2015-08-26
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:
1. endorses the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body
2. notes that an independent person will be appointed to provide advice and report back to the parliament in December 2015 with a range of models for an independent anti-corruption and misconduct body, including but not limited to:
4. notes that the independent person will consult with relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to the NT Police, the NT Law Society, and the Criminal Lawyers Association
5. notes that the introduction, public feedback and debate of legislative changes will occur in the first quarter of 2016 with the implementation of a new independent anti-corruption and integrity commission in the second quarter of 2016.
I know, at the risk of anticipating further debate, that notice has been given by the members opposite to go through a slightly different process to ultimately end up with a similar response. As a consequence, yesterday I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition and encouraged him to say, ‘All right, let’s work on this together’. His response was, ‘No way. We aren’t going to do that.’ It is already clear to me that this is not about anything but the politics of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory because they …
Mr McCarthy: This is about trust, and nobody trusts you mob.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, it is about trust. I am glad we are talking about trust because I can tell you, Mr Stella Maris …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Barkly!
Mr McCarthy: This is about trust, and nobody trusts you mob. You have no trust factor and you know that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Barkly!
Mr McCarthy: Nobody trusts you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Barkly, ‘It is about trust’. This man was stridently criticised for his conduct as a result of the Stella Maris inquiry. He did not, in the first instance, tell the truth to the inquiry. He said he was in a Cabinet meeting when he answered a question at the inquiry. It turns out he was in Tennant Creek at the time – whoops, forgot about that. It shows the quality of the issue of trust in politicians. The noise we make around ourselves is something we must always be careful about because it comes back to bite us.
I remember speaking to a hippy-type character 30 years ago in Alice Springs who was wandering around in a pair of shorts and no shirt. He said something I thought poignant and it has stuck with me to this day. Every time you point the finger at somebody just remember there are three fingers pointing back at you. That is the trap politicians set for themselves when they yell out things like, ‘It is about trust’.
There was no trust in the Stella Maris inquiry. I am mortified; I could have heard that from any other member of parliament – with the possible exception of the member for Karama – but him. Yes, it is about trust.
The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, ‘No, we will do it on our own’. That will degrade this into what I described to him as a peeing contest. I did not express it in those terms, but I think everybody knows, ‘My motion is better than yours’.
In an effort to build a bridge between us and members of the opposition and negotiate a system which would be fair and acceptable, the clear message from the opposition is they would engage in a peeing contest with the government of ‘My motion is better than yours’. That belies what is at the heart of this for the opposition. It is about politics; it is not about trust.
I want to quote something that will take me a little while to get through. They are some lines from a former member of this House:
This was Paul Henderson, who was the Chief Minister at the time the Stella Maris deal was put together.
Mr Giles: And PenCon.
Mr ELFERINK: And PenCon. We will get to that shortly. The former Chief Minister said, ‘There is absolutely nothing to see here folks’. He goes on, paragraph after paragraph, to say things like:
This was a reference to the SIHIP debacle.
That was Paul Henderson, the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and he goes on for chapter and verse saying there is no reason to go down this path.
Upon coming to government, one of the first things I said in this House, in November 2012, was that we had become aware of corruption under the former government and would pursue it, and we did.
It led to a number of separations where there was insufficient evidence to support a full-on criminal investigation. It also led to a number of criminal investigations which were successfully prosecuted. There was barely a mention in the papers about that; it came and went largely unnoticed.
When I became the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory I found an Office of Public Interest Disclosures which had been substantially boned out by the former government and which had limited capacity to investigate. Even during a time of great fiscal restraint, we nevertheless found the money to bolster that office and it continued its investigations and, as a result of that, successfully pursued prosecutorial matters, in some instances that had been outstanding for years.
Now the members opposite trawl into this House and say it is about trust. Of course, they pour out unfounded allegations. I outline my personal offence at the Leader of the Opposition’s article in the last Sunday Territorian where he started clearly identifying public servants as team players for the CLP. That is horrible because should there be a change of government it places the public servant in an incredibly invidious situation.
Leader of the Opposition, do you intend to fire independent public servants because you have identified them as team players? That is pretty rancid behaviour. It is careless language like that, in pursuit of political outcomes, which leads to people’s careers, reputations and lives being besmirched in such a reckless and cavalier fashion.
In pursuit of government the Labor Party will stop at nothing. They have so far thrown horrifying allegations around this Chamber. The Water Controller, who they have now gone after several times for doing his job in accordance with the law, has had his name besmirched because somebody who received a water licence happened to be a CLP candidate.
If that is the measure of corruption according to the members opposite, we are heading to some sort of Stalinist state. All you have to do now is merely denounce a person and off to the Gulag you go. The example from the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassing. His attack on the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures is exactly the rubbish that is trawled through this House and sees reputational damage to public servant after public servant by those opposite. They do it time and time again. The Police Commissioner must be a team player.
I do not know off the top of my head, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the current Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures was appointed under the former Labor government – probably was now I think about it. If that is the case it means they have no hesitation in casting anybody’s reputation on the fire.
I place on the record now my full, complete and utter faith in Brenda Monaghan, the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures. She has always acted with absolute probity in any dealing I have had with her. To suggest she is anything other than a woman of extraordinary integrity is reprehensible, not in relation to Ms Monaghan but the person who makes the allegation – the careless Leader of the Opposition who yesterday, through his enthusiasm to be careless, supported a motion that could see the winding up of the Palmerston hospital. That is the quality of recklessness we are seeing from the members opposite. It is all about playing politics in the current domain.
I also point out some other interesting memories from times gone by. In the enthusiasm to support a public anti-corruption commission we will now invite that person to make a series of recommendations we have already committed to accept. I wonder how comfortable the members opposite will be if one of those recommendations is retrospectivity. I remind honourable members of some of the former government’s areas of concern: the arrangements in relation to Sprout Creative and some of the contracts that went to that fine company in the Northern Territory. Some questions were raised by the Attorney-General in relation to the Department of the Chief Minister and how they dished out contracts to Sprout Creative.
There were other matters, like contracts to Hawker Britton. I also recall the former Attorney-General interfering in a case before the courts. I get lectures about the separation of powers – how is this? The prosecution against Red Rooster in Alice Springs on foot – happening. The former Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, who I think was also the Planning minister at the time, rang the department and said, ‘Pull the prosecution because we do not want to see them prosecuted’. That was the member for Karama, the person who has been found by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to have engaged wilfully in conduct with intent to have the court make an incorrect finding in relation to procedural fairness.
Those people who seek procedural fairness must do procedural fairness. Conspiracy to mislead a court, which is what the finding was, is not kosher conduct by any stretch of the imagination.
That continues to concern us. Whilst we are looking retrospectively at the former government, I am curious about the circumstances that led to the death of Bob Collins. I do not have dates at my fingertips, but I well remember the noise surrounding the death of Bob Collins. The then Police Commissioner, Paul White, spoke to the then Police minister and Attorney-General at the time, Paul Henderson and Peter Toyne respectively, and told them something. We know what he told them because notes were made at that meeting by the Commissioner. I think I have tabled them in this House because I recovered them from FOI.
The interesting thing was amongst the notes of that conversation was a single line saying, ‘No matter what Mr Collins said to police he would be prosecuted anyhow’. He was to be arrested and charged. Those types of things will invite inquiry. I wonder, with the enthusiasm of members in this House, how Mr Henderson and Mr Toyne would feel about being taken back into this with subsequent inquiries. That is one of the challenges we have before us. There are other matters that remain unresolved, matters of great concern to the public of the Northern Territory. I could go through a litany.
Let us go back to what is happening now and the circumstances that have driven this motion to this House today. Those circumstances deal primarily with the PenCon scheme. We saw how extraordinarily clumsy the Labor Party was yesterday because the allegation in the questions we received in Question Time yesterday were that the police were told and did nothing.
That is arrant nonsense. They did something; they investigated. If I recall the police were clearly seen arresting a person and placing them in the back of the van. It was a front page story. In fact, the matter had been so voraciously covered by the media that it caused the defence team to go to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and ask for a suppression order because, in their opinion, some of the media were acting like lunatics in their coverage of the matter. If the police did not investigate the PenCon scheme then how were prosecutions brought to bear?
Ms Walker: You are trying to cover up now, John.
Mr ELFERINK: I am staggered. I will pick up on the interjection. What is the cover up? Make your allegation today. Use the Chamber.
Ms Walker: You know what the truth is, John.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I know the truth and am mystified at the interjection.
Ms Walker: Is that why you lied about it?
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry! I am not hiding anything. Make your allegations. The point is when you ask that question you are greeted with silence.
In October 2012 we received advice from Ernst & Young which said there were substantial irregularities in the PenCon scheme. The period ultimately looked at by Ernst & Young was from January 2011, the time of the Labor government, to January 2013, after we took over. We were in government for two months and were busy referring the matter to the police …
Ms Mansion: They did not say that in the newspaper.
Mr ELFERINK: You did not read the newspaper carefully. You need to read it properly. Police investigated the matter, and as a consequence prosecutions were brought to bear and a task force was established to recover. That is what has and will continue to happen.
Those investigations also revealed other matters which caused this government to lose confidence in a Commissioner of Police. This government’s response to losing confidence in a Commissioner of Police was to tell him we had lost that confidence. That commissioner could do nothing but fall on his sword because the system does and has always worked. We went after this, and because we discovered it are being tagged with it when it deals almost exclusively with the time the members opposite were in government.
The PenCon scheme was arguably being rorted when the Labor Party was in government. We had the audacity to look, point the finger and say, ‘Yes, you are accountable. You need to be charged, investigated and you need to go to court’, so there are investigations on foot. There are matters before the court right now, and there may well be other matters before the court in the future. That is part of the investigative process.
All the noise generated has overlooked the important fact that we blew the whistle, as I said we would in November 2012. I can imagine that finding some of these things has caused public disquiet, but the mechanisms that have found them are precisely the mechanisms in place. One thing in place, if memory serves me, was the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, a creation of the former Labor government because they thought we needed such an office. However, we have an Ombudsman, the police, the Commissioner for Public Employment, the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. A number of bodies exist but, no, we want to create a new one.
We probably do not need one because it will be expensive. However, having made that observation, we have listened and accepted that another body is expected by the people of the Northern Territory. We are more than happy to say, ‘All right, we will have that body’. The motion before the House is about that body and attempting to find a way that body would most appropriately be representative of the people of the Northern Territory. Rather than embracing that the members opposite – they will have the numbers in the House – may well vote this motion down in preference to another motion later today. The members opposite, in their enthusiasm to chase this process, will continue to play politics with this because they know what that is.
I urge any person in the Northern Territory who is aware of any corrupt activity to report that matter to the appropriate authorities right now. I have always said that. I had the experience in the not too distant past of having to spell that out to a journalist who decided they wanted to hint very heavily that they knew. My answer was, ‘Immediately report it to the police’. ‘Oh no, it is not our job.’
This motion hears the people of the Northern Territory and will establish a body, if passed by this House, or an independent person, to recommend to this House what an anti-corruption body should look like, and sets a time frame for this to be operational by the middle of next year. I look forward to debate in relation to this matter.
You must be cautious about pursuit of these things because you create an unsettled mind in the public …
Mrs Lambley: You have done a good enough job of that yourself.
Mr ELFERINK: … which needs not be created, by virtue of the utterances from the members opposite, even utterances from the member for Araluen who, by way of interjection says something. I would like to hear the allegations people need to make. In this House today, at your fingertips, is parliamentary privilege. You can say anything you damn well please. In fact, some members have quite recklessly said whatever they damn well please.
I urge any member who is aware of anything to use that privilege now and make the allegation. If you make the allegation here make it to the police, the Ombudsman or whatever authority. You can even do it in the public domain; make the allegation in front of a camera. Make those allegations because I hear lots of conjecture and many a rumour being generated by the members opposite, but every time you call upon them to point the finger at something they cannot do it.
This is a sensible motion because it gives us a pathway forward. If this motion is defeated today it will not be because it is a bad motion. It will be because of nothing more than the politics of rumour mongering, making information up as you go along, and of division. Yesterday we heard several lectures from members of this House about the importance of a collaborative approach. The member for Nelson always reminds us of the importance of a collaborative approach. Yesterday I tried to be collaborative with the Leader of the Opposition and it was thrown back in my face so he could have the peeing contest. ‘My motion is better than yours.’
I remind honourable members that our conduct ultimately reflects on us all, and our conduct – how we debate issues and behave towards each other – demonises us in the public imagination. This is just another step in that process of the politics surrounding this.
I have no major objection to an anti-corruption commission; it does not frighten, worry or cause me any concern. I am satisfied that the systems we have in place have been sufficient to bring a number of people to account successfully. Nevertheless, we have listened and will continue to listen to the people of the Northern Territory because we must always govern for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. I am unafraid of that and think we should stay focused on it. I wonder if the members opposite are capable of conceding an argument with the same ideal in mind.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, the government has bought this motion forward with some haste. Today is General Business Day, and many members of government have been around for some time. Some thinkers on the fifth floor have had plenty of time in politics, and you do not have to be a genius to figure out that we would want to bring on debate about establishing a truly independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
The Labor opposition has been open and clear that we would, if we were to gain government, look to establish an ICAC body in the Northern Territory.
I listened to the Leader of Government Business speak on this motion. I can be a very big fan of his. I often listen, watch and learn. However, today he was half-hearted; his heart was not in it. Apart from reading the motion and trying to bring a persuasive argument as to why it is a good motion and should be passed by parliament, he spoke to the merits of the motion for about two minutes. He spoke about a raft of other issues, but did not prosecute why he feels the motion should be passed as well as he usually does. Your heart is not in it, member for Port Darwin. You understand what the people of the Northern Territory want to see at the moment: a fully independent commission against corruption. You know this motion does not get us there ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, it does.
Ms MANISON: You know it gets us nowhere near it. You know that ...
Mr Elferink: You have not read it.
Ms MANISON: Have a good look, member for Port Darwin. One thing is sure, Territorians do not see this as a genuine motion the government believes in. They believe the government has brought this forward because it is feeling the significant pressure from Territorians saying it is now, sadly, time for the establishment of an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
I remind you of why that has come to be. We have hit three long years of the CLP government and what have we seen in that time? We have a disunified government, a chaotic train wreck with reshuffle after reshuffle going from a commanding majority in parliament when I was first elected in a by-election, to fade away to the point of being a minority government. We saw how well you were doing at yesterday’s three-year anniversary.
A big part of the reason you have become a minority government, after having such a commanding majority, is because people do not trust you. People have watched your actions over three years and raised serious questions. Territorians have lost trust in this government and that is what they are talking about. People are sick of this government, have seen scandal after scandal, and feel they cannot trust this government.
People now feel there is a need for an ICAC in the Northern Territory. That is why we, as a Labor opposition, have been talking to the community about what that ICAC should comprise. One thing we have made very clear in our commitment is that it should be fully independent so Territorians can have faith in it to do its job.
Sadly, today’s motion does not get us there. In fact, it is a lame attempt by the government to address …
Mr Elferink: Pull it apart then. Explain how.
Ms MANISON: … the growing number of voices in the Northern Territory about this. It is a huge concern.
Picking up on that interjection from the Leader of Government Business, let us look at the growing demand for an ICAC in the Northern Territory. Questions were raised about the conduct of this government, it being so out of control, and about trust. It is time for an ICAC; we need an ICAC. In parliament the Chief Minister, again and again, rejected that idea saying, ‘No, we don’t need an ICAC’. The Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, has had meltdowns on radio about the notion of an ICAC. It does not sit comfortably with him that’s for sure.
The member for Port Darwin, the Leader of Government Business, who brought this motion before the House, has said in the Sunday Territorian and other media events time and time again there is no need for an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
Two weeks ago, on 14 August, a media conference took place in the Elsey Room to say, ‘We are starting to hear that Territorians have some concerns about the conduct of government and integrity issues and they do not trust us. We have had several members of our team leave because they do not trust us and have seen our conduct. Let us look at how we can restore more integrity to government?’
I doubt the Leader of Government Business supports this motion because at a media conference two weeks ago he put a totally different idea forward of a beefed up Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures. Effectively it looked like a rebranding of the Office of the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosures aimed at giving Territorians the impression they were looking at integrity issues more seriously. The Leader of Government made some firm announcements in his 14 August media conference.
Today, on General Business Day, they have rushed through a motion about tackling integrity issues. The motion goes nowhere near it. Territorians cannot have confidence in this motion because, for example, it talks about appointing an independent person to provide advice and report back to the parliament on what this model could look like. Let us be very clear about this: Territorians do not trust you when it comes to appointing an independent person.
For three years we have seen a track record of jobs for mates and some very questionable practices. The Leader of Government Business raised water licences, for example, where people with strong CLP connections have been awarded water licences. We question how you would appoint an independent person so Territorians could have faith in that process. Would you seek approval from all members of this Chamber because people would not trust the CLP government in appointing that person?
The other issue with this motion is the CLP government is pretty much directing that so-called independent person into what outcomes it wants from the inquiry. There is specific wording around the issues it wants that person to look at. You could safely guess what that body would look like by looking at this motion.
The whole point of setting up an ICAC in the Northern Territory is to look at the best model for the Northern Territory. You need an open mind, to look at what other jurisdictions are doing and find best practice for the Northern Territory. This motion does not go near that. This motion shows what the CLP wants in a so-called body to address serious integrity issues in the Northern Territory at the moment.
This will not deliver the best outcome for the Northern Territory. If we want a truly independent commission we have to look at what is happening around the country and what is working. What is the best fit for the Territory? You need to talk to the experts. That is why we have proudly put the question to Territorians to see what they want in a Territory ICAC to make sure it is the best fit for the Northern Territory and that it works. That is a more responsible approach than moving a motion in this parliament that will simply deliver what the CLP government wants and is not the independent commission Territorians want. I think the government knows that. I have no doubt they realise that in putting this to parliament today.
It comes back to the issue of how we got here in the first place. Why do we have to debate the establishment of an ICAC in the Northern Territory? When you speak to people, this is one of the hottest topics. People truly believe it is time for an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
Who would have thought one of the legacies of this CLP government, one of the early issues, would be water licences. Water licences were issued across the Northern Territory to people with strong CLP connections, despite strong information and science against it. At the same time the government scrapped strategic Indigenous reserves, which was a good policy.
We have some serious questions about Foundation 51. Political donations have been topical, to say the least. It was not so long ago that the member for Nelson, on a General Business Day doing what he does as a strong Independent, decided there needed to be a broad inquiry into political donations, so he moved a motion which managed to be strangely successful. He managed to get the inquiry up and my impression – I do not want to verbal the member for Nelson, who genuinely believed the CLP government, up to the last minute, would go through with the inquiry into political donations. He genuinely believed that, but then the government used its numbers to scrap that inquiry. That raised the question: what on earth were you hiding to lead the member for Nelson, as he said, up the garden path?
You made some real commitments, the motion passed and then you scrapped it because you had the numbers. Why did you scrap it? Why did you not want to go into that? That raises more questions about why we are debating a motion today to establish an ICAC in the Northern Territory. We have some serious questions regarding political donations. Questions have also been raised around travel, as you know. I have heard members opposite talk about the PenCon scheme, but several questions were raised about government travel in the Northern Territory, travel within ministerial offices, to the point a serious charge has been laid against a staffer.
However, there are more questions. During the estimates process a question was asked of the Chief Minister regarding ministerial travel, the same question asked of every Chief Minister every year. We know the Department of the Chief Minister had prepared an answer for it. We gave written notice of that question, yet they failed to answer on the day and had to seek an extension before providing the information. Even when you get the information it is not complete. There is information all over the place in that document, so it does not leave you with much faith in what is happening.
There are some very serious questions. People have no trust in government. It is time for a fully independent commission. We will never forget – looking back over the last three years of government – that extraordinary day when members of the government tried to oust the Chief Minister from his job. Both those gentlemen now sitting next to the Chief Minister stood in the Elsey Room at about 1 am as the Chief Minister apparent and the deputy …
Mr Elferink: What does this have to do with ICAC? Make your allegation, here is your chance!
Ms MANISON: Let us look at what happened the next day when the Chief Minister refused to stand aside and held an extraordinary media conference. I remember sitting in my office watching ABC News 24 knowing this was going out across the nation. Everybody tuned into ABC News 24 around the country could watch that extraordinary media conference with the Chief Minister making huge accusations on national television that day to save his job.
He would not step aside. He made some serious comments about the police and about people in his party working against him. Again, it comes back to the issue of trust. People have lost trust in this government, in some of its actions and in its ability to govern. The infighting has spilt out into the public for all to see, and it has been a mess.
Territorians do not trust the government and are demanding that we establish a fully independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
More serious issues have been raised, but when talking about trust people want to know – I know this from doorknocking. I appreciate that some people who have been here a long time are politically charged. They like to know what is occurring in the local political arena, the happenings; they read the NT News. You will also come across someone who says, ‘I don’t pay much attention to that. I don’t need to know what is happening in politics.’
However, the feedback I get, loud and clear, is that people are highly attuned to the conduct of this government. They think it is a mess and they want a government they can trust. Many people do not want to think about government too much because they want to trust in the government doing its job. At the moment people do not have that trust. They want a government they can trust, that is ensuring education and schools are being attended to and is taking care of core business, such as making sure hospitals are up and running – building hospitals, for example – and ensuring good health services are being delivered. They want a government they can trust to drive the economy.
They want a functional government. At the moment people do not have that with the CLP government. That is why we are trying to restore some trust and integrity in government. The only way we can address some of the serious issues is to establish an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
This motion is a poor attempt to get there. It has come on General Business Day in anticipation of debate this evening. Yes, there will be debate this evening on a Labor motion about what an independent commission against corruption should comprise. I stress the word ‘independent’.
At the moment this motion does not get us there. Frankly, it falls short of community expectations and we will not be supporting it. It fails the integrity test and does not solve the trust deficit. It is a reminder of why the Territory so desperately needs a new government. It is also a reminder that we need a truly independent commission against corruption. This motion shows the CLP is incapable of delivering that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the NT News had a crown on my head this morning. I do not know if that is a reflection on whether, as an Independent, there are times when you have to be King Solomon. This is a case where wise heads have to put their voices forward. I would like to hear more independent viewpoints on this matter rather than a party viewpoint.
I have just returned from Canada. The thing I loved about the Canadian system in the two Territories of Nunavut and Northwest Territories is they have consensus government. Consensus government is not a love in. Members sit as independents with a Cabinet, a Chief Minister and a Speaker. It does not have this ugly table in the middle which divides us. We have a crocodile skin. In Northwest Territories they have a polar bear skin – a lot more friendly and cuddly. In Nunavut they have a sled with a man and a drum.
They removed the table to not separate either side as we do in this parliament because we are bound by party politics. They have the advantage of speaking their minds without any limitation caused by the party they belong to. That is one reason I enjoy being an Independent.
The downside is it can be a very lonely spot in life when you are asked to, in some cases, be the person who makes the final decision. In this case I am not sure what the other Independents will say. I have only discussed my views with the Speaker, which was more about technical issues. I do not know if they will support what I say today.
I raise consensus government in this debate because when I look at this motion and the Labor Party’s motion I notice many similarities. I have plenty of reason to tell the CLP government to go jump: I have been called everything under the sun; I lost the inquiry into Foundation 51 which was overturned ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I hear comments about me from the member for Fong Lim on a continual basis. The member for Fong Lim publicly stated on radio that he did not like ICAC and threw a hissy fit. The member for Fong Lim needs to state clearly whether he supports what his side is putting through. He needs to be on the Hansard record saying why he has changed his mind. If he does not say that, then I do not believe the government has the full support of all its members. I would like every one of the CLP to say they support this and the reasons why.
On the other side, I have been asked to support Labor’s point of view. Labor has had its issues. We know about Stella Maris. It is not all about being squeaky clean on one and dirty on the other. I know they are concerned I might support the Country Liberal Party. If the Country Liberal Party’s motion is good enough I will support it. If Labor is unhappy with that, so be it. I might have supported theirs.
The first line of the government’s motion is that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly endorses the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body. The first line of the Labor motion is to supports the establishment of a Northern Territory version of an independent anti-corruption and misconduct commission.
Why can we not get together and put to the people of the Northern Territory a combined motion showing we can sometimes forget our party political differences and join to produce an anti-corruption and misconduct body we can all agree to, because both parties have agreed to the same principle? It would require goodwill on both sides to look at another option.
I warn the government and opposition that I might move, tomorrow or the next day, a motion combining both motions. When you get down to the nuts and bolts there is very little difference between them. What we are debating is you mob did not want one, you did this, and you knocked my Foundation 51 inquiry on the head. I can use that as an argument for defeating what you are doing. I can say, ‘Labor, you are using this as an opportunity to throw pot shots at the government’. That is what this parliament is for and I understand that ...
Mr Elferink: I agree with you, Gerry, I just said that.
Mr WOOD: I am not arguing with you personally. I am debating philosophically as a member of parliament.
Mr Elferink: I tried to do it yesterday and was told to bugger off.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I was told to go away.
Mr WOOD: I am giving my point of view at the moment. Members can listen to what I have to say then say, ‘Go away’, and that is fine. I have both drafts here and if people want to follow them that is fine.
If I moved a motion (1) would be to support the establishment of a Northern Territory version of an independent anti-corruption and misconduct commission. I have left out (2) from both motions. I have removed acknowledging the independence and respect of the Northern Territory integrity. I note in the Labor Party’s version, ‘notes to widespread community support’. That is a fair comment, but I do not think it needs to be in there.
I have removed (3) from the government’s motion relating to the Commissioner of Police and also (3) from the Labor motion. Again, it is a comment and does not necessarily make this any better. I have gone straight to (6) in the Labor Party’s motion, which I am calling (2) in my motion, ‘That this parliament resolves, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act, to appoint a person qualified to be a judge in the Supreme Court in the Northern Territory to inquire into and report to the Administrator on the following matter …’.
That is a positive difference between Labor’s view and the government’s view because we need someone with legal qualifications. The Country Liberal Party’s version does not say that. That is an important distinction. I have had discussions with both sides, but I also have feedback from a lawyer friend. The Labor view is the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body in the Northern Territory include but not be limited to the following considerations:
I have then gone to the government’s version and taken part of (4), removed the integrity group and any mention of the Public Interest Disclosure Act and put – sorry, I left out one area the Labor Party put in, ‘The appropriate trigger for an NT ICAC’s jurisdiction and the relationship between this body and other NT bodies such as the Ombudsman’. I have put in a new (3) which is: that the qualified person appointed provide advice and report back to parliament in December 2015 with a range of models for an independent anti-corruption and misconduct body, including but not limited to models from other jurisdictions, the use of existing NT legislation or NT statutory authorities, and the report will include indicative costs of establishing the various models they put forward.
Some of that was not in Labor’s, but I think that was fairly important.
Then I have (4), which I have taken from the CLP’s version:
and (5): note that the introduction, public feedback and debate of legislative changes will occur in the first quarter of 2016 with the implementation of a new independent anti-corruption commission in the second quarter of 2016.
There is much more in common than separates those two. There is an opportunity – I do not believe I always have to be the conduit, because if both sides believe what they are putting forward is for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory, which is what is written on my desk and the oath I signed when coming into this parliament, then we have an obligation to try to work together on this issue.
I do not mind if we throw mud around in this debate; that is part of it. If people want to do that, that is fine. I have plenty of things I could throw around too, but what does that achieve? Does it achieve, ‘I’ve got that off my chest’? We then lose not only the reason we are in parliament, but the very principle we are trying to achieve today, and that is to set up a body to make sure we as parliamentarians, the people who work for government, do things in a way that is proper. That is, we want to make sure everything we do is according to principle, according to the law and according to good governance. If we need a body to make sure we are checked for doing that then I am supportive of it.
I hope we can come together as a group, work through this issue – I do not care if we stay until midnight to work it out – and come back to parliament with a unified motion that would achieve what both sides want. I will not be voting on either motion, and if I believe the parties cannot get together and agree on something then I will bring a motion similar to what I have mentioned. The Leader of Government Business knows that I am giving him a warning, that I will ask for a suspension of standing orders and introduce it myself, but the onus should not be on me but all people in this parliament.
I will leave it at that because today we can show we can be mature members of parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the Leader of Government Business. I know that will surprise some people opposite. From the outset, this is a matter of perception. There has been a perception created in the community that there are corrupt politicians in the Northern Territory. I firmly believe this perception is completely wrong. I have complete faith in the members of this parliament, apart from possibly one or two, but the vast majority of members in this parliament are decent and honourable people and above …
Ms Fyles: Maybe you should name them.
Mr TOLLNER: I will get to that, member for Nightcliff. By and large, members from both sides of this Chamber are, in my view, beyond repute. People genuinely come here to represent Territorians, irrespective of our different ideas and how we debate them. I believe that the vast majority of members are beyond repute.
Why I had a hissy fit and why I am opposed to an ICAC has been questioned. I do not want to fuel the perception that we are all corrupt, dodgy and on the take. I believe we deserve better in the Northern Territory and that we should be able to create a perception that we are a group of people, irrespective of our different ideas, who want to do good things for the Northern Territory. Obviously we all have different views on what a good thing for the Northern Territory is, but, fundamentally, my view is that we are mostly beyond repute.
I believe the call for an ICAC in the Northern Territory is wrong on two fronts. One, which I have already explained, is perception and what that does to this institution …
Ms Walker: You are not supporting the government’s motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I appreciate that you like to interject, but I said I support this motion. I am now putting on the record my thoughts in relation to an ICAC.
ICACs around the country are extraordinarily controversial. The cost of ICACs is enormous. Currently in Queensland there is an enormous debate about which independent person will lead the anti-corruption commission. They cannot settle on that. In this place we are having arguments about who is independent and who is not. The view from the other side is that we cannot trust people like the Public Interest Disclosures Commissioner; they are beyond independence – appointed by Labor. Who can we trust? We continue to fuel the idea that we cannot trust anyone. To me that is wrong .
Similarly, in New South Wales the Royal Commission is currently in the High Court determining its validity to exist. New South Wales has spent $60m on its ICAC and is uncertain as to whether it has any validity whatsoever. Yet, it seems to me, the opposition is pushing that model. We see the same things occurring with ICACs all over the country.
We had an inquiry in the Northern Territory not so long ago. It inquired into a deal done by the former government in relation to Stella Maris. People should remember that was ridiculed by the opposition all the way through. They said it was not independent; it was nothing but a political witch-hunt. They gave every reason under the sun not to participate in it. Irrespective of the findings of that inquiry, which could be best described as being hit with a wet lettuce, Labor railed against it. Indeed, the then Opposition Leader decided to progress it to the Supreme Court saying it was a political witch-hunt and was then found to have her own motives called into question. We all know where that has gone.
It is a bit difficult to be lectured by the opposition on matters of integrity whilst it has the members for Karama and Barkly on its team – people found to have tried to mislead an inquiry. I put it to this House that the opposition has no credibility on this matter until it deals with the members for Karama and Barkly. I have not heard of any moves to disendorse the member for Karama from the Labor Party.
Similarly, this joker from the Northern Territory Bar Association, John Lawrence, a known Labor sympathiser, was on his high horse saying we need this because the whole system of politics is corrupt. Again, that man cannot be taken seriously on matters of integrity while the NT Bar Association allows Ms Spurr and Mr Wyvill to continue practising. It has zero credibility on this issue while it allows those lawyers to practice. Some people take Mr Lawrence seriously. I, for one, do not.
When you look at the history of this it becomes quite obvious that Labor is trying to discredit this government for having the audacity to instigate the Stella Maris inquiry. They have railed against it in the same way that Labor federally rails against the royal commission currently looking into the practises of trade unions in this country. Whilst they say we need royal commissions, inquiries, ICACs and anti-corruption commissions, they are quite prepared, every time one is set up, to say it is nothing but a political witch-hunt despite the fact that royal commission has seen dozens of union officials charged with some form of dodgy dealing.
No, in the Northern Territory they are now encouraging us to set up a similar thing. Of course when this new body is established, if that is the way this debate goes and Labor gets its wish that we have an ICAC operating in the Northern Territory, and ICAC starts investigating some things in the past, I am sure Labor will change its tune ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Harold Nelson Holdings, for example.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Katherine mentions Harold Nelson Holdings, for example. I do not even want to go there. There are some more obvious things to look at, in my view, which have had some impact on the lives of Territorians. When I was Minister for Corporate and Information Services, I was horrified at what I had found in relation to the asset management system Labor put in place.
Territorians, in effect, flushed $70m down the toilet with Labor’s decision on the AMS system. It would be interesting to see how those decisions were made. Similarly, it would be interesting to know how the decisions were made on the waterfront deal which continues to cost taxpayers enormous amounts of money. Development of the waterfront deal seems to be years and years behind. It is costing Territorians enormous amounts of money for Labor’s failure to complete what they said they would do. When one looks at the deal done by the previous government, you have to question how either side of the negotiating table could come up with the arrangement they did. It would be interesting to know what went into that deal.
Similarly, I have raised this matter in the parliament in the past, the Amadeus gas pipeline. The Chief Minister has a proposal to build the NEGI (North East Gas Interconnector). That proposal is looking at pipelines up to 600 km long. We are talking about investments of around $1bn, what these things cost to build. Yet under the previous government we saw the now owners of the Amadeus gas pipeline pick it up for a mere $65m. That is 1500 km of pipeline. Not only that, but the gas transportation agreement entered into seemed to have no regard for the future of Territorians.
One has to question that. How was that deal done? I have looked at this deal and the scant information on it is amazing. It seems little effort was put into it. I am not suggesting corruption was involved in any area. My view is that parliamentarians are generally decent, honest people. The level of incompetence in those deals is mindboggling.
One would think that an independent commission against corruption would start looking at those things along with Sprout Creative, Hawker Britton and the deals done with Harold Nelson Holdings. All these things will be fed into an ICAC. In my view, an ICAC will find nothing but Labor incompetence, because fundamentally that is what it is. My view of people in this House is they are beyond repute apart from possibly the member for Karama, who has had findings against her in the Supreme Court.
She is the only one who has been subject to that type of finding. However, she is still part of a Labor team calling for a full inquiry into corruption. The first place they would start looking is at one in your own team.
An independent commission into corruption would look into a range of areas. My role as Treasurer is to properly look after the finances of the Northern Territory. When you look at the cost of ICACs around the country, it is not hard to blush. They are an enormous cost. It is no surprise that lawyers all over the Northern Territory support the introduction of an ICAC because, fundamentally, they are a lawyers’ feeding frenzy. I believe it is highly inappropriate that lawyers would even comment on these things given their clear conflict of interest in seeing a lawyers’ feeding frenzy. I write off John Lawrence completely every time he sticks his head above the parapet and goes into the media because that guy is clearly in it for himself. He wants to see a lawyers’ feeding frenzy, he wants to see commissions and inquiries set up because, fundamentally, that will benefit the legal fraternity because there will be work forever.
They will investigate every single thing, call points of order and points of difference, and it will break down completely into a lawyers’ feeding frenzy. If you do not believe me look interstate or anywhere an ICAC exists. They exist but do not work. In New South Wales the Premier resigned over a bottle of wine because of an ICAC inquiry. That is the level of pettiness these things stoop to. Ultimately, when you look at where the taxpayer is being hit, it is in these big areas. As I said, AMS cost the taxpayer $70m. Goodness knows what the waterfront will cost us, but it will certainly be in the tens of millions of dollars. The gas pipeline – it is hard to put a figure on what that decision of the previous government will cost us.
Looking federally, the fibre-optic broadband scheme initially budgeted to be $5bn is now in excess of $50bn. Last week we heard about another $15bn blowout. Meanwhile the federal parliament is focused on Bronwyn Bishop’s $5000 helicopter trip. Does none of this hit a nerve with you guys? We are not looking in the right places. We are not seeing the big picture when we happily blow another $15bn to put fibre-optic broadband into people’s homes – almost totally ignore that – to a helicopter trip taken by the Speaker, who subsequently paid the money back not because of any legal requirement, but simply because she felt morally obliged to.
The Leader of Government Business said when you point a finger you get three back at you. The main attack dog on the federal Speaker was none other than Tony Burke. Tony Burke managed to have the Speaker removed and, lo and behold, we learn he did not spend $5000 on a helicopter trip. No, it was $2.2m on travel. I am not suggesting the $2.2m Mr Burke spent was out of entitlement or poor spending. In my view, ministers need to travel, similarly Speakers need to travel. In fact, in the federal parliament there are only four people – two House of Representatives members and two senators – who do not have to travel to Canberra. Everybody else does, so is it surprising that federal parliamentarians spend money on travel. It is a bit hard to walk from Darwin to Canberra ...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Similarly, I noticed in the media that the Chief Minister is being questioned because of his higher level of travel. It is pretty hard to be Chief Minister of the Northern Territory when you live in Alice Springs. Do people expect him to walk from Alice Springs to Darwin?
Ms Fyles: Just not private jets.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘Just not private jets’, the member for Nightcliff interjects. Do we have an allegation there was a private jet? Does Qantas not fly private jets? Does Virgin not fly private jets? Are we now picking out whose private jet we are allowed to travel on? I contend that some of the travel the Chief Minister undertook was in a government plane. However, I hope he also travelled on private jets, the same way the vast majority of us here do.
To suggest that you should not travel on a private jet is ludicrous. However, I am keen for the government to look at other ways we can save money and get around our region in a more cost-effective way. For some of that we will need private charter jets so when the Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade, for instance, has to travel to central China it will not take him two-and-a-half days to get there.
Most people will be aware that if you travel on commercial airlines, getting to China requires an overnight stay in Singapore or some other destination.
Ms Fyles: Do you go to the spa while you are there?
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nightcliff asks whether you go to the spa when you are there. I think going to the spa is entirely appropriate. Charging it to the taxpayer is not appropriate, but what a person does in their private time is up to them, member for Nightcliff. It seems every time someone mentions something the member for Nightcliff throws in some twisted view, like it is wrong to go to a spa.
I imagine at some time in her life the member for Nightcliff has been to a spa – maybe not. I imagine many ladies around Darwin like to go to beauty salons and spas. The member for Nightcliff thinks that is inappropriate. I do not know where the member for Nightcliff is going with some of these things at times.
Travelling to northern China is far quicker by private charter jet than with commercial airlines. Also, when you crunch some of the numbers it is cheaper if you fill the private charter with people. You can get more people to China for less by using a private charter than business class seats on Qantas or other airlines. It is appropriate that government looks at all avenues. I am on the record as Treasurer saying we are looking at every nook and cranny to save money.
The travel rorts issue, the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, has occupied the minds of those opposite. When we came to government at the end of 2012 I became Minister for Health and, very early into the job, I was given a report from the Department of Health which called into question some of the activities occurring with travel in the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme.
As the Attorney-General mentioned yesterday in Question Time, the vast majority of travel agents in the Northern Territory were considered to be involved in questionable behaviour, along with some 650 pensioners. The first thing I did was refer the matter to police, who started investigating it. Similarly, we changed the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme to make sure it could not be rorted. Instead of saying, ‘You can have one airline ticket to the value of $2000’, we said, ‘We will give you $500 straight up and you can spend it how you like’. That could be on an airline ticket, a train or a bus, it did not matter.’
When that scheme was introduced $2000 for an airline ticket was pretty well the going rate. However, the cost of airfares has dropped remarkably, and low-cost carriers can deliver people all over the country for far less than $500 return. In my view that was a good measure.
