and real growth through our regional towns and communities.
I thank everyone who welcomed me to their businesses and homes and hope to visit them again soon.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, tonight I put on record condolences to Patricia and Jonno, the step-children and two grandchildren of the late Greg Crowe. He was the most passionate man who devoted his life to the Northern Territory and to education. We are really going to miss him in the Northern Territory, especially my constituents at Santa Teresa community, Santa Teresa school, and every person who knew him through the education system and the Education department.
I will read something which has been e-mailed to me by the Santa Teresa school.
- Central Australia is mourning the loss of one of the most respected figures in education, Greg Crowe, principal of Ltyentye Apurte Catholic School. He was killed in Darwin earlier this month when the taxi in which he was riding was hit by a cement truck.
The 72-year-old originated from the south coast of NSW where he was a Brother of the Catholic Church. He left the brotherhood in the late 1980s and moved to Central Australia where he continued to work in education. He had been a fixture in Alice Springs and Central Australia for about 20 years, the majority of this time working in the area of education.
The Santa Teresa community honoured Mr Crowe with a traditional smoking ceremony which was held at Ltyentye Apurte school. This was followed by a Mass at which the following message was delivered on behalf of the Director of Catholic Education, Darwin, Mr Michael Avery:
- In the last four years at Santa. Teresa, we have experienced a period of stability, improvement in facilities, attendance and community involvement. We know that Greg was central to all that has happened at the school. His depth of genuine love and care for the community has been paramount in all of this. The suddenness of Greg’s death has made it difficult to understand.
- We remember a very ordinary man who made an extraordinary difference because of his dedication, love, thoughtfulness and energy. We pray for Greg and his family and make sure we honour these things in the time ahead.
- A mourner from Mr Crowe’s funeral held later that week commented, ‘I haven’t seen a cross-cultural gathering like that for a long time - if ever! What a man!’
What a man he was, Madam Speaker. We will certainly miss him.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I have a similar condolence to Alison. It is with a sad heart I give this condolence. I have known this remarkable person for most of my life and have watched her grow into an inspirational leader. She was one of the first people in the community to aspire to buy her own home in her home community, one of the first to do so in any Aboriginal Indigenous community in Australia. She has left behind a legacy that will help many other Indigenous people find their own way in our contemporary society. She was totally devoted to our people, especially all those who she regarded as her children. I speak of the many she put through school and devoted her life to.
I recall attending Batchelor College in the mid-to-late 1980s with her as we went through our teacher training. When she was appointed Principal at Murrupurtiyanuwu Catholic School at Wirrumiyanga, Bathurst Island, I was among the many people who were very proud of her achievement. She was a strong believer in song and music and encouraged and helped many children to pursue this activity and pastime. She especially thrived on working with children from our country on the Tiwi Islands and was a very strong believer in incorporating her own culture with an education that would take our people into the future.
While celebrating her life and her huge contribution to our society, I am also very saddened she is not here to see the result of our work and commitment. I am also very saddened she will not be here as I move on as the member for Arafura. However, she will be an inspiration to me as well as many others. I am all the better for having known her.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016