It is unfortunate that Flight Centre is caught up in this. Flight Centre operates a range of franchises in the Northern Territory and is the corporate body overseeing the various franchises. When it became aware of our inquiries, it almost instantly got in touch with government and said, ‘We want to know which of our franchisees were involved in this and we will remove them. We want to know the amount of money inappropriately directed and we will pay it back.’ To Flight Centre, the corporate umbrella that allows these agencies to operate, the reputational risk was enormous. It immediately tried to stop the bleeding and maintain its corporate reputation.
The member for Wanguri started banging on about the Chief Minister at the last estimates. Member for Wanguri, you know we have a separate booking and payment system; they are not combined. That is the nature of the legacy we picked up from the former government. We have also changed that system. We have put in place two corporate booking agencies so we get consolidated reports and can understand exactly what was booked and paid for, and how they are reconciled. I understand that came at some pain to local travel agents, but accountability and transparency is paramount for governments. We needed to act, and we did. Do we get any credit from the opposition for that? No. For some reason they want to go back to their old system of no accountability.
These suggestions are plain wrong. Yet, throughout this debate and for the months this has been going on, there has been no direct allegation of corruption from anyone opposite.
I have tried to work constructively with the member for Nelson. Some weeks ago we spoke about his experiences in Canada. I looked at the anti-corruption or integrity commission which operates there. It struck me as a workable idea, something different than these big full-blown expensive ICACs that run across the country. I gave that information to the Chief Minister. I know the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have been working closely to see how we might implement such a system.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion because it delivers the right measures to restore the perception that this parliament is an honest place.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Wanguri and the interjections from the member for Nightcliff. I also listened to what my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, said in relation to travel.
When you travel – not in my time I hope – if you become a minister and travel at night, eat on aircrafts and visit five countries in six days you might understand more about what you need to achieve as a minister, but that is for the future.
The member for Wanguri said the government is in chaos and cannot deliver anything. There are no allegations in this debate – where is the allegation of corruption? I will go through a few things and hope the Labor Party takes note of where the allegations should be in relation to corruption.
I will give some facts about what the Chief Minister and this government have achieved. If the government was in chaos, as they say, and had to get its act together it would be amazing. We are the top performing economy in the country. If that is chaos I am glad we are in chaos, and if we got our act together we would out-perform everyone in the world.
The member for Nhulunbuy is laughing, but you people left us with a $5.5bn projected debt and no plan to reduce it other than keep borrowing taxpayers’ money. Margaret Thatcher said socialism is really great until you run out of other people’s money to spend. Look at Greece. That is where the former government was taking us.
Under this government economic growth is up 6.5% and GSP $21.2bn. Is there corruption there? That is a fantastic outcome. Private business investment is up 6% to $10.6bn. Business confidence – this is a good one – the opposition says this government is in chaos ...
Ms Walker: No, you just said you were in chaos.
Mr STYLES: If we were, and this is what they consider chaos, we have the best-performing economy in Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5 class from Kormilda College accompanied by Ms Tahnee Roe. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Mr STYLES: What we do in this House relates to the people sitting in the gallery. It is their future we are guaranteeing. We are here to make sure the people in the gallery have a bright future. Under Labor we were heading down the road to a $5.6bn projected debt. That is a 98% debt to income ratio, a shocking state of affairs.
Business confidence is +43%, the highest in the country. The national average is +31%. That comes from a government the opposition says is in chaos. It is not true. Average weekly earnings are $1565 per week. Business size: 95.4% are small businesses, 0.2% large, and medium-size business is 4.4%. That is why this government concentrates on small- to medium-size enterprises, with the Department of Business concentrating especially on small businesses.
I will go through some achievements so members opposite can write down where the allegations can come from.
Major achievements from my portfolio perspective: we have a five-year strategic plan for the department that was developed and launched across all offices in the Northern Territory. Make a note of that then make up some allegations. We have developed a business engagement strategy aimed at maintaining business confidence. That is certainly working because we have the highest level of business confidence in the country, a full 12 percentage points above the national average.
Maximise local industry participation in current and planned major projects – this includes leading an industry delegation to meet prime contractors associated with INPEX and the Shell Prelude projects based in Malaysia and Thailand in June 2014. This is about ensuring our young people have jobs and a bright future.
We have strengthened the Northern Territory relationship with Timor-Leste. This included leading and supporting a series of high-level activities such as four ministerial visits, a visit by the Darwin Lord Mayor, two visits by the NT Chamber of Commerce to support Territory companies participating in the first Timor-Leste International Building and Construction Expo in May 2015, and a successful fourth round of the Timor Sea Cup football tournament in Dili in 2015. Is there anything interesting with that? I do not think so, but members opposite may say, ‘You had four ministerial visits. That is way too many and you have been wasting money.’
I have heard this from members opposite before. Sadly they do not understand that anything you do with anyone is about relationships. It does not matter whether it is a family relationship, relationships in a city, a relationship with friends, countries or officials in those countries, you have to maintain relationships. You cannot go there and do a few whizz bang things, have a few bells and whistles on a policy then walk away and forget about it. Nothing happens, there is no economic development, and these wonderful people sitting in the gallery do not have the bright future they are entitled to.
We have the ongoing development of the Vietnamese/NT live cattle and buffalo trade, working with Vietnamese import representatives. Of course my colleague, the member for Katherine, the minister for Primary Industry, has done a great job of getting cattle back into Indonesia, something you people successfully destroyed. Not only did you destroy the live cattle trade, but you destroyed families and for that I will never forgive you. I have a great interest in regional, rural and remote Australia, and the problems you caused for families – I will not go too deeply into that but there are some horrific stories to tell about something you people supported.
We asked, when in opposition, you to oppose it but you did not. You worked with your mates in Canberra to make sure you just about killed the live export cattle trade.
Developing new export markets for Aboriginal art in Asia – I wonder what sort of corruption we will be accused of in relation to that.
We have secured the Australian-Taiwan Business Council joint conference to be held in Darwin in September. These people will visit Darwin, stay a while, look around and spend some money in the Territory. We secured that against the odds of it going elsewhere. Hard work was done by a number of government officials and ministers.
We developed an Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment Strategy to leverage the Northern Territory’s position, exploit future trade and investment activities, and broaden engagement with the Asian region. I wonder what the member for Nightcliff will say about travelling to organise that.
For those opposite making notes, Australia was built on foreign investment. What you see today and the future I and my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren have has been built on direct foreign investment. It is built on joint ventures by people who want to work with us to generate wealth. Without wealth there is no tax and without tax there is no government. That is what we on this side believe. The other side wants to keep borrowing money until they run out of credit and someone else has to clean it up.
InvestNT was established as a one-stop shop for potential foreign investors to seek information on investment in the Northern Territory. The directory of investment opportunities and the investment guide were produced to highlight sectors and project proposals in the NT which investors can explore. This information is located on a great site if those opposite want to look at it as opposed to making things up: www.investnt.com.au. It is a great site. The information is translated into several Asian languages.
The Territory Business Centre has introduced police history checks, reducing approval time for some licences. What will you do there? You could say there are public servants doing the wrong thing or falsifying documents. We do not have any allegations.
Modernising and streamlining systems in the Territory Business Centre is to reduce red tape and allow licences to be processed quickly, efficiently and effectively, with 26 licence categories now being processed by Territory Business Centres. There is an ongoing program of red tape efficiencies.
Over 11 years of the former Labor government red tape increased. We have been through a process to reduce red tape and have cut in excess of $350m from the process the Labor government had oversight of. That is $350m paid by new homeowners, builders, developers and everyone in the housing industry. There has also been the release of record numbers of housing blocks to take pressure off the housing market, and we have achieved that. Rents have dropped and the cost of housing has dropped.
Young people tell me they are grateful. Some of them do not understand exactly what has happened, and I have tried to explain the policies of this government and those of the former government, and why we have been able to reduce the cost of their new home.
The non-government organisations pilot program was well received by the sector and has now become permanent. I wonder if those opposite will say we are trying to buy NGOs by giving grants, or looking after them and allowing them to get on with what they do best.
October Business Month celebrated its 20th anniversary last year with a record 9005 people attending 153 events. This year is the 21st year and we are expecting far more than that, with a bigger and brighter program. I wonder what those opposite will say about that.
The provision of a dedicated business development officer in Gove has enabled local businesses to transition from a narrow business focus to being viable, newly-focused business operational areas. That should be of great interest to the member for Nhulunbuy. I met with a few people from Nhulunbuy recently who understand. Yesterday the member said the only reason the alumina refinery closed was because we failed to obtain gas.
I do not know where the member for Nhulunbuy gets her information, but if she had asked for a meeting with the board they would have said, as they told us when they opened their books to us in complete confidence, ‘Look at this. No amount of gas will save what we need to do.’ They crunched the numbers.
I am reliably informed they were producing alumina for $2200 per tonne and China was selling alumina for $1800 per tonne. This is why we got into so much trouble economically, but sadly those opposite do not understand economics. As the member for Port Darwin said yesterday, we need to get the butcher’s paper out. When you are producing something for $2200 per tonne and your competitors are selling it for $1800 per tonne, for every tonne you produce you lose $400.
There is a simple thing in business called return on investment. If you do not have a return on investment you are out of business. The board of Rio Tinto will say, ‘Sorry, no amount of gas will save the company from closing the alumina production’. It is a matter of basic economics. Until China increases the price, its cost of production increases, or there is a more efficient way of producing alumina in this country, China will have the market. They also put an extra 45 million tonnes of alumina onto the world market.
It is economics. I am sure those opposite will say there is a shonky deal going on. They said we did a shonky deal with gas; we promised to give gas and did not.
The remote contracting policy was introduced in July 2015 to support remote economies and communities. This has three aspects to it – make a note because you might want to make some allegations in relation to this – and many more Aboriginal Australians are being trained and employed. Aboriginal companies in regional, rural and remote Australia now have contracts. The Department of Business has a section to help Aboriginal businesses submit tenders and make sure they are up to speed and done on a level playing field. They are now winning business. Is that wrong? I wonder what allegations will come because we do not have any so far.
In relation to remote contracting, we are setting employment and business development targets. The government has set itself targets which it is meeting. We are also implementing new contract planning requirements and providing professional services to support Aboriginal businesses, not only in tender development but a range of other services through our business development officers. There are 22 people across the Northern Territory helping people conduct business.
In January 2013 the government commenced work on a program of reforms to Northern Territory government procurement aimed at reducing business red tape, simplifying processes and involving efficiency for Northern Territory businesses. That is showing dividends.
My colleague, the Treasurer, might say we are now looking at a projected debt of about $2.6bn, down from the $5.6bn projected debt under Labor, with no plan to reduce it. We have a plan and we are reducing it. In fact, I heard the Chief Minister say recently that we might even have a budget surplus this financial year. It did not look very good three years ago when we came to government. We had huge challenges to get over the economic mess left by the previous government.
The first phase of these reforms was implemented on 1 July 2014. It included procurement thresholds changed so more contracts could be awarded under simpler processes. I wonder if people will ask, ‘What shonkies were done there?’
The terms and conditions of contract were amended – unlimited liability, indemnity, intellectual property and dispute resolution in those areas. I am trying to find somewhere you can make allegations. Maybe you will find something.
Local development and value adding guidelines for business and agencies were improved. Tender release days were changed so that tenders can now be released and closed on any day of the week. These are initiatives that business asked the government to consider. We have been listening and responding.
If members opposite want to make allegations about these things they need to talk to business. Every time they accuse us of something they need to look at the business community, the general community and the people we have spoken to. You heard in the planning debate yesterday that the government has consulted extensively. We have listened to people. This is what people in business are asking us, and we are responding to those requests.
The red tape abolition squad was established to coordinate the implementation of reforms across government to reduce regulatory costs. I said previously, in the building industry over $350m has been cut from the cost of doing business, enabling things to get through and making a huge impact, especially for young Territorians getting their first house ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I have not heard any allegations. We asked for allegations but none have been forthcoming. I do not have time to talk about the huge number of positive things happening in the Territory or what is in the pipeline. We lead the country in four of the six indicators that judge the economic ability of governments.
Business confidence is the highest in the country. We are at +43% and the national average is +31%. We have so much planned to develop the north. The northern part of Australia is a blank canvas. We have one-third of the country, one million people, two-thirds of the rainfall and lots of land suitable for agriculture and industry. It is all waiting for us, our children and our grandchildren. There is a bright future in the Northern Territory.
To keep it bright we need foreign investment. We need people to invest in joint ventures, to create industry, business and jobs and make sure the Territory remains heading in the right direction. We need jobs, wealth and taxes so we can support those five important things.
When I knock on doors and ask people what the five most important things are they say health, education and law and order are the first three. The fourth is a vibrant economy to pay for the first three and do everything else, and the fifth is hope. Without hope no one gets out of bed in the morning.
Prior to the 2012 election I looked at the debt levels and thought, ‘We are in a bit of trouble’. I now stand proud to be part of this government and to say the Territory is back on track and tracking for a very bright future.
I again ask for allegations but do not hear any. I allege that the future of the Territory has been put at risk by the actions of the opposition.
On Sunday the member for Karama attended a rally with about 500 people, all union and proud. They were the same people the member for Karama was giving Stella Maris to – her union mates. They were saying ‘We are union and we are proud’. They are fighting the China free trade agreement. We need direct foreign investment from overseas but this goes wider than China. This goes to Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, China and Taiwan. I was there recently selling the Northern Territory.
We have had eight delegations in Darwin as a result of that. Each one asked, ‘What about the free trade agreement?’ They are here because they have read the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia. They are keen to be here but will not come while people are making racist remarks like, ‘Keep the yellow peril out’. Former Labor leader, Mark Latham, said in the book he wrote some years ago that we need people from Asia to fill the jobs we cannot.
In Darwin the unemployment rate is less than 1%. We struggle to find people to work on building sites. I sat next to federal minister Andrew Robb at a Trade minister’s conference. He said, ‘I was in Adelaide recently and went to Murray Bridge’. Anyone who has driven from Adelaide to Murray Bridge on the magnificent freeway will know it is a beautiful drive; the aesthetics are magnificent. Murray Bridge is an hour south of Adelaide.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Legal Studies students from Good Shepherd Lutheran College accompanied by Julie Hearnden. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have not given notice to the other side, but this motion is non-contentious.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly amends its resolution of 25 March 2015 establishing the Ice Select Committee requiring a report date of 17 September by deleting the words, ‘17 September’ and inserting instead the words, ‘19 November’. This is being done at the request of the Chairman of the Ice Select Committee.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, we were not aware but we support that change.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I was talking about a conversation I had with the federal trade minister, Mr Andrew Robb, and his drive to Murray Bridge. He visited an abattoir with just over 1400 people employed with over 1000 on 457 visas. He said the South Australian government cannot get people to drive for an hour on a magnificent freeway from Adelaide to Murray Bridge for work.
We have heard about Holden closing, Defence industries having problems with submarines, and the unemployment rate is expected to increase to 8%. They have an unemployment problem, yet people in Adelaide will not drive for an hour or get on a bus to go to work. When the Labor Party says do not bring – the China free trade agreement – I will quote from some Labor Party paraphernalia ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from subject. Are we still debating the ICAC motion the government brought to the House?
Mr STYLES: We are.
Madam Speaker, can I speak to that?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Madam Speaker, I have challenged the Labor Party because there has not been one allegation and I am giving members the opportunity to make allegations. I have given them a list and am continuing that list, inviting them to allege something.
Mr Vowles: You have not said anything positive about it.
Mr STYLES: I do not know where the member for Johnston was during this debate, whether his mind was elsewhere, but I will take you back, member for Johnston, to what the member for Wanguri said. She rehashed old material with not one allegation. We are talking about an ICAC and alleged corruption. There has not been one allegation from the opposition, so I allege that if the opposition continues with some of the things it is saying it will be responsible for so much damage to the Northern Territory economy.
Opposition members do not seem to have any basis for their allegations. Where are these allegations? The member for Johnson asked if it was our motion. Yes, it is. We are trying to work with you to get some sense into it.
I congratulate my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, for saying, ‘Let us work together with the opposition and the Independents’.
I commend the member for Nelson on his presentation. He said it is not – I will use the member for Port Darwin’s words – a peeing competition or about whose motion is best; it is about finding something that will work and give people the confidence to come forward and do what they need to. There is a workable arrangement. However, those opposite said, ‘No, we won’t work with anyone. You’re not worth it.’
I commend the member for Port Darwin for his presentation and his request to work with the opposition. I commend the member for Nelson for his request to work with the opposition. I sincerely hope the opposition wants to work with all members of this House to find something workable and reasonable.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate.
During the luncheon break the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wood, and I negotiated what the motion should look like and that it should be a motion before this House. I thank the member for Nelson and the Leader of the Opposition for their attention to the matter during the break.
As a consequence, we have come to an arrangement which will jump through the following hoops in an effort to make sure this is done as fairly, equitably and politically cleanly as possible.
Shortly I will seek leave of the Assembly to adjourn this motion and hold it over with the guarantee that should the member for Nelson’s motion, which is the one we have agreed between us, pass in this House I will, immediately after passage of that motion, invite defeat of my motion so the member for Nelson’s motion will stand. As a consequence of that, during General Business Day the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw his motion. I presume the other Independents are comfortable with that.
The effect of this will be the member for Nelson will have brought into this House a motion reflecting the Labor Party’s and the CLP’s position as well, I hope, as the other Independents. We should be able to do all this on voices.
Consequently, this motion will stay live only until the member for Nelson’s motion is successful. At that point I will invite defeat and the Labor Party will not proceed with its motion.
That being as clear as mud, I seek leave to suspend debate on my motion, assuming that forthwith the House moves forward to enable Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, to move a motion.
Leave granted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the motion to grant leave. We have moved into a new paradigm within this Chamber. I applaud the bipartisan approach taken over the last few hours in negotiating what will, hopefully, be a palatable motion around establishment of an ICAC or equivalent in the Northern Territory.
There are five Independents, and the opposition and government have negotiated in good faith with one of the Independents. I do not feel very comfortable with the process, but that is probably my problem not anyone else’s.
I have just been handed the negotiated motion Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, will put this afternoon. As an Independent, particularly when it comes to this issue, I am not concerned about whether a good motion comes from the CLP government or the Labor opposition. I just want to tease out debate and resolve what is best for the Northern Territory.
I emphasise to both sides of this Chamber that there is more than one Independent now, there are five. In respect to us all, it is worth keeping that in mind.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Operation of an Anti-Corruption, Integrity and Misconduct Commission
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
1. supports the establishment of an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission
2. that this parliament resolves, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act, to appoint a person qualified to be a judge in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to inquire into and report to the Administrator on the following matter: the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body in the Northern Territory, including but not limited to the following considerations:
3. that the qualified person referred to above be selected for recommendation to the Administrator of the Northern Territory based on the process outlined for the appointment of a Supreme Court judge in Appendix A of the Review of the Processes for the appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory, with the exception that the panel outlined in the process recommends one instead of two for consideration
4. notes that the qualified person appointed will consult with relevant stakeholders including, but not limited to, the NT Police, the NT Law Society and the Criminal Lawyers Association
5. the qualified person appointed provide advice and report back to the parliament in a timely manner.
I want us all to work together. That does not mean we have to agree with one another all the time, but where we can work together that would be the process we should go through. This happened quicker than I thought, but it is not new in the sense that we have seen these versions. We now have a combined motion that has been agreed to by the Labor Party and the government.
The changes that have been incorporated should be supported. One of the main changes here is:
There was a lot of discussion earlier about trying to make sure the process was not only independent but seen to be independent. I know the opposition was putting forward a motion, as was the government. The motion from the opposition in relation to this appointment is a good one. It means the public will know this appointment has nothing to do with members of parliament. That is a real improvement on both motions and is something we should support.
The motion is broad enough to allow the person conducting the inquiry to not have their hands tied when it comes to looking at models, various options and all the issues related to having an ICAC in the Northern Territory. One thing we also agree on is that we do not want a multimillion-dollar ICAC. We are calling it an ICAC but it could be something like an ICAC. We have allowed for the possibility of it using existing legislation or statutory authorities.
Whoever is doing this will have the freedom to come up with the best model for the Northern Territory. I have some concern about the last clause, which is that the qualified person appointed provide advice and report back to the parliament in a timely manner. I would have preferred a date, but as part of working through this to reach an agreement you sometimes have to give and take. I will be asking the minister to keep us updated. The government would be in contact with the person doing the report, and it would be sensible to ask for a report so it does not end up going on and on.
It needs to be up and running before the next election so it is not used as an election tool or a bit of advertising. We need to have this up and running so it cannot be used inappropriately before an election.
The good thing is there is a statement at the top, which is the reason I felt we had an opportunity to get together. We say this Assembly supports the establishment of an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission. The name, in itself, covers everything. We are ensuring we do not just talk about criminal matters. We are talking about matters which might be inappropriate but not criminal. There could be matters of governance or a range of issues a commission like this can discuss, look at and investigate, and that is important.
The words ‘not limited to’ are important. They allow flexibility for the person running the inquiry to look at a whole range of things, including models in other jurisdictions. It may not just be in Australia, it could be overseas, because we need to get the best model for a small constituency like the Northern Territory. We need to make sure that not only does it serve the purpose for which it has been set up, but does so in a financially sustainable way. We do not want a big bureaucracy, but at the same time we do not want something that is hamstrung by not having sufficient financial resources to make sure it operates properly. We will be looking for a balance between hamstringing the commission by not giving it enough financial support and not setting it up to turn into a bloated bureaucracy. That is the danger.
The member for Drysdale and I were at the South Australian Public Accounts Committee and that was a question I asked of the PAC chairman. They have a large bureaucracy but are a much larger population than the Northern Territory.
I hope everyone supports this. That does not mean people will not have different opinions about it. Obviously that is part of debating it in the Chamber. I hope it is supported, and unanimous support would be great.
Although I am putting this motion forward I do not want it to be seen as the Gerry Wood motion. I would rather it be seen as a motion of this House going forward in a unified way to do something Territorians have been looking forward to for a long time.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson spoke about how we go down this path in the earlier motion brought forward by the government. He said it is really important we reach consensus today. I have a slightly different opinion and think the most important thing today is to find a way to allow independence and for it be separate from this Chamber. If we find consensus on that path it is a bonus, and we have. That is good, but I wanted to make sure the process today had clear independence in and around it. We have found that, and I thank the member for Nelson and the Leader of Government Business for the conversation that will see something passed today.
We should stop for a moment and recognise that. Today we have started on the journey of the Northern Territory having an independent commission against corruption, or a misconduct commission, or a Northern Territory version of one. We, as a House, acknowledge this should be established and acknowledge its importance. That is the first line of the motion, and it is a really big moment in the House. As a Chamber we say we should establishing an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission, but one suitable to the Northern Territory and Territory conditions. That is the first step and we have agreed to the threshold.
It is also good it is under the Inquiries Act as there will be certain powers and authority for the person involved. The independent person will have the capacity to look at many things. The terms and conditions show a certain guiding of the independent person, but they are not limited to those considerations. There is a capacity for the independent person to explore things.
It is important that we, as a parliament, have created this. We accept the threshold principle, but we are allowing an independent person, separate to this parliament, to look at these things. It is about creating an independent vehicle to provide oversight for us as well as others. We must be clear that establishment of this body not only is, but appears to be, separate from us. We have to be careful so the public has confidence in the process we are following and there is independence.
The selection method we have now settled on – I thank the Leader of Government Business and the member for Nelson for their support. The selection process is essentially how we appoint a judge or a magistrate in the Northern Territory, and that is a good process to go through. There will be an independent person and a lot of work involved in this. We have given that independent person the time and capacity to come back to us in a timely manner, and that is important. We do not want this to hang around forever. I agree with the member for Nelson on that, and am sure the Leader of Government Business would say something similar. It is not about this hanging around forever, but it is important to give this person the capacity to be independent in what they are doing.
We have had the conversations and are at the first step in the establishment of an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission.
I apologise to the member for Araluen. Many conversations were had around this motion, and we probably did not get to everyone during the luncheon break. This motion covers all the things asked for in previous negotiations. We had many conversations on Monday and Tuesday about things we wanted to look at and how much it might cost.
I pick up on something the member for Nelson mentioned before. It is important to have a model that is suitable to Territory conditions, and I guess an independent person looking at this will endorse that. In my opinion we need something on an as-demands basis not a standing committee, and they will be tested by an independent person. We are a small place with a small population. I could be wrong, but I do not think we will have the same demand as New South Wales or as other entities might have.
I have said in discussions – I have had plenty of consultation around this – if it meets on an as-demands basis and there is a constant demand it will always be meeting. It is not as if you are denying the existence of the body; it can meet if it needs to and that is important.
We can consider a standing committee versus an as-demands committee. What would the trigger be? How cases come to the ICAC needs to be carefully considered. It is important that people know they can submit something and there is an open door where people can say, ‘Look at this’. We need a strong clearinghouse and trigger mechanism for an ICAC to start; it does not start on a whim. People should know they have a place to go to express their concerns and those concerns are looked at.
It is important for us to examine – the independent person can examine this, we are a small jurisdiction. People with the skills in this investigative area often know each other, have worked together and sometimes have a relationship with each other. There is a small pool. We saw that come into play with recent investigations, especially in the McRoberts case. People have stood aside for the right reasons. This independent person will have to examine how we approach being in a small jurisdiction, how we work with people from interstate, co-opt, second or have a relationship with people interstate. In Tasmania, for example, the commissioner comes from Victoria. They are bigger than us but recognise this as a problem too. There are solutions, and the independent person will have to investigate how we deal with those conflicts and the Territory being a small place.
Many of these issues were examined at Labor’s town hall forum on Monday. We had a good conversation with the panel, made up of Tass Liveris, president of the Law Society; Richard Coates, who many people would know as former Director of Public Prosecutions, formerly from Legal Aid, and former CEO of the Department of Justice; Priscilla Collins from NAAJA; and David Morris from the Environmental Defenders Office. Tass ran it more like a Tony Jones’ Q&A style panel, which worked quite well with the public. Many of these questions were examined.
A lot of detail needs to go in and questions asked about how to establish an ICAC. It is not as simple as setting one up and there it is tomorrow. There are different models from state to state: the New South Wales very public committee model versus the South Australian one, where you do not know what is going on until the police knock on your door and you are arrested. There is a balance between the two, and different models you can pursue to make sure one is established.
What is really important – and I have tried to emphasise it as I have gone through this – is that we want to consult with and hear what people are saying, understand what people want, and have a clear understanding of it all. At some stage, it has to leave us; it has to leave parliamentarians and this Chamber. It has to be independently created so people have confidence that this vehicle is not something cooked up in a compromise between political parties to satisfy political demand, but it has independent rigour to it.
The Attorney-General mentioned in debate that he and I had a brief conversation yesterday about whether I would work with him on a motion. I was quite honest with the member for Port Darwin, as I always am. At the moment the CLP is toxic when it comes to these matters, and I do not want to be seen to be cooking something up with the CLP. I also believe it is important that people do not think political parties are getting together to knock up a convenient model.
What is good about today’s motion is we are creating an independent vehicle to examine these issues, which is an important step. It is good that the CLP has given this the nod and we have reached a consensus today. As I said, the most important thing I was looking for today was a vehicle that gave us unlimited independence.
I had concerns about the earlier motion the CLP proposed. Through good conversation and consultation this model is independent and – not by happy accident because we worked together to get this – has reached consensus, which is important.
An ICAC is only one of the things we need in the Northern Territory to restore trust and integrity to government. It is good that we have done this today, but the workload remains. A number of things need to be done when it comes to trust and restoring integrity to the government.
We have released the discussion paper that goes to quite a number of issues we think need to be canvassed and discussed to restore integrity to government. ICAC is just one element of that. It is an important element and probably the one with the most attention. It has to happen, and it is good that we have done this today. However, a number of other things need to be done in the Northern Territory to handle the trust deficit between the current CLP government and Territorians.
It goes beyond whether we have an independent commission against corruption, against misconduct, or other things it may explore when looking at the powers this body may have. One element is that there is an oversight body on us as parliamentarians, as well as other public officials. There are other things we need to do.
One problem the CLP has is it has not engaged in genuine conversation with Territorians over the last three years. If you want Territorians to trust you, you have to trust them. You have to talk to them, which is what we are doing around this trust paper we have. It is quite important to have proper engagement.
I thank the member for Nelson and the Leader of Government Business. As a parliament we have supported the principle to establish an independent anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory. That is significant. We have also created an independent process for investigation of the powers and shape that committee should have. That is also important to acknowledge.
We have adopted the same process you would use to select a judge, making sure we have an independent person of the right quality with the right experience and skills to examine the power and shape of an ICAC. We have given them the capacity to look at whatever they need to and the workload that will involve. They will report back to this Chamber in a timely manner but in such time as they get this right. It is important we get this right.
I thank the House for this historic moment. We are, as a House, accepting the principle that the Northern Territory needs an independent commission against corruption.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion. It is important to say, in support of our Police Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures, the DPP, even parliamentary inquiries and committees that have been set up in the past, that this parliament has faith in them. I do not want what we are doing today to undermine the good work they have done and will continue to do.
I wanted to put that on the record because I, as minister for Police, have faith in our Police Commissioner, the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures, the DPP and all those people I mentioned earlier.
What has occurred is unfortunate but real, because the perception in the community is that the processes of government have been damaged. It reminds me that if you throw enough mud it sticks. Unfortunately, with so much mud thrown at different areas of government – not just this government but perhaps even the former government – people lose faith in our system. If today’s motion goes some way to restoring faith in government processes then I welcome it.
Anything raised recently has been investigated. Action has and will be taken on anything that has been brought forward. Again, there have been allegations about things that may or may not have happened, but I can assure you, as a minister of the Crown, I take my job seriously.
During the last three years, as Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I have been involved in many meetings with developers. I have had people in the street ask me, ‘How many blocks of land or how many units did you score out of the last development you approved?’ It does not and cannot happen. It may have happened in some other states; it may have even happened in the past. I do not know; I was not there and not part of it.
I can assure you, as a minister you cannot get tied up in that type of discussion with developers and investors because you will be caught out whether it is today, tomorrow, 12 months from now or years from now.
Also, every government minister knows that the moment you bend for a developer or an investor and do something you should not, something extra, it will come back to haunt you. The other thing is that developer or investor has you over a barrel for the rest of your life. Do not do it; do not go there. Play this game with a straight bat. I do not believe ministers in the previous government played that game; however, there is evidence that some things were done.
The role of a minister is extremely serious and ministers need the confidence of Territorians. A lot of mud has been thrown yet there is not a lot of substance behind it. Any serious allegations have been or are currently being investigated, and action has and will be taken now and into the future.
There is a perception in the community that some government processes have broken down. I assure you I have seen no evidence of that occurring. If that is the perception in the community because of the mud continually thrown then we need to work hard as a parliament to restore the faith of the community. I do not want to take anything away from our Police Commissioner, our Ombudsman or the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures. The work of this parliament is not to undermine what they have done because it has been admirable and they have done their job extremely well.
I support this motion. If it does anything to help restore faith in our parliamentary process you have to welcome it. At the same time, make sure it is not used to undermine the good work of our public service and the people who work for us such as the Police Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. Part of the problem I see – and I hope it is only a perception that there is corruption – is everyone in this Chamber needs to look at themselves and their involvement in creating that perception.
Over the last three years there have been a lot of accusations of misconduct at whatever level by various people in this Chamber. I tried to pride myself in not getting involved, and will not do that today. I hope it is just a perception. That is what has worried me in this process and why I have been a strong supporter of ICAC.
We need to ensure the perception in the public arena, in the community, is addressed properly. Part of the problem is because there is a misconception of how corrupt people in politics are, they do not trust us to set up an ICAC properly.
I am happy this motion allows the perception of total independence from people in this House to be conveyed to the public. I am happy with what we have ended up with today, and I hope it addresses those perceptions I have seen and that people have raised with me. They have a perception of corruption, and they also have a perception that we cannot appoint someone to look into it properly because we are getting them to look at ourselves. Hopefully people will be happy with this. I do not think we should pat each other on the back saying what a great job we have done. I hope people can one day pat us on the back and say what a great job we did.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support from both sides and thank all speakers for their support. This is an important day. We have now set the parameters for an inquiry which will set up an independent anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission. It is certainly an important day in the Northern Territory’s maturity because the parliament is saying it will set up a process to investigate itself as well as others.
I appreciate the comments from the members for Brennan and Daly, as well as the Opposition Leader, and comments made in the previous debate. Yes, unfortunately, we are part of what could be regarded as the rumour world. Things are said and people can be hurt when the facts are not true. At least with a commission like this, if people believe there is corruption and have the evidence to put before the commission it can be tested in an independent environment.
If people have heard something they think is wrong, improper or illegal, even if they only have some evidence, it can go to the commission for investigation without being spread around. It will be up to the commission to decide if there is a case.
I hope I am not wrong, but in South Australia there is a body which filters complaints to make sure they are legitimate and the commissioner is not tied up checking that. I do not think we would have that many complaints here to warrant that, but the process in South Australia allows the commissioner to focus on the role he is meant to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in accordance with the agreement and commitment I gave to this House previously I seek leave, pursuant to Standing Order 128, to withdraw Government Business Notice No 1 standing in my name.
Leave granted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This is a minor technical adjustment to the superannuation act for members of parliament which will bring the superannuation arrangements for members in line with Northern Territory Public Sector employees, who have had the ability to nominate a self-managed superannuation fund since 2004 under the Superannuation Act.
This bill will allow members of the Legislative Assembly to nominate complying self-managed superannuation funds for employer and employee contributions. Complying self-managed superannuation funds comprise a significant majority of the superannuation industry. They are highly regulated under the Commonwealth legislation to ensure compliance and safeguard beneficiaries. The bill will allow members of the Legislative Assembly the flexibility to choose a product suitable to their circumstances.
This bill will also bring parliamentary self-managed superannuation fund arrangements in line with most other Australian jurisdictions. Currently only the Northern Territory, South Australia and Commonwealth jurisdictions exclude the nomination of complying self-managed super funds for members of Australian parliaments. This is despite the bill’s digest of the relevant Commonwealth act, commenting that the exclusion of self-managed superannuation funds – I quote from that digest:
It is important to note that a self-managed super fund will continue to be excluded as a declared default fund under section 13, as the default fund must be open to contributions for all eligible superannuation recipients.
Under the Legislative Assembly (Disclosure of Interests) Act 2008 members of this parliament are already under an obligation to declare any self-managed superannuation fund of which the member is a trustee and/or beneficiary, and must disclose any relevant interest in such a fund of which a member is a trustee or a beneficiary.
The proposed amendments will not increase the risk of an undisclosed conflict of interest, but rather bring members of the Legislative Assembly in line with the broader Territory and Australian community and its superannuation arrangements.
All members of the Legislative Assembly are obliged to update records of their registrable interests. The registry is kept by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and inspections can occur subject to conditions set by the Committee of Members’ Interests.
I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill proposes amendments to the Superannuation Act and the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme (NTGPASS) Rules in order to provide authority to the Commissioner of Superannuation to transfer adherent or retained NTGPASS accounts to a chosen successor fund by way of a successor fund transfer.
NTGPASS adherents or retained members have largely retired or resigned from the Territory public service, and crystallised the Territory-funded defined benefit. Two-thirds of this group no longer reside or work in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Superannuation Office is not able to offer the suite of member services available from many other superannuation funds. For example, adherent or retained NTGPASS accounts are not able to receive compulsory employer contributions or salary sacrifice contributions. In addition, there are many other services widely available in the superannuation industry that are not offered to NTGPASS members, including retirement income products, financial advice, insurance products such as income protection and life insurance, as well as online access to accounts and account services.
Once the adherent accounts have been transferred to the successor fund, the transferred members will have access to this full range of superior services and will be in a more contemporary superannuation environment.
In choosing a successor fund, protections are in place for the transferring members. The trustees of both the NTGPASS fund and the receiving fund need to be satisfied and form the view that the transfer is in members’ best interest and that the fund they are transferring to offers members’ rights at least equivalent to those enjoyed within the NTGPASS.
Following a due diligence process, adherent NTGPASS accounts will be transferred into a contemporary superannuation fund with the full suite of member services now expected by consumers. Importantly, while adherent members will not be able to choose to stay with NTGPASS, it is not compulsory for them to participate in the successor fund transfer. If they are not satisfied with the chosen successor fund they are able to nominate an alternative superannuation fund to which their account will be transferred. This option will be available to adherents until just prior to the successor fund transfer occurring. Members may take this opportunity to consolidate superannuation accounts if they have more than one. Importantly, the transfer will occur at no cost to the transferring members.
The bill also removes the future ability of active NTGPASS members still employed in the Northern Territory public service to become adherents. Instead, on retirement or resignation, members will be advised that at the time they crystallise their defined benefit they are required to nominate a superannuation fund to which their superannuation will be rolled over. This prevents the creation of future adherent accounts. Similarly, the spouses of NTGPASS members will no longer be able to open NTGPASS spouse accounts.
The bill also contains provisions enabling the transfer of adherent accounts to an eligible rollover fund chosen by the Commissioner of Superannuation. Eligible rollover funds are specialised funds that accept transfers of lost member accounts and the accounts of members no longer eligible for scheme membership. The bill gives the Commissioner of Superannuation the ability to pay a member’s NTGPASS benefit to an eligible rollover fund where the member has failed to nominate a superannuation fund following their retirement or resignation. Importantly, the bill is not seeking to close the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme for active members.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice for the briefing they provided me last week. We indicated our support on Monday evening when we received the update of what business would be before the House the following day. We anticipated debate yesterday. This had been listed for Tuesday’s Government Business, but of course yesterday did not go quite as planned for the government. I do not think today has either, but we are still getting to the important business of the House, which is legislation.
This bill is based on COAG-approved reforms for nationally consisted directors’ liability provisions across the various Australian jurisdictions. Reforms were approved as far back as 2008 or 2009, so it has certainly been on COAG’s agenda for some time. Obviously an enormous body of work goes with it, and following the briefing I understand it has not been an easy task. Clearly a huge body of work has been instigated by a review across the jurisdictions, including the Northern Territory.
I note an audit has been undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice of the Northern Territory’s statute book to identify which acts contain offences that impose a personal criminal liability on directors. There are, as it turns out, 58 acts – I think that was the figure the minister used in his second reading speech – which contain offences and impose criminal liability on directors. As a result, 40 of those acts have had existing directors’ liability repealed, with the COAG default position of direct or accessorial liability to apply through the general application of criminal law. It is also my understanding that through the process of reviewing legislation this bill determines which of the three types of provisions should apply to relevant Territory offences.
To be honest, it is difficult to resist the guiding principle that directors are not liable for corporate fault unless they have personally assisted in commission of an offence or been negligent or reckless in relation to the corporation’s offending. COAG has developed three types of provisions that determine the extent to which the onus of establishing whether a director took reasonable steps to prevent the corporation’s offending falls on the defence or the prosecution.
I will go to the explanatory statement which clearly outlines these provisions. Quoting from the explanatory statement:
Adoption of the agreed COAG reform principles is designed to achieve a nationally consistent approach in relation to director liability provisions under the three types I outlined from the explanatory statement.
Obviously some acts have higher levels of exposure and subsequent responsibility than others, and with that there will be differing levels of risks or offences. At the briefing I mentioned that I was not sure what the worst offence was that the director of a corporation could commit under the Flag and Emblem Act. However, the Public and Environmental Health Act, as an example, demands very high levels of responsibility and, therefore, a need for corporations and directors to have correspondingly high level of accountability and, depending on the nature of an offence or the level of harm under that act, sees the level of liability at Type 3, the most serious.
The approach adopted by the government to implement these changes under COAG principles, through a coordinated audit of the relevant legislation instruments, is a reasonable one to take. I imagine it is the only way you can do it.
I ask the minister to advise what plans are afoot to communicate changes to the Territory community, to every corporate body or director under Territory law, what these changes mean. Obviously it is important for that to be communicated to people who have changed responsibilities and liabilities under this bill.
At the briefing it was offered that the red tape production team may have some role in that. I would have thought the Chamber of Commerce would, in all likelihood, have a role. I was advised that the Australian Institute of Company Directors SA/NT branch would have a role. These are very important changes that people need to be aware of. There is always the question of how we best communicate with people so they are aware these changes have come through.
We will follow with interest how the implementation process goes. If there are such major reforms does the legislation need reviewing within 12 months or two years to ensure that the principles under the COAG agreement are captured within the bill today?
On the basis I have outlined this afternoon we support the bill and commend it to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, we all know this has come from COAG to try to get some consistency across the country where corporations cross over and work in multiple jurisdictions. I thank the minister’s office and the staff of the Attorney-General’s office for the briefing. It is reasonably complex, and I have attempted to get across the issues and potential impact on corporations and individuals in the Territory. I sought other advice and held meetings with people who know more about this than I do. It is important that if someone is responsible they should be held to account. That includes directors being responsible for the actions of a corporate entity.
The challenge for directors of associations or corporations is that the vast array of laws imposes additional liability on them for public policy reasons, where they want to encourage certain conduct on the part of the corporations. This bill is about getting a standard regime of similar language and removing additional requirements that no longer need to be there. The question is: has it struck the right balance? I have gone through the background and consultation process, and the one question I ask of the minister regarding information I received through his office is about consultation with the public and stakeholders. Some people I spoke to said they were not consulted much, if at all.
Given the list of acts and regulations this impacts, does the government intend to consult with, for example, the Chamber of Commerce about the impact on long service leave, public holidays, the Annual Leave Act, the Energy Pipelines Act and reform? Will they talk to the APPEA, the petroleum and exploration association, which has an office in Darwin? It will impact on the Firearms Act. Will government be talking with the NT Firearms Council Inc or the NT Cattlemen’s Association? Will that be subsequent to the passing of the legislation? Although it might not be a major amendment to those 50 pieces of legislation, it is important to get the various industry groups and people in the private sector to understand where it has come from.
The Electoral Act and the Ombudsman Act are listed to remove liability of executive officer of government departments and other statutory bodies. I would like some advice from the minister about how and what that means for those acts, given they are important acts and work with the community. What is the impact on those pieces of legislation and the executive staff in those organisations?
The government said it consulted with the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Was that through Darwin or a national group? I know they have been lobbying the federal government and state jurisdiction ministers and that is why it has come to COAG. They are keen, and they do not want Type 3 offences in because they believe it is contrary to the rule of law. I would like the minister’s comments on why there are Type 3 offences at all, and is there any other way to go about it?
Mr Deputy Speaker, everyone knows the intent of this and the benefits it can bring with harmonisation and consistency. However, I want a bit more clarity and transparency about the impact on the industry.
One final matter is in regard to companies and company law. Is there a subsequent impact on volunteer directors? That is mostly through the Associations Act, and I see it is not listed. Is there any potential for directors within an incorporated association or some other structure to be pulled into this? I have a firm view that it does not matter whether the person commits an offence way out of their control, the bucks still stops at the top. I can see where they are coming from with this, but I am concerned there might be some flow-on effect to associations law. Some clarity around that would be useful because there are about 1700 associations in the Northern Territory, many of them large. I welcome those views from the minister.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this bill; it hits the right mark. This bill is in response to COAG’s recommended reforms, which the Territory government signed up to. It meets our commitment in agreeing to those COAG reforms.
I understand there has been general consultation with the public and stakeholders as part of COAG’s development of the reform program. COAG looked to a range of stakeholders, from directors of corporations, courts, lawyers and experts in this area, as part of its consultation process. The reforms will be widely welcomed by directors of corporations, courts, lawyers and the community and will create clearer rules and principles for attributing liability to directors for corporate offending.
Some of the laws surrounding directors are onerous. Many of those onerous laws are justified and completely welcome. However, some laws applying to directors of companies have gone too far. Quite frankly it is time to look at doing this because there is less interest from good people to be company directors because the law may well impact on them for matters which are no fault of theirs.
I recently undertook a trip, from 27 to 31 July, to Sydney. It was part of the parliamentary travel entitlement available to members. The reason for the trip was to participate in the Australian Institute of Company Directors course run over one week at their office in Sydney. The course was of immense value and, as the shareholding minister of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy, T-Gen, the Waterfront Corporation and possibly others, it was extraordinarily worthwhile.
The course lecturers were esteemed Australians who had deep knowledge of directorships. Most of those presenters were themselves directors of listed public companies, charitable organisations or other areas. They were highly-educated people. The class was made up of an interesting group. Six of the class were from the Department of Defence. The member for Nelson would be interested to know that four of the class were from local government, taking an interest in the principles of company directorship. A number were obviously directors of companies. One was even the director of a large multinational company, very well known to pretty well everybody. To see him there was quite interesting.
Some people in the class were experts in insolvency and marketing. It was a very diverse class. The course is run in a formal manner, in groups but with individuals having various inputs. They broke into several groups and looked at case studies.
The objectives of the course were:
to improve the understanding of compliance issues for boards and directors
The company directors course comprised of 10 modules. I will go through each of them: the role of the board and the practice of directorship; decision-making; directors’ duties and responsibilities; the board’s legal environment; risk and issues around risks for boards; strategy and the board’s role in setting company strategy; financial literacy for directors; how to drive financial performance; how to achieve board effectiveness; and how to put learning into practice.
My study in this course is continuing, but it has already proved extremely useful to me in the course of fulfilling the roles I have already referred to. I have previously urged senior public servants in the Northern Territory government to do this course and will continue to do so following the benefit I have derived from it.
When I introduced myself people asked me why I was doing the course. Since I have been an elected member, going back to 2001, I have been encouraging people to do the Australian Institute of Company Directors course. I have literally encouraged hundreds of people to get involved in that course. I have particularly tried to get Indigenous corporations and their directors involved in the course. Governance of companies and organisations is important. I was somewhat embarrassed to say that I had been promoting that people to do the course for more than a decade yet had not done it myself, so I was grateful for the opportunity to do it.
I encourage politicians to do the course. It gives a deep understanding of what it means to be director of a company or a not-for-profit organisation in Australia, and it is not just people who have a desire to be company directors who should do the course. Clearly there are people in organisations who deal with companies who need to understand how companies operate, and it is important to encourage public servants, people in local government, and people in leadership positions as members of parliament to gain an understanding of the requirements of a director.
It is hard. I imagine it would be hard for people who have had no connection to boards, companies or not-for-profit organisations to really understand what is proposed in the bill before us if they had not undertaken this course.
I note a number of people in this parliament have done the course, probably most notably my good friend the member for Sanderson and Minister for Business. He did this course probably more than a decade ago and is a past master of it. I congratulate him for doing the course, and I understand the deep insight the course has given him. As Minister for Business he will find completion of that course has stood him in good stead. I encourage all members of parliament to consider undertaking the course.
Naturally, with study entitlements, people can choose to travel overseas to further their learning, and I do not discourage anybody from doing that. I remember when I was first elected into the federal parliament we had an induction for members and senators, and it was a damn good one. We had existing members of parliament, the father of the House, and others give us briefings on how we should act and things we should look out for as members of parliament. I understand a similar induction is done in the Assembly for people elected to parliament.
One thing that stood out at my first induction was when a minister said, ‘On the matter of parliamentary travel, every time you step on an aeroplane you will be criticised probably by people in the opposition and the media, but my advice is to undertake the travel. It is almost impossible to broaden your horizons or understand ways of life in different countries, understand businesses or different complex issues without travelling.’
Whilst I understand that people are at times reluctant to travel, it was quite surprising when I was elected locally to hear the Speaker say, ‘We have a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting happening somewhere in Africa, who wants to go?’ You would see almost 24 members of parliament look to the floor and pray they were not picked to travel, because no one wanted to cop the flak for getting on an aeroplane and going overseas. To me, that is a sad state for politics to reach. Ultimately, getting out, seeing the world and understanding how it operates broadens your knowledge and makes you a better member of parliament.
At times we have to lap up the pain and humiliation that comes from doing study trips because there is greater benefit in making the trip than not. I encourage my colleagues, people from the other side of the Chamber, Independents and everybody that if you get the opportunity to travel, see other parts of the world or study on these trips then do it. I am not advocating that these things should be a whale of a time or a taxpayer-funded holiday, far from it. These trips are about broadening your knowledge and deepening your understanding.
Similarly, if there is an opportunity to study the Australia Institute of Company Directors course in lieu of overseas travel, consider it. It is a worthwhile course which broadens your knowledge and gives you a greater understanding of how the world works, how corporations and not-for-profit organisations work, how to make organisations sustainable into the future and financially solvent. For that, it is a fantastic course. It shows you where the red flags are when you start to read company financial statements and how to understand when you may be facing insolvency issues. These things are highly important. If a director does not want to rub shoulders with the law, it is vital to have this knowledge. Talking about rubbing shoulders with the law, that is what this bill is about.
There is a range of changes to director liability provisions that will be repealed and, in every regard, they do not reduce the accountability or responsibility of directors in a range of areas. In fact, they just remove onerous and often irrelevant pieces of guiding material.
For that reason I hope this bill is passed. It is a commitment from the Northern Territory to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, that we will make these reforms to provide for nationally consistent provisions in legislation, and that directors will still remain responsible for the way the strategy and risk management processes are set. Ultimately they will be responsible to shareholders and the courts for a range of decisions they make.
I commend the bill to the House and encourage people to get involved with companies. If you do not want to do the company directors course there is a local division of the AICD which often runs workshops. I know they will allow people to turn up there, and would be thrilled to see members of parliament turn up to a workshop and take an interest in what they do.
The more interest parliamentarians have in the way directors operate the better the system operates. The better the system operates, the better it is for people across the board.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the bill and thank the minister for affording me a briefing. Obviously I have not done the same course as the member for Fong Lim.
This bill implements the Council of Australian Governments’ approved reforms and consists of provisions in legislation imposing criminal liability on directors for breaches of laws by corporations.
Any way to harmonise laws between the states is worth supporting. As the second reading speech said, the COAG guidelines set out a number of criteria that can be used to determine whether a directors’ liability provision is justified. Those criteria also refer to three types of directors’ liability provisions. In a Type 1 provision, the failure of the director to take reasonable steps to prevent corporations offending must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a Type 2 provision a director is deemed to be liable unless they can produce enough evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that a defence applies. In a Type 3 provision the director is deemed to be liable for a corporate breach unless they can produce enough evidence to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities.
Of course, those provisions encompass more than I have said. Any reforms that can clarify directors’ responsibilities are really important. There are cases where you do not want a person charged with negligence if they have directed a certain thing happen but what occurs is beyond their control. We do not want people punished for something they had no control over.
I thank the minister for this legislation and I support the bill.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Fong Lim’s statement in relation to further studies. As a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, I wholeheartedly endorse the member for Fong Lim’s comments about his experience with the program.
I too am a great believer in members of this House continuing their studies. I note the member for Blain is currently undertaking a Master of Business Administration, and I commend him for that. I encourage all members of this House to continue studies. As a fellow of a number of organisations, such as the Australian Institute of Management, I encourage people to get on board with the programs they offer. As a Fellow of the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation, having been very fortunate to win a scholarship to that organisation in 2008-09, I am grateful I had that opportunity.
As a former director I went through the program and not only did I learn more, but I gained a deep insight into how the people most qualified in this country to teach pass their experience on. In this House it is so important that we hand on and gain experience. I encourage members to undertake courses, get involved with organisations and find out what is happening in the real world. I concur with the member Fong Lim. If you understand how business, companies, corporations and NGOs work you have a far better understanding of how the economy works.
I especially encourage those opposite, because the previous ALP government got us into serious financial trouble. One can only imagine why that occurred. How did you get yourself into so much trouble and a projected debt to income ratio of 98%? Is it a lack of understanding of how the economy works? My great graph about the debt levels in this country shows that debt always skyrocketed under Labor and it is left to the conservatives to reduce it. You need to understand how it works so you do not get into trouble.
One of the saving graces for Labor in this country is a guaranteed income through taxation. If private enterprise ran the government you would probably be in serious trouble with insolvency and not taking sufficient steps to stem the tide of debt and deficit.
On this side of the House about half the people have business experience, which is why we lead the country in so many of the factors that indicate if a government is performing well. Economic growth in the Territory is 6.5%. If you do not understand business or how it works, it is difficult to get yourself out of financial trouble. You have to know what you are doing. I again encourage those opposite to get some experience, undertake some courses and understand what it takes to run a vibrant economy.
When the current law was introduced it was a little onerous. It had blanket covers on everything. If you want to attract people to Australia, foreign investment, people from overseas bringing money, one has to have a corporate structure that gives directors peace of mind. There are requirements for companies from Europe, North America or Asia wanting to invest billions of dollars in a joint venture in the Northern Territory. Currently the law says if you do not live here and somebody fills out a form incorrectly you will be charged.
It is right to change the legislation because deemed director liability provisions should only be applied where there are compelling public policy reasons to do so. An example would be the potential for significant public harm caused by a particular form of corporate offending. It should only be applied where liability of the corporation is not likely, on its own, to significantly promote compliance. Also, it is reasonable that all circumstances for a director being liable, having regard to factors which could include the obligations on a corporation, and in turn a director, are clear. Another example would be the director having the capacity to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to the offending, and there are steps that a reasonable director can take to ensure a corporation’s compliance with the company’s legislative obligation.
I am all for ensuring people do the right thing. Many years ago people hid behind being director of a company and did not fulfil their obligations. This legislation is about correcting those inconsistencies and the blanket cover.
A director will now only be held liable for offending by a body corporate where the director was either personally responsible for the offending or assisted the body corporate to commit the offence – that is the default position of direct or accessorial liability which applies under the Criminal Code Act – or a director will now only be held responsible for certain cases where the body corporate offending has been identified as significantly impacting on the effect of a particular regulatory regime, and the director is negligent or reckless as to the prospect of failing to exercise an appropriate level of due diligence that would otherwise prevent the offending. An example would be failing to ensure that the body corporate had sufficient safeguards in place to prevent significant environmental harm.
There are three types of directors’ liability provisions in this bill. The first is a Type 1 provision prescribed for offences deemed to be central to the regulatory regime but not of a level of severity that requires shifting the onus of proof to the director. Type 1 provisions retain the onus on the prosecution to prove that a director failed to take the necessary steps to prevent a breach of law. That is fair. If it is not major the prosecution should prove the director was negligent in some way, shape or form.
Type 2 and Type 3 provisions are prescribed for offences that are not only central to the operation of the regulatory regime, but are also of a level of severity that justifies the automatic deeming of liability on a director for corporate offences, shifting the onus to the director to establish the defence against the deemed liability. I will reiterate that for those who may read the Hansard and foreign investors who may be following this debate: a director will not be liable where the director establishes that the necessary steps to prevent a breach of the law were undertaken.
This is common throughout the Northern Territory. If you are deemed guilty and have to prove you are innocent, if you can demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that you took the necessary steps then, rightly so, a person should not be found guilty when they demonstrate that defence.
COAG, in 2009-10, agreed to the set of principles as the basis for the reform of directors’ liabilities across Australia. COAG was obviously concerned that some directors’ liabilities laws unfairly imposed criminal liability on directors where the director had no personal responsibility for the circumstances in which the breach occurred. It is important for our foreign investors to know that if they sit on a board – there are numerous boards in this country with people from overseas sitting on them – if, in their absence, provided they keep tabs on what is going on, read their board meeting papers and contribute to board meetings to ensure the company and the chief executive officers are doing the right thing, and make sure they direct them to do things if they believe they are not, then those defences are built in.
In developing this bill the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice undertook an audit of the Northern Territory statute books and identified 58 acts containing offences that impose personal criminal liability on directors. These acts were identified as part of the national regulatory regime, such as Work Health and Safety, and were excluded by COAG for further consideration at a national level. Most government departments were consulted in relation to this process.
In drafting the director liability provisions I am aware, through questions I asked in my capacity as a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, that care be taken to ensure that the obligations of the director were clear having regard to things like the director’s capacity to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to the offending.
What is the role of a director? If you are a director, it is recorded in the minutes and you make notes at the time that you opposed something vigorously and tried to persuade the board. You need to record that and bring it to your defence in a case where members or directors of the board face prosecution for a breach.
They need to also regard other factors, including steps that a reasonable director might take to ensure a corporation’s compliance with a legislative obligation, for instance, if a director has made a reporting condition and other directors have done something else that should be used in the director’s defence.
If these provisions are not built in, people will be reluctant to conduct business in the Territory or Australia or invest in this country. There is a lot of interest in Australia at the moment, especially northern Australia. With the burgeoning middle class in Asia and the tsunami of middle-class people expected in the next few years, the demand for product in Australia is coming under increasing pressure.
You have a blank canvas across the top of Australia, and the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia clearly indicates that. We paint what we want to paint. This government is talking to people about direct foreign investment. We want people to feel comfortable about investing in Australia and that they can have joint ventures with existing businesses to promote economic development, growth and jobs for our kids. When they participate in that, it is important they know these defences are built in. Hopefully, when this bill passes they will be built into the requirements of company directors.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors continues to press the government to make further changes to significantly reduce the number of direct liability provisions, and to remove Type 3 and change Type 2 to Type 1. While changes were made during the drafting of the bill to address many of the Australian Institute of Company Directors issues, not all the Australian Institute of Company Directors requests could be accommodated.
Some offences are so serious, and the consequences of breaching those offences so severe, that there is a public expectation that if the offences are committed by a body corporate those responsible for the body corporate’s conduct will be held accountable. As a result, the COAG principles acknowledge that Type 2 and Type 3 provisions may be necessary.
Consistent with those COAG principles, the bill only retains Type 3 liability in two acts in the Territory. The first is the Criminal Code Act in relation to child pornography offences, and secondly the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act in relation to significant pollution. This is against the setting of a bill which will remove or reduce automatic director liability for hundreds of offences that presently attract a director liability similar to that of Type 3, including trifling offences such as incorrectly filling out a form.
Previously a foreign company could say, ‘This is terrible. I will be prosecuted if I am overseas and fail to fill in a form.’ That was an automatic prosecution. If I was a director going to a foreign country to invest in a joint venture I would be horrified to think I could not have the defence of being overseas or I had instructed the chief executive officer to do it. If I had e-mails saying, ‘You need to fill this form out’, and somebody did not do it I would be responsible and charged under the current blanket legislation. That is an appalling state of affairs. Rightly so, legislation has been brought before this House to ensure that is changed.
What is the situation in the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions? There is a lot of information in relation to this, but the Territory sits roughly in the middle of jurisdictions in the application of director liability for corporate offending. Some jurisdictions apply director liability to more offences and at a higher level. Some jurisdictions have also retained the old blanket liability in some instances. For example, Victoria applied Type 3 provisions to 55 offences across five acts when implementing the COAG reform. Under the Victorian Taxation Administration Act there are 15 offences, 19 offences under the Duties Act, the Livestock Diseases Control and the Food Act have 25 offences, and there are six offences under the Dairy Act. I hope that some of those companies investing in Victoria might say, ‘Let’s go to the Northern Territory’.
Looking at the food requirements in agriculture alone – this deals with taxation and agriculture – livestock diseases. What can we offer in the Territory? We change our legislation with this bill before the House and hopefully people will say, ‘Here is a blank canvas; develop in northern Australia. We can go there. We know the requirement for protein and beef cattle will skyrocket.’ I believe we have to increase our cattle production. There will be room for many people to move to the Territory.
As Minister for Business I might, for instance, write to some of these people. Perhaps we should invite them to a seminar and say, ‘Move to the Northern Territory and reduce your liability as a director. You can come here provided you do the right thing. If someone does not do the right thing under your control you will not end up in gaol as a result of onerous legislation.’
The Western Australian Directors’ Liability Reform Bill, which recently passed through both the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council, applies Type 3 liability in six acts, comprising a total of 90 separate offences. Again we go to the Food Act 2008, Taxation Administration Act 2003, Tobacco Products Control Act 2006, Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014.
The Northern Territory is in a pretty good state. Queensland is perhaps at the other end of the spectrum. When implementing directors’ liability amendments, Queensland did not apply Type 2 or Type 3 liability. While the Queensland approach has been held out by some as the best, there is some concern that this may send the wrong message to directors and bodies corporate that due and proper diligence is not important. I believe a director on a board should strive for excellence. However, such an approach does not necessarily accommodate the concern about serious offences that may significantly and widely impact on the public and may lead to difficulties with enforcement.
The approach in Queensland also differs insofar as while restricting its amendments to Type 1 liability, it continues to retain blanket liability in relation to matters not covered by those amendments. For example, the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 retains blanket director liability where the Territory proposes to replace blanket liability under its equivalent, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, with selected applications of director liability on more significant offences.
That is wise, and I commend those who have put this together. The Australian Capital Territory is the only other state or territory that has a model criminal code. Our offences are similar to those of the ACT; however, changes were made to the drafting structure to take into account difficulties experienced in the Australian Capital Territory.
It should be noted that Tasmania introduced the bill to implement the COAG reform in 2013. That bill lapsed when the Tasmanian parliament was dissolved for a general election. Tasmania presently retains the status quo of deemed liability for all offences that may be committed by a body corporate. I am sure Tasmania will be doing something in that area shortly; however, I believe they have a fairly busy legislative program and this is probably further down the list.
They too have taken seriously what COAG is trying to implement to get rid of blanket covers. People have asked me, ‘What will this bill achieve?’ I answer that currently, when a body corporate breaks the law, a director is automatically deemed to have committed the same offence. If a director wishes to avoid liability for the offence, the onus is on the director to prove that the necessary steps to prevent the breach were undertaken. That goes back to the heart of filling out the form. ‘Did we fill out the right form? If we did not, will we be in serious trouble?’
The bill implements COAG’s commitment to reform director liability provisions by applying principles which recognise that bodies corporate are legal entities in their own right and directors are simply part of the management structure. The bill achieves this by repealing the existing blanket director liability in 40 Territory acts which automatically deem a director to be liable for any offence that a body corporate may commit, regardless of the nature of the offending.
These are important things to note because the bill also recognises that under certain circumstances it may be necessary to go behind the corporate veil and place additional accountability requirements on those who, in effect, have control over the manner in which a body corporate conducts its affairs. The bill will achieve this by applying the COAG principles to provide guidance to directors on the standards of due diligence expected in relation to preventing the body corporate breaking the law.
What are the three types of liability? Recognising the default position of accessorial or direct liability may not be sufficient to adequately enforce a regulatory regime, COAG developed three levels of liability to reflect the severity of the body corporate’s offending and the required level of diligence expected of a director to ensure the body corporate’s compliance with the law.
During review of the Territory’s statutory books a number of offences were identified as being central to the enforcement of the regulatory regime, thus necessitating retention of director liability provisions. Other offences were identified as matters that, although serious enough to warrant prosecution of the body corporate if it broke the law, were not of such significance that warranted imposing additional liability on the director.
The review also assessed the appropriate level of liability that should be applied to specific offences, resulting in a reduction of the evidentiary burden on directors for the majority of offences. The evidentiary burden on a director has only been retained in specific circumstances where a high degree of accountability was identified to ensure integrity of the regulatory regime. So much of this has been thought through to make sure we sit in the middle of the road on these types of offences.
I reiterate that Type 1 offence liability provisions are prescribed for offences deemed to be central to the regulatory regime but not of a level of severity that requires the shifting of the onus of the director. A Type 1 provision retains the onus on the prosecution to establish the liability of a director.
That is important for foreign investors. As Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade I do a lot of work in the investment area. If this bill passes it will allow me to say to these people, ‘You can invest in Australia with confidence. There are defences in place.’
It may not be a lot, but in my recent travels I had two major companies ask me about this issue. It has also been an enduring issue of discussion with the Australian Institute of Company Directors. The organisation had ongoing discussions for many years in relation to this and is concerned for its members. It is also concerned about the possibility of further economic development and partnerships with people who come to Australia to invest and generate wealth.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to standing order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member for Sanderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for indulging me in this debate.
Type 2 liability provisions are prescribed for offences that are not only central to the operation of the regulatory regime, but are also of a level of severity that justifies the automatic deeming of liability on a director for a corporate offence.
These provisions shift the onus to the director to establish a defence against the deemed liability but the more substantial burden of proof is retained by the prosecution. While the director will have to establish a defence, the prosecution will still need to prove that the director did not take the necessary steps to prevent the corporate offending.
This clarifies what is expected of a director, and if you are not doing the right thing this is what will happen. It also takes away the blanket result that irrespective of what you do you will be convicted. It is hardly worth turning up to court at the moment because you can say, ‘I did this, I did that’, and the court will say, ‘That’s all good, but we have to convict you because that is the law’.
Type 3 liability provisions deem the director to be liable for a corporate breach unless they can produce enough evidence to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities. For Type 3 provisions the director bears a legal burden to establish their defence, which reverses the usual onus of proof in criminal law.
Directors have the opportunity to defend themselves, and this is where the defence I spoke about earlier is built in. We must have these defences because if a director is charged and has sufficient evidence and has kept good minutes of board meetings, e-mail trails and correspondence – which we all should do, not just company directors – they have the appropriate material to act in their defence.
Type 3 provisions are inconsistent with the general presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Reversing the onus of proof is only legislated for in exceptional circumstances. Those few circumstances where Type 3 provisions are applied include where the offence is of a serious nature, such as where it endangers public safety, and where the nature of the offence makes it difficult for the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt. For example, where one party – the director – is the only party able to possess the specific knowledge required to either prove or disprove the offending.
So many matters should be taken into account when drafting this type of legislation. I believe all departments were consulted, and the Australian Institute of Company Directors was consulted. Other bodies have been spoken to and we now have a workable bill which, if passed, will attract people from interstate and foreign investment. That it important for our economic development and will enable us to continue building the Territory the way we have over the last three years.
The member for Fong Lim encouraged members to obtain knowledge and experience so when they look at bills that come before this House, or they look at the economic development of the Northern Territory, they understand how things works.
When considering legislation, even opposition members – when we introduce legislation, to have some knowledge makes it easier to understand. It also helps you understand what we are doing and why we are more successful with the economic management of the Northern Territory than members opposite.
That is evidenced by the historical graphs on debt and income. When we had a Labor federal government debt rose dramatically, and when the conservative side of politics governs the debt goes down. It goes up then down. It is like the pyramids I have spoken about on many occasions.
Labor is very good at building pyramids of debt. Sadly, Labor is not very good at understanding how business operates. When you change legislation – not just in relation to directors’ liability – you need to understand how business works when making decisions about legislation that has a serious impact on business people.
When people see those serious impacts they decide not to do business – under a Labor government – or not to expand or generate economic growth. People making these decisions base them on the attitude of the government of the day and the legislation government passes. We are required to take all those things into consideration, which is why we have the highest level of confidence in Australia, at +43. The national average is +31 and we are the highest in the country, a full 12 percentage points above the national average.
That is a really good position to be in. We bring legislation like this forward to ensure people do the right thing but are not prosecuted because of some minor failing of theirs or people they give instructions to.
I congratulate those who have brought this forward. I congratulate the Australian Institute of Company Directors for many years of lobbying COAG as well as the various states and territories to ensure we get a balanced view. Some may say it is not a balanced view and we may need to look at this in the future. That may be the case, but at this stage we ask for support and I commend this bill to the House. We ask that the members opposite and the Independents look at this and say, ‘This is wise legislation’. Obviously as times change we will look at the legislation again and, if necessary, amend it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate those who put this together.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have an Economics degree, postgraduate in Finance (DFS), and have been director of a small business. I have also been director of YMCA of the Top End and Treasurer at the same time.
These issues, responsibilities and duties become very much a part of the way you do business as a professional. It is important to have an understanding of what professionalism is when you come into these roles. Previous speakers have mentioned the importance of educating yourself on the responsibilities, duties, rights and obligations of company directors. Maybe there should be more clarity on what those things are for politicians, because it seems the director of a publicly listed company is expected to act in a certain way but there are often not the same requirements for politicians.
This bill is pretty innocuous. Not too much is amazing or scary. It does not change what is right or wrong, it just changes where the burden of proof is for some things: guilty until proven innocent changes to innocent until proven guilty. This is pretty smart, because where company directors operate firms across borders, jurisdictions have different time lines and licensing requirements, and things expire at different times on different days and require different information. One form cannot do it. It is very easy, as a company director signing off many things, to use the form for the wrong state, in which case you are in breach of the act.
This is smart. It means the Northern Territory comes into line with the other states and removes some inconsistencies. It also means, as has been said to exhaustion, that there is a difference between Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 breaches. Of course, with Type 2 and Type 3 being the more serious ones, the liability still exists.
What are those liabilities and duties? It is good to go through them to understand the liabilities of directors and perhaps reflect on our duties and liabilities: the duty to act in the interests of a company as a whole is the first fiduciary duty of a company director; the duty not to act for an improper purpose; and the duty of care and diligence, which means you exercise due care and diligence when making financial decisions to ensure you are not making a strategic decision that will lead the company up the garden path.
There is, of course, the duty to retain discretion. In retaining discretion I have seen many issues arise, particularly when I was a stockbroker, where individuals would buy and sell their own stocks based on information they had. Of course, ASIC would not be particularly happy about that and would ask some serious questions about what they were doing.
There is a duty to avoid conflict of interest, which we talked about. I would have mentioned that in the ICAC debate because we need to look at the way we disclose those conflicts. It is sad that as a director of the YMCA I had to resign not because I was not declaring an interest, but because neither the YMCA nor I could take the chance the opposition would not try to use the YMCA holding or winning a government contract to create an allegation against me. Even though it would be baseless, it would end up in a receptive media and mean questions would be asked where none would be required. It was very irritating.
I think, ‘Okay, if they are the duties what are the liabilities?’ The liabilities are where directors can be liable for debts and breaches. For example, trading insolvent is a bad one. Trading insolvent means you are unable to pay debts, and liabilities exceed assets. That is interesting when you look at the history of the previous government.
Unreasonable director transactions handles stupid decisions and goes to the fiduciary duty of due diligence. Whenever a director goes through a transaction the test will be what steps were taken to avoid this, and would a reasonable person have taken those steps to avoid it. This goes hand in hand with environmental and work health and safety issues where steps should be taken and, if they are, the risks are generally minimised. These things are all about risk and minimising risks to directors and firms.
The loss of employee entitlements is also where directors are liable. This is interesting because people may remember when asbestos was used as a building product and a firm tried to wind itself up so it would not be liable to pay compensation. They knew the claims would continue because asbestos stays around and is harmful for a long time. An Australian firm tried to relocate to a different country with a new name to avoid that. They were required to set up a trust fund and pay in what an actuary had decided so the expected liabilities could be paid.
Tax and super compensation – directors are not allowed to make decisions for firms where it then absolves them from paying tax and super compensation. They then become personally liable to pay that out.
Any personal guarantee a director makes he is responsible for not the firm.
These things all come down to what steps were taken to avoid this, and which way the court looks at the burden of proof. I look at it either way. Shareholders will be asking what steps were taken to avoid it. An important thing company directors have to understand is risk management – understanding risk, where risk comes from, different methods to avoid risk and implementing strategies to minimize risk.
With regard to fiduciary duties, directors have to know what is required of them. Firms cannot have somebody who just wants to be a director because they can quickly be in breach and find themselves liable for some nasty things.
With regard to politics, I have a big problem reconciling what is required of a company director and what is required of a politician. While we are talking about ICACs, it is important to think about the responsibilities and duties of politicians, perhaps even about what is said in this House. People should be liable for the allegations they make.
This is structured in an intelligent way. The Attorney-General is a thorough person. I commend this bill to the House. It does not do anything contentious or nasty but simplifies things, particularly for people working across borders. It brings the Northern Territory in line with other states and achieves a balance between what lawyers hold dear – people are innocent until proven guilty – and applies it where necessary in this bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear this bill has the support of the House from the quality and depth of understanding displayed by members, particularly the member for Sanderson, whose knowledge of this bill is comprehensive to say the least.
I feel like a candle next to a lighthouse due to the brilliance of his edification to members of this House and his understanding of the bill. I wish I had paid more attention to him because I would have learnt a lot more about it through the process.
The principle is quite simple: directors’ liability will ebb and flow and we have to find a happy medium for what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in the liabilities directors are exposed to.
I do not need to expand on what has already been explained to this House so thoroughly by so many members. To do so would repeat matters that have already been discussed.
However, I want to mention the Type 3 provisions. Under the legislation those liabilities continue to apply to directors, particularly when they are actively engaged in polluting the environment or should know better, or their company is engaged in conveying child sexual abuse material. I understand those are the two limits to the Type 3 provision. That is not a bad thing, and most people would agree. I would hate to see somebody rendered not liable for the conduct of their business when they pump carbon tetrachloride into the last remaining habitat of a blue-throated warbler. Such a thing would be unpalatable and unconscionable in our community and there would not be a director in the world – certainly not in Australia – who would consider that appropriate.
Companies today seek a social licence in the way they have never done before. There were successful court cases in the 1960s where companies, in the process of being wound up, tried to pay out their employees. Shareholders successfully sued those companies so the employees were not paid out and there was money available for the unsecured creditors through the shareholding system.
We have come a long way since that time. If you ran the DSM-5 test over a company in the 1960s and looked at the rules they applied, I would not be surprised if the DSM-5 test produced a diagnosis of some type of sociopathy. That would no longer apply in the current context, and I suspect it will continue to operate into the future.
Companies make a point to engage with the community because a corporate reputation is important. ConocoPhillips supports the Darwin Festival. We also have INPEX, which has been a good and solid corporate citizen and has spent large amounts of money. I remember Mr Kuroda, the head of INPEX, addressing an audience at the Darwin Convention Centre. He was very careful in his short but poignant address when talking about the corporate licence INPEX needed to come to the Northern Territory. It was gracious and understanding, and demonstrated the philosophy that companies have a different way of conducting themselves in the modern world. It shows respect and decorum.
Company director legislation describes where that fulcrum should be at the point of balance. At the moment we have that about right. We understand that the point of balance can change over time, and today we are changing that. We are finessing it.
I thank members opposite for their support, as well as those on this side, particularly the member for Sanderson, of this important legislation before the House. I look forward to this sound and sensible bill becoming a sound and sensible act on the statute book of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2014-15. This report outlines the range of activities the committee has undertaken over the past year. This provides an opportunity for the committee to advise the Assembly of the work it has done, which is not otherwise reported to the Assembly.
Throughout the year the committee met with the Department of Housing to discuss remote Indigenous housing, and the Department of Health to discuss management of the aeromedical services contract and the development of its grants management system. The committee also received briefings from the Auditor-General on the findings from agency audits. The Auditor-General also briefed the committee on performance reporting by government agencies and the anticipated introduction of mandated performance reporting under the Australian Accounting Standards.
The committee did not receive any referrals or undertake any inquiries during the reporting period. Committee members welcome the new Auditor-General, Julie Crisp, to the position and thank her for the support she has provided.
The committee also mourned the loss of former Auditor-General, Mr Frank McGuiness PSM. Last year the committee noted the significant contribution Frank had made to the Northern Territory as Auditor-General and is greatly saddened by his untimely death.
I thank committee members for their continued cooperative and bipartisan approach in the conduct of the committee’s activities over the past financial year.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
MOTION
Referral to Public Accounts Committee – Funding of Rugby League Facilities
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the PAC investigates all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin. This would include but not be limited to the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara and the decision to spend $20m to upgrade Richardson Park.
The object of the inquiry would be to ascertain what the original plans for rugby league at Marrara were and to investigate why there was a change to Richardson Park, who made that decision, who else had a say in that decision, what due diligence occurred before that decision was made and was Cabinet involved in the decision.
The hearings would be public and if requested by the PAC would require any ministers, departmental officers, departmental staff, rugby league officials or supporters who have been involved either directly or indirectly, or anyone else, to give evidence in relation to the above matters.
This issue needs investigation. I have put together some history of what has happened so far. There have been some changes, even today. People can comment, but the crux of this debate is to say these are the issues, some money has been allocated for a proposal to upgrade Richardson Park, and there are some issues in relation to that. I will go through this.
Because there are some issues it is appropriate the Public Accounts Committee looks at it. This is a budget allocation and there is some concern about what has happened in relation to the allocation for Richardson Park.
Today we are debating whether the PAC should investigate the spending of $20m on Richardson Park, which was abandoned by Northern Territory Rugby League on 12 February 2015. Originally in 2012 there was a report called A Proposal to relocate the Northern Territory Rugby League from Richardson Park to the Marrara Sports Complex. The Executive Summary said:
There was an attached letter from the South Darwin Sporting League, which is not part of this report.
In its conclusion and recommendation the report stated the following:
In the Estimates Committee of 12 June 2014, the minister for Sport, Mr Conlan, when referring to questions from Mr Vowles said:
In the NT News on 2 January 2013 this article appeared:
On 12 February 2014 NTRL pulled out of Richardson Park. The NT News said that the decision by the NTRL board and the seven club presidents to leave the former Richardson Park in Ludmilla ends a 55-year association with the ground.
In April the budget was introduced, and a media release from the Chief Minister and Mr Tollner was issued but without any mention of the minister for Sport. The media release said there would be a $20m upgrade to Richardson Park.
A letter in the NT News on 12 May had the headline, ‘Bad move as fans overruled’.
There was an article in the NT News on 29 April, after the budget:
The next time this was discussed was at the Estimates Committee. We had a new Sports minister and the shadow minister for sport, the member for Nightcliff, asked the minister:
Hon Gary Higgins, Minister for Sport and Recreation replied:
Ms Fyles said:
To which Mr Higgins responded:
Mr Higgins said:
Ms Fyles said:
Mr Higgins responded:
Ms Fyles asked:
Mr Higgins answered:
Further on in that discussion – and it is important we look at this – Ms Fyles said:
Mr Higgins responded:
Further on in Ms Fyles asked:
Ms Fyles asked:
Mr Higgins answered:
Ms Fyles answered:
To Richardson Park; spending $20m.
Mr Higgins said:
Finally Ms Fyles asked:
Mr Conlan called a point of order:
That was more or less the end of that discussion. What would the average person in the street think of that? What is going on? I understand there has been an announcement – I have not heard officially – that this may not happen. I have heard stories from the rugby league fraternity as I am often with the Litchfield Bears and I hear things. I talk to people and many shake their heads about what is going on.
Obviously the government intended to spend $20m at Richardson Park. I am not sure what support it had. Most people I have spoken to expect the money to be spent at Marrara.
The report was interesting. There was a time line for spending the money and it added up. To put in most of the things they were asking for – this was a few years ago – including a grandstand, the figure was around $16m, which is less than that being put into Richardson Park. That included a new $9m grandstand, change rooms and a new NTRL office building.
I believe the rugby league public would like to know why these decisions were made and who made them. What is the background? Did someone conduct a feasibility study of one place over another?
There are questions to be asked about why we would send soccer or football to Richardson Park when Larrakia Park has just been built and includes lighting. We just held a first-class football match between Adelaide United and Melbourne City on a facility that is regarded as first class. I would like to know who, from the Football Federation of the Northern Territory, has said they are happy to go to Richardson Park when they have one of the best sites in Darwin right on McMillan’s Road. You get advertising just by being there. I am not sure where this has come from.
The best way to clear the air is to take this to the PAC. They can investigate from the beginning, question the relevant people involved in the decision-making process, and they can find out if there was a feasibility study. If there was a feasibility study, can the PAC investigate to see if it was done properly? Where did this money come from? All matters arising from this discussion are within the role of the Public Accounts Committee.
I hope the government will support its PAC. The Public Accounts Committee can self-refer. It would make it a lot easier if the PAC knew it had the backing of the government. The government needs to be up front if it wants open and transparent government.
I was on the Council of Territory Cooperation with the member for Port Darwin. He asked for openness and transparency, and raised many issues which might have been uncomfortable for government. He raised those issues for the same reason we are today.
It is important that the government supports the principle of a Public Accounts Committee. Why do we have one? It is to investigate the spending of government. It will look funny if the government says, ‘No, we don’t support this inquiry.’ Umm! A lot of ‘umm’ questions will be asked. Why? If the reasoning behind this is good then there should be no problem getting the PAC to look at it.
This needs to be done on behalf of the rugby league fraternity of the Northern Territory, especially in the Top End. I am no expert on this. I have been to Richardson Park many times for matches and finals, but not so much to Warren Park. I have been to the AFL. Obviously there is an historical connection to Richardson Park.
If the government spends this money on these facilities at Marrara – AFL, rugby union, tennis, football, soccer, netball, hockey, cricket – has a bus facility there, car parking, is on a main road and is the centre of Darwin sporting facilities, it makes sense. There are problems with expanding Richardson Park. It is near the mangroves and there are problems with lighting, neighbours and noise, and it will be very difficult to expand yet there is room at Warren Park. There may be very good reasons I do not know about, but so far it does not make sense.
Again, the PAC will look at the arguments for spending $20m at Richardson Park and we will ask experts what they think. We could ask club presidents for their point of view. If people want to speak to the PAC and are concerned saying something in public might affect funding for the following year, the PAC could hear it in camera. I feel there are people who cannot speak because they are concerned about what might happen if they do. This is why you have a PAC. If people have concerns this is the opportunity. It would be good to hear what people think about rugby league continuing and expanding in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to support this motion. It is no big deal. The big deal is whether the government will give all the answers the PAC wants. If the government does not support it then it will not look good.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments.
This side of the House will not support this motion, especially in its current form. While I do not have a problem with an investigation by the PAC into funding for rugby league, I do have a problem with the PAC investigating Cabinet decisions.
Cabinet decisions have always been held in confidence. That is the comment I made at the Estimates Committee. These conventions underpin the operation of the Australian Constitution and executive government. The Northern Territory adheres to these conventions, which are underwritten rules around which the Westminster parliamentary system is built. A vital convention in a Westminster-based parliamentary system is that Cabinet meets in secret and speaks with one voice. It is the collective ministerial responsibility. As is appropriate, Cabinet decisions and discussions are confidential.
As I explained at estimates, the department has a role in the Cabinet decision. The department will provide advice on a range of avenues, and quite often will put up various options. It is then up to Cabinet to consider the options. I do not support the full wording of this motion. While I have no problem in the PAC investigating funding into rugby league, I have a concern in regard to investigations into the processes of this Cabinet decision. It is a process of Cabinet which the Public Accounts Committee should not be looking into.
There is $20m currently available to rugby league to upgrade facilities. As recently as three weeks ago I held my last meeting with the rugby league clubs. Government is still looking at the feedback received from sporting stakeholders regarding the project. I made that quite clear in radio interviews as far back as when the announcement was made. I made it quite clear there were options in how we structure this and what sports would be involved. There were no concrete plans.
In summary, I will not enter into a debate about rugby league tonight. I am quite happy for the Public Accounts Committee to look into the funding to rugby league, but I am not happy with, and will not support, a reference to the Public Accounts Committee to look into the Cabinet decision process.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for this motion. He is so interested in understanding the process of government that he forgets what the processes are.
The Public Accounts Committee is there to investigate government expenditure. In this case there has been no expenditure by government. There has been a budget allocation but the money has not yet been spent. My first word of advice, member for Nelson, is get your facts right. The Public Accounts Committee generally investigates expenditure and no expenditure has occurred. This is simply a budget allocation. It was announced in the budget to much fanfare.
We have not funded any rugby league facilities in Darwin yet and that is another point in your motion. I would like the Public Accounts Committee to get on board with this as there is indeed a good story to tell. This is fantastic news for rugby league.
Members might not be aware, but I have been involved in the rugby league community since arriving in the Northern Territory. I came from Queensland so I grew up with rugby league. The sport is a passion of mine. I have been up front in telling people about supporting the Parramatta Eels since I was 10 years old. I am a proud supporter of Queensland during the State of Origin and love seeing the Maroons belt those Cockroaches from New South Wales.
I loved heading out to Richardson Park to watch Brothers thrash the daylights out of the other teams in the Northern Territory. I know the member for Nelson is a big supporter of the Bears and good on him. The Litchfield mob needs supporters as well. It is only appropriate that I tell the member for Nelson I would happily spend money at Freds Pass to support the Litchfield Bears, such is my passion for rugby league ...
Mr Wood: I have that in writing.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, I encourage you to get your Litchfield rugby league mates together, put together a submission and send it to the minister for Sport. Copy me into it as well please because I would love to get involved and be seen to be supporting rugby league in the rural area.
My father is German and he supports soccer. I am originally from Queensland – a country boy – and I support rugby league. I played a fair bit of union. I was never particularly good at league as I am too tall and cannot run to save myself.
Why we put money into Richardson Park as opposed to Warren Park is a no-brainer. Richardson Park, as the name suggests, is the home of rugby league. There is an existing facility there.
Over the years a lot of money has been spent on Richardson Park. It is a fantastic location to play rugby league. Money was allocated some years ago by the former government to NTRL to investigate how the facilities could be improved. From memory, it was around $60 000; it may have been $90 000.
At that time the NTRL commissioned some concepts to be drawn up. I recall they employed the late Hans Voss, who designed Cullen Bay and a range of things. He was a credit to the Territory and a wonderful man as well.
He put together designs for Richardson Park to see how it could be improved – extra grandstands, paving the car park and access through Ludmilla Primary School from Bagot Road. All those things were in the plan he developed for rugby league.
The NTRL took it to the Labor government, said it was their plan, and the Labor government said, ‘That’s all very good. We’ll put it in the bottom drawer’, and that was the end of it.
They spent all that money and nothing occurred. I remember it because management at rugby league said, ‘This is ridiculous. Why would government fund us to develop a plan for the future of rugby league and when we give them the plan they turn their back and walk away?’
My understanding is that plan has been pulled out and dusted off. At the time it was costed at around $9m or $12m, which, allowing for inflation, brings you to a figure of $18m in today’s dollars. If you add a few million for cost overruns you quickly find where the $20m figure came from. It is simple and you do not have to be Einstein to work it out.
‘Why not go to Warren Park?’ is the question. Warren Park is owned by South Darwin. I played rugby union for Souths and know Warren Park well. I had plenty of training sessions there.
Warren Park is a bit of a mess because the previous Labor government, when they excavated for TIO stadium, dumped the rubble on Warren Park and never did anything about it. It still stands there today, untouched ...
Mr Wood: Have an inquiry into that.
Mr TOLLNER: We should have an inquiry into that. We will have an inquiry into that as well.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I am giving you some history here so sit tight, relax and listen. Kenny is smiling because he knows what I am saying is right. He has been around and understands these things.
Warren Park is pretty well unplayable. It belongs to Souths. Souths are interested in rugby league going out there because it solves a big problem for them. It is a no-brainer. You could build something there.
The problem with Warren Park is it is too small to put the same sized facility you have at Richardson Park, and for the budgeted cost – $42m was the suggested cost ...
Mr Wood: $16m.
Mr TOLLNER: $16m?
Mr Wood: That is what is in here.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know what you are talking about, but the suggestion was that we would spend in excess of $40m at Warren Park to build a large rectangular sporting field. One look at that will tell you that you would not come close to replicating what exists at Richardson Park. To replicate that would cost you in excess of $100m, and that is not exaggerating ...
Mr Wood: The PAC can investigate that claim.
Mr TOLLNER: You can investigate that. The PAC can investigate anything because it can self-reference. Generally the PAC investigates expenditure, but if you want to chart off on a completely new course with the PAC that is fine, do it. It is not my committee and you can investigate anything you like.
Member for Nelson, I am suggesting that a man who is so focused on process seems to throw process out the window when he wants to look at something he thinks there are problems with.
Warren Park is unsuitable for that type of investment unless we had $100m to throw at it. You might say more or you might say less – whatever. It is a big figure.
By spending $20m, or a fraction of that, at Richardson Park not only do we satisfy the rugby league fraternity – the member for Nelson readily admits they have a love for Richardson Park as that is where they come from. It is called the home of rugby league and they want to be there. I understand the NRL was pretty excited about going to a new facility. The NRL is a recent addition to Darwin and does not have the same heritage or roots the rugby league fraternity has …
Ms Fyles: You never cared so much about heritage before, Dave. Where has this newfound love for heritage come from?
Mr TOLLNER: Funnily enough, I have been here since the late 1980s. I arrived in 1987 or 1988. At the time I shared a house with a bunch of blokes who played for Brothers Rugby League. I was there most Fridays and Saturdays. Kenny knows who they were.
I moved to Beatrice Hill with a bloke called Bobby Hanna, who was the legend of rugby league in the 1980s. We lived out there for about five years. I know a bit about what happens with rugby league. Graeme Gow was one of my best mates, member for Nelson, and a good friend of yours as well. Everybody knew Gowie. He was a good man for the Bears amongst other clubs. There is a bit of history.
I understand a few of the players and the people involved in rugby league in the Territory. I understand their passion for Richardson Park and why they want to be there. Games have always been played there.
Mr Wood: It was unanimous to go to Warren Park.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know about that decision or who supported it. I know the amount of people who are ringing me saying, ‘Holy hell, Dave, none of us want to move to Marrara. Our home has always been at Richardson Park. We want to be there.’
This facility is not being built for ownership by any one sport. As the minister for Sport said, this facility will be owned by the Northern Territory government and will be available for rugby league, soccer, touch football and rugby union ...
Ms Fyles: Soccer does not need it and touch football does not want it.
Mr TOLLNER: You say soccer clubs do not need it, but they want a facility where they can get 7000 to 10 000 people to attend. The member for Nightcliff says that soccer clubs do not want a first-class facility with first-class lighting where they can televise. They are happy to play under inferior lights at Marrara. The suggestion is that rugby union and touch football are the same. Member for Nightcliff, get in touch with your local community.
Ms Fyles: I am.
Mr TOLLNER: I beg to differ. You are clearly not in touch with your local community. We want a first-class facility in the Northern Territory. Rugby league wanted to vacate the place because they could not afford the maintenance. These facilities cost a lot of money ...
Ms Fyles: How will they afford it on $20m?
Mr TOLLNER: They will not afford it on $20m because they will not own it. The Northern Territory government will own and maintain it. We will maintain it for the benefit of those sports so they will never have the problem of trying to maintain huge facilities and expensive grounds again. That facility will be available not just for rugby league but for rugby union, soccer, touch football and any other major event that wants seating for a lot of people under very bright lights that are capable of televising the event ...
Mr Wood: It will never be the home of rugby league again then.
Mr TOLLNER: I put to you, member for Nelson, once that facility is built and completed rugby league might come to government to ask to lease some space. I suggest that is a distinct possibility. I do not think rugby league is too enamoured about playing on fields at Palmerston. They are struggling to keep that going. Not too many people are keen to go to TIO Stadium to watch the Parramatta Eels because they are so far away from the game. Those big games will want to come into Richardson Park, a purpose-built facility that can accommodate large crowds. I strongly suggest …
Mr Wood: In a residential area?
Mr TOLLNER: They have played rugby league there for decades. Ludmilla is in my electorate. The whole community in Ludmilla is aware that is where rugby league is played ...
Mr Wood: Those poor people.
Mr TOLLNER: There is no pleasing the member for Nelson. You cannot have a small block in the rural area and you cannot have rugby league in the city! Goodness me! Trying to interpret the direction the member for Nelson is taking us – most people understand that rugby league is played at Richardson Park and always has been. That is where I went on Fridays, Saturdays or whenever they were playing. I watched it, watched my children participate and watched my mates. Great stuff! That is where it has always happened.
I was saddened when rugby league decided to leave there because they could not afford the maintenance and upkeep. It was a sad day for ruby league. I talk to people all over the Territory involved in rugby league – people who are the heart of rugby league – and they feel guttered that games are no longer played at Richardson Park.
Telephone Stem and Jackie Edwards and see what they think about moving rugby league to Warren Park at the back of Marrara. Talk to people involved in rugby league – John Adams at Brothers. Ricki Finn probably wants it at South Darwin being a Souths man. Talk to the Carbones and those fellows. They are in your electorate, member for Nelson, and they understand the game. Do you not think they want to be back at Richardson Park? Of course they do.
Mr Wood: They are in the masters now.
Mr TOLLNER: They may well be, but they have been around for a while and love the sport. Are we not trying to encourage people who love the sport to get involved in the sport? One of the most popular announcements this government has made in relation to a sporting group is now being denigrated.
Mr Wood: No, it is not. We are asking you to show us …
Mr TOLLNER: You are asking us about process. We are focused on outcomes. You wonder how we manage to balance the budget. It is because we focus on outcomes and costs. There is a range of areas. Should we spend $100m at Warren Park when we could spend $20m renovating Richardson Park? As Treasurer, as much as I love rugby league I do not want to spend $100m at Warren Park on an environmental cleanup after Labor. Crazy stuff! Someone said, ‘Let’s merge rugby league and rugby union’. You have not been around very long if you think that will work! It is like they said a few years ago, ‘We will merge netball and basketball and put them in the same stadium’. Hang on, that did not work. Basketball ended up with the stadium; netball ended up across the road. It is only due to this government’s funding that we have better netball facilities. It is difficult to combine two sports into one location.
If you want to send this to the PAC, go for it. It is no skin off my nose one way or the other. To me it is a great announcement, a great thing for rugby league. We want to see it happen and it will. Government will get this facility fixed and I hope to see it happen for next year’s Parramatta game.
What a wonderful way of launching a renovated Richardson Park. There could be 10 000 screaming fans at Richardson Park to launch it. How good would that be? Kenny, you might even get a run. However, it would be a fantastic thing for the Territory.
Ms Fyles: Who does the Chief Minister go for?
Mr TOLLNER: The Chief Minister goes for Parramatta Eels as well.
Ms Fyles: Convenient.
Mr TOLLNER: How convenient is that? I will tell you a secret: Mr Deputy Speaker supports Parramatta Eels as well. Do you want to know another secret? The Transport minister loves the Parramatta Eels. Guess who else loves the Parramatta Eels? The member for Arafura. Guess who else? The member for Stuart loves the Parramatta Eels. A few of us do.
Ms Fyles: Who made the Cabinet decision to bring Parramatta Eels to the Territory?
Mr TOLLNER: Unfortunately, I am too close to the Parramatta Eels and had to excuse myself from the room. All the others are Johnnies-come-lately, of course. They are all great supporters of the Parramatta Eels now, which is great. It is one of the greatest clubs in the country.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. The Parramatta Eels are not the greatest.
Mr TOLLNER: What team do you think is the greatest?
Ms Fyles: You will have to listen to my speech.
Mr TOLLNER: Nightcliff Dragons? They love the Dragons – love Nightcliff. Those boys know how to have a good time. It is one of the great clubs. They are great rivals of Brothers and the rivalry goes back decades. A lot of blokes support Nightcliff. Along with the Bears, it is a great club.
Ms Fyles: Is Adam coming in to give us a history lesson too?
Mr TOLLNER: The Chief Minister is a supporter of Parramatta Eels.
Ms Fyles: We are wondering who made the Cabinet decision around Parramatta. Apparently everyone goes for Parra.
Mr TOLLNER: He is a member. He excused himself from the Cabinet room.
Mr TOLLNER: Let us not get carried away. The decision to support the redevelopment of Richardson Park is a fantastic one, and one of the great decisions made by government to support the rugby league community. Too often rugby league has been the poor cousin of the AFL.
I heard a groan from the member for Arafura, who loves the AFL, and I know the member for Nelson loves his game of aerial ping-pong. I am not a great fan although I go to the odd game. I am more of a rugby league man myself, but this decision rights the balance and injects cash into a facility that will see a revitalisation of rugby league in the Northern Territory.
Whilst the NRL has no real understanding of Territory rugby league in the past, it is wonderful that the NRL is now operating in the Territory and that relationship should be built on. When the AFL took over from the NT – pardon me member for Nelson, what was it?
Mr Wood: Darwin Rugby League?
Mr TOLLNER: No, the AFL took over from the NT?
Mr Wood: The AFL NT?
Mr TOLLNER: AFL NT? No, they took over from the NTFL. I played one quarter of NTFL for Buffalos. A coach or member said, ‘You know you are playing on Saturday?’ I said, ‘What position am I playing?’ He said, ‘Full forward’, and I said, ‘Where is that?’ He laughed and said …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113. I like hearing about the Treasurer’s sporting past, but could we bring him back to the motion before the House to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please get to the point of the discussion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, of course. I had to say to this fellow, ‘Mate, I’ve never played this game before’. At the end of the first game he said, ‘Mate, you weren’t lying, were you? You have not played this game?’ That was the last time I set foot on an AFL field, apart from the Masters Games, which the member for Nelson might have attended.
Rugby league has always been the poor cousin of AFL, and it is great that the Territory government is now recognising other codes. More can be done, and I love to talk to the South Darwin Rabbitohs about what could be done with Warren Park. Perhaps we could rehabilitate the place, fix Labor’s mess – that pile of dirt, although I understand it is full of asbestos.
At the time I do not think Mr Ah Kit cared about South Darwin; his heart was in getting the AFL oval completed.
There is a pile of rubble at Warren Park and it is difficult to utilise the land with that rubble sitting there. Maybe that is something government can look at down the track. Being a former South Darwin rugby union player, I should probably excuse myself from any Cabinet decision in relation to that as well.
I will encourage my colleagues to look after Warren Park, clean up Labor’s mess, sort out that pile of rubble and do something with it, because at the moment it is not nice. I can understand why the South Darwin Rugby League Club wants to move to Warren Park because it is one way of cleaning up the mess Labor left.
The member for Nelson walked out of here shaking his head. He hates me talking facts.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment about the member leaving the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, sorry, withdrawn. He is shaking his head walking around the Chamber, but I believe it irritates him that I know my history and the facts.
The member for Nightcliff would not have a clue about that. I do not know how many games she has been to at Richardson Park cheering on the Dragons. I do not know if she could name anyone who has played for the Dragons. We will see. She is about to talk about her love for Nightcliff Dragons.
Ms Fyles: Pauly Seden would be upset with you.
Mr TOLLNER: Pauly Seden? What about his brother Daniel? They both love Brothers?
Ms Fyles: I know them all very well.
Mr TOLLNER: They both played for Brothers. They had a run for the Dragons and good on them. They were both good players, great blokes and have done the Territory proud in a range of areas.
I am thrilled that the government has put $20m into Richardson Park. It needs revitalising and the rugby league community will be thrilled when they see the job done. I hope it is completed by this time next year because we want to see a Parramatta Eels game there. It would be wonderful to see them beat Penrith. We do not have the draw yet, but it will be lovely to see them win. As an Eels supporter, I am keen to see them win every time. It has not been a good decade for me in that regard, but I love to watch them play.
It has been great to see Jarryd Hayne carve up the NFL. He has really kicked goals. We have claimed him; he is one of ours. Good on him; he is doing the Territory proud.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition will support this motion and it is important to explain why. To set the record straight, I will let the Treasurer know that I do understand rugby league and probably attended a game at Richardson Park before he was in the Territory.
Our support of this motion today has nothing to do with being against rugby league. On this side of the House we may not all be Parramatta Eels fans, unlike the entire Cabinet. I remember watching my team, the Manly Sea Eagles, play in the 1980s when we had delayed broadcasts. I remember the 1987 grand final, when my father knew the score but did not tell me because I was watching it and kept giving him updates.
I also remember attending the Bulldogs/Manly game in the early 1990s at Richardson Park, and I understand the history and importance of that ground. The facts are clear and this motion outlines them today: for a number of reasons we need to refer this $20m spend to the Public Accounts Committee.
It has to do with good governance. This huge expenditure came out of the blue with no warning, but with a public outcry. Reading the NT News articles from May this year, when the $20m was first announced, NT Rugby League boss, John Mitchell, was quite surprised to receive such a huge amount of money. Any sport club would be surprised to receive $20m. Normally sport clubs lobby long and hard for upgrades to their facilities, but they must have thought all their wishes had come true when they were told they would get $20m.
They had concerns, even when the decision was first announced and the NT News reported:
The article went on to say:
There are many questions. We have been, almost in a light-hearted manner, talking about who we support and our history with rugby league. No one can doubt a member’s support and passion for NRL, but we have serious questions.
An amount of $20m of government funds has been allocated to one sport, which appeared to be in the dark until the announcement was made. I raised a number of questions during estimates about what consultation took place for the $20m spend. The member for Nelson’s motion before the House to let the Public Accounts Committee investigate all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin outlined a couple of points, including the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara and the decision to spend $20m to upgrade Richardson Park.
His motion says the objective of an inquiry would be to ascertain if there were original plans for rugby league at Marrara and to investigate why there was a sudden change to Richardson Park. Who made that decision? Who else had a say in that decision. What due diligence occurred before the decision was made? Was Cabinet involved in the decision? The hearings could be public, but if requested, there could be a closed hearing.
Since the decision was made by the NT government in early May there have been a number of questions. The Public Accounts Committee would be the perfect place to investigate those questions and allegations.
During the estimates hearings I asked the Sport minister a number of questions. I feel the minister was left somewhat in the dark. With all due respect to the position he holds, there were a number of unanswered questions. When I asked about the $20m, who was consulted about the expenditure and whose advice he sought, the answer was:
That is it! There was no detail about the consultations to date, why the money was needed, who had been consulted, what the sports thought of it or any ongoing plans. Those estimates answers – or lack of – left the opposition and the member for Nelson thinking we needed to delve deeper into the matter.
When I questioned the minister about the strategy change to move away from basing rugby league at Marrara and providing an additional rectangular field at Marrara, which had been the plan, it seemed the strategy might have changed after the $20m was announced. The Public Accounts Committee could get to the bottom of these things.
At the time the minister was unable to provide any real detail about conversations and consultation with different sports. The poor minister, literally on his feet, suddenly named sports that could be played on a rectangular field. He said rugby union, soccer, and touch would be the minimum using it. When I questioned if conversations had been held with those sports the answer was, ‘Yes and no’. From that estimates process we had a number of unanswered questions and more questions have been forthcoming.
Obviously to shift from a strategy that had been in the public eye – the year before the shadow sport minister had talked about the plans to upgrade Warren Park. We are talking about that today with the Treasurer. It is important to read the NT News article from February 2014 into Hansard because it sets the scene for the opposition to question the $20m spend.
We believe there should be investment in sport and in rugby league in particular, but it is a huge amount of money. Many sporting groups have approached me since then concerned that they missed out on an opportunity by not realising $20m was up for grabs.
On 12 February 2014 the NT News reported:
It is interesting that in early 2014 NT Rugby League was in discussions with the Northern Territory government on the shift away from Warren Park. They raised a number of reasons why: extensive maintenance costs; council rates; and the location of the facility. It was surprising to hear, in May this year, an announcement from the government that $20m was going to rugby league and there were no details about conversations or consultations. Even those close to the sport were taken aback with the announcement because of the history and passion of Richardson Park.
As cities evolve sport changes, as do the needs of those playing sport and the spectators. Around the world we have seen sporting venues move. It was interesting that rugby league decided to move to Warren Park at Marrara. They said Richardson Park was past its use-by date for them. They had to shift before the start of the 2014 season and were looking at options. MOUs had been signed to move to Warren Park. It was therefore surprising when the Giles government, early this year, announced the $20m spend. The sport wanted to be careful. Any sport offered $20m will not give it back, but in acknowledging the $20m they raised concerns.
A number of people close to rugby league have spoken to the member for Nelson. I have had people approach me as the shadow minister for sport and a local member. I will read some of an e-mail copied to me to give people a sense of how rugby league fans felt about the decision to shift the sport from Richardson Park, which had become outdated and no longer met the needs of the sport, to Warren Park, which is within the Marrara Sporting Complex and has fantastic facilities built by the Labor government. The Marrara complex is a premier precinct nationally, and both CLP and Labor governments have invested in it.
I remember when it was first opened in the early 1980s, and gymnastics shifted from the old Sports House in Fannie Bay to a wonderful new facility at Marrara. Basketball courts, netball courts, soccer and squash facilities have been added, and rugby union has been there for many years.
There is space where Warren Park and South Darwin are located to accommodate rugby league. It would make sense to have the home of rugby league in the Northern Territory based there. Not only rugby league was looking forward to it, but other sports felt they could work together.
The minister’s comments about soccer needing a new $20m rectangular stadium are incorrect. Only a few weeks ago an Australian premier league match was played at that facility. The facility catered for the game well. Rugby union holds a number of premier Australian matches. They have hosted the Australian Rugby Union or super 16 matches and regularly host the Hottest 7s. They felt, with rugby league going there, the sports could work together to provide the best opportunities.
That is the heart of this discussion – the need to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee, because $20m could go a long way for sport in the Territory.
Imagine if we had a smaller infrastructure investment at Warren Park? As for the Treasurer’s quote of $100m, I am not sure what he had for afternoon tea but that is ridiculous.
If we could have an investment at Warren Park that would allow for rugby league and rugby union to be located near each other they could share facilities and host national junior championships. It would also provide an opportunity for infrastructure development in rural and remote areas. We saw nothing in this year’s budget for sport in the rural area, which is an area of growth, particularly if this government gets its way and urbanises the rural area.
My recent travels to Maningrida and Ramingining highlight we could have had a fairer spend across the Territory, ensuring we did not have a Taj Mahal for rugby league for a once or twice a year televised match, and that we did what was best for Territorians.
After this decision was made there was shock and surprise in the community, particularly the rugby league community. I will quote from an e-mail I was copied into from a passionate rugby league supporter in the Territory:
The e-mail goes on to say the government has rode roughshod over the wishes of everyone else.
The e-mail was from someone who is part of the game in the Territory and who was upset. This parliament has the right to ask questions when the government is proposing to spend $20m on a sport and diehard fans and members send an e-mail like that. If that does not raise concern, I am not sure what will.
It is important the Public Accounts Committee is provided the opportunity to review this decision. I was not impressed with the responses I received during the estimates hearing. With all due respect to the minister, I felt he was made to sit there and answer questions when the decision was out of his hands.
We had a public outcry. We had years of hard work – my colleague, the member for Johnston, will speak about the plans to shift rugby league to Marrara – and in the stroke of a pen the Treasurer has destroyed all that good work.
There are questions about why the government would support spending $20m in precious sporting infrastructure money nobody asked for. No one has been consulted. It is one of the most bizarre announcements the government has made, and the community outcry should have made the government realise it may not be doing the right thing.
The questions I asked during estimates have largely been unanswered. When we asked about the department’s involvement – most people familiar with government and the Cabinet process know if a Cabinet submission is put through the proper channels to Cabinet …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES: During the process of budget Cabinet submissions being considered various departments provide advice. The Sport department or the Education department might want to put up a proposal, but other departments provide advice to their ministers and that is quite a common process. However, during estimates my colleague, Mr Vowles, asked the minister for Sport, Mr Higgins, who sponsored it into Cabinet. He said he took it to Cabinet; he sponsored it. There were no warnings against funding this project, and one role of the PAC would be to hear the advice from the department. I question other departments. I cannot imagine Treasury would say, ‘Sure, have $20m to pump into a white elephant’.
A number of questions were not asked during estimates and it would be good to refer them to the PAC. The minister, during estimates, said:
They would be soccer, rugby union, and potentially touch football. I asked the minister if there had been any conversations with those sports and he was unable to provide detail at the time. We could ask those sports the questions because I had conversations – I do not want to name sports as they may feel uncomfortable or receive a bad response. The facility proposed at Richardson Park does not do much for a number of other sports.
We need to see, going back to the Marrara precinct, a number of high-standard fields together to allow the Territory to hold national competitions or junior competitions. Generally you need warm-up fields and multiple fields to be used at one time. For example, the touch football competition in Darwin needs a minimum of six fields to be viable. If we were to play touch football at Richardson Park, we would only have four touch fields.
These are the questions we need to ask of departments. We need to look into the $20m announcement that took many people by surprise. There are many unanswered questions. The Treasurer has not answered any questions. The minister simply said it was Cabinet-in-confidence.
The member for Nelson is willing to amend this motion so it can go to the Public Accounts Committee without impacting on Cabinet confidentiality. We have also suggested the Public Accounts Committee could hear this in a closed session so there would be no issue with information being divulged. The PAC needs to look into it.
Apart from the one-off $20m spend there are ongoing issues. We had information from Northern Territory Rugby League about council rates and power and water tariffs, which have increased under this government. A number of sports are struggling to pay their water bills to keep their fields green and a number around town are not as green and luscious as they used to be.
Territory rugby league being able to meet the ongoing costs associated with this – I find it strange that we were not provided with any details from government departments on this decision because, normally, if you have an infrastructure spend they also look at maintenance.
It will cost $20m to build this facility, which is questionable to start with, but what was provided for the ongoing maintenance? It is a significant amount of money with a number of unanswered questions. As we heard, the NTRL felt the move to Warren Park would benefit the game and help it grow. The previous minister, Mr Conlan, agreed with that during the 2014 estimates.
This decision highlights how out of touch this CLP government is to get a $20m sport investment wrong. You could have spent $20m in sport infrastructure investments and made a positive difference. Instead, you managed to spend it and there are many unanswered questions.
I have mentioned the different sports, the capability of this facility and what it would mean, but the Public Accounts Committee could look at the Football Federation Northern Territory – would they play at Richardson Park? Would touch football play there? It was suggested in the estimates process that would happen. The Public Accounts Committee could conduct a longer-term feasibility study. Territorians have $20m spent on one venue but what are the long-term costs and impacts.
The government should be supporting this motion in the interests of open and accountable government, something this government promised. We have seen nothing, in fact the opposite. The Treasurer’s speech tonight raised questions. He has a passion for rugby league – I do not doubt that – but his talking about the heydays of rugby league is of concern. I did not know he cared about heritage so much. Some organisations in the Territory would be quite surprised, possibly pleased. It is surprising that we have $20m and the Treasurer’s response was about his passion for the old days of Brothers and Souths and when he lived in a house. The response was not worthy of $20m.
The move to Warren Park is not too difficult. Memoranda were in place. Marrara has many advantages in that it is a sporting precinct, traffic management plans can be easily enacted and other facilities can be utilised. One response I received to a question on this was, ‘No, you can’t have Marrara because there might be an AFL game on the same night’. That is ridiculous! We will not have AFLNT and rugby league on the same night. That was the response when we questioned the detail.
For the government to hide behind Cabinet decisions is appalling. I felt for minister Higgins when we questioned him in estimates and felt it was not him making the decision. Maybe his colleagues, the member for Fong Lim and possibly the Chief Minister, could have provided us with more detail. I felt it was not minister Higgins’ pet project.
The government is now looking at feedback post this decision, which is odd. Hand the carrot out then consult. I guess that is what we get from this government.
The Treasurer told us tonight there has been no expenditure, which is a little unusual. People will review the Hansard and have other questions.
We did not mind the Treasurer’s history lesson, but there are many unanswered questions. According to NRL NT …
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students participating in the Adult Migrant English Program accompanied by Deb Lamb and Jennifer Lopes. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to parliament tonight.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms FYLES: Welcome.
This motion should be passed tonight and the opposition supports it. Some of my colleagues want to make comments as they have been involved over time.
In summarising, the Treasurer said it would cost $100m to bring Warren Park up to date. Perhaps the Public Accounts Committee can look at that as I find that hard to believe. NRL NT wanted to move to Warren Park. It is well reported that was where rugby league in the Territory was heading, and this sudden change means we need to review this in more detail.
When the decision was announced NT Rugby League head, John Mitchell, was quoted in the NT News as saying he was keen to finally learn the government’s plan for the $20m injection. I doubt any sport has been offered $20m then learnt the details. He listed a number of reasons why it was doubtful the $20m would bring Richardson Park up to standard.
We need to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House and allowing us to ask questions. The Treasurer indicated he would support this motion going to the Public Accounts Committee, so it will be interesting to see if he comes through on his word.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. As somebody who has been involved in sport all his life and continues to be, when a government offers you money you take it to improve your sport. For somebody like John Mitchell, NT Rugby League, who works extremely hard and who I have a lot of respect for, when given government funds – he has done his job to best represent his board to get facilities, money or recurrent funding and keep the sport alive. NT Rugby League had to make a really tough decision to leave Richardson Park because they could not do upgrades or continue to pay for power and especially water. This tariff increases introduced by this government put those costs through the roof and it took a toll on Richardson Park.
Like the member for Fong Lim, I spent a bit of time at Richardson Park and have fond memories of going there with my old man when I played cricket as a young fellow. I was pretty lucky to do a few things through cricket, but I did not start cricket until I was 13 or 14. Rugby league and hockey were my passion. My dad loves rugby league, and as a kid you want your dad to be proud of you so I would get beat up at rugby league. I played for South Darwin. I was fortunate enough to move out of Kurringal to Freshwater Road, in the Johnston electorate, when I was a little fellow and the Nightcliff Dragons moved across the road to train. I had no choice and it was a fantastic time for me.
I spent most of my weekends at Richardson Park watching Bobo Dowie, Steve Larder and Joel Romelo, the legends of the game. I would watch the under 18s, the reserve grade and then the A grade.
I had a strong connection with my family on my mother’s side. They all played for Nightcliff Dragons. Sometimes it was beneficial because people can get quite passionate about sport. I remember a time when my father, who is a very quiet man, and I were sitting in a corner at the back of the grandstand and he said, ‘What a great try that was’, and started clapping a Brother’s try. Half the grandstand wanted to beat him up because we were playing Nightcliff Dragons. My uncle said, ‘Hang on, he’s a family member’, so it was good. There are many memories and much passion there.
I understand accepting money for upgrades to your sport because that is what you try to do. I understand what the government is trying to do with Richardson Park. As has been mentioned many times by the government, I am a former sports adviser so I worked in this field for several years. When NT Rugby League brought that concept to minister Karl Hampton I attended those meetings and had many discussions regarding the proposal. It is one of the most professional and thorough proposals I have seen for a sport to grow in the Territory.
At that time the project was around $16m to go to Marrara. I had many meetings with others in the rugby league community and I know Stem and Jackie Edwards through my connections with Nightcliff Dragons, important people who know the history, and had meetings with many different people. There were many opinions about not leaving the home of rugby league.
I support this motion. Open and accountable government is great. We had bipartisan support for the ICAC motion, and this is another opportunity for the government to be open and accountable with a decision they should be proud to own.
During estimates we had some time with the sports minister. We did not have enough time, but we got some information.
Referral to the Public Accounts Committee will enable discussion of the decision and the reason for it. It will show an open and accountable government, which you promised when you were elected, and you voted for with the ICAC today. This will be another opportunity for government to say why it needed to do this.
I will give a brief rundown of rugby league. There are seven clubs in Darwin, four in Alice and three in Katherine. I am not sure, member for Barkly, if there are any in Tennant Creek?
Mr McCarthy: None left.
Mr VOWLES: None in Tennant Creek? The rugby league clubs, including the juniors and the women’s, have worked very hard. NT Rugby League encourages women to play football. I have seen a few of those games and some are tougher than the lower grades of male matches.
NT Rugby League is trying to move forward. In order to increase the volunteer base and the number of players, it needs to approach government for more money. It is difficult to keep a sport running in the Northern Territory and it cannot survive without government funding. The majority of Territorians do not understand how important government funds are to allow sports to continue and impact on a healthier lifestyle and an opportunity to be active.
We have amazing sporting facilities in the Northern Territory. Down south you could watch a game in a suburban park. In the Territory we have first-class netball facilities with an amazing facility at Traeger Park in Alice Springs. We have international hockey fields in Darwin and we have TIO Stadium.
The former government spent millions of dollars so Palmerston Raiders Rugby League could play in their own facility. We spent $10m on the Palmerston Magpies facility.
We have the soccer stadium at Larrakia Park and world-class athletics. I mentioned hockey, and of course my passion is the world-class cricket ground at Marrara. I have been fortunate to play on a number of these grounds in my career. It reinforces the amazing standard of sporting facilities that we should be proud of.
We continue to invest in sport. As a sports adviser I would say, ‘Okay, we will build these facilities for Palmerston Raiders and the Magpies and we will hand them over to those clubs, but what recurrent funding will be allocated to those sports so we do not set them up to fail?’
Many sporting clubs want their own facility without discussing how much it will cost to run it once it is built – recurrent funding. It is a serious issue, because you do not want to build a facility or spend millions upgrading one only to hand it over to a club that does not know how to fund it.
No amount of chook raffles or dollar clubs will pay the power and the water bills. In the Territory you go to training after work and get there about 6.30 pm so you need lighting facilities. The cost of running a facility is crippling. It is rarely spoken about when a sporting organisation comes to the government, and I can only speak from my experience as an adviser to the minister – what recurrent funding will be provided? We do not want sports to take money from funds allocated to increase grassroots participation and grow their sport. There always has to be consideration.
We flushed this out a bit at estimates. I understand the concept of what the government is trying to do at Richardson Park. You have a facility – I think there is a misconception that it will be NT Rugby League’s. I hope somebody will correct me if I am wrong – the Sport minister might give me a nod – but I understand NT Rugby League handed in its lease when it vacated the premises.
Mr Higgins: They were asked to but then names changed.
Mr VOWLES: I understand the concept of a stand-alone facility, but there is a misconception that this facility will belong to NT Rugby League. I understand it will be more like Marrara Indoor Stadium, where you have different sports. The NT government will manage the facility and plan and book sporting events such as the Parramatta game the Treasurer mentioned. It will be upgraded to include office space for different sports that may use it, such as NT Rugby League.
A little known fact in the Territory regarding sports – we have great sporting facilities – is the cost of lights. You need 1400 or 1500 lux lights to broadcast TV. The government is saying we have this facility and to build is expensive, but you need 1400 or 1500 lux lights.
The lights at TIO are not ideal and the broadcasters put up with them just to get through, but it is a real concern because you have to invest money if you want games to be broadcast.
The issue for the government is it has not told the story to the public. It should be saying, ‘This is what we will do, this is why we allocated the money, and these are the pros and cons’.
I support this motion, but I see the positives in facilities that can be utilised by different sports. The main reason behind upgrading the Magpies at Palmerston was at the time there were cricket games at Marrara or TIO Stadium. When that happened there was a drop in pitch, so you have four to six weeks where the ground is out while they are digging the pitch out. They spent $8m or $10m at the Palmerston footy ground so when that happened the Thunder games, or any other major event, could go to that oval without any hiccups or change in schedule. There was a cricket game last year and it did not work out well with the drop in pitch, but that was the reason to upgrade the facilities at Palmerston.
We used TIO for an Elton John concert, an AC/DC concert, cricket, football and the Crusty Demons. TIO is our main facility for major events. The previous government invested heavily at Palmerston to do that.
I was concerned when I was told NT Rugby League had to move out of Richardson Park. I understand the emotions about leaving and the history of such an iconic facility. John Mitchell is a good operator. As the CEO he has weathered the storm. His phone would have been blocked and his door knocked down. People would have chased him down to ask if he understood the history of the facility. He is there to represent the board and to do the best for his sport.
No sport in the Northern Territory or this country would knock back government money to build a facility. There is a misconception that NT Rugby League will take the facility over. It will be a government-managed facility.
I support the motion because it is about being open and accountable for such a large chunk of money. The government has not told us about the benefits and what it means for the future of sports. We all had concerned people from different sports talk to us. There are different sports, but touch footy might have thought you would force a move from Fannie Bay ...
Mr Wood: They had to go far.
Mr VOWLES: Out to Freds Pass, you reckon?
It is about telling a story when you have something to give and the government has not done that.
As a former sports adviser then coming into parliament and being shadow sports minister, I believe this is important. In my electorate there is a connection to rugby league because the Nightcliff Dragons train at Moil Oval. I pop down there every now and then to see how they are going. These are old clubs; it is an old sport.
When I became adviser in the last government people said, ‘You have a great job. You have Jack Ah Kit, the minister for fun.’ After a week I thought, ‘Yes, this is great. I’m going to the AFL, I have cricket going and I’m getting paid for this. This is great.’
The reality kicked in when everybody rang me because they were not happy about their sport. There were issues with the committee, funding, recurrent funding, their facilities and the grass was dying. ‘You are supposed to be looking after it. Who is mowing the grass? Who is fixing the grass?’ All these issues came up. The one thing about being a sports adviser – I am sure you have …
Mr Higgins: Nothing has changed.
Mr VOWLES: It is emotive because people volunteer to be on committees. They go to work, finish and then go to meetings. They are passionate about it and want to see their sport grow not die. They want more participation, better facilities, more funding and government to listen.
I spoke to a few other advisers who said, ‘Mate, yours is the greatest job until you do it, because it is tough’. It is tough because people are passionate when they volunteer their time. I respect and applaud that, and thank everybody who does that. It is a monumental task ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VOWLES: I applaud and thank everybody who volunteers for sports and gives up their time. We know the commitment. Many of us have families and other issues we have to deal with. I was president of the Palmerston Cricket Club for a while and it is a tough gig. I am proud of that, but it reinforced what I thought about volunteering. I thought I would be sworn in, make a few decisions, have a beer and be out of there. Three or four hours later I was still talking about how we would improve the club, where we would get the money for the new uniforms, the match fees and how we would pay umpires who we never rate. They always made the wrong decisions in cricket. We were always looking for that dollar and it is really tough.
When a government decides to give money I will not be the person who says not to it. However, I would like to see how you reached that decision.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this pragmatic motion to the House which I support. I will declare my conflict of interest straight up: I support Canterbury Bankstown. My father played for North Sydney, and my big brother played rugby league and ended up playing for Alexander Mackie Teachers College. I played junior rugby league in Sydney and played for Canterbury Bankstown SG ball competition in 1973. My boys all play rugby league: Robert for the Cobar Roosters; Thomas McCarthy did an apprenticeship in Tennant Creek as a plumber and upon travelling to Darwin for his trade school was recruited by the University Sharks; and Joseph McCarthy was an interesting case, a burns survivor who when we moved to Tennant Creek came home from school, not having a good time at school, and said, ‘Dad, I want to follow in my grandfather’s footsteps, my father’s footsteps and my brother’s footsteps and play rugby league’.
Having had rather a tough day myself at school I just wanted to rest. I said, ‘Son, rugby league is a team game. If you can get a team together come and see me.’ The following afternoon I had 10 children from Tennant Creek playing full contact rugby league on my front lawn. That led to a development project I started, and we proudly ran the Tennant Creek Junior Rugby League development project for eight years. Joseph McCarthy played his first game of rugby league in that project at the under 12 level when he was 10. He went on to represent the Northern Territory in both rugby league and rugby union. He represented the Australian states and territories in rugby league at the under 18 level. He had a scholarship with NTIS Rugby Union. Joseph McCarthy played first grade for Nightcliff at the age of 17, and played for Owls Rugby Union at Canberra University and the Cows – the rugby league team. This year he played with his two brothers for the Cobar Roosters. Three brothers all strapped on their boots at the same time. Two travelled to Cobar to join Robert and play for the Cobar Roosters, and Joseph has just completed a season playing for the Byron Bay Red Devils.
Joseph McCarthy is an interesting story. I thank the member for Katherine because when we put the junior rugby league development project together we used families and personal cars. We took our first team on tour. We went to Katherine and were flogged 68 to nil. That was a great learning curve for the boys and the parents.
Two years later the Tennant Creek Junior Rugby League team won Pool B in the Northern Territory, which is commendable. I thank the member for Katherine and the good Katherine folk who gave our boys a touch up that day and sent them home sick, sore and sorry, but they bounced back and won the Territory Pool B two years later. That is about it for my conflict of interest. I support Canterbury Bankstown.
The minister for Sport gave a brief contribution and outlined the sacrosanct nature of the Cabinet process, an age-old Westminster process. He advised the House he could not support this motion because it would investigate Cabinet decisions and look into Cabinet affairs which are, as I said, an age-old Westminster tradition.
I remind members on that side that convention has been broken by the CLP in the Northern Territory. It was broken through the Stella Maris inquiry, where Cabinet documents were trawled through by senior public servants and exposed left, right and centre in quite a number of portfolios, and it was decided that Stella Maris would be investigated by an inquiry.
Today is a monumental occasion in the Northern Territory parliament because we are now taking the next steps to forming an independent commission against corruption.
I advise all members of this House, including the CLP government, that an inquiry could be conducted into any affairs of government and all members of parliament. Cabinet documents will be unearthed and opened, and these matters will be looked at succinctly and members will be called as witnesses.
That is something to remember as we move down this road. The convention has been broken. Independent commissions against corruption will conduct those processes and members involved will be called as witnesses and held to account.
I went through that process. I appeared twice at the Stella Maris inquiry, and the second time was requested by the commissioner to supply all my personal financial records, credit cards and transactions I made as an individual. I was also asked to supply all my phone, communication and travel records. I was also asked to supply my parliamentary travel records and my parliamentary security codes, which I did willingly. I fully participated in that inquiry.
In stark contrast to the complete mistruths put on the public record – I am glad CLP members put their mistruths on the public record. I completed that inquiry in good faith and with full commitment. That inquiry found nothing unlawful – no corruption and no personal interest.
The Stella Maris inquiry brought some important information to this parliament, mainly around Cabinet processes. As the Sport minister said, Cabinet processes and decisions are sacrosanct and shall remain in the archives for 30 years.
However, the CLP has broken that age-old Westminster convention. As we move down the road to setting up an ICAC in the Territory, I will look carefully at all matters referred. I will remember the members I have served with in this parliament who could possibly be called as witnesses. I will take a great interest in how those cases are heard and the outcomes of each and every one of them.
The issue with the Treasurer was interesting. It was a twist on semantics. The member for Nelson is using a parliamentary committee of scrutiny. What a great idea, because this is a parliament and this government needs to be scrutinised. Public expectations demand it and the PAC is an esteemed committee of scrutiny.
I remind the member for Fong Lim and the member for Port Darwin that in 2008 I was appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and they were extremely aggressive members of the opposition. They were both experienced politicians and had a serious agenda to take me out and embarrass me. It was a great time for me because I had to learn fast and they were great candidates to learn from.
They drove a powerful agenda of delivering efficiencies within government. The member for Port Darwin was quite manic. His agenda was to walk the floors of the public sector and kick the tyres of the vehicles in the car park. It was amazing where he wanted to take the PAC, but tonight the Treasurer is trying to play clever semantics and ridicule the member for Nelson, saying the PAC does not look at anything until it has been expended, only looks at number crunching and is an accounting exercise. What a lot of rot.
The member for Fong Lim taught me a lot about the PAC, and the member for Port Darwin, his colleague at the time, showed how the PAC has a wide brief and can be used to look at all aspects of government, and now self-referring, a great committee of scrutiny with the opportunity to investigate government efficiencies in regard to the appropriation.
Member for Fong Lim, what you said was not quite true. The member for Nelson’s motion stands because it is logical for the PAC to look at the efficiencies in spending $20m on retrofitting an old asset that has been abandoned.
Do not get me wrong, Dave, I love Richo too. When I brought teams of kids from Tennant Creek – the under 15 and under 12 level – we played at Richardson Park. You could have sworn blind they were running onto the Sydney Cricket Ground, which was my dream when I was their age, and the ground was sensational. I experienced some wonderful carnivals over those eight years when we came to the Top End. We would go to Katherine and Alice Springs and we would organise social games.
It is a legend that Tennant Creek kids and their parents would travel 600 km to play a game of rugby league because we had no competition and nobody came our way. That is legendary stuff and it shows the spirit of Tennant Creek. When we ran onto Richo those kids rose to the occasion. When we won Pool B in the Territory two years after forming that development project, those kids went home riding on cloud nine. It is a real enhancement for any community when you have a powerful youth group working through something that is so focused and dedicated. There are great sporting outcomes for fitness and working with serious community enhancement, involvement and discipline.
Richo, for me, was the jewel in the crown. When I came into government and learnt more about the asset I became aware of the constraints. On a national perspective the asset was completely aged and outdated. Government looked at it carefully and it was constrained. You then have the debate of whether you retrofit the old Holden, trade it in and buy the new model. That is what this debate is about tonight.
The member for Nelson is pragmatic in suggesting that we look at the efficiencies around this appropriation. Let us take it to the PAC and do it professionally. It will save the parliament a great deal of money because it is an existing committee of scrutiny. We can look at the efficiencies of a significant appropriation of $20m.
Talking about appropriations is interesting now it is starting to unfold in the CLP’s Budget 2015-16. We discovered in estimates that an appropriation listed as a record budget number of $20m towards an Aboriginal cultural centre in Central Australia is not planned to be looked at until 2018-19, so that number is fudged. Then we have $20m for the revamp of Richardson Park, which in the media the Chief Minister has already done a backflip on and said, ‘We have not really spent anything’.
Tonight the Treasurer confirmed that nothing has been spent on it. It seems $40m is a paper exercise alone. The $18.3m to retrofit the Chan Building, another government asset with major constraints and limited floor area, and create a state-of-the-art art space to exhibit our incredible Territory treasures and attract travelling exhibitions – let us round the figure up. An amount of $50m in a budget paper has not been spent. We debate efficiencies. Is it good value for money? Wind out $20m for the Aboriginal cultural centre, $20m for Richo and $18.3m to retrofit a building with major constraints. That debate is running hot in the arts community.
Member for Nelson, it might be necessary to revisit that expenditure, using the PAC as well, to tell Territorians the government has it right or that we should revisit this.
We are seeing some pragmatic elements of the parliament process tonight. My colleague, the member for Johnston, said it has been a wonderful day for bipartisanship and scrutiny of government across the board. I do not see the joy celebrated on the other side. That is tough and you will get used to it. Welcome to minority government! It is hard work, ladies and gentlemen, but stick with it. You are the elected government and people expect you to do your best.
There have been some serious concerns from this side, and a pragmatic motion to address the issue. The member for Nelson hopes government members will consider that. It is a real, pragmatic, low-cost initiative which will deliver a good result. It is our responsibility to follow up on this. We need to examine a $20m appropriation for an ageing asset.
We can also talk about land use. Looking at the Darwin peninsula and the constraints around development, the principles of modern urbanism and intensification and value for money, is $20m to revamp ageing infrastructure with major constraints appropriate in the good planning processes for significant population increase in Darwin and the greater Darwin area? It is about looking over the horizon, good planning principles and, specific to this motion, the proper and efficient appropriation of taxpayer dollars. This is a comprehensive argument which should be considered carefully.
There is no doubt Richardson Park holds a lot of sentiment. People do not accept change well, and some never accept it. The member for Fong Lim gave a resounding speech full of passion and history reflecting great Territorians, which is what we are about. We have legendary characters and love to celebrate and hear about them. However, in challenging fiscal times it is our responsibility to deliver the best results with taxpayers’ money.
At the end of the day you have to ask the CLP government: what do you have to hide? Unfortunately, your time in government has not engendered public trust. You guys do not need to go far to run that poll on the street and be given a very clear answer by Territorians.
With the great bipartisanship shown, the serious investigation into land use and planning principles, and the formation of an independent commission against corruption that could possibly see important matters referred to it, we now have a pragmatic motion to look at government efficiencies, appropriations and value for money for taxpayers. We are moving together.
Regarding some of the comments thrown across the Chamber today, I conclude with what I went through during the Stella Maris inquiry. It does not matter where you go or what you have done, face the music. If there are issues your summons will arrive in the mail and you will be held to account.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. There were some colourful contributions and ones that gave depth to this debate. I thank the members for Barkly, Johnston, Nightcliff, Daly and Fong Lim for their contributions. I should declare a conflict of interest. I follow Melbourne Storm. It gives me great pleasure to not support a team from New South Wales or Queensland because I come from Victoria. The only reason I follow Queensland is because Slater and Smith come from Queensland and play for a mighty good team.
I concur with the member for Johnston’s comments about John Mitchell, CEO of rugby league in the Northern Territory. I have met him at numerous functions, and he is a hard-working CEO who has done a lot of work for rugby league. As he said, he has gone through some tough times.
I played rugby league for a bit of fun. I played a little rugby union, but Aussie rules, tennis, cricket and indoor cricket were mainly my sports. This is not about whether we should choose Richardson Park or Warren Park but whether this is the right decision.
The government decided to spend $20m on Richardson Park, and there were some concerns about that. I have heard the debate on whether it is the right place to expand. Rugby league people are passionate about it. I have been to many grand finals there sitting on the Bears’ hill with passionate Bears supporters. I know how much they love Richardson Park. However, things change.
Gardens Oval was the home of Aussie rules but is not anymore. They still play games there but not the main one. I know there was a lot of sadness because when I first came to Darwin I played a few games with Saint Mary’s reserves. I lived at Daly River then and it was a long way for a Saturday game. We played at Gardens Oval and it was, and still is, a great ground. It is now a cricket ground, although I do not think it was in the early days. There were some big football matches at Gardens Oval. The VFL, as it was then, played some great matches. For a Darwin versus Saint Mary’s game the old people came from miles around and the oval was packed. There is a lot of tradition and many memories.
I was at the Vietnam Veterans Day celebration at the Cenotaph and three blokes were there kicking an Aussie rules football. I said, ‘You know you are playing on the original Darwin football ground’. That was Darwin oval. They did not realise, and I suppose when they moved from Darwin oval to Gardens Oval some people were probably sad that happened. I have seen pictures of football matches on that ground.
It is the same with hockey. Hockey was played at Alawa when I first arrived. It might not have been as hard for them to move because there are first-class facilities at Marrara.
For soccer Bagot Park has always been the main area, but not the only area. There was also Gardens Oval 2. There were other grounds, and the member for Johnston might remember better than me where soccer was played in Darwin. Games were played on Gardens Oval 2 and are still played there. They have beautiful grounds now.
There has been discussion about whether soccer should go to Richardson Park. We just built Larrakia Park! I was there for a match recently. It might not have been up to TV standards, but why not upgrade the lighting on that ground because everything else is there. People are talking about huge numbers of people coming.
That was a good match, Adelaide City versus Melbourne United, and it attracted 1600 people. That is a good crowd but not one you would spend a fortune on. Before you can show that you need a facility upgraded to accommodate 10 000 people you need to do your homework.
This debate is about doing the homework. I moved this motion because we have a PAC and we have a budget allocation. The PAC’s job is to look at the government’s intention when it allocates $20m to a project at Richardson Park. It is simple questions like, ‘What due diligence occurred before you made the announcement?’ That is not unreasonable. Have you looked at the future of Richardson Park? We know there are issues. You will have to expand the car park into the mangroves. I heard recently you cannot expand it too far into the mangroves because there is an endangered fish, crustacean or something nearby. The Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group is working in that area and people are living next door.
Sensible decisions have to be made. I know some people will support Richardson Park and some people will support Warren Park. We want to know the background behind the government’s decision.
Does it make sense? Is it a fair use of taxpayers’ money? Will this money be a wise move by the government considering other issues have to be taken into account?
When you read the NTRL’s documents from a few years ago saying they had unanimous support for a move to Warren Park, it is beholden on this parliament and the PAC to understand the decision. When the top body in the Northern Territory says it wants to go to Warren Park and the government says it wants to spend $20m here I would like to ask the question.
I agree with the member for Johnston, it is great if you can use ovals for a number of sports. Cricket and Australian rules have been doing it for years. It does not always help the cricket pitch, but those grounds are shared.
Gardens Oval 2 is used for soccer at this time of the year and football in the Wet Season. Little Athletics at Freds Pass use the same ground as the Bears. It causes friction from time to time but is multiple use of grounds.
We could look at using more government school facilities when it comes to sporting facilities.
I listened to the member for Daly, the Sport minister, who was concerned the object of the inquiry would be to ascertain what the original plans for rugby league at Marrara were, investigate why there was a change to Richardson Park, who made that decision, who else had a say in the decision and what due diligence occurred before that decision was made. The last part of the motion asked if Cabinet was involved in the decision. It was not intended to ask what happened in Cabinet; it was meant to find out whether the decision to spend $20m on Richardson Park was a Cabinet decision or a ministerial decision.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion to delete the words, ‘and was Cabinet involved in the decision?’
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I am now speaking to the amended motion, in summation. That appeared to be the sticking point with the government. If that is removed and the government is happy to support this it will be a good motion for the Public Accounts Committee. The PAC has not done much of this type of work this year, and this is what the Council of Territory Cooperation used to do. It looked at some of these issues in detail.
People will have different opinions. I am happy to hear those, but, in the end, we are not overly emphasising one ground against the other. We might investigate the reasons why people want to go to one place versus the other. It is to make sure we understand why there was an allocation of $20m to Richardson Park, and why the proposal by Northern Territory Rugby League to go to Warren Park was a reversed decision. If it was not a decision, why was a unanimous recommendation rejected?
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. The last time I eagerly waited to speak to this motion was one year ago and quite late in the evening. Unfortunately the member for Greatorex got the call and I was upset about that. He had me yelling a bit and about six hours later I went into labour. He really upset me.
One year on and we have not seen any evidence of that chaos in the government ceasing. It is timely that one year later we are experiencing the first week of a CLP minority government. It is the second day into sittings and we can see how this has operated so far. Many people were waiting to see the outcome of the sittings – whether this government could control its agenda. There has been more opportunity to debate issues I doubt we would have if the government was not a minority.
One only has to reflect on the comments from many government members over the last few months about the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. Then, lo and behold, today some very significant steps were taken and processes agreed to in this parliament for the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. If you asked me if that would happen during the last sittings I would have said it would be difficult due to the numbers. However, today, in the first week of a CLP minority government, we have seen real changes to the lie of the land in this Chamber.
One thing this government has been consistent in from day one of the CLP taking over in August 2012 has been chaos. We have seen three years of chaos. It pretty much started …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are currently experiencing some technical difficulties. Given that those microphones are the only ones recording okay, I would like everyone else to not make a sound so the poor people who are …
Ms MANISON: Would you like me to move to another desk with a microphone that works? I am quite happy to do that if it makes everyone’s life easier.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apparently you can use that if everyone is quiet while you are speaking.
Mr Elferink: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if it suits the purposes of the House the member for Wanguri could continue her remarks from the desk of the member for Nelson.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have offered that. Would you like to go there?
Ms MANISON: We were talking about chaos before, but just then we saw some team work in the Chamber again. It has been a very strange day in parliament.
Going back to my point, from the first week of this government we saw significant moves which led to everybody seeing the start of a very chaotic period.
From the get-go and the appointment of the Renewal Management Board we saw lots of chief executives sacked. People throughout the public sector lost their jobs. Of course, we saw the massive power and water tariff increases. The government told Territorians they had a mandate to reduce the cost of living, but their first significant action as a government was to increase the cost of living by about $2000 a year for an average Territory family. That did not sit very well with people and there was a long period of instability.
At that time we saw signs of infighting in the CLP government. Ultimately, it cost the former member for Blain his job as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The member for Braitling was appointed and has reigned over undoubtedly the most chaotic government in the history of the Northern Territory.
Look at the amount of government reshuffles and how they have gone from a commanding majority to a minority government. People in the CLP, some stalwarts of the party, have left citing their frustrations with the current CLP leadership. That shows how damaging this period has been for the government, the parliamentary team and what has happened in the party.
Unfortunately, such chaos and disunity in government flows through to the public sector. With all the reshuffles public servants are frustrated with the changes at the top, particularly their ministers. They are frustrated that decisions suddenly change. We have some hard-working public servants who are extremely committed to their jobs and the Northern Territory, but it is frustrating and hard for them to do their jobs when the goalposts keep shifting and ministers keep changing. The government keeps jumping from one crisis to another and, therefore, policy decisions on projects tend to change because they are in a constant state of chaotic infighting and negotiation amongst themselves. That has led to significant chaos in the past three years.
We have seen several reshuffles. Earlier this year there was an attempted leadership change in the CLP government. However, the member for Braitling dug in and still sits in the top job. Since then more members of the CLP government have resigned, leaving them in a minority government position. It makes you wonder how things will go leading up to the election in August next year and how they will function as a team. There still appears to be deep division on that side of parliament.
Through this chaotic time in the Territory decisions and consequences have flown through which impact some important areas. I am talking about areas like education and health. Look at the trend in the education budget in the three years of this CLP government. There has been a significant decline in investment in public education. In this year’s budget alone there is about $12m less for government education. In real terms, that is about $80m stripped out of public education since 2012.
At estimates, when asking how many staff were cut from the Department of Education – teachers, support staff in schools, and departmental staff, who also do an important job supporting schools – we were told it was around 516. That is 516 full-time equivalent jobs gone from the Department of Education, which is alarming and worrying. Schools are saying they have to do much more with much less and are finding it difficult.
Teachers are amazing and do a wonderful job. We want to do everything we can to support public education. The government has been slashing and burning the education budget and slashing jobs in an area which has the biggest issues in the nation. The government’s answer is to cut funding and jobs thinking that will deliver better education outcomes. It does not stack up.
The roll-out of global school budgets was a debacle. Schools are still struggling to make ends meet with their budgets. Many are operating in deficit, and many had to make significant cuts. Schools are trying to do the best job they can despite the frustrations they feel as a result of that.
In the last three years several issues have occurred within health. From the get-go we had a brand new medi-hotel at Royal Darwin Hospital with a bed capacity in the vicinity of 100. This was built to alleviate pressure on Royal Darwin Hospital. At the time the government, in driving its mandatory alcohol rehabilitation policy, took those beds to dedicate them to that program. The facility had been delivered for a specific purpose, because everybody knows RDH is always under incredible strain and operates pretty much at capacity all the time.
Bed blocking at RDH became a significant issue as a consequence of that move by the government. There were real issues with demand and wait times in emergency department, and it took this government some time to figure out that the medi-hotel was built for a much-needed purpose. I am glad that facility is now being used for its intended purpose.
Another gripe about RDH which infuriated people was the implementation of paid parking, a terrible system. Paying for parking is one thing, but to put in a system that is so difficult to use has been problematic and caused people quite a bit of stress.
Many people using the hospital are elderly or have English as a second language, and a pay-as-you-leave system would have been far less complex. While people are waiting at the hospital for their loved ones or waiting for an appointment the last thing they need to be thinking about is parking, whether they will get a fine, or if they need to run downstairs and put more money in.
It was poorly implemented and we are still trying to figure out where the money goes. Ideally you would like the money collected from parking to go straight back into RDH. It is difficult to get a clear understanding of where that money has gone.
We also had issues with Palmerston hospital, something people have been waiting for. The CLP government decided to change the site for the hospital to an un-serviced site. This meant the headworks had to go in – roads, power and water, sewerage, all of which cost a significant amount of money, and we know hospitals are not cheap to build.
Changes in procurement models have been made to deliver that project. There have also been significant delays, and people desperately want that hospital up and running. They want pressure on RDH eased, but that seems to be an ongoing saga with this government.
Something the government pushed through in the fastest possible time was the structural separation of Power and Water. Again, when it came to numbers and the CLP, that was the only way parliament was able to achieve fast scrutiny of the bills through the PAC. The government was determined to ram it through without producing much evidence or work around cost benefit analysis. There was not much planning work and the structural separation has cost millions of dollars.
Water licences have been a highly contentious issue for this government, as has Foundation 51. There are still many questions about donations.
The member for Nhulunbuy will say she has seen a huge change in her electorate, with a wonderful township in the Northern Territory suffering the strain of huge job losses and the issues related to the refinery. It has been very sad to watch that happen over the last three years. It has probably been one of the saddest things I have seen in this period of government. From the stories you hear and the things you see when you go to Nhulunbuy, it has been a really tough time.
Who could forget the sale of TIO this government rammed through with no mandate from Territorians, despite the fact that TIO was owned by Territorians? I remind parliament that government rammed that through in one day.
When we first asked questions about the future of TIO we were told, ‘Nothing is on the table, nothing is off the table’. Suddenly the government announced what we all suspected. It would sell TIO to bankroll some commitments.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I request an extension for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MANISON: The TIO sale was rammed through parliament with no mandate from Territorians despite huge opposition from Territorians. They were vocal about that. The government failed to listen and people will not forget that.
I forgot to mention earlier the scrapping of the Arafura Games. Initially we were told that would come back bigger and better than before but it failed to happen. The Arafura Games was a wonderful community event that Territorians enjoyed. It was great for building ties with our Asian neighbours in great sporting events.
I liked seeing young Territorians exposed to and competing at higher levels and focused on training and preparation for the Arafura Games. Also, many people loved volunteering at the games. People miss that and were very disappointed. The government scrapped the games and said they would come back bigger and better but has not delivered on that. The Arafura Games is dead and buried under this government and that is a shame. People loved the games. They were a great part of the Territory and people would love to see the games return.
Today we have seen a positive from the minority situation. Today, after much pressure on this chaotic government, we have commenced establishment of an independent commission against corruption, supported by this parliament. That is much needed as a result of the last three years of a chaotic and dysfunctional government which people have lost trust in. They do not have faith in some of the decisions made and want to see more scrutiny and accountability in government. That has been a real issue for this government.
People have had to deal with a chaotic government full of infighting. It has been a public affair – the go to whoa, the leaking played out in the public domain for everyone to see. People have lost trust in this government, and the establishment of an ICAC will go some way in restoring a bit of integrity and trust to government in the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this motion about chaos in the CLP government, which should be condemned. Territorians want to see a strong, stable, united government and the last three years have proved to be nothing like that. People are frustrated and would like to see a Territory government with a hell of a lot less chaos.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, who would have thought that a General Business Day motion introduced on 16 October 2013 would still have such currency? In fact, the self-realisation that comes with this motion about condemning the CLP government for the deepening and ongoing chaos in the Northern Territory government – not a thing has changed other than the government remains in denial about the chaos, is dysfunctional, has hurt Territorians and even hurt its own colleagues.
That chaos has descended to the point where we have a minority government with only 12 seats in this parliament and, until yesterday at about 10 am, the government had failed to realise the ramifications of being a chaotic government, and more importantly, what it means to be a minority government.
It means that you do not have the numbers on the floor of the House to govern in the Northern Territory, to defeat motions or pass laws. It is staggering that something introduced nearly two years ago remains so current. Point six, about dodgy deals and jobs for mates, brought the House to where it is today, with an historic motion passed creating an independent commission against corruption.
The Territory has finally moved forward because the government had no choice. As a minority government they did not have the numbers and we are now developing and establishing an ICAC so the dodgy deals that have occurred under this dysfunctional government, the worse government in the history of the Territory, will be disclosed. Three weeks ago they were not interested in supporting this and completely denied there was any need for an ICAC.
An opinion piece in the Northern Territory News of 2 August 2015 from the Territory’s first law officer, Attorney-General John Elferink, was headed, ‘Calls for a Territory ICAC imply a failure in law enforcement, but no failure exists’. Has that not been turned on its head, member for Port Darwin? Clearly the failure does exist and has been identified. It is not just the opposition and crossbenchers who have been saying this; we represent Territorians who have been saying this for months. The lack of transparency, accountability, honesty and integrity is what has brought the House to where it is today.
On 2 August the Attorney-General said it was not necessary and there was no need for such an entity. On 14 August the Attorney-General started to realise there was something they needed to respond to because the outcry from Territorians could not go unheard any longer. He issued a media release on 14 August announcing the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures would have expanded powers to tackle corruption and misconduct under the plan he had outlined.
There is nothing wrong with the excellent work done by the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures; she does a brilliant job. However, it is still not, in expanding those powers, meeting community expectations about independence – to have an independent entity entirely separate from the government that can self-refer and can investigate ministers, members of parliament and people in public office.
That was not part of the proposal announced on 14 August 2015. The closing comment in that media release is worth noting. The Attorney-General said:
Even at the time he announced expanding the powers of existing officers, he said he did not believe there was a need for an ICAC but was responding to community concerns.
We have gone from 2 August, in complete denial, to 14 August saying, ‘Okay, maybe we need to do something here, but I am blowed if it will be an independent body’. Then, 12 days later, on 26 August, we finally have a motion of this House to establish an ICAC.
It was interesting to hear the government’s motion this morning and the half-hearted efforts of members of the government speaking to it. They did not speak to the motion, but spoke at length about the first thing that came into their heads.
The first thing that came into the Treasurer’s head was he supported the motion but did not support an ICAC in the Northern Territory. Like his colleagues, he was in complete denial about the fact there were problems with government, real or otherwise, or perceptions about the way they were behaving and governing the Northern Territory. On 26 June he had a complete meltdown on a Darwin radio station denying there was anything wrong and bizarrely claiming the NT ICAC calls were corruption allegations in themselves. He said an ICAC undermines the supremacy of your parliament.
‘Supremacy of your parliament’ speaks volumes. To think the parliament and the people who sit here are beyond reproach, beyond question and beyond accountability shows the government and the Treasurer are so out of touch with reality, Territorians, community expectations and the need for integrity, trust, honesty, openness and accountability within government. It is small wonder they are where they are today.
We have our ICAC. The dysfunction, the serious allegations about how decisions have been made in government, where money has been allocated, accountability for how money is spent, ministerial travel, particular overseas travel – nobody is denying that members of parliament need to travel. We are not doing our jobs if we are not travelling, but it seems to have reached a point where ministerial travel within the government, particularly overseas travel, has no accountability or feedback to parliament or Territorians regarding what the travel was about and what was being delivered for Territorians as a result of this investment.
I single out the minister for Primary Industry, who has delivered good results with his travel to our Asian neighbours to build the cattle industry. That is one example. The highlight of how unacceptable travel has been, quite apart from the fact we know a senior ministerial adviser has been charged due to serious allegations of travel rorting, was the Chief Minister’s performance at estimates in June.
The buck stops with him. He is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and when asked the most obvious question about ministerial travel – how much was spent on which trip, who travelled and what the benefits were – he behaved like a schoolboy. He was very reluctant to provide an answer even though estimates is all about scrutinising the budget and government being open and accountable about where taxpayers’ money is being spent. The Chief Minister sat at the estimates table, behaved like a schoolboy, read the travel report as slowly as he possibly could, refused to table it then reached a point where he said, ‘I don’t have confidence in the accuracy of this report’, or words to that effect, and then said, ‘I’ll have to go back and revise this’.
Something is clearly rotten in ministerial travel and, as we suspect, other things about this government are rotten, which is why an ICAC is so important. We will be the last jurisdiction in the country to implement an ICAC.
In regard to the level of dysfunction and disunity within the CLP government and the chaos that has culminated to the point they are a minority government, you only have to look at the disunity and instability. Shortly I will mention how that impacts on the Territory, but given they were a majority government in August 2012 – we saw the exodus of CLP members of parliament, starting with former Chief Minister Terry Mills, who was unceremoniously stabbed in the back by the very ambitious member for Braitling while Mr Mills was representing the Territory on important business in Japan. Eventually, after sitting on the backbench for a number of months, he announced his retirement.
We next saw the departure of a trio of MLAs from the government benches who collectively announced their resignations from the CLP, all Indigenous members of the CLP: the members for Arafura, Arnhem and Namatjira. Admittedly, a deal was done over a period of time to coax the member for Arafura back to the CLP, but the members for Namatjira and Arnhem have stood their ground and been vocal about the many faults of the CLP government. They have certainly done their bit as Independents to continue holding the government to account and asking questions of the government about how it is operating.
We knew things were getting pretty bad when in February this year we watched a soap opera unfold before our eyes, a major meltdown within the ranks of the CLP. We saw the midnight coup, which involved nine members of the CLP decide it was time for a leadership change. Nine members, the majority of the CLP, decided it was time for the member for Braitling to step down as Chief Minister. It was nine versus five and there was, bizarrely, a media conference held at 1 am on Tuesday 3 February 2015. Stepping out to that conference was the member for Katherine, flanked by the member for Port Darwin as the would-be Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister. The member for Katherine, at that 1 am media conference, said, ‘I have been elected Chief Minister apparent. A majority of my colleagues and I met and voted in favour of me as the Chief Minister over Adam Giles. I will be running in a fashion that is far more consultative with the people of the Northern Territory. Discontent with the government led to the challenge.’
They are pretty firm words and there was no doubt the member for Katherine was claiming the leadership, supported by eight of his colleagues, nine of them in total. Despite that, at 2.30 pm the member for Braitling called a media conference. Here is a snippet of what he had said at that media conference:
He went on:
He further said:
We were all gobsmacked when we watched that live broadcast on national television. As if Territory politics was not already looking bizarre enough, this happened at 2.30 pm. At that same media conference the member for Braitling went on to say:
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: In this rather erratic and bizarre media conference at 2.30 pm on 3 February, the member for Braitling, the deposed, not supported Chief Minister but not stepping down Chief Minister, talked really tough about some serious allegations about police and the resignation of the Police Commissioner a couple of months earlier. This is what he said:
He also said:
The next rather bizarre event was the day the CLP went into lockdown, nothing happened and appointments were cancelled. I was in Darwin for briefings that day and anything I had lined up on the fifth floor was canned. At a 7 pm media conference following a four hour parliamentary wing meeting, who stepped out to front the media on the steps of Parliament House? None other than the member for Katherine, and the member for Braitling, brothers in arms with all their issues resolved. This is what the member for Braitling had to say:
The member for Braitling is still the Chief Minister. Yes, the member for Katherine is still the Deputy Chief Minister, but clearly not all colleagues shared the view it was worth backing the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who basically said, ‘I’m not resigning. You can’t make me.’ Goodness knows what threats he made to his colleagues about why he would not step down.
The next part in this melodrama was to see the member for Araluen, one of the better performing Cabinet ministers in the CLP government, sacked from Cabinet. The Chief Minister spoke at meetings which were recorded about the member for Araluen and how he would, ‘Never work with that woman again’.
The member for Araluen, to her credit, sucked it up and tried to remain loyal and part of the team, but clearly it all became too much for her. On 17 June 2015, on the floor of this House, it came as a surprise to all of us, not the least of which was her colleagues, when she announced she was quitting the CLP, labelling it a boys’ club. These are some of the words she said on that day:
She went on to say:
It is small wonder this government has limped along since these very public stoushes. The disunity that must border on hatred between some of the government members cannot deliver a stable or functional government. For the member for Araluen to describe it as a boys’ club highlights the fact that with her and her colleagues’ departure from the Country Liberal government benches there was a 20% reduction in the team and a 50% reduction in female representation. It beggars belief that the government has limped along as long as it has.
Following the resignation of the member for Araluen, a few weeks ago we had the resignation of the member for Goyder. That was the tipping point. I am sure that decision was not made lightly, a weighty decision knowing that walking away from the government left it in a vulnerable minority position. That was a courageous decision by the member for Goyder. In her media conference she spoke about the serious soul-searching she had to do. She highlighted how the CLP was disconnected with Territorians.
That was not enough to make the Chief Minister stop and think, ‘Gosh, this is really serious. I really need to do some soul-searching. We cannot possibly be functional, how on earth can we govern as a minority?’ Completely out of touch as he has always been and in complete denial about the ramifications of minority governments, he said it would be business as usual. He also said, upon the departure of the member for Goyder:
Frankly, the words have become stronger now members have left the CLP government and combined with the Independents and members of the opposition to represent the views of Territorians who have had a gutful of the most dysfunctional government in the history of the Northern Territory.
The message is loud and clear to government that it is not in control of the numbers in this House and will be held to account.
This government has trashed the Territory and trashed business confidence. It has paralysed a public service which has seen its numbers and resources reduced, despite the public servants working across so many important areas of government service delivery.
The disruption to service delivery can be demonstrated in so many areas, but one of the biggest and most obvious is the serious delays. I hear noises coming from the government lobby room. I do not know if they are laughing or fighting. It is probably the latter, but it is certainly very loud in there.
Palmerston Regional Hospital has been delayed, there is no denying that. It has been delayed as a direct result of the dysfunction and infighting in the CLP government. We know there was a major blue between the Treasurer and the former Chief Minister where he threw a heavy Cabinet book across the table at Terry Mills. There was disagreement about the future of a new hospital in the Territory.
The member for Araluen mentioned delays to Palmerston Regional Hospital. That would have been open by the end of this year had plans established under Labor continued. Now the people of Palmerston and the rural area will be waiting until 2018, and they still cannot agree on which month it will be.
This government is woeful. The chaos within the ranks, the hurt inflicted on Territorians across the board, and the damage done to business confidence is shameful. For a motion nearly two years old this is still incredibly current.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge this statement was introduced to the House 12 months ago, before I was even a member of parliament, and remains as relevant now as it was then. Hopefully we do not have anyone else in the Chamber going into labour this evening after being stressed.
Most members of this House are on Facebook. A feature on Facebook shows your memories on this day from a few years earlier. It has shown news articles I have shared over the last few years, and brought back memories of what has happened in the Territory in the last three years. Many of these memories map the CLP lurching from crisis to crisis, so let us talk about some of those.
The CLP government promised to bring the Arafura Games back bigger and better but has failed to do so. I worked at the games in 2007. It was a fantastic opportunity to see the number of people the Arafura Games brought to the Northern Territory from across the seas, and to see the way our community got involved as spectators, at the opening, at the closing, to chaperone international teams, work as referees and a raft of other roles they performed as volunteers.
It was a brilliant event for the Northern Territory and it brought the community together. It was also a fantastic opportunity for athletes from across the seas to compete, and for our Northern Territory athletes to compete internationally, including those who wanted to qualify for the Paralympics.
The member for Wanguri outlined the $12m decrease in public education and the impact that has had on our schools. After all, cuts mean resources have to come from somewhere. For schools this has meant teachers, support staff and programs.
One of the first debates I contributed to in this House was in relation to alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory, which we all know is an incredibly expensive area of public policy. I asked the CLP government that day what the measure of success for this was? That question was not answered, which was a surprise to me given the huge investment in the policy.
Some other memories – Thursday last week, a year on from when the member for Fong Lim resigned from the Cabinet after making inappropriate and offensive comments to a staff member on the fifth floor. Shortly after that he called those opposite a nest of vipers. That was amongst other uncomplimentary comments made in an interview on Territory radio.
That same month parliament agreed to establish an inquiry into political donations. It was a surprise it was successful with the CLP government having the numbers in the House. It was overturned, but not before the Casuarina by-election. I assume the CLP government did not want to be up front with Territorians during that period about having no intention to see the inquiry proceed.
At the time the CLP government was also being vague about its plans and intentions regarding the sale of TIO. It was a plan and an intention that Territorians spoke very loudly about because they did not want to see their TIO sold, and the CLP government knew that. The government did not front Territorians at a public forum held in my electorate which was attended by many families and business owners. They chose to communicate through one page advertisements in the NT News. Even then, I am sure it was pretty much a done deal.
I am sure many of us can still hear the horns of cars rallying around Parliament House on the day that legislation was rammed through this House. Again, that was one of my first experiences of being a member of parliament and I found it appalling.
In February this year we saw the midnight coup, the 1 am media conference. The member for Araluen has left to become an Independent, and prominent members of the CLP have resigned and publicly had a lot to say about the conduct of this government. As recently as the last few weeks the member for Goyder acted on her frustration with the inner workings of the CLP government by joining the cross benches too.
Fast forward to the present – today we have listened to some bizarre debate from the members of the CLP government which, speaking on their own motion to establish an ICAC, seemed to pull out every argument against one known to man. We are all pleased that we are now working towards an ICAC in the Northern Territory. That is a real win for Territorians and I am glad we could do that. However, it is unfortunate that we needed to debate establishing an ICAC.
This is now a minority government, yet the Chief Minister continues to say it is business as usual. It is not business as usual. Members of government think they are the Rolling Stones when they are more like Nickelback. Let us face it, it is only because we have a minority government that Territorians will get the ICAC they want and deserve.
We have heard many interesting comments from this government about the chaos. The minister for Police shared this evaluation of the government:
This week he shared his views on instability at the Northern Territory Police Association Conference:
That was the same day the minister for Police and the Chief Minister contradicted each other about the promise to see an extra 120 police officers in the Northern Territory.
Tonight the member for Daly referred to Cabinet talking with one voice. In an ideal world, yes, that would happen, but that is not what Territorians are getting. Territorians have individuals pushing forward their own interests rather than working together to push forward the best interests of the Northern Territory. They seem to spend their days and their energy undermining each other.
In my community, day in, day out, people tell me they are sick of watching what happens with this government. They are sick of seeing the NT make national news because someone has said or done something outrageous. Territorians want to see professionalism not dirty laundry. As my colleague the member for Wanguri stated earlier, Territorians want faith in the government to get on with the core business of government. That faith is well and truly fading and it is not hard to see why.
Let us revisit some of the changes. We have had 15 reshuffles, two Chief Ministers, plus one Chief Minister apparent, five Deputy Chief Ministers plus one Deputy Chief Minister apparent, three Police ministers, five Health ministers, five Treasurers, six Education ministers, six Housing ministers, six Business ministers and six Sports ministers. Each reshuffle required time to get across their portfolio areas, be briefed and set their agenda. It works out at about six months of a new minister, although some ministers did not last that long in their new portfolios.
In estimates earlier this year the Chief Minister made a complete mockery of the public’s concerns about ministerial travel, and the Attorney-General made inflammatory disrespectful comments about our most vulnerable. At the core of politics is people, and this government continues to forget that. Every time the Chief Minister says this is business as usual he ignores the frustrations and concerns of everyday Territorians who know it is not.
A year ago the former Health minister admitted that car parking at Royal Darwin Hospital was a mistake that needed fixing. This is continually raised with me when doorknocking in my electorate and continues to be a mess. The more we raise it in parliament the more it seems to be ignored. It is causing frustration and distress for Territorians. Many people in my electorate work at the hospital or visit regularly, and this issue is raised with me week in, week out. The CLP government does not seem to think it is important.
Madam Speaker, it is time government members acknowledge the instability is undermining the confidence of Territorians and focus on the job rather than themselves. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 October 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, this motion was before parliament in October last year. It is now August 2015 and, sadly, there is not much positive change to report. This motion went to the issue of significant cuts to the education budget and global school budgets and the impact that was having on our schools.
The budget handed down by the Giles CLP government this year and the stories around the debacle that is the implementation of global school budgets means not much has changed.
The budget this year was a continuation of this government cutting public education. An amount of $12m was cut from government education in the budget papers. The continual cuts to government education, if you compare budgets from 2012 to today in real terms, is about $80m
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 51. There is a lot of noise in the House interrupting the member speaking.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, If you wish to talk could you go to the back of the gallery or into your lobby room.
Ms MANISON: We have seen some big cuts to education, particularly public education. This has resulted in cuts to teacher numbers, support staff, programs and subject selection. Schools are under increasing pressure because of decisions of the CLP government.
Under the CLP watch 516 jobs have gone from education. Some 516 full-time equivalent jobs were slashed from the Department of Education, including teachers and support staff. Sadly, a huge number of those were in our middle and senior schools. Those are critical years in the education of our kids. We have seen it happen in Darwin, Palmerston, Central Australia and Tennant Creek. There were very big cuts to teacher numbers and students now have less subject selection and bigger class sizes.
Debate suspended.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports from the member for Karama pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the RTD.
I also table the Members of the Legislative Assembly Quarterly Fuel Report.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to contribute to the adjournment debate tonight. I would like to begin with a fantastic effort from the Nhulunbuy community at a Relay for Life event over the weekend of 15-16 August.
It would never have happened without the tireless work and outstanding organisational skills of the community members led by Fiona Pearce. This is the third, possibly fourth, Relay for Life that Fiona has coordinated, along with Leanne and Pino Parise, Robyn Pellenat, Tiffany Wilks, Fiona Stimpson, Marcia Barnett and Susan Stiff. Wendy Troe was also a member of that committee. I was a part of the committee but make no claim to have been amongst the tireless or those with outstanding organisation skills. I missed a number of meetings, but I was pleased to do my bit and be there when the event was on.
The Nhulunbuy community came together and organised 19 teams, including three school teams. Each team fundraised intensively for weeks prior to the event. The massive efforts of the community managed to raise over $69 000 for the Cancer Council of the Northern Territory, funds that will stay in the Northern Territory. What particularly amazed me about this fundraising effort is that two years ago, prior to the downturn in Nhulunbuy, prior to the closure of the alumina refinery and more than 2000 leaving our community, the amount raised was $70 000.
Fiona Pearce had set a target for this Relay for Life, taking into consideration the downturn in our community – fewer people – and set a target of $30 000. We thought if we hit $30 000 it would be great. To not only go beyond double $30 000 but to raise nearly $69 000 within our community was outstanding.
It puts paid to comments Nhulunbuy has copped over the last few years with its downturn and the closure of the refinery after the government, amongst other things, reneged on the gas deal. People said Nhulunbuy was full of rich miners, its time was coming anyway, and all those unhelpful comments. I saw a number of Rio Tinto workers at Relay for Life, but I also saw kids, hairdressers, retail workers and doctors and nurses. I saw community people doing their bit and fundraising, and it was an incredible effort.
There are other people who deserve a special mention for their efforts in helping to put the Relay for Life event together, and particularly for assisting throughout the night. Those thanks go to Brendan Marchesi and Alan Naughton, who did a great job in restoring power at one stage when we had issues there; Chris Putland and Mita Dargaville from Nhulunbuy Corporation, who went above and beyond; Anthony (Tree) Pearce; Nhulunbuy Rotary Club, which did a number of things including cooking breakfast with the participants on the Sunday morning; and the ever reliable Michael Stimpson and Rob Stewart from Gove FM, along with Jezza, who kept everyone entertained throughout the afternoon and the night with radio and fantastic music.
I acknowledge the incredible efforts of Caroline Elliott from the Outback Marathoners team, who in the course of the Relay for Life event ran the equivalent of two marathons, starting at just after 2 pm and going through to 8 am the next day.
The success of this event really demonstrates what an amazing community Nhulunbuy is. I will place on the record the team names of all the community members who participated.
In the team called Away for Relay we had Wendy Troe, Andy Odell, Sarah Pearce and Robyn Pellenat.
In the team Cure Le Cancer we had Tegan Stiff, Lacey Asplin, Cooper Bartlett, Cheyenne Reynolds, Mahlia Snowden, Susan Stiff and Wanetta Willis.
In the team Djapana – Sunset Dreaming we had Zoe Shepherd, Robyn Atkinson, Sharai Haddock, Natasha Jackson, Kerryl McIntosh, Bruni Randall, Jason Randall and Casey Stanley.
In the massive team that was Fishing for a Cure we had – this team combined raised $18 000 alone – Poss Thompson, Gary Barnes, Tania Barnes, Julie Clements, Sarah Clements, Brayden Graham, James Graham, Shanae Graham, Beau Kirkby, Chad Kirkby, Kirra Kirkby, Tia Kirkby, Jo Smith, Dave Thompson, Katie Thompson, Mouse Thompson, Lou Cottle, Jeb Clements, Rob Spivey, Kerrin Bartlett, Annette Cotterill, Adam Dobson, Katie Dobson, Tracey McCarthy, Sarah Mitchell, Chris Putland and Gemma Porteous.
In the team Gove’s Dedicated Heroes and Gove’s Medicated Heroes from Gove District Hospital, we had Kirrilee McLennan, Jordynne Boyd, Kim Bryant, Clare Campbell, Kay Campbell, Chantal Drummond, Nari Fairbanks, Cambel Girle, Charlie Girle, Greg Girle, Lana Girle, Riza Gunn, Kimberly Inkster Kochaporn Parsons, Lisa Pullen, Myla Reardon, Heather Warr, Laura Garland, Sharon Winderlich, Carol Koffsovitz, Gina Bonita, Kaysie Dawson, Stuart Drake, Marie Gilmore, Joy Pascall, Bree Smith and Kathy Smith. The team, I think, won the best dressed and best decorated tent.
In Hakuna My Tatas we had Tiffany Wilks, Natalie Atkinson, Kristy Bazevski, Phoebe Burnham, Jade Dean, Kylie Field, Jamie Gordon, Frances Gurruwiwi, Murphy Gurruwiwi, Kirsten Jurd, Renee McConnell and Judy Miegel.
In one of the high school teams called the Jail House Rockers we had Cameron Stiff, Mollie Graham, Ashleigh Ogg, Lucille Patullo, Angus Ross, Jamie Ross, Koby Snowden, Patrick Walker and Josh Winderlich.
In the team Minions For Life, which was mainly Nhulunbuy Corporation staff, we had Angela McMillan, Damien Bellero, Sarah Bentley, Louise Deutsher, Tom Hughes, Gavin Law, Louise Law, Damien Messina, Brendan Moore and Charmaine Rungan.
In the team Outback Marathoners we had Rhoda Shine, Caroline Elliott, Debbie Lines, Kasey Lloyd, Wendy Northcott, Kelly Nottle, Kim O’Brien, Sabina Smith and Heather Waugh.
In the team with a brilliantly decorated tent, Pirates of the CURE-ibbean, we had Tess Hutchinson, Carrieann Arnold, Antonia Axiak, Alix Betts, Christin Burke, Trinity Geddes, Courtney Hodgson, Kerry Inkster, Lakota Johnson, Rebecca Johnston, Litia Katonivere, Carlene Tawhi and Courtney Warr.
I am not sure if the team Smokin Bacon made it – our local police – but I have Joanne Muchow’s name alongside that team.
The team Smurf n Turf was Sophie Grambeau, Cameron Adams, Juran Adams, Cara Baines, Stuart Bramston, Tessa Ezergailis, April Sage, Travis Schwennesen, Eddi Seni and Eliza Skinner.
The team The 80s had Erin Mossley, Tamara Bajraktari, Crystal Barry, Melinda Birrell, Riley Cross, Aaron Davidson, Codie Hill, Penny Page, Jamie Parry, Jonathan Piper-Green, Carleen Reibelt, Karen Rose, Natasha Schloss, Simon Strickett and Yvette Unwin.
In the team called The Leopard Lounge, which is the name of our local hairdressing salon, we had Trudy Aston, Hollie Allington, Saraya Aston, Beth Downes, Michelle Evans, Lisa Mann, Beth Regan, Eva Simpson, Mary Sinclair, Elvie Vearncombe, Nikki Watson and Barbara Zalunardo.
In the team from Nhulunbuy Christian College School we had Lara Stimpson, Isabel Blundell, Leila Dunn, Hannah Fourie, Remi Grieve, Aloisia Kemp, Pauline Lamboa, Phoebe Lamboa, Louis O’Callaghan, Serina O’Connor, Hayden Pickford, Tahli Stimpson, Michael Vos and Tailah Whitmore.
The last team is the Sidekicks 1 & 2 from Nhulunbuy High School. We had Taylah Edwards, Sam Baulch, Danielle Botha, Savanne Canobie, Liam Cottrell, Danielle Even, Jordina Grieve, Emily Hughes, Joshua King, Jack Kokles-Ridgeway, Connor Lobenwein, Matthew McLean, Megan Morris, Riley Neenan, Alex Parfitt, Teneka Solar, Nathan Thomson-Finn, Maea Tongamoa, Abbey-Rose Vaggs, Jack Zalunardo and Luke Winmar-Briggs.
There were close to 100 sponsors and, whilst I have mentioned all those names, I do not have time to mention all the sponsors. There is no doubt that Nhulunbuy folk, be they business or local residents, dug deeply into their pockets to support this event and reach that fundraising target of $69 000.
It was a great honour for me to lead the candle ceremony, a sad ceremony where we remembered everybody in our community lost to cancer. I lit candles that evening for two incredible women whom I have seen pass to cancer this year, Campbel Giles in February, and the beautiful and wonderfully smart Pippa Rudd, who passed away in July. We will never forget those women; we will never forget people we have lost to cancer. We hug close to us those who have survived, we mourn those we have lost, and we work hard to find a cure for cancer so that we may one day have a world free of this this terrible disease.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this year the Minister for Transport, Hon Peter Chandler MLA, approved the creation of a Road Safety Community Grants Program. The program offers funding to Territory community groups and local governments, supporting the development and delivery of road safety projects at a local level.
The first round of funding opened for applications on 1 June 2015 and closed on 1 July 2015. A total of 22 applications were received from various schools, local government organisations and community groups. Five of the projects received were from outside the greater Darwin and Palmerston municipalities, one of which was from Alice Springs and four were received from our regional areas.
The projects put forward in the applications were wide ranging and included areas such as variable speed signs, signage, television advertisements, art competitions, banners and school bicycle programs. Sixteen projects representing a total funding allocation of over $74 000 have been approved for grants, and I extend my congratulations to the applicants.
A great example of a successful applicant’s project is Gray Primary School in my electorate. Their project titled ‘Bikes, Scooters and Safety Video’ is aimed at educating students, drivers and the community on road safety by creating a documentary showcasing road safety when riding a bike or scooter to school. This documentary will be shown to students throughout the school via assemblies and to parents via information sessions. Gray Primary School will receive $3524 for this project, and I congratulate them on this excellent achievement.
I also give special mention and congratulations to Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre and Ark Aid Incorporated, which both fall within my electorate and have both been named as successful applicants.
Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre’s project, titled ‘Riding Adaptive Bicycles and Tricycles in the Community’, will help to educate children with special needs about road safety. The students will learn the skills involved to ride adaptive bicycles and tricycles safely in the community and will have roadside road safety training.
Ark Aid Incorporated’s project titled ‘Wildlife on Our Roads’ aims to increase motorists’ awareness and change driver behaviour around wildlife to decrease wildlife fatalities. This will be achieved through online advertisements, bumper stickers and an A-frame poster.
A second round of grants will open on 1 November 2015 and many organisations have indicated their interest in submitting an application. I encourage all our local organisations to submit an application for the next round of grants for this great road safety initiative.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to talk about the amazing efforts of a man at the heart of what it is to be a true Territorian. Bob White, a well-known Katherine identity, has worked tirelessly to protect the people of the Northern Territory from wildfires. In July, after many years of hard work and dedication, Bob retired from his position as Bushfires NT’s Regional Fire Control Officer of the savannah region.
Bob started working with the Northern Territory public service in 1995 at the NT Rural College. In 2001 he joined the Bushfires Council as a Fire Control Officer in the Katherine region. Bob has been a committed and enthusiastic Bushfires NT officer with a focus on always helping others. He was particularly interested in the design and supply of equipment best suited to fire management across the savannah region, and he took a lead role in proving the safety and welfare of volunteers and volunteer brigades. Indeed, Bob had been a passionate supporter of Katherine’s Volunteer Bushfire Brigade, dedicating much of his time helping to train local volunteers.
He also supported the Waanyi Garawa Rangers’ fire management programs and was instrumental in helping traditional owners improve their fire management capacity. This program continues to achieve strong fire management outcomes across the gulf region, which is benefiting all landholders in the area.
I was honoured to attend Bob’s farewell in Katherine recently. As Minister for Land Resource Management I presented Bob with a Long and Meritorious Service Medal in recognition of his contribution to fire management in savannah regions.
On behalf of Territorians, I say thank you to Bob for his valued service and commitment to the Northern Territory, particularly for his passion in improving firefighting strategy and techniques. Bob, I wish you well in your retirement.
This year the Katherine Show celebrated its 50th anniversary in style with several fun-filled days of competition and challenges. The Katherine Show is one of the most popular events on our annual calendar and is loved by both locals and visitors alike. The half-century birthday of this wonderful event did not disappoint, with a show that was bigger and better than ever before.
Entries for the campdraft filled early and nominations for the general, cattle and prenominated equestrian also reached capacity. Also back by popular demand at the 50th Katherine Show were the dog novelty events and jumping. The crowd favourites included weave pools, tunnels and mini jumps. Once again my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries had a very strong presence at the Katherine Show with its pavilion open on both the main days of Friday and Saturday.
Primary Industry and Fisheries staff were on hand to present key information about the department’s work with cattle, rangelands, cropping and horticulture. The display also featured promotions on animal welfare, plant quarantine, animal biosecurity and information on the new reef fishing control laws. New fish-measuring stickers were given away to boat owners and were undoubtedly a huge success.
Visitors to the 50th Katherine Show also had the opportunity to try their hand at home agriculture by planting parsley, basil and thyme available free from the department’s stand. An interactive map illustrating the wide variety of commercial horticultural crops that are grown in the Northern Territory attracted a lot of interest from the crowd.
The Katherine Show certainly did not disappoint. It had something for everyone, and its huge success is testament to many months of planning and the hard work put in by Katherine and District Show Society members.
In particular I want to congratulate the President of the Katherine Show Society, Terry Avenell, and also all the committee members for the hard work they put into making the 50th Katherine Show such a huge success.
I also want to pay special mention to a show stalwart, Anna Kerwin. Anna has been around the Katherine Show circuit for a very long time and the work she does is instrumental in making sure the show in Katherine is a success every year, as it was for its 50th this year.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention one other person, and that is Bronwyn Chandler. Bronwyn is one of Katherine’s renowned cake makers. This year she made a cake that was in keeping with the theme of the show. It was a moving clown where you pop the ping pong ball into the mouth and, as it moves, it pops the ball down into a score. Of course it was not mechanical in any way, but the head moved. It really was a great effort by Bronwyn. That was the main cake cut at the opening ceremony of the show this year by Chief Minister Adam Giles, who came down on Friday. It was very special. Thank you to Bronwyn, Anna, Terry and all the volunteers. There are way too many to name, but all the volunteers made the show such an enormous success.
This year four Katherine residents were made honorary life members of the Katherine and District Show Society in recognition of the many years they have dedicated to ensuring its success. Well done and congratulations to Peter Farnden, Henry Higgins, Roger Pate and Kim Pate for receiving these wonderful acknowledgements.
The 50th Katherine and District Show was attended by over 17 000 people. It is hard to imagine that 17 000 people, over the course of a couple of days, poured through the Katherine Show. It is a testament to the hard work that goes in to make it a place people want to go. It was a pleasure to attend this remarkable community event. I look forward to support the Katherine Show at its 51st birthday next year.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I have some wonderful sports news. Members would have read in the NT News about the appointment of the Northern Territory Institute of Sport hockey coach Nick Lenoir, who is assistant coach with the Australian under 21 men’s hockey team. It is a great honour and is testament to Nick’s work with the NTIS hockey program and Hockey NT’s academy program.
Nick will join the team on its overseas tour from 4 to 19 October 2015. This tour will include a four nation tournament in Singapore followed by a junior Sultan Azlan Shah Cup in Malaysia. This opportunity is a result of Nick’s success with NTIS athletics, his coaching skill set, previous involvement with national junior teams and good knowledge of the players involved.
He is not the only NTIS coach doing us proud. Rugby league coach, Duncan MacGillivray, will be an assistant coach to the Australian Senior Combined Affiliated States Team for their overseas tour this year from 21 to 28 September. This tour will include two test matches against the Tongan international team over the course of the week. This CAS team is selected from the best players from South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory who played in the CAS senior men’s competition in June. I think that was in Palmerston.
I know all members will wish Nick and Duncan well and thank them for being great ambassadors for Territory sport and the NTIS.
While we are talking about hockey, honourable members may be aware that Darwin has been selected as the location for both the 2015 Men’s Australian Hockey League and the under 13 boys national championship.
These are top tier national events and the Northern Territory government is proudly supporting them with $10 000 in funding under our Quick Response Program. Eight teams will compete in the men’s competition and 12 teams in the under 13 boy’s competition. Hockey NT anticipates there will be more than 420 participants at the event and many more spectators.
In other great news, congratulations to Mitch Purcell and Jarred Perry, who are the youngest referees to officiate at the National Under 12s Rugby League Competition held at Goodline Park, Palmerston recently. Both 14-year olds are deserving of recognition. They have been refereeing less than two years and their achievement is a result of being part of the Mackillop Catholic College rugby league program.
They were chosen from more than 30 referees to officiate at the national carnival, after representing the NT at the Laurie Spina Shield under 11s carnival in Townsville. Mitch’s proud sister, Jess Hyde, brought their achievements to my attention.
Jess says they went really well and were given good reports and feedback. They are very dedicated to their sport. This is a wonderful story. These two young men are demonstrating skills, maturity and commitment. They are a credit to their families, their school and their sport.
From my electorate, I would like to give a shout out to Steve McWilliam from the Coomalie Scout group, who this month received an adult recognition award from Scouts Australia. The awards are presented to volunteer leaders who have given valuable service above and beyond what is normally expected. Scout leaders not only deliver programs with youth around camping, learning and exploring, but are also required to undertake VET level courses up to diploma level.
Scouts NT says scouting continues to grow in the Northern Territory, with the recent opening of a new crew in the Litchfield area. This is a great initiative for the area. Thank you, Scouts Australia, and congratulations again to Steve McWilliam.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, today in Question Time I asked the Treasurer to provide me with statistics on the take up of the First Home Owner Grant in Alice Springs since the guidelines were changed on 1 January 2015.
I asked the Treasurer to provide statistics for the past seven months – 1 January 2015 to 31 July 2015 – on how many homeowners have received grants in Alice Springs, and only those who have received the grant in their bank account, and how this compares to the same seven months of the previous year before the guidelines were changed, that is from 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2014.
The Treasurer refused to take the question on notice, but said he would provide the information. He refused to give a time line of when he would provide this information when asked by Madam Speaker.
The Treasurer has failed to provide me with those statistics I requested over six hours ago. These figures would not, or should not, have been difficult to source. The Treasurer has deliberately not provided me with these figures and I suspect that is due to the fact these stats are probably not very good for government. I suspect these statistics that reflect there have been next to no First Home Owner Grant payments in Alice Springs since 1 January 2015. I suspect at the very minimum there has been a significant drop in First Home Owner Grant payments in Alice Springs.
The impact of changing the First Home Owner Grant to only new homes in Alice Springs has been profound and, overall, very negative.
The Treasurer told parliament today that restricting the First Home Owner Grant to just new homes has been a great thing for the Territory. He said it has increased downward pressure on the market and has made housing cheaper. He also implied these changes in guidelines had been a great success and led to more new homes being built and other housing becoming affordable. I believe this to be a very narrow and misleading analysis.
Treasurer, it may be the case in Darwin that this has been a successful strategy, where the population is growing and new homes are being built, but this is not the case in Alice Springs. Restricting the First Home Owner Grant in Alice Springs has been an economic and social mistake. In Alice Springs we have a shrinking population and very few homes are being built. Alice Springs is not a boom town. It went through a boom phase in the 1980s. Since then Alice Springs has remained stable, but by no means have we enjoyed the same level of economic and population growth as the greater Darwin region.
In Alice Springs the change to the First Home Owner Grant to apply to only new homes has not had the positive effect the Treasurer claims. There are very few new houses in Alice Springs to buy. The newly built homes in Alice Springs are generally too expensive for most first homeowners. All the changes to the First Home Owner Grant guidelines have achieved is to keep people out of the real estate market, which is a disaster for the town.
In the electorate of Araluen only five homes are being built, and the purchasers of these houses may or may not be entitled to the First Home Owner Grant. These five half-built homes are in the new Kilgariff subdivision. There is an old home unit complex, formerly the old police quarters in Allchurch Street, in the electorate of Araluen. These units may qualify as new homes, but this is yet to be tested.
In my electorate of Araluen there are only five half-built homes, potentially for only five people who may or may not be able to claim the First Home Owner Grant. It would not surprise me if there have been no First Home Owner Grant payments in the electorate of Araluen since these changes because there have been no homes completely built since 1 January 2015 that I am aware of. I could be wrong, but I suspect I am right.
The other side of the story is that the lower-priced homes in Alice Springs previously purchased through the First Home Owner Grant are not selling. Cheap homes in Alice Springs are now not selling but sitting on the market for very long periods.
Young people, those with families, new residents to Alice Springs, new Australians coming to Alice Springs and people who previously qualified for the First Home Owner Grant to purchase existing homes are no longer entering the housing market. Affordable homes in Alice Springs are not selling and this is a huge problem. The market for these lower-priced homes is stagnant. Sales have dropped significantly, and the town is littered with for sale signs for this bracket of low cost homes.
The mean price of home sales in Alice Springs has risen because the lower-cost homes are not selling. Buyers are buying more expensive homes. The traditional buyers of less expensive homes cannot afford to get into the market. Investors of these lower priced homes wanting to turn over their properties cannot sell; they are finding themselves stuck with their low cost homes worrying about their declining investment. I have spoken to several Alice Springs real estate agents who can confirm this. Confidence in the town as a good place to invest in rental accommodation has plummeted according to local real estate agents.
Investors cannot sell their low cost homes, and because of the drop in demand their investments have significantly dropped in value. A gap has emerged in the real estate market, low-cost housing in Alice Springs is not selling, the demand has dropped and people cannot enter the housing market and people are leaving town prematurely.
Contrary to what the Treasurer said today, the changes made to the First Home Owner Grant to restrict it to just new homes are damaging the local economy of Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a small, contained community and every job loss, business closure or business downsize has a reverberating effect across the whole community.
The sale of residential properties in Alice Springs has plummeted during the last seven months. This has impacted on the whole community in regard to jobs, businesses, families leaving town and investors losing out. More than ever, it means that people cannot buy a home in Alice Springs. This downturn in the local real estate industry is reverberating across the whole economy of Alice Springs, and this is not good. Alice Springs is doing it tough economically; there has been a definite slowing in the Alice Springs economy. Despite what some will have you believe, overall businesses are doing it tough in Alice. We need to have that extra assistance in place to encourage our kids to stay in Alice Springs to help our newcomers stay and help stabilise our workforce.
I ask the Treasurer to seriously consider changing the requirements for the First Home Owner Grant to include existing homes in Alice Springs. I suspect this is also a problem for other regional towns in the Northern Territory. The Treasurer needs to make sure that restricting the First Home Owner Grant is not having a detrimental effect on all regional centres’ economies across the Northern Territory.
When I first came to Alice Springs in the early 1990s I bought a home with the assistance of the First Home Owner Grant. I paid around $100 000 for my property and the First Home Owner Grant was $7000. This was a huge help for me buying my first home. In hindsight, it was the greatest financial move I have made in my life. It gave me a place to call home, committed me to Alice Springs; it meant I put down roots and became a part of the community, and precipitated my love for the town and the people. I am almost a local. I have not lived in Alice Springs for 25 years, but if it was not for the First Home Owner Grant and committing financially to Alice Springs, I probably would have left years ago.
The social and economic power of the First Home Owner Grant cannot be underestimated. If people invest financially in the town they are more likely to stay. I did, and I suspect many others have done the same over the many decades the First Home Owner Grant has assisted people to buy into the local area. Up until recently, the First Home Owner Grant was the most generous one in Australia.
This change to the First Home Owner Grant, affecting Alice Springs from 1 January 2015, must be reversed by the government. The town is suffering. We need to give people a chance to buy a home in Alice Springs and discover what an amazing place Alice Springs is to live and raise a family.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, several things were said in the House tonight by the member for Wanguri and I cannot resist the temptation to correct them.
She stated a number of CLP stalwarts had left the party. Yes, there has been a small number, but hundreds of strong women have stayed. The opposition may not want to look at that fact. They say five good, strong CLP women have left. Member for Wanguri, hundreds have stayed to support the CLP and have rigorous and awesome debates about policy issues.
The member for Wanguri also mentioned chaos and infighting. In the House today I went through the economic achievements of the Giles government. Given we are leading the country I will not go through those again, but I refer the member for Wanguri to those statements and ask her to read Hansard to see the awesome achievements the Giles government has made.
Unfortunately she may not know the history of the ALP, but members who have been in this House longer than her might like to tell her about the knifing of Clare Martin by Paul Henderson, the former member for Wanguri. That coup occurred on a Sunday afternoon. She might like to talk to the member for Karama, who was part of that. She might ask the member for Karama about the deal between the then member for Wanguri, Mr Paul Henderson, and the then member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour.
It is not for me to say what happened, but she might like to talk to those people about the knifing of Clare Martin. One ought to be careful about throwing stones, and should get their history lessons right first.
The member for Wanguri also mentioned the Arafura Games. She might like to look at the last set of Labor budget papers to see how much was allocated to the Arafura Games. She could bring that back to the House and debate if her side intended to do anything because given the amount of money they did not put into it, nothing was happening.
The Country Liberal government is working to create a prosperous economy. We have demonstrated today in this House that we have achieved that and we will continue to improve it.
Tonight I want to tell members and Territorians what role the China free trade agreement will play in delivering this prosperity. Before I do, it would be remiss of me if I did not restate the harm the Territory Labor Party, and its union colleagues, will cause to our international relations with their campaign of fear and hatred towards Chinese workers.
Today I updated members on the progress and discussions I am having with Chinese investors wanting to establish a Northern Territory-themed section in a planned multimillion-dollar eco safari park in China. This project is great news for the tourism industry. Millions of Chinese tourists visit Chimelong facilities annually, and we are working with Chimelong to increase the relatively low percentage of Chinese tourists visiting the Northern Territory.
Chimelong sees around 80 000 people a day through its parks and is now working with us to design and build a unique Australian Northern Territory’s own safari park which will carry distinctive regional animals, vegetation and an exhibition education centre which showcases the Northern Territory’s natural environment and culture. From that park we can promote visitation to the Northern Territory. It is an exciting proposition from a tourism market that is expected to explode in coming years.
Talks have been ongoing with the Chinese proponents and have now reached the point where Mr Zhigang has instructed a team of senior staff to visit the Northern Territory as soon as possible for further meetings with me and government to progress this proposed development. This represents a huge opportunity for Territory tourism; however, all the work being done on the Territory’s international relationship with China is at risk because of the fear and loathing campaign aimed at the Chinese by Territory Labor and the unions. Their message to Australians is to not let the Chinese take our kids’ jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Free trade agreements can also lift local capability and engage with a particular market through the range of awareness-raising and upskilling activities they generate.
As China’s economy continues to shift away from investment-led growth towards private consumption, we can expect increased Chinese demand for premium and high-quality Australian food products, including meats and fruits.
The free trade agreement will see a gradual reduction of tariffs leading to the opening up of new market opportunities with further benefits being achieved over time. We can expect increased Chinese interest in direct investment opportunities in Australia in sectors such as agriculture, real estate, resources and infrastructure.
An additional component of this agreement is provision for the conclusion of investment facilitation arrangements. Chinese companies making significant investments in Australia of more than $150m in specific infrastructure development projects can bring in skilled workers from overseas. I emphasise this is when suitable local workers cannot be found. I do not know what part the Labor Party and unions do not understand in ‘when suitable local workers cannot be found’.
The investment facilitation arrangements will not allow unskilled or underpaid Chinese workers to staff major projects. Australian workers will continue to be given first priority.
The investment facilitation agreements are similar to existing arrangements, such as the Designated Area Migration and Enterprise Migration Agreements. Under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement employment and training opportunities for Australian workers remain the first priority, and the entry of overseas workers under a project agreement must be demonstrably in Australia’s national interest.
Labor’s campaign of fear and hatred is causing ill-informed hostility towards the Chinese. This is evident from some of the responses broadcast by local radio. I do not know what Labor wants to achieve with this campaign. Almost 5000 Chinese people live here, our Lord Mayor is of Chinese origin, and they say we do not want Chinese people here.
This year 120 million Chinese people were tourists. About 15 000 to 16 000 came to the Territory, with about one million into Australia. We want a bigger slice of that tourism market, but what the Labor Party is doing in conjunction with its Labor friends is jeopardising that.
People will not come to the Northern Territory if they do not feel welcome. What is happening on local radio, in newspapers and through electronic media is a campaign to say they are not welcome here and to go away.
I do not know what part the Labor Party and unions do not understand. These people make the investment. If they do not, there are no jobs. They do not understand what ‘when suitable local workers cannot be found’ means.
It is astounding that these people cannot grasp some of the words in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It almost beggars belief – can they read? Do they understand English words? They do not seem to understand what is written in the agreement.
I ask all government members to encourage the opposition to desist from what is almost racism and hatred towards Chinese workers.
I also ask them to read Mark Latham’s book. A former Labor leader, Mark Latham commented on what we need to get this country moving. This country was built on foreign investment and joint ventures. That continues and will into the future.
With such a huge land mass and small population we need to ensure overseas investors are prepared to invest in our economy to generate wealth for our future, our kids’ future and that of our grandchildren. This will also generate the taxes which enable us to make the Northern Territory a great place to live.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to pick up a couple of comments from my parliamentary colleague. I do not think anybody in this Chamber is racist against Chinese. Members of the government have said that today but I do not accept it. It is more about tradespeople coming in with skill sets different to Australians’. I have constituents in occupations similar to those that will be allowed into the country and I have no issue with that, but they will not have to undergo any further qualifications.
The one that scares me is electricity. You never muck around with electricity. Carpentry and joinery I can get away with. Those two will not have to be reassessed, but electricity and electricians? I will not employ someone unless they have been qualified, reassessed and accredited with Australian training and Australian skills.
I respect your views, member for Sanderson, and I will leave it at that.
I will not talk about anyone in my constituency today, which I usually like to do because there are so many good stories. However, I want to pick up on some comments from the Minister for Lands and Planning, David Tollner, in the member for Nelson’s motion regarding the rural area and the current challenges and issues we have had. The minister was strident in telling the House that he had written to me, the member for Goyder, as well as the members for Daly and Nelson in regard to setting up a committee and that would solve all the problems. However, he failed to tell members what he put in his letter. He also failed to tell the Chamber that I replied to and countered his offer, which I think was a far more cohesive letter and had a sound basis for going forward with challenges in the rural area.
I want to read it to honourable members this evening. This is from the Minister for Lands and Planning:
So far so good.
Where is the evidence? Of course everyone wants to live in the rural area; that is why we live there and we like it. It is safe, secure and nice, but where is his evidence that is what a lot of people want to do?
I will go back to the letter:
Where from? Next paragraph:
Those points are correct.
Correct.
Well, that is an understatement.
I have had no discussions with anyone, least of all the minister or any of my rural colleagues about an independent body to examine rezoning proposals. If there was evidence of this, where was it? When did it happen? Show us the evidence. It is not the scheme itself that is the problem, it is the fact the minister and the government are doing ad hoc rezonings outside the Litchfield land use objectives and not considering the current zoning, the amenity and all the other issues that go with rezoning and subdividing chunks of land in the rural area.
Next paragraph in the letter:
That is quite correct. The minister has that right and, in the past, ministers have done that.
Basically, the Litchfield Council boundaries.
That is, the report that comes out of the Development Consent Authority.
That is good, appropriate development in the rural area.
What the minister was proposing was basically a subcommittee of the Development Consent Authority. I appreciate the minister was extending an olive branch. On the face of it the letter and proposal seem reasonable; however, it was light on detail, the committee does not represent the mix of the parliament – in other words it should have been tripartisan – there is no mention of who would have been chairman, no scope of works, would it be everything that goes before the Development Consent Authority or just rezoning? There is no terms of reference and no information on what would happen when this subcommittee put a report to the minister. Was the report to be made public?
Currently a report from the Development Consent Authority to the minister is not made public. The rural area has no right of appeal, there is no comfort in how the minister makes his decision, and, quite frankly, I think it was just setting up a committee for committee’s sake. I did not come down in the last shower of rain, which was last week in Coolalinga, so I know exactly where the minister was coming from: set up a committee for the sake of setting up a committee and keep my rural colleagues and me on board or quiet.
There was nothing about a time frame and the minister said we did not take up his offer. He was disappointed – I forget what he was, but it does not matter. I wrote to the minister. I legitimately took what he said on board. I discussed it with my rural colleagues and sent a copy of this letter to my parliamentary colleagues, Gary Higgins and Gerry Wood, and they appreciated and accepted my letter. I said:
Dear Minister
I quote from my letter:
If the government wants to be accountable and transparent, and if the minister was truly honest about his offer to the rural members he should have considered this seriously.
Back to the letter:
I sent that on 14 August and I have yet to receive a reply from the minister. Quite honestly, I doubt I will get a reply because I do not think the Minister for Lands and Planning is truly genuine in his efforts to meet the challenges of planning, development and growth in the rural area.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, today, alongside the Chief Minister, I was proud to announce that six more Territory government schools will be given a greater say in how they run when they become independent public schools next year, taking the total to 12 schools across the Territory. The independent public schools, or IPS, program was introduced in the Northern Territory this year to provide public schools with more flexibility and/or autonomy. Increasing school autonomy is a key element of our strategic plan, creating success together, and is a key priority for the Northern Territory.
The IPS initiative has been one of the most significant education reforms in decades and is transforming public schooling in the Northern Territory. Independent status gives schools and communities more say, flexibility and opportunity to innovate the way they offer education to improve outcomes for students.
I am happy to inform the House that the following schools will be independent public schools in 2016: Bakewell Primary School; Casuarina Street Primary School; Casuarina Senior College; Durack Primary School; Taminmin College; and Gunbalanya School, our first remote school.
The IPS status for Gunbalanya School demonstrates its strong commitment to improving outcomes for young children and students in the community. Co-Principal of Gunbalanya School, Sue Trimble, was quoted as saying that becoming an independent public school was an opportunity for the school to lead community decision making. Ms Trimble went on to say being an independent public school will assist in generational change for students and families in closing the gap for a better future.
It is fantastic to see a very remote school go from strength to strength and determine to work hard for years to come. When a school receives IPS status leadership from the principal, parents, teacher body, local community – all those things brought together help give a school and students the opportunity to achieve everything possible. The school principals and local school communities are empowered with more authority to manage their schools and tailor teaching and learning in the best interests of their students. Independent public schools have a one-line budget to direct funds where it deems appropriate, whether it be for additional pastoral care, specialist teachers or leadership support.
Significantly, an IPS school will have oversight from a school board comprising members of the local community and teaching fraternity. Next year we will have 12 independent public schools across the Territory, and I foresee this figure rising dramatically over the coming years because I know how many schools are interested and how many people are putting in applications.
Darwin High School is a shining example of what can be achieved under the IPS initiative. Darwin High School developed a new business plan outlining key priorities for the next four years and targets for improved school performance. It has formed stronger partnerships with its alumni community and industry to promote and invest in the future of the school. The school has developed a master plan in consultation with staff, students and the school community with a focus on the Bullocky Point Precinct and working together with Darwin Middle School and the NT Open Education Centre to provide world-class facilities and programs for students.
Principal of Darwin High, Trevor Read, said it is fantastic to be one of the first independent public schools in the Northern Territory and he should be congratulated. Mr Read said:
I commend Darwin High School as well as Braitling Primary School, Larrakeyah Primary School, Palmerston Senior College and Wulagi Primary School on a successful first year under the initiative. In particular, Darwin High School has had some of the best results of all schools across the Northern Territory, including the private sector.
These six schools are leading the way and are shining examples of the merits of independent public schooling.
It is important to note that 2016 will see senior secondary schools in the greater Darwin area as IPS. Casuarina Senior College and Taminmin College will join Darwin High School and Darwin Palmerston Senior College. This will significantly lift the educational opportunities for our senior secondary students and will make these schools highly competitive with non-government schools in the greater Darwin area.
Before the Country Liberals came to office, principals and school communities were shackled with red tape and regulation. Policy decisions were dictated to schools by centralised bureaucracy with parents and teachers given little say on teaching methods and programs. Now parents and school communities have a real say in what is best for their local school. With government, the department and relevant schools working together, we have made real progress, but there is more to be done to achieve better results and we are kicking goals there too.
The six schools will receive $50 000 in grant funding from the Commonwealth and will share in the Northern Territory government’s $2m investment in independent public schooling to support innovation, greater community involvement and improved student outcomes.
I was disappointed to see the comments from the Australian Education Union’s Jarvis Ryan today. Mr Ryan’s only ammunition is to attack me, the CLP or to undermine education in the Territory. IPS is an opt-in model, not mandatory. Why do we have 12 schools signed up, with many more applying or showing a real interest in the model, if it was not wanted by our school community?
Jarvis Ryan needs to get out into the community and talk to parents, teachers and principals and, like me, focus on improving schools rather than sitting behind a desk and using the old chestnut of attacking Pete or undermining the Northern Territory education sector. It is no secret that the Country Liberal government has the clear vision to give Territory kids the best education possible. IPS is a great opportunity for parents, principals and teachers to work together and have a greater say in how their schools are run.
The Country Liberals government is focused on achieving better results and creating job opportunities for Territory students by enhancing teaching quality, increasing school autonomy and investing in student learning.
We want to ensure Territory students get the best possible education so they can reach their potential and increase their job prospects when they finish school.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to speak about the first very remote school becoming an independent public school.
Today we heard that six more Territory government schools will be given a greater say in how they are run and will become independent public schools next year. The independent public school initiative is one of the most significant education reforms in decades and is transforming public schooling in the Northern Territory.
I was happy to learn that Gunbalanya School was successful in its application to transition to an independent public school. This marks the first very remote school to become an independent public school in the Territory. This is a very exciting announcement for the community and one I have no doubt they will pick up and run with.
Gunbalanya School is located in Gunbalanya community, approximately 320 km east of Darwin and east of the border of Kakadu National Park in north Arnhem Land. Gunbalanya School provides education from preschool to middle and senior years, and currently has 286 students.
Gunbalanya School has expanded rapidly in recent years, with the construction and establishment of the child and family centre and the trade training centre as part of the school. Gunbalanya School has journeyed towards increasing school autonomy and a great example of this is the flexible school calendar already in place.
I will outline to the House a few key IPS initiatives to be undertaken by Gunbalanya next year. The school will accelerate the current initiative of embracing families and the learning process and creating lifelong learning, with an emphasis on providing new employment pathways for students. It will further develop the child and family centre and trade training centre to become an interagency and community focus point.
Service delivery and growing the child and family centre will provide best practice for families in the area, and also ensure Gunbalanya students and their families are school-ready and involved in decision-making to create culturally appropriate learning.
Involving the trade training centre to become a community trading centre and epicentre of community development projects, including delivering and upgrading skills for adults learners, will expose students to role models. It will also reaffirm that learning is a lifelong process, facilitating a school to job pathway map as a learning journey for secondary students.
The school will also be increasing the numbers of graduates from the centre and consolidating the relationship between industry partners to prepare students for the workforce. Working with Njanjma Rangers, the school will run culture camps for local and interstate visitors by providing tourism training for students and families in homelands. This will keep the purpose of education and employment pathways in context, where English is only spoken when teachers are visiting. The school is building capacity both ways by providing intercultural learning for Indigenous people and educating students to have a global identity. This will prepare them for the world of living beyond the Gunbalanya community while maintaining a strong cultural identity.
Being an IPS will help with the generational change for children and families, and with closing the gap for a better future.
Gunbalanya School has co-principalship in place, which is an innovative way of working with the community. There is a strong traditional culture as well as skills in western culture. IPS will allow the whole Gunbalanya community to come together, be innovative, share best practice and focus on a long-term vision for the school.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I put a call out to the Chief Minister and the Treasurer for some support for the constituents of Tennant Creek, the Barkly and Central Australia. I draw the Chief Minister’s attention to the comments made about the price of fuel in the Northern Territory.
I quote from a Hansard rush of Question Time on 25 August 2015. Mr Conlan asked a question of the Chief Minister about reducing the cost of living: In his response the Chief Minister said:
Chief Minister, I will tell you about Tennant Creek, the Barkly and Central Australia on behalf of our constituents. The Chief Minister talked about fuel prices again today. In Question Time today he quoted fuel prices in the Territory as being the lowest in the nation, the cheapest in the country.
Chief Minister, I made contact with you in June through the Barkly electorate office seeking your support on behalf of constituents of Tennant Creek, Barkly and Central Australia. I received no reply. However, you passed on our concern to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has not replied, but I have had a reply from a fantastic Treasury official. I thank that Treasury official for their diligence in getting back to me on behalf of Barkly, Tennant Creek and Central Australian constituents yesterday. Chief Minister, I put the call out to continue working together in a bipartisan way on this issue.
It was a good when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced the first regional petrol market study in Darwin. They defined it as a regional study. I put a call out then. I believe, Chief Minister, you endorsed the call that we should be looking at the wider Northern Territory and the regional areas.
The ACCC is conducting the petrol market study and has focused on Darwin as a regional centre. We are looking forward to the outcomes because they will supply important information we need to make sure these savings are passed on to consumers across the Territory wherever possible.
It is good timing to advertise that the cheapest world oil prices in several decades are occurring. There has been an active campaign by the Northern Territory media based in Darwin. A big shout out to Pete Davies – get well soon, Pete – for all the work he did on Mix 104.9, and the AANT, that great road association, for the work it did. Also, a little shout out to the United Petroleum chain for the work it does.
That work culminated in some serious downward pressure on prices in Darwin and Palmerston. We now need to make sure that Territorians living in regional and remote areas can also share in that success.
I once again thank the Treasury official for the information. I will pass it on to one very special constituent who is driving this debate in Tennant Creek. The Treasury official outlined a couple of important issues for me to take home about higher petrol prices in Tennant Creek – no shift, no downward pressure relating to higher transport costs, lower volume of fuel sales and the lower levels of competition. The Treasury official outlined several interesting points I am sure the constituency will be interested in, and has provided a couple of references to follow up.
Chief Minister, it is about Tennant Creek, the Barkly and Central Australia, and we need to come in on the back of the ACCC report and look at the basket of costs that can be manipulated, so to speak. We need to discover the real cost to get fuel into the regional and remote areas, and see if some areas can move to deliver cost-of-living improvement.
I do not have time to go into the increases in the cost of living in the last three years relevant in those regional areas. Chief Minister, you would be well advised to come down to Tennant Creek and you are welcome any time. Let us identify this issue and get constituents talking to you. We would like you and the Treasurer to champion our case and see the next downward pressure on fuel prices occur in the regional and remote areas. Let us start in Tennant Creek with a strong constituency that is very keen to work on this issue with the CLP government.
Tonight I also comment on a disgraceful couple of days in parliament with senior CLP ministers, including the Chief Minister, politicising Chinese people. It has now stooped to a level where a senior government minister accused Labor members of being racist. It is a downright disgrace. I am personally offended, having many Chinese friends. I am personally offended for the great folk of Tennant Creek, who have been encouraging our multicultural community development, including a dynamic enclave of Chinese residents. The last couple are personal friends who purchased their home in Tennant Creek last week, and are great contributors to our community.
I ask the Chief Minister to get his ministers in order and reflect on the attack he is using on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement to see what is playing out. That includes senior ministers in the government, including the first minister. You should acknowledge how important diplomacy is to Chinese people, particularly Chinese government officials. They would not appreciate having their name bandied around in a cheap attack in this parliament. They would not appreciate mistruths being spread. They do not like that culturally, and do not appreciate it as a people.
This is not working. This is destructive politics and will replay on the CLP. This will be a discussion point in my work with the Chinese community, what it means as a political strategy and how it is denigrating Chinese people and our relationship with them. It is a disgrace and it should stop.
This is a desperate bid by the CLP government in complete free fall. The Labor-led government was actively engaged in Southeast Asia, particularly China. Winning government in 2001, Labor turned the focus of the NT towards closer engagement with China. Federally, Labor has been responsible for creating the regional architecture such as APEC. Labor has a strong history of supporting trade relationships and partnerships, including investment in Australia from foreign nations. With respect, I remind members of this House of the groundbreaking diplomatic work conducted by Hon Gough Whitlam as Labor Prime Minister of Australia. Labor supports the rights of Australian workers and Australian industrial relations.
We refuse to play politics with a free trade agreement between Australia and China which allows major Chinese investors to bring their own workers to the country, including skilled workers such as electrical tradespeople. This is a bone of contention between the two sides of politics. This should be debated at a proper and appropriate diplomatic level, not the cheap shots we have heard over the past two days which denigrate all in this House and Australians, and sends messages of negatively, mistrust and chaos to the Chinese government.
If we want to get on together and work on the benefits of our relationship with China, we will take an appropriate diplomatic stance and properly debate and promote the opportunities we offer. Some good news is coming from the Country Liberal Party government about relationships with China. Let us focus on the positives not the negatives.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I intended to speak about the important work being done by the Office of Women’s Policy, but while collecting my thoughts I decided I needed to get a few things off my chest. They are certainly about women’s policy.
I have tolerated the taunts and innuendoes sadly but cleverly served towards me by women and men from across the floor. There has been offensive rhetoric about my strengths, crafted omission of my presence and disrespect of my language and background, but today I will no longer tolerate it. I do not claim to be perfect or not have my own challenges. I am calling out the behaviour and the poisonous tactics of the opposition and some Independents who continue to attack me personally and ignore what we are here for: policy.
To the young female member of the opposition who asked me a question, I encourage you to be cautious about who feeds your questions and encourage you to listen to the following words. A famous African-American poet, Maya Angelou, in 1978 wrote:
Maya wrote that in 1978, the year the Territory gained self-government. How haunting it is that? In 2015, these words resonate so truly in the Northern Territory parliament as I stand here as the only female Aboriginal minister, not understood and calculatedly disrespected, the underdog, being the voice for the most vulnerable of our society, Aboriginal women and children, victims of violence be it physical, emotional or mental.
The question asked so inappropriately this morning was a clear demonstration of the personality tactics too often played out in this Chamber. Once again we are here for policy. The Labor Party is out of touch with its constituents. Members speak of something they know nothing about. They are out of touch. This particular situation they know nothing about, and it should not be used for political point scoring.
On the other hand, the Giles government is on track in delivering quality integrated responses for the prevention of domestic and family violence. I was honoured to be appointed by the Prime Minister of Australia to represent the Northern Territory to provide advice to the COAG agenda on violence against women and children, including domestic and family violence and sexual assault. Through this appointment I have taken to COAG our needs and initiatives, and compared with other jurisdictions how we are on track.
Aboriginal women are 31 times more likely to be injured from domestic violence than non-Aboriginal women, so my representation on this board is something personal. Being so far removed from the subject, for eleven years the opposition led an out of touch government.
I am not removed from the experiences as much as others may be. I live it every day. I understand the widespread impacts, the silence, the pain and tolerance that are common practice around these subjects. Changing these practices requires a collective impact from a government that is in touch.
COAG agreed to take urgent action in 2015 to address the unacceptable level of violence against women. Recommendations from the advisory group were put before COAG and have been endorsed. This is real action from an on-track government. We are focusing on innovative, practical, deliverable proposals to make lasting differences, and complementing and building on existing efforts of jurisdictions and the framework of The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.
The second action plan, The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is now being implemented, with my Office of Women’s Policy implementing the whole-of-government Northern Territory Domestic and Family Violence Reduction Strategy 2014-17.
Safety is everyone’s right. Through my Office of Women’s Policy we are represented on the board of Our Watch, an independent not-for-profit organisation aimed at raising awareness to prevent domestic violence. It is another measure that keeps us on track to make sure a collaborative approach is taken in tackling this issue.
We are leading the way through our Policy Framework for Northern Territory Women 2015-2020 with four key focus actions to improve gender equality outcomes in the Northern Territory. The Giles government is on track to achieve gender equality inclusive practices.
We already have in place collective input and are working to ensure an effective impact through innovative measures. I was listening to Elizabeth Broderick, Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, speak last week. She mentioned that gender equality and women’s rights is the unfinished business of the 21st century in Australia.
I challenge that further and say the rights of Aboriginal women in Australia are the unfinished business of Australia.
I attended a meeting in Sydney a few weeks ago where I listened to migrant women talk about coming to Australia and the challenges they face with domestic violence and the Australian culture. I watched as the eyes of the privileged teared up in disbelief at some of the stories these women shared. I sat with a heavy heart knowing that my story, the Aboriginal women’s story, is not being heard. It is not as welcome as other stories. It is like a convenient blanket of silence that lays over society providing no warmth. It is about silent attacks such as I witnessed from across the floor. It is a blanket to form sections in society for personal agendas to suppress women like me.
I stand before you because I refuse to be silenced. I am a Warlpiri woman and will fight this fight to pave the way for the voices to be heard and welcomed. I am the Minister for Women’s Policy because I am not out of touch; I am on track. Still, I rise.
I realise today, from my personal experiences, that this government is on track because we are about changing the broad agenda for women, including Aboriginal women. This is about changing the silence of shame. No more will I tolerate violence against women or suppression of Aboriginal woman. As Maya wrote:
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to reflect on comments made by the minister in her adjournment speech. It is very poignant this evening that most of the speeches, on what has been described as a bipartisan day, have been about the quality of debate and attacks levelled at all sides of the House.
I appreciate the minister quoted Maya Angelou, a poet I highly respect and whose words I love as well. We are here to talk about policies which impact on the lives of vulnerable Territorians. Today I asked a question – I acknowledge the minister and what she has said this evening. I also acknowledge that one of her family members was impacted by a question I asked today.
I pay my respects and condolences to the family. It is an awful thing for any family to go through, and I am sorry that question had to be asked in parliament and that it has impacted on somebody in this Chamber. It proves to all of us how close the Territory is. We are constantly reminded of that.
However, I cannot apologise for the comments the Attorney-General makes about his portfolio areas and vulnerable Territorians. I also cannot let them slip by the by when he makes them so often, and when he says highly offensive things about people with families.
I sincerely hope a conversation occurs between government ministers over the next few days about the comments made. Those comments were highly inappropriate and we have to stand up for Territorians.
I also want to address the comments made by the member for Sanderson and the Chief Minister over the last two days about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Members of this House have seriously lowered the tone of debate. It was disappointing that the member for Sanderson used his adjournment to further try to strengthen his argument as opposed to retracting statements he made which implied Territory Labor is against Chinese people. This was backed up by the Chief Minister and it is utterly appalling and offensive.
This is the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. He is not just the Minister for Business or Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade. I quote from a media release from minister Styles on 25 August 2015:
In Question Time today and yesterday the Chief Minister accused Labor of being anti-Chinese. These are significant allegations and totally untrue, unfounded and offensive not only to us, but the Territory’s Chinese and multicultural communities. Whatever the motives of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs are, there is no excuse for this level of offensive conduct.
We have had a long and proud relationship with the Chinese community in the Northern Territory. Over many years we have undertaken important work in China which has been mutually beneficial for the Territory and Chinese communities. We have a proud record of engagement with and respect for our Chinese community.
Having grown up in the Territory I have many Chinese friends. Our Chinese community is known for its hard work, respect for family, generosity and commitment to the Northern Territory and Australia. We formed long-lasting relationships with Chinese organisations and families.
The Chief Minister is obviously out of touch with the mutual respect we share. I had the opportunity to reflect on and celebrate, as the member for Sanderson well knows, our multicultural community. We are often at the same functions, sharing similar sentiments about how proud we are to be living in such a beautiful and harmonious community, and that the Northern Territory is an example to so many other jurisdictions.
We are one community and proud of it. They are an integral part of our identity. I am appalled that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and the Chief Minister would stoop to flippantly calling people racist rather than acknowledging and addressing their concerns.
As the member for Goyder rightly pointed out, there are concerns over miscommunication between the Prime Minister and his Minister for Trade and Investment about skills assessment and a range of other legitimate concerns being voiced by those acting in the best interests of workers across a range of industries. Nobody wants to address those concerns as it is much easier to throw around racist remarks.
When I was a child I dealt with racism and know what it feels like. The Minister for Multicultural Affairs needs to look up racism in the dictionary and recognise that every time he does what he did yesterday and today, he makes a mockery of the experiences of people who, day in, day out, live with racism and know what it feels like.
Current and former members of Labor have built valuable relationships that have seen ongoing benefits for Territorians. It would be false to claim otherwise. Nationally, Labor’s relationships with those across the seas have been equally strong and beneficial. We fully understand and embrace opportunities to further those relationships.
I believe many in our community will be very upset with the Chief Minister and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs for their comments, because they know we value our relationships with them. They know they have our support and our friendship, in opposition and in government, and we have proven it with action.
It is easy to make allegations of racism in this House. However, it not only lowers the tone of debate but it makes a mockery of those who experience it every day. It is a cheap political move and the government should know better. Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of an Independent
Anti-Corruption Body
Establishment of an Independent
Anti-Corruption Body
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:
1. endorses the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body
2. notes that an independent person will be appointed to provide advice and report back to the parliament in December 2015 with a range of models for an independent anti-corruption and misconduct body, including but not limited to:
(b) the use of existing legislation or Northern Territory authorities such as the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures respectively
(c) indicative costs of establishing the various models they put forward
that the office be renamed to support a greater understanding of the role and functions of the office, for example the Independent Anti-Corruption Integrity Commission
that the powers of the new commission be extended to provide for ‘own motion’ investigations
that the existing definition of ‘public officer’ and ‘public bodies’ be extended to other categories of officers or bodies, for example ministerial advisers who are not on special leave without pay from the public service
that the existing powers under the act be strengthened in relation to matters allegedly involving members of the Legislative Assembly
that whether a special prosecutor against corruption and misconduct (special prosecutor) should be added to the new office
that the penalties under the act for failing to cooperate with the commission are adequate
what additional resourcing, if any, might be required for the new Independent Anti-Corruption and Integrity Commission and the Special References Unit (SRU) of the Northern Territory Police to enhance their capacity to investigate allegations of corruption and misconduct
any other relevant matters
4. notes that the independent person will consult with relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to the NT Police, the NT Law Society, and the Criminal Lawyers Association
5. notes that the introduction, public feedback and debate of legislative changes will occur in the first quarter of 2016 with the implementation of a new independent anti-corruption and integrity commission in the second quarter of 2016.
I know, at the risk of anticipating further debate, that notice has been given by the members opposite to go through a slightly different process to ultimately end up with a similar response. As a consequence, yesterday I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition and encouraged him to say, ‘All right, let’s work on this together’. His response was, ‘No way. We aren’t going to do that.’ It is already clear to me that this is not about anything but the politics of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory because they …
Mr McCarthy: This is about trust, and nobody trusts you mob.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, it is about trust. I am glad we are talking about trust because I can tell you, Mr Stella Maris …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Barkly!
Mr McCarthy: This is about trust, and nobody trusts you mob. You have no trust factor and you know that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Barkly!
Mr McCarthy: Nobody trusts you.
_____________________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Barkly
Suspension of Member
Member for Barkly
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
______________________________
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Barkly, ‘It is about trust’. This man was stridently criticised for his conduct as a result of the Stella Maris inquiry. He did not, in the first instance, tell the truth to the inquiry. He said he was in a Cabinet meeting when he answered a question at the inquiry. It turns out he was in Tennant Creek at the time – whoops, forgot about that. It shows the quality of the issue of trust in politicians. The noise we make around ourselves is something we must always be careful about because it comes back to bite us.
I remember speaking to a hippy-type character 30 years ago in Alice Springs who was wandering around in a pair of shorts and no shirt. He said something I thought poignant and it has stuck with me to this day. Every time you point the finger at somebody just remember there are three fingers pointing back at you. That is the trap politicians set for themselves when they yell out things like, ‘It is about trust’.
There was no trust in the Stella Maris inquiry. I am mortified; I could have heard that from any other member of parliament – with the possible exception of the member for Karama – but him. Yes, it is about trust.
The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, ‘No, we will do it on our own’. That will degrade this into what I described to him as a peeing contest. I did not express it in those terms, but I think everybody knows, ‘My motion is better than yours’.
In an effort to build a bridge between us and members of the opposition and negotiate a system which would be fair and acceptable, the clear message from the opposition is they would engage in a peeing contest with the government of ‘My motion is better than yours’. That belies what is at the heart of this for the opposition. It is about politics; it is not about trust.
I want to quote something that will take me a little while to get through. They are some lines from a former member of this House:
- … the government will not be supporting this motion.
- I was interested to see, in debating this motion, whether the Leader of the Opposition would put anything on the table to identify there is, was, might be in the future, issues of corruption in the Northern Territory and there was nothing – absolutely nothing to back up the need to establish an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory.
This was Paul Henderson, who was the Chief Minister at the time the Stella Maris deal was put together.
Mr Giles: And PenCon.
Mr ELFERINK: And PenCon. We will get to that shortly. The former Chief Minister said, ‘There is absolutely nothing to see here folks’. He goes on, paragraph after paragraph, to say things like:
- I am not prepared to establish a body, essentially on an unfounded allegation, untested, with no evidence to support the allegation. I am not prepared to engage in a witch-hunt into people’s lives based on an unfounded, untested, non-evidence-based allegation by a member of parliament.
- I urge the Opposition Leader to call on members on his side of the House to stop making allegations in this parliament. I have spoken to many businesses which form part of the alliances …
This was a reference to the SIHIP debacle.
- … both formally and subcontracted to provide materials, and they are offended their corporate good name has been put in a most malicious way suggesting this program is corrupt … This House would turn into a coward’s castle … untested allegations designed to hang people out there – a witch-hunt being forced on them, their business, and their family based on unfounded, untested, no-evidence-based allegations in this parliament.
That was Paul Henderson, the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and he goes on for chapter and verse saying there is no reason to go down this path.
Upon coming to government, one of the first things I said in this House, in November 2012, was that we had become aware of corruption under the former government and would pursue it, and we did.
It led to a number of separations where there was insufficient evidence to support a full-on criminal investigation. It also led to a number of criminal investigations which were successfully prosecuted. There was barely a mention in the papers about that; it came and went largely unnoticed.
When I became the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory I found an Office of Public Interest Disclosures which had been substantially boned out by the former government and which had limited capacity to investigate. Even during a time of great fiscal restraint, we nevertheless found the money to bolster that office and it continued its investigations and, as a result of that, successfully pursued prosecutorial matters, in some instances that had been outstanding for years.
Now the members opposite trawl into this House and say it is about trust. Of course, they pour out unfounded allegations. I outline my personal offence at the Leader of the Opposition’s article in the last Sunday Territorian where he started clearly identifying public servants as team players for the CLP. That is horrible because should there be a change of government it places the public servant in an incredibly invidious situation.
Leader of the Opposition, do you intend to fire independent public servants because you have identified them as team players? That is pretty rancid behaviour. It is careless language like that, in pursuit of political outcomes, which leads to people’s careers, reputations and lives being besmirched in such a reckless and cavalier fashion.
In pursuit of government the Labor Party will stop at nothing. They have so far thrown horrifying allegations around this Chamber. The Water Controller, who they have now gone after several times for doing his job in accordance with the law, has had his name besmirched because somebody who received a water licence happened to be a CLP candidate.
If that is the measure of corruption according to the members opposite, we are heading to some sort of Stalinist state. All you have to do now is merely denounce a person and off to the Gulag you go. The example from the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassing. His attack on the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures is exactly the rubbish that is trawled through this House and sees reputational damage to public servant after public servant by those opposite. They do it time and time again. The Police Commissioner must be a team player.
I do not know off the top of my head, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the current Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures was appointed under the former Labor government – probably was now I think about it. If that is the case it means they have no hesitation in casting anybody’s reputation on the fire.
I place on the record now my full, complete and utter faith in Brenda Monaghan, the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures. She has always acted with absolute probity in any dealing I have had with her. To suggest she is anything other than a woman of extraordinary integrity is reprehensible, not in relation to Ms Monaghan but the person who makes the allegation – the careless Leader of the Opposition who yesterday, through his enthusiasm to be careless, supported a motion that could see the winding up of the Palmerston hospital. That is the quality of recklessness we are seeing from the members opposite. It is all about playing politics in the current domain.
I also point out some other interesting memories from times gone by. In the enthusiasm to support a public anti-corruption commission we will now invite that person to make a series of recommendations we have already committed to accept. I wonder how comfortable the members opposite will be if one of those recommendations is retrospectivity. I remind honourable members of some of the former government’s areas of concern: the arrangements in relation to Sprout Creative and some of the contracts that went to that fine company in the Northern Territory. Some questions were raised by the Attorney-General in relation to the Department of the Chief Minister and how they dished out contracts to Sprout Creative.
There were other matters, like contracts to Hawker Britton. I also recall the former Attorney-General interfering in a case before the courts. I get lectures about the separation of powers – how is this? The prosecution against Red Rooster in Alice Springs on foot – happening. The former Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, who I think was also the Planning minister at the time, rang the department and said, ‘Pull the prosecution because we do not want to see them prosecuted’. That was the member for Karama, the person who has been found by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to have engaged wilfully in conduct with intent to have the court make an incorrect finding in relation to procedural fairness.
Those people who seek procedural fairness must do procedural fairness. Conspiracy to mislead a court, which is what the finding was, is not kosher conduct by any stretch of the imagination.
That continues to concern us. Whilst we are looking retrospectively at the former government, I am curious about the circumstances that led to the death of Bob Collins. I do not have dates at my fingertips, but I well remember the noise surrounding the death of Bob Collins. The then Police Commissioner, Paul White, spoke to the then Police minister and Attorney-General at the time, Paul Henderson and Peter Toyne respectively, and told them something. We know what he told them because notes were made at that meeting by the Commissioner. I think I have tabled them in this House because I recovered them from FOI.
The interesting thing was amongst the notes of that conversation was a single line saying, ‘No matter what Mr Collins said to police he would be prosecuted anyhow’. He was to be arrested and charged. Those types of things will invite inquiry. I wonder, with the enthusiasm of members in this House, how Mr Henderson and Mr Toyne would feel about being taken back into this with subsequent inquiries. That is one of the challenges we have before us. There are other matters that remain unresolved, matters of great concern to the public of the Northern Territory. I could go through a litany.
Let us go back to what is happening now and the circumstances that have driven this motion to this House today. Those circumstances deal primarily with the PenCon scheme. We saw how extraordinarily clumsy the Labor Party was yesterday because the allegation in the questions we received in Question Time yesterday were that the police were told and did nothing.
That is arrant nonsense. They did something; they investigated. If I recall the police were clearly seen arresting a person and placing them in the back of the van. It was a front page story. In fact, the matter had been so voraciously covered by the media that it caused the defence team to go to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and ask for a suppression order because, in their opinion, some of the media were acting like lunatics in their coverage of the matter. If the police did not investigate the PenCon scheme then how were prosecutions brought to bear?
Ms Walker: You are trying to cover up now, John.
Mr ELFERINK: I am staggered. I will pick up on the interjection. What is the cover up? Make your allegation today. Use the Chamber.
Ms Walker: You know what the truth is, John.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I know the truth and am mystified at the interjection.
Ms Walker: Is that why you lied about it?
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry! I am not hiding anything. Make your allegations. The point is when you ask that question you are greeted with silence.
In October 2012 we received advice from Ernst & Young which said there were substantial irregularities in the PenCon scheme. The period ultimately looked at by Ernst & Young was from January 2011, the time of the Labor government, to January 2013, after we took over. We were in government for two months and were busy referring the matter to the police …
Ms Mansion: They did not say that in the newspaper.
Mr ELFERINK: You did not read the newspaper carefully. You need to read it properly. Police investigated the matter, and as a consequence prosecutions were brought to bear and a task force was established to recover. That is what has and will continue to happen.
Those investigations also revealed other matters which caused this government to lose confidence in a Commissioner of Police. This government’s response to losing confidence in a Commissioner of Police was to tell him we had lost that confidence. That commissioner could do nothing but fall on his sword because the system does and has always worked. We went after this, and because we discovered it are being tagged with it when it deals almost exclusively with the time the members opposite were in government.
The PenCon scheme was arguably being rorted when the Labor Party was in government. We had the audacity to look, point the finger and say, ‘Yes, you are accountable. You need to be charged, investigated and you need to go to court’, so there are investigations on foot. There are matters before the court right now, and there may well be other matters before the court in the future. That is part of the investigative process.
All the noise generated has overlooked the important fact that we blew the whistle, as I said we would in November 2012. I can imagine that finding some of these things has caused public disquiet, but the mechanisms that have found them are precisely the mechanisms in place. One thing in place, if memory serves me, was the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, a creation of the former Labor government because they thought we needed such an office. However, we have an Ombudsman, the police, the Commissioner for Public Employment, the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. A number of bodies exist but, no, we want to create a new one.
We probably do not need one because it will be expensive. However, having made that observation, we have listened and accepted that another body is expected by the people of the Northern Territory. We are more than happy to say, ‘All right, we will have that body’. The motion before the House is about that body and attempting to find a way that body would most appropriately be representative of the people of the Northern Territory. Rather than embracing that the members opposite – they will have the numbers in the House – may well vote this motion down in preference to another motion later today. The members opposite, in their enthusiasm to chase this process, will continue to play politics with this because they know what that is.
I urge any person in the Northern Territory who is aware of any corrupt activity to report that matter to the appropriate authorities right now. I have always said that. I had the experience in the not too distant past of having to spell that out to a journalist who decided they wanted to hint very heavily that they knew. My answer was, ‘Immediately report it to the police’. ‘Oh no, it is not our job.’
This motion hears the people of the Northern Territory and will establish a body, if passed by this House, or an independent person, to recommend to this House what an anti-corruption body should look like, and sets a time frame for this to be operational by the middle of next year. I look forward to debate in relation to this matter.
You must be cautious about pursuit of these things because you create an unsettled mind in the public …
Mrs Lambley: You have done a good enough job of that yourself.
Mr ELFERINK: … which needs not be created, by virtue of the utterances from the members opposite, even utterances from the member for Araluen who, by way of interjection says something. I would like to hear the allegations people need to make. In this House today, at your fingertips, is parliamentary privilege. You can say anything you damn well please. In fact, some members have quite recklessly said whatever they damn well please.
I urge any member who is aware of anything to use that privilege now and make the allegation. If you make the allegation here make it to the police, the Ombudsman or whatever authority. You can even do it in the public domain; make the allegation in front of a camera. Make those allegations because I hear lots of conjecture and many a rumour being generated by the members opposite, but every time you call upon them to point the finger at something they cannot do it.
This is a sensible motion because it gives us a pathway forward. If this motion is defeated today it will not be because it is a bad motion. It will be because of nothing more than the politics of rumour mongering, making information up as you go along, and of division. Yesterday we heard several lectures from members of this House about the importance of a collaborative approach. The member for Nelson always reminds us of the importance of a collaborative approach. Yesterday I tried to be collaborative with the Leader of the Opposition and it was thrown back in my face so he could have the peeing contest. ‘My motion is better than yours.’
I remind honourable members that our conduct ultimately reflects on us all, and our conduct – how we debate issues and behave towards each other – demonises us in the public imagination. This is just another step in that process of the politics surrounding this.
I have no major objection to an anti-corruption commission; it does not frighten, worry or cause me any concern. I am satisfied that the systems we have in place have been sufficient to bring a number of people to account successfully. Nevertheless, we have listened and will continue to listen to the people of the Northern Territory because we must always govern for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. I am unafraid of that and think we should stay focused on it. I wonder if the members opposite are capable of conceding an argument with the same ideal in mind.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, the government has bought this motion forward with some haste. Today is General Business Day, and many members of government have been around for some time. Some thinkers on the fifth floor have had plenty of time in politics, and you do not have to be a genius to figure out that we would want to bring on debate about establishing a truly independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
The Labor opposition has been open and clear that we would, if we were to gain government, look to establish an ICAC body in the Northern Territory.
I listened to the Leader of Government Business speak on this motion. I can be a very big fan of his. I often listen, watch and learn. However, today he was half-hearted; his heart was not in it. Apart from reading the motion and trying to bring a persuasive argument as to why it is a good motion and should be passed by parliament, he spoke to the merits of the motion for about two minutes. He spoke about a raft of other issues, but did not prosecute why he feels the motion should be passed as well as he usually does. Your heart is not in it, member for Port Darwin. You understand what the people of the Northern Territory want to see at the moment: a fully independent commission against corruption. You know this motion does not get us there ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, it does.
Ms MANISON: You know it gets us nowhere near it. You know that ...
Mr Elferink: You have not read it.
Ms MANISON: Have a good look, member for Port Darwin. One thing is sure, Territorians do not see this as a genuine motion the government believes in. They believe the government has brought this forward because it is feeling the significant pressure from Territorians saying it is now, sadly, time for the establishment of an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
I remind you of why that has come to be. We have hit three long years of the CLP government and what have we seen in that time? We have a disunified government, a chaotic train wreck with reshuffle after reshuffle going from a commanding majority in parliament when I was first elected in a by-election, to fade away to the point of being a minority government. We saw how well you were doing at yesterday’s three-year anniversary.
A big part of the reason you have become a minority government, after having such a commanding majority, is because people do not trust you. People have watched your actions over three years and raised serious questions. Territorians have lost trust in this government and that is what they are talking about. People are sick of this government, have seen scandal after scandal, and feel they cannot trust this government.
People now feel there is a need for an ICAC in the Northern Territory. That is why we, as a Labor opposition, have been talking to the community about what that ICAC should comprise. One thing we have made very clear in our commitment is that it should be fully independent so Territorians can have faith in it to do its job.
Sadly, today’s motion does not get us there. In fact, it is a lame attempt by the government to address …
Mr Elferink: Pull it apart then. Explain how.
Ms MANISON: … the growing number of voices in the Northern Territory about this. It is a huge concern.
Picking up on that interjection from the Leader of Government Business, let us look at the growing demand for an ICAC in the Northern Territory. Questions were raised about the conduct of this government, it being so out of control, and about trust. It is time for an ICAC; we need an ICAC. In parliament the Chief Minister, again and again, rejected that idea saying, ‘No, we don’t need an ICAC’. The Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, has had meltdowns on radio about the notion of an ICAC. It does not sit comfortably with him that’s for sure.
The member for Port Darwin, the Leader of Government Business, who brought this motion before the House, has said in the Sunday Territorian and other media events time and time again there is no need for an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
Two weeks ago, on 14 August, a media conference took place in the Elsey Room to say, ‘We are starting to hear that Territorians have some concerns about the conduct of government and integrity issues and they do not trust us. We have had several members of our team leave because they do not trust us and have seen our conduct. Let us look at how we can restore more integrity to government?’
I doubt the Leader of Government Business supports this motion because at a media conference two weeks ago he put a totally different idea forward of a beefed up Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures. Effectively it looked like a rebranding of the Office of the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosures aimed at giving Territorians the impression they were looking at integrity issues more seriously. The Leader of Government made some firm announcements in his 14 August media conference.
Today, on General Business Day, they have rushed through a motion about tackling integrity issues. The motion goes nowhere near it. Territorians cannot have confidence in this motion because, for example, it talks about appointing an independent person to provide advice and report back to the parliament on what this model could look like. Let us be very clear about this: Territorians do not trust you when it comes to appointing an independent person.
For three years we have seen a track record of jobs for mates and some very questionable practices. The Leader of Government Business raised water licences, for example, where people with strong CLP connections have been awarded water licences. We question how you would appoint an independent person so Territorians could have faith in that process. Would you seek approval from all members of this Chamber because people would not trust the CLP government in appointing that person?
The other issue with this motion is the CLP government is pretty much directing that so-called independent person into what outcomes it wants from the inquiry. There is specific wording around the issues it wants that person to look at. You could safely guess what that body would look like by looking at this motion.
The whole point of setting up an ICAC in the Northern Territory is to look at the best model for the Northern Territory. You need an open mind, to look at what other jurisdictions are doing and find best practice for the Northern Territory. This motion does not go near that. This motion shows what the CLP wants in a so-called body to address serious integrity issues in the Northern Territory at the moment.
This will not deliver the best outcome for the Northern Territory. If we want a truly independent commission we have to look at what is happening around the country and what is working. What is the best fit for the Territory? You need to talk to the experts. That is why we have proudly put the question to Territorians to see what they want in a Territory ICAC to make sure it is the best fit for the Northern Territory and that it works. That is a more responsible approach than moving a motion in this parliament that will simply deliver what the CLP government wants and is not the independent commission Territorians want. I think the government knows that. I have no doubt they realise that in putting this to parliament today.
It comes back to the issue of how we got here in the first place. Why do we have to debate the establishment of an ICAC in the Northern Territory? When you speak to people, this is one of the hottest topics. People truly believe it is time for an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
Who would have thought one of the legacies of this CLP government, one of the early issues, would be water licences. Water licences were issued across the Northern Territory to people with strong CLP connections, despite strong information and science against it. At the same time the government scrapped strategic Indigenous reserves, which was a good policy.
We have some serious questions about Foundation 51. Political donations have been topical, to say the least. It was not so long ago that the member for Nelson, on a General Business Day doing what he does as a strong Independent, decided there needed to be a broad inquiry into political donations, so he moved a motion which managed to be strangely successful. He managed to get the inquiry up and my impression – I do not want to verbal the member for Nelson, who genuinely believed the CLP government, up to the last minute, would go through with the inquiry into political donations. He genuinely believed that, but then the government used its numbers to scrap that inquiry. That raised the question: what on earth were you hiding to lead the member for Nelson, as he said, up the garden path?
You made some real commitments, the motion passed and then you scrapped it because you had the numbers. Why did you scrap it? Why did you not want to go into that? That raises more questions about why we are debating a motion today to establish an ICAC in the Northern Territory. We have some serious questions regarding political donations. Questions have also been raised around travel, as you know. I have heard members opposite talk about the PenCon scheme, but several questions were raised about government travel in the Northern Territory, travel within ministerial offices, to the point a serious charge has been laid against a staffer.
However, there are more questions. During the estimates process a question was asked of the Chief Minister regarding ministerial travel, the same question asked of every Chief Minister every year. We know the Department of the Chief Minister had prepared an answer for it. We gave written notice of that question, yet they failed to answer on the day and had to seek an extension before providing the information. Even when you get the information it is not complete. There is information all over the place in that document, so it does not leave you with much faith in what is happening.
There are some very serious questions. People have no trust in government. It is time for a fully independent commission. We will never forget – looking back over the last three years of government – that extraordinary day when members of the government tried to oust the Chief Minister from his job. Both those gentlemen now sitting next to the Chief Minister stood in the Elsey Room at about 1 am as the Chief Minister apparent and the deputy …
Mr Elferink: What does this have to do with ICAC? Make your allegation, here is your chance!
Ms MANISON: Let us look at what happened the next day when the Chief Minister refused to stand aside and held an extraordinary media conference. I remember sitting in my office watching ABC News 24 knowing this was going out across the nation. Everybody tuned into ABC News 24 around the country could watch that extraordinary media conference with the Chief Minister making huge accusations on national television that day to save his job.
He would not step aside. He made some serious comments about the police and about people in his party working against him. Again, it comes back to the issue of trust. People have lost trust in this government, in some of its actions and in its ability to govern. The infighting has spilt out into the public for all to see, and it has been a mess.
Territorians do not trust the government and are demanding that we establish a fully independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
More serious issues have been raised, but when talking about trust people want to know – I know this from doorknocking. I appreciate that some people who have been here a long time are politically charged. They like to know what is occurring in the local political arena, the happenings; they read the NT News. You will also come across someone who says, ‘I don’t pay much attention to that. I don’t need to know what is happening in politics.’
However, the feedback I get, loud and clear, is that people are highly attuned to the conduct of this government. They think it is a mess and they want a government they can trust. Many people do not want to think about government too much because they want to trust in the government doing its job. At the moment people do not have that trust. They want a government they can trust, that is ensuring education and schools are being attended to and is taking care of core business, such as making sure hospitals are up and running – building hospitals, for example – and ensuring good health services are being delivered. They want a government they can trust to drive the economy.
They want a functional government. At the moment people do not have that with the CLP government. That is why we are trying to restore some trust and integrity in government. The only way we can address some of the serious issues is to establish an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
This motion is a poor attempt to get there. It has come on General Business Day in anticipation of debate this evening. Yes, there will be debate this evening on a Labor motion about what an independent commission against corruption should comprise. I stress the word ‘independent’.
At the moment this motion does not get us there. Frankly, it falls short of community expectations and we will not be supporting it. It fails the integrity test and does not solve the trust deficit. It is a reminder of why the Territory so desperately needs a new government. It is also a reminder that we need a truly independent commission against corruption. This motion shows the CLP is incapable of delivering that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the NT News had a crown on my head this morning. I do not know if that is a reflection on whether, as an Independent, there are times when you have to be King Solomon. This is a case where wise heads have to put their voices forward. I would like to hear more independent viewpoints on this matter rather than a party viewpoint.
I have just returned from Canada. The thing I loved about the Canadian system in the two Territories of Nunavut and Northwest Territories is they have consensus government. Consensus government is not a love in. Members sit as independents with a Cabinet, a Chief Minister and a Speaker. It does not have this ugly table in the middle which divides us. We have a crocodile skin. In Northwest Territories they have a polar bear skin – a lot more friendly and cuddly. In Nunavut they have a sled with a man and a drum.
They removed the table to not separate either side as we do in this parliament because we are bound by party politics. They have the advantage of speaking their minds without any limitation caused by the party they belong to. That is one reason I enjoy being an Independent.
The downside is it can be a very lonely spot in life when you are asked to, in some cases, be the person who makes the final decision. In this case I am not sure what the other Independents will say. I have only discussed my views with the Speaker, which was more about technical issues. I do not know if they will support what I say today.
I raise consensus government in this debate because when I look at this motion and the Labor Party’s motion I notice many similarities. I have plenty of reason to tell the CLP government to go jump: I have been called everything under the sun; I lost the inquiry into Foundation 51 which was overturned ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I hear comments about me from the member for Fong Lim on a continual basis. The member for Fong Lim publicly stated on radio that he did not like ICAC and threw a hissy fit. The member for Fong Lim needs to state clearly whether he supports what his side is putting through. He needs to be on the Hansard record saying why he has changed his mind. If he does not say that, then I do not believe the government has the full support of all its members. I would like every one of the CLP to say they support this and the reasons why.
On the other side, I have been asked to support Labor’s point of view. Labor has had its issues. We know about Stella Maris. It is not all about being squeaky clean on one and dirty on the other. I know they are concerned I might support the Country Liberal Party. If the Country Liberal Party’s motion is good enough I will support it. If Labor is unhappy with that, so be it. I might have supported theirs.
The first line of the government’s motion is that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly endorses the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body. The first line of the Labor motion is to supports the establishment of a Northern Territory version of an independent anti-corruption and misconduct commission.
Why can we not get together and put to the people of the Northern Territory a combined motion showing we can sometimes forget our party political differences and join to produce an anti-corruption and misconduct body we can all agree to, because both parties have agreed to the same principle? It would require goodwill on both sides to look at another option.
I warn the government and opposition that I might move, tomorrow or the next day, a motion combining both motions. When you get down to the nuts and bolts there is very little difference between them. What we are debating is you mob did not want one, you did this, and you knocked my Foundation 51 inquiry on the head. I can use that as an argument for defeating what you are doing. I can say, ‘Labor, you are using this as an opportunity to throw pot shots at the government’. That is what this parliament is for and I understand that ...
Mr Elferink: I agree with you, Gerry, I just said that.
Mr WOOD: I am not arguing with you personally. I am debating philosophically as a member of parliament.
Mr Elferink: I tried to do it yesterday and was told to bugger off.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I was told to go away.
Mr WOOD: I am giving my point of view at the moment. Members can listen to what I have to say then say, ‘Go away’, and that is fine. I have both drafts here and if people want to follow them that is fine.
If I moved a motion (1) would be to support the establishment of a Northern Territory version of an independent anti-corruption and misconduct commission. I have left out (2) from both motions. I have removed acknowledging the independence and respect of the Northern Territory integrity. I note in the Labor Party’s version, ‘notes to widespread community support’. That is a fair comment, but I do not think it needs to be in there.
I have removed (3) from the government’s motion relating to the Commissioner of Police and also (3) from the Labor motion. Again, it is a comment and does not necessarily make this any better. I have gone straight to (6) in the Labor Party’s motion, which I am calling (2) in my motion, ‘That this parliament resolves, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act, to appoint a person qualified to be a judge in the Supreme Court in the Northern Territory to inquire into and report to the Administrator on the following matter …’.
That is a positive difference between Labor’s view and the government’s view because we need someone with legal qualifications. The Country Liberal Party’s version does not say that. That is an important distinction. I have had discussions with both sides, but I also have feedback from a lawyer friend. The Labor view is the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body in the Northern Territory include but not be limited to the following considerations:
- The principles and provisions of an ICAC in like legislation in other Australian jurisdictions and applicability to the Northern Territory
1. the appropriate powers such a body should have including but not limited to:
- (a) the power to investigate allegations of corruption including against ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly and other public officials; and
(b) the power to conduct investigations, inquiries into corrupt activities and system wide anti-corruption reforms as it sees fit.
I have then gone to the government’s version and taken part of (4), removed the integrity group and any mention of the Public Interest Disclosure Act and put – sorry, I left out one area the Labor Party put in, ‘The appropriate trigger for an NT ICAC’s jurisdiction and the relationship between this body and other NT bodies such as the Ombudsman’. I have put in a new (3) which is: that the qualified person appointed provide advice and report back to parliament in December 2015 with a range of models for an independent anti-corruption and misconduct body, including but not limited to models from other jurisdictions, the use of existing NT legislation or NT statutory authorities, and the report will include indicative costs of establishing the various models they put forward.
Some of that was not in Labor’s, but I think that was fairly important.
Then I have (4), which I have taken from the CLP’s version:
- … note that the qualified person appointed will consult with relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to the NT Police, the NT Law Society and the Criminal Lawyers Association.
and (5): note that the introduction, public feedback and debate of legislative changes will occur in the first quarter of 2016 with the implementation of a new independent anti-corruption commission in the second quarter of 2016.
There is much more in common than separates those two. There is an opportunity – I do not believe I always have to be the conduit, because if both sides believe what they are putting forward is for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory, which is what is written on my desk and the oath I signed when coming into this parliament, then we have an obligation to try to work together on this issue.
I do not mind if we throw mud around in this debate; that is part of it. If people want to do that, that is fine. I have plenty of things I could throw around too, but what does that achieve? Does it achieve, ‘I’ve got that off my chest’? We then lose not only the reason we are in parliament, but the very principle we are trying to achieve today, and that is to set up a body to make sure we as parliamentarians, the people who work for government, do things in a way that is proper. That is, we want to make sure everything we do is according to principle, according to the law and according to good governance. If we need a body to make sure we are checked for doing that then I am supportive of it.
I hope we can come together as a group, work through this issue – I do not care if we stay until midnight to work it out – and come back to parliament with a unified motion that would achieve what both sides want. I will not be voting on either motion, and if I believe the parties cannot get together and agree on something then I will bring a motion similar to what I have mentioned. The Leader of Government Business knows that I am giving him a warning, that I will ask for a suspension of standing orders and introduce it myself, but the onus should not be on me but all people in this parliament.
I will leave it at that because today we can show we can be mature members of parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the Leader of Government Business. I know that will surprise some people opposite. From the outset, this is a matter of perception. There has been a perception created in the community that there are corrupt politicians in the Northern Territory. I firmly believe this perception is completely wrong. I have complete faith in the members of this parliament, apart from possibly one or two, but the vast majority of members in this parliament are decent and honourable people and above …
Ms Fyles: Maybe you should name them.
Mr TOLLNER: I will get to that, member for Nightcliff. By and large, members from both sides of this Chamber are, in my view, beyond repute. People genuinely come here to represent Territorians, irrespective of our different ideas and how we debate them. I believe that the vast majority of members are beyond repute.
Why I had a hissy fit and why I am opposed to an ICAC has been questioned. I do not want to fuel the perception that we are all corrupt, dodgy and on the take. I believe we deserve better in the Northern Territory and that we should be able to create a perception that we are a group of people, irrespective of our different ideas, who want to do good things for the Northern Territory. Obviously we all have different views on what a good thing for the Northern Territory is, but, fundamentally, my view is that we are mostly beyond repute.
I believe the call for an ICAC in the Northern Territory is wrong on two fronts. One, which I have already explained, is perception and what that does to this institution …
Ms Walker: You are not supporting the government’s motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I appreciate that you like to interject, but I said I support this motion. I am now putting on the record my thoughts in relation to an ICAC.
ICACs around the country are extraordinarily controversial. The cost of ICACs is enormous. Currently in Queensland there is an enormous debate about which independent person will lead the anti-corruption commission. They cannot settle on that. In this place we are having arguments about who is independent and who is not. The view from the other side is that we cannot trust people like the Public Interest Disclosures Commissioner; they are beyond independence – appointed by Labor. Who can we trust? We continue to fuel the idea that we cannot trust anyone. To me that is wrong .
Similarly, in New South Wales the Royal Commission is currently in the High Court determining its validity to exist. New South Wales has spent $60m on its ICAC and is uncertain as to whether it has any validity whatsoever. Yet, it seems to me, the opposition is pushing that model. We see the same things occurring with ICACs all over the country.
We had an inquiry in the Northern Territory not so long ago. It inquired into a deal done by the former government in relation to Stella Maris. People should remember that was ridiculed by the opposition all the way through. They said it was not independent; it was nothing but a political witch-hunt. They gave every reason under the sun not to participate in it. Irrespective of the findings of that inquiry, which could be best described as being hit with a wet lettuce, Labor railed against it. Indeed, the then Opposition Leader decided to progress it to the Supreme Court saying it was a political witch-hunt and was then found to have her own motives called into question. We all know where that has gone.
It is a bit difficult to be lectured by the opposition on matters of integrity whilst it has the members for Karama and Barkly on its team – people found to have tried to mislead an inquiry. I put it to this House that the opposition has no credibility on this matter until it deals with the members for Karama and Barkly. I have not heard of any moves to disendorse the member for Karama from the Labor Party.
Similarly, this joker from the Northern Territory Bar Association, John Lawrence, a known Labor sympathiser, was on his high horse saying we need this because the whole system of politics is corrupt. Again, that man cannot be taken seriously on matters of integrity while the NT Bar Association allows Ms Spurr and Mr Wyvill to continue practising. It has zero credibility on this issue while it allows those lawyers to practice. Some people take Mr Lawrence seriously. I, for one, do not.
When you look at the history of this it becomes quite obvious that Labor is trying to discredit this government for having the audacity to instigate the Stella Maris inquiry. They have railed against it in the same way that Labor federally rails against the royal commission currently looking into the practises of trade unions in this country. Whilst they say we need royal commissions, inquiries, ICACs and anti-corruption commissions, they are quite prepared, every time one is set up, to say it is nothing but a political witch-hunt despite the fact that royal commission has seen dozens of union officials charged with some form of dodgy dealing.
No, in the Northern Territory they are now encouraging us to set up a similar thing. Of course when this new body is established, if that is the way this debate goes and Labor gets its wish that we have an ICAC operating in the Northern Territory, and ICAC starts investigating some things in the past, I am sure Labor will change its tune ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Harold Nelson Holdings, for example.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Katherine mentions Harold Nelson Holdings, for example. I do not even want to go there. There are some more obvious things to look at, in my view, which have had some impact on the lives of Territorians. When I was Minister for Corporate and Information Services, I was horrified at what I had found in relation to the asset management system Labor put in place.
Territorians, in effect, flushed $70m down the toilet with Labor’s decision on the AMS system. It would be interesting to see how those decisions were made. Similarly, it would be interesting to know how the decisions were made on the waterfront deal which continues to cost taxpayers enormous amounts of money. Development of the waterfront deal seems to be years and years behind. It is costing Territorians enormous amounts of money for Labor’s failure to complete what they said they would do. When one looks at the deal done by the previous government, you have to question how either side of the negotiating table could come up with the arrangement they did. It would be interesting to know what went into that deal.
Similarly, I have raised this matter in the parliament in the past, the Amadeus gas pipeline. The Chief Minister has a proposal to build the NEGI (North East Gas Interconnector). That proposal is looking at pipelines up to 600 km long. We are talking about investments of around $1bn, what these things cost to build. Yet under the previous government we saw the now owners of the Amadeus gas pipeline pick it up for a mere $65m. That is 1500 km of pipeline. Not only that, but the gas transportation agreement entered into seemed to have no regard for the future of Territorians.
One has to question that. How was that deal done? I have looked at this deal and the scant information on it is amazing. It seems little effort was put into it. I am not suggesting corruption was involved in any area. My view is that parliamentarians are generally decent, honest people. The level of incompetence in those deals is mindboggling.
One would think that an independent commission against corruption would start looking at those things along with Sprout Creative, Hawker Britton and the deals done with Harold Nelson Holdings. All these things will be fed into an ICAC. In my view, an ICAC will find nothing but Labor incompetence, because fundamentally that is what it is. My view of people in this House is they are beyond repute apart from possibly the member for Karama, who has had findings against her in the Supreme Court.
She is the only one who has been subject to that type of finding. However, she is still part of a Labor team calling for a full inquiry into corruption. The first place they would start looking is at one in your own team.
An independent commission into corruption would look into a range of areas. My role as Treasurer is to properly look after the finances of the Northern Territory. When you look at the cost of ICACs around the country, it is not hard to blush. They are an enormous cost. It is no surprise that lawyers all over the Northern Territory support the introduction of an ICAC because, fundamentally, they are a lawyers’ feeding frenzy. I believe it is highly inappropriate that lawyers would even comment on these things given their clear conflict of interest in seeing a lawyers’ feeding frenzy. I write off John Lawrence completely every time he sticks his head above the parapet and goes into the media because that guy is clearly in it for himself. He wants to see a lawyers’ feeding frenzy, he wants to see commissions and inquiries set up because, fundamentally, that will benefit the legal fraternity because there will be work forever.
They will investigate every single thing, call points of order and points of difference, and it will break down completely into a lawyers’ feeding frenzy. If you do not believe me look interstate or anywhere an ICAC exists. They exist but do not work. In New South Wales the Premier resigned over a bottle of wine because of an ICAC inquiry. That is the level of pettiness these things stoop to. Ultimately, when you look at where the taxpayer is being hit, it is in these big areas. As I said, AMS cost the taxpayer $70m. Goodness knows what the waterfront will cost us, but it will certainly be in the tens of millions of dollars. The gas pipeline – it is hard to put a figure on what that decision of the previous government will cost us.
Looking federally, the fibre-optic broadband scheme initially budgeted to be $5bn is now in excess of $50bn. Last week we heard about another $15bn blowout. Meanwhile the federal parliament is focused on Bronwyn Bishop’s $5000 helicopter trip. Does none of this hit a nerve with you guys? We are not looking in the right places. We are not seeing the big picture when we happily blow another $15bn to put fibre-optic broadband into people’s homes – almost totally ignore that – to a helicopter trip taken by the Speaker, who subsequently paid the money back not because of any legal requirement, but simply because she felt morally obliged to.
The Leader of Government Business said when you point a finger you get three back at you. The main attack dog on the federal Speaker was none other than Tony Burke. Tony Burke managed to have the Speaker removed and, lo and behold, we learn he did not spend $5000 on a helicopter trip. No, it was $2.2m on travel. I am not suggesting the $2.2m Mr Burke spent was out of entitlement or poor spending. In my view, ministers need to travel, similarly Speakers need to travel. In fact, in the federal parliament there are only four people – two House of Representatives members and two senators – who do not have to travel to Canberra. Everybody else does, so is it surprising that federal parliamentarians spend money on travel. It is a bit hard to walk from Darwin to Canberra ...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Similarly, I noticed in the media that the Chief Minister is being questioned because of his higher level of travel. It is pretty hard to be Chief Minister of the Northern Territory when you live in Alice Springs. Do people expect him to walk from Alice Springs to Darwin?
Ms Fyles: Just not private jets.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘Just not private jets’, the member for Nightcliff interjects. Do we have an allegation there was a private jet? Does Qantas not fly private jets? Does Virgin not fly private jets? Are we now picking out whose private jet we are allowed to travel on? I contend that some of the travel the Chief Minister undertook was in a government plane. However, I hope he also travelled on private jets, the same way the vast majority of us here do.
To suggest that you should not travel on a private jet is ludicrous. However, I am keen for the government to look at other ways we can save money and get around our region in a more cost-effective way. For some of that we will need private charter jets so when the Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade, for instance, has to travel to central China it will not take him two-and-a-half days to get there.
Most people will be aware that if you travel on commercial airlines, getting to China requires an overnight stay in Singapore or some other destination.
Ms Fyles: Do you go to the spa while you are there?
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nightcliff asks whether you go to the spa when you are there. I think going to the spa is entirely appropriate. Charging it to the taxpayer is not appropriate, but what a person does in their private time is up to them, member for Nightcliff. It seems every time someone mentions something the member for Nightcliff throws in some twisted view, like it is wrong to go to a spa.
I imagine at some time in her life the member for Nightcliff has been to a spa – maybe not. I imagine many ladies around Darwin like to go to beauty salons and spas. The member for Nightcliff thinks that is inappropriate. I do not know where the member for Nightcliff is going with some of these things at times.
Travelling to northern China is far quicker by private charter jet than with commercial airlines. Also, when you crunch some of the numbers it is cheaper if you fill the private charter with people. You can get more people to China for less by using a private charter than business class seats on Qantas or other airlines. It is appropriate that government looks at all avenues. I am on the record as Treasurer saying we are looking at every nook and cranny to save money.
The travel rorts issue, the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, has occupied the minds of those opposite. When we came to government at the end of 2012 I became Minister for Health and, very early into the job, I was given a report from the Department of Health which called into question some of the activities occurring with travel in the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme.
As the Attorney-General mentioned yesterday in Question Time, the vast majority of travel agents in the Northern Territory were considered to be involved in questionable behaviour, along with some 650 pensioners. The first thing I did was refer the matter to police, who started investigating it. Similarly, we changed the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme to make sure it could not be rorted. Instead of saying, ‘You can have one airline ticket to the value of $2000’, we said, ‘We will give you $500 straight up and you can spend it how you like’. That could be on an airline ticket, a train or a bus, it did not matter.’
When that scheme was introduced $2000 for an airline ticket was pretty well the going rate. However, the cost of airfares has dropped remarkably, and low-cost carriers can deliver people all over the country for far less than $500 return. In my view that was a good measure.
It is unfortunate that Flight Centre is caught up in this. Flight Centre operates a range of franchises in the Northern Territory and is the corporate body overseeing the various franchises. When it became aware of our inquiries, it almost instantly got in touch with government and said, ‘We want to know which of our franchisees were involved in this and we will remove them. We want to know the amount of money inappropriately directed and we will pay it back.’ To Flight Centre, the corporate umbrella that allows these agencies to operate, the reputational risk was enormous. It immediately tried to stop the bleeding and maintain its corporate reputation.
The member for Wanguri started banging on about the Chief Minister at the last estimates. Member for Wanguri, you know we have a separate booking and payment system; they are not combined. That is the nature of the legacy we picked up from the former government. We have also changed that system. We have put in place two corporate booking agencies so we get consolidated reports and can understand exactly what was booked and paid for, and how they are reconciled. I understand that came at some pain to local travel agents, but accountability and transparency is paramount for governments. We needed to act, and we did. Do we get any credit from the opposition for that? No. For some reason they want to go back to their old system of no accountability.
These suggestions are plain wrong. Yet, throughout this debate and for the months this has been going on, there has been no direct allegation of corruption from anyone opposite.
I have tried to work constructively with the member for Nelson. Some weeks ago we spoke about his experiences in Canada. I looked at the anti-corruption or integrity commission which operates there. It struck me as a workable idea, something different than these big full-blown expensive ICACs that run across the country. I gave that information to the Chief Minister. I know the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have been working closely to see how we might implement such a system.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion because it delivers the right measures to restore the perception that this parliament is an honest place.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Wanguri and the interjections from the member for Nightcliff. I also listened to what my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, said in relation to travel.
When you travel – not in my time I hope – if you become a minister and travel at night, eat on aircrafts and visit five countries in six days you might understand more about what you need to achieve as a minister, but that is for the future.
The member for Wanguri said the government is in chaos and cannot deliver anything. There are no allegations in this debate – where is the allegation of corruption? I will go through a few things and hope the Labor Party takes note of where the allegations should be in relation to corruption.
I will give some facts about what the Chief Minister and this government have achieved. If the government was in chaos, as they say, and had to get its act together it would be amazing. We are the top performing economy in the country. If that is chaos I am glad we are in chaos, and if we got our act together we would out-perform everyone in the world.
The member for Nhulunbuy is laughing, but you people left us with a $5.5bn projected debt and no plan to reduce it other than keep borrowing taxpayers’ money. Margaret Thatcher said socialism is really great until you run out of other people’s money to spend. Look at Greece. That is where the former government was taking us.
Under this government economic growth is up 6.5% and GSP $21.2bn. Is there corruption there? That is a fantastic outcome. Private business investment is up 6% to $10.6bn. Business confidence – this is a good one – the opposition says this government is in chaos ...
Ms Walker: No, you just said you were in chaos.
Mr STYLES: If we were, and this is what they consider chaos, we have the best-performing economy in Australia.
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5 class from Kormilda College accompanied by Ms Tahnee Roe. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
______________________
Mr STYLES: What we do in this House relates to the people sitting in the gallery. It is their future we are guaranteeing. We are here to make sure the people in the gallery have a bright future. Under Labor we were heading down the road to a $5.6bn projected debt. That is a 98% debt to income ratio, a shocking state of affairs.
Business confidence is +43%, the highest in the country. The national average is +31%. That comes from a government the opposition says is in chaos. It is not true. Average weekly earnings are $1565 per week. Business size: 95.4% are small businesses, 0.2% large, and medium-size business is 4.4%. That is why this government concentrates on small- to medium-size enterprises, with the Department of Business concentrating especially on small businesses.
I will go through some achievements so members opposite can write down where the allegations can come from.
Major achievements from my portfolio perspective: we have a five-year strategic plan for the department that was developed and launched across all offices in the Northern Territory. Make a note of that then make up some allegations. We have developed a business engagement strategy aimed at maintaining business confidence. That is certainly working because we have the highest level of business confidence in the country, a full 12 percentage points above the national average.
Maximise local industry participation in current and planned major projects – this includes leading an industry delegation to meet prime contractors associated with INPEX and the Shell Prelude projects based in Malaysia and Thailand in June 2014. This is about ensuring our young people have jobs and a bright future.
We have strengthened the Northern Territory relationship with Timor-Leste. This included leading and supporting a series of high-level activities such as four ministerial visits, a visit by the Darwin Lord Mayor, two visits by the NT Chamber of Commerce to support Territory companies participating in the first Timor-Leste International Building and Construction Expo in May 2015, and a successful fourth round of the Timor Sea Cup football tournament in Dili in 2015. Is there anything interesting with that? I do not think so, but members opposite may say, ‘You had four ministerial visits. That is way too many and you have been wasting money.’
I have heard this from members opposite before. Sadly they do not understand that anything you do with anyone is about relationships. It does not matter whether it is a family relationship, relationships in a city, a relationship with friends, countries or officials in those countries, you have to maintain relationships. You cannot go there and do a few whizz bang things, have a few bells and whistles on a policy then walk away and forget about it. Nothing happens, there is no economic development, and these wonderful people sitting in the gallery do not have the bright future they are entitled to.
We have the ongoing development of the Vietnamese/NT live cattle and buffalo trade, working with Vietnamese import representatives. Of course my colleague, the member for Katherine, the minister for Primary Industry, has done a great job of getting cattle back into Indonesia, something you people successfully destroyed. Not only did you destroy the live cattle trade, but you destroyed families and for that I will never forgive you. I have a great interest in regional, rural and remote Australia, and the problems you caused for families – I will not go too deeply into that but there are some horrific stories to tell about something you people supported.
We asked, when in opposition, you to oppose it but you did not. You worked with your mates in Canberra to make sure you just about killed the live export cattle trade.
Developing new export markets for Aboriginal art in Asia – I wonder what sort of corruption we will be accused of in relation to that.
We have secured the Australian-Taiwan Business Council joint conference to be held in Darwin in September. These people will visit Darwin, stay a while, look around and spend some money in the Territory. We secured that against the odds of it going elsewhere. Hard work was done by a number of government officials and ministers.
We developed an Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment Strategy to leverage the Northern Territory’s position, exploit future trade and investment activities, and broaden engagement with the Asian region. I wonder what the member for Nightcliff will say about travelling to organise that.
For those opposite making notes, Australia was built on foreign investment. What you see today and the future I and my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren have has been built on direct foreign investment. It is built on joint ventures by people who want to work with us to generate wealth. Without wealth there is no tax and without tax there is no government. That is what we on this side believe. The other side wants to keep borrowing money until they run out of credit and someone else has to clean it up.
InvestNT was established as a one-stop shop for potential foreign investors to seek information on investment in the Northern Territory. The directory of investment opportunities and the investment guide were produced to highlight sectors and project proposals in the NT which investors can explore. This information is located on a great site if those opposite want to look at it as opposed to making things up: www.investnt.com.au. It is a great site. The information is translated into several Asian languages.
The Territory Business Centre has introduced police history checks, reducing approval time for some licences. What will you do there? You could say there are public servants doing the wrong thing or falsifying documents. We do not have any allegations.
Modernising and streamlining systems in the Territory Business Centre is to reduce red tape and allow licences to be processed quickly, efficiently and effectively, with 26 licence categories now being processed by Territory Business Centres. There is an ongoing program of red tape efficiencies.
Over 11 years of the former Labor government red tape increased. We have been through a process to reduce red tape and have cut in excess of $350m from the process the Labor government had oversight of. That is $350m paid by new homeowners, builders, developers and everyone in the housing industry. There has also been the release of record numbers of housing blocks to take pressure off the housing market, and we have achieved that. Rents have dropped and the cost of housing has dropped.
Young people tell me they are grateful. Some of them do not understand exactly what has happened, and I have tried to explain the policies of this government and those of the former government, and why we have been able to reduce the cost of their new home.
The non-government organisations pilot program was well received by the sector and has now become permanent. I wonder if those opposite will say we are trying to buy NGOs by giving grants, or looking after them and allowing them to get on with what they do best.
October Business Month celebrated its 20th anniversary last year with a record 9005 people attending 153 events. This year is the 21st year and we are expecting far more than that, with a bigger and brighter program. I wonder what those opposite will say about that.
The provision of a dedicated business development officer in Gove has enabled local businesses to transition from a narrow business focus to being viable, newly-focused business operational areas. That should be of great interest to the member for Nhulunbuy. I met with a few people from Nhulunbuy recently who understand. Yesterday the member said the only reason the alumina refinery closed was because we failed to obtain gas.
I do not know where the member for Nhulunbuy gets her information, but if she had asked for a meeting with the board they would have said, as they told us when they opened their books to us in complete confidence, ‘Look at this. No amount of gas will save what we need to do.’ They crunched the numbers.
I am reliably informed they were producing alumina for $2200 per tonne and China was selling alumina for $1800 per tonne. This is why we got into so much trouble economically, but sadly those opposite do not understand economics. As the member for Port Darwin said yesterday, we need to get the butcher’s paper out. When you are producing something for $2200 per tonne and your competitors are selling it for $1800 per tonne, for every tonne you produce you lose $400.
There is a simple thing in business called return on investment. If you do not have a return on investment you are out of business. The board of Rio Tinto will say, ‘Sorry, no amount of gas will save the company from closing the alumina production’. It is a matter of basic economics. Until China increases the price, its cost of production increases, or there is a more efficient way of producing alumina in this country, China will have the market. They also put an extra 45 million tonnes of alumina onto the world market.
It is economics. I am sure those opposite will say there is a shonky deal going on. They said we did a shonky deal with gas; we promised to give gas and did not.
The remote contracting policy was introduced in July 2015 to support remote economies and communities. This has three aspects to it – make a note because you might want to make some allegations in relation to this – and many more Aboriginal Australians are being trained and employed. Aboriginal companies in regional, rural and remote Australia now have contracts. The Department of Business has a section to help Aboriginal businesses submit tenders and make sure they are up to speed and done on a level playing field. They are now winning business. Is that wrong? I wonder what allegations will come because we do not have any so far.
In relation to remote contracting, we are setting employment and business development targets. The government has set itself targets which it is meeting. We are also implementing new contract planning requirements and providing professional services to support Aboriginal businesses, not only in tender development but a range of other services through our business development officers. There are 22 people across the Northern Territory helping people conduct business.
In January 2013 the government commenced work on a program of reforms to Northern Territory government procurement aimed at reducing business red tape, simplifying processes and involving efficiency for Northern Territory businesses. That is showing dividends.
My colleague, the Treasurer, might say we are now looking at a projected debt of about $2.6bn, down from the $5.6bn projected debt under Labor, with no plan to reduce it. We have a plan and we are reducing it. In fact, I heard the Chief Minister say recently that we might even have a budget surplus this financial year. It did not look very good three years ago when we came to government. We had huge challenges to get over the economic mess left by the previous government.
The first phase of these reforms was implemented on 1 July 2014. It included procurement thresholds changed so more contracts could be awarded under simpler processes. I wonder if people will ask, ‘What shonkies were done there?’
The terms and conditions of contract were amended – unlimited liability, indemnity, intellectual property and dispute resolution in those areas. I am trying to find somewhere you can make allegations. Maybe you will find something.
Local development and value adding guidelines for business and agencies were improved. Tender release days were changed so that tenders can now be released and closed on any day of the week. These are initiatives that business asked the government to consider. We have been listening and responding.
If members opposite want to make allegations about these things they need to talk to business. Every time they accuse us of something they need to look at the business community, the general community and the people we have spoken to. You heard in the planning debate yesterday that the government has consulted extensively. We have listened to people. This is what people in business are asking us, and we are responding to those requests.
The red tape abolition squad was established to coordinate the implementation of reforms across government to reduce regulatory costs. I said previously, in the building industry over $350m has been cut from the cost of doing business, enabling things to get through and making a huge impact, especially for young Territorians getting their first house ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I have not heard any allegations. We asked for allegations but none have been forthcoming. I do not have time to talk about the huge number of positive things happening in the Territory or what is in the pipeline. We lead the country in four of the six indicators that judge the economic ability of governments.
Business confidence is the highest in the country. We are at +43% and the national average is +31%. We have so much planned to develop the north. The northern part of Australia is a blank canvas. We have one-third of the country, one million people, two-thirds of the rainfall and lots of land suitable for agriculture and industry. It is all waiting for us, our children and our grandchildren. There is a bright future in the Northern Territory.
To keep it bright we need foreign investment. We need people to invest in joint ventures, to create industry, business and jobs and make sure the Territory remains heading in the right direction. We need jobs, wealth and taxes so we can support those five important things.
When I knock on doors and ask people what the five most important things are they say health, education and law and order are the first three. The fourth is a vibrant economy to pay for the first three and do everything else, and the fifth is hope. Without hope no one gets out of bed in the morning.
Prior to the 2012 election I looked at the debt levels and thought, ‘We are in a bit of trouble’. I now stand proud to be part of this government and to say the Territory is back on track and tracking for a very bright future.
I again ask for allegations but do not hear any. I allege that the future of the Territory has been put at risk by the actions of the opposition.
On Sunday the member for Karama attended a rally with about 500 people, all union and proud. They were the same people the member for Karama was giving Stella Maris to – her union mates. They were saying ‘We are union and we are proud’. They are fighting the China free trade agreement. We need direct foreign investment from overseas but this goes wider than China. This goes to Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, China and Taiwan. I was there recently selling the Northern Territory.
We have had eight delegations in Darwin as a result of that. Each one asked, ‘What about the free trade agreement?’ They are here because they have read the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia. They are keen to be here but will not come while people are making racist remarks like, ‘Keep the yellow peril out’. Former Labor leader, Mark Latham, said in the book he wrote some years ago that we need people from Asia to fill the jobs we cannot.
In Darwin the unemployment rate is less than 1%. We struggle to find people to work on building sites. I sat next to federal minister Andrew Robb at a Trade minister’s conference. He said, ‘I was in Adelaide recently and went to Murray Bridge’. Anyone who has driven from Adelaide to Murray Bridge on the magnificent freeway will know it is a beautiful drive; the aesthetics are magnificent. Murray Bridge is an hour south of Adelaide.
Debate suspended.
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Legal Studies students from Good Shepherd Lutheran College accompanied by Julie Hearnden. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
MOTION
Ice Select Committee –
Extension of Time to Report
MOTION
Ice Select Committee –
Extension of Time to Report
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have not given notice to the other side, but this motion is non-contentious.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly amends its resolution of 25 March 2015 establishing the Ice Select Committee requiring a report date of 17 September by deleting the words, ‘17 September’ and inserting instead the words, ‘19 November’. This is being done at the request of the Chairman of the Ice Select Committee.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, we were not aware but we support that change.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Establishment of an Independent
Anti-Corruption Body
Establishment of an Independent
Anti-Corruption Body
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I was talking about a conversation I had with the federal trade minister, Mr Andrew Robb, and his drive to Murray Bridge. He visited an abattoir with just over 1400 people employed with over 1000 on 457 visas. He said the South Australian government cannot get people to drive for an hour on a magnificent freeway from Adelaide to Murray Bridge for work.
We have heard about Holden closing, Defence industries having problems with submarines, and the unemployment rate is expected to increase to 8%. They have an unemployment problem, yet people in Adelaide will not drive for an hour or get on a bus to go to work. When the Labor Party says do not bring – the China free trade agreement – I will quote from some Labor Party paraphernalia ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from subject. Are we still debating the ICAC motion the government brought to the House?
Mr STYLES: We are.
Madam Speaker, can I speak to that?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Madam Speaker, I have challenged the Labor Party because there has not been one allegation and I am giving members the opportunity to make allegations. I have given them a list and am continuing that list, inviting them to allege something.
Mr Vowles: You have not said anything positive about it.
Mr STYLES: I do not know where the member for Johnston was during this debate, whether his mind was elsewhere, but I will take you back, member for Johnston, to what the member for Wanguri said. She rehashed old material with not one allegation. We are talking about an ICAC and alleged corruption. There has not been one allegation from the opposition, so I allege that if the opposition continues with some of the things it is saying it will be responsible for so much damage to the Northern Territory economy.
Opposition members do not seem to have any basis for their allegations. Where are these allegations? The member for Johnson asked if it was our motion. Yes, it is. We are trying to work with you to get some sense into it.
I congratulate my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, for saying, ‘Let us work together with the opposition and the Independents’.
I commend the member for Nelson on his presentation. He said it is not – I will use the member for Port Darwin’s words – a peeing competition or about whose motion is best; it is about finding something that will work and give people the confidence to come forward and do what they need to. There is a workable arrangement. However, those opposite said, ‘No, we won’t work with anyone. You’re not worth it.’
I commend the member for Port Darwin for his presentation and his request to work with the opposition. I commend the member for Nelson for his request to work with the opposition. I sincerely hope the opposition wants to work with all members of this House to find something workable and reasonable.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate.
During the luncheon break the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wood, and I negotiated what the motion should look like and that it should be a motion before this House. I thank the member for Nelson and the Leader of the Opposition for their attention to the matter during the break.
As a consequence, we have come to an arrangement which will jump through the following hoops in an effort to make sure this is done as fairly, equitably and politically cleanly as possible.
Shortly I will seek leave of the Assembly to adjourn this motion and hold it over with the guarantee that should the member for Nelson’s motion, which is the one we have agreed between us, pass in this House I will, immediately after passage of that motion, invite defeat of my motion so the member for Nelson’s motion will stand. As a consequence of that, during General Business Day the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw his motion. I presume the other Independents are comfortable with that.
The effect of this will be the member for Nelson will have brought into this House a motion reflecting the Labor Party’s and the CLP’s position as well, I hope, as the other Independents. We should be able to do all this on voices.
Consequently, this motion will stay live only until the member for Nelson’s motion is successful. At that point I will invite defeat and the Labor Party will not proceed with its motion.
That being as clear as mud, I seek leave to suspend debate on my motion, assuming that forthwith the House moves forward to enable Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, to move a motion.
Leave granted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the motion to grant leave. We have moved into a new paradigm within this Chamber. I applaud the bipartisan approach taken over the last few hours in negotiating what will, hopefully, be a palatable motion around establishment of an ICAC or equivalent in the Northern Territory.
There are five Independents, and the opposition and government have negotiated in good faith with one of the Independents. I do not feel very comfortable with the process, but that is probably my problem not anyone else’s.
I have just been handed the negotiated motion Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, will put this afternoon. As an Independent, particularly when it comes to this issue, I am not concerned about whether a good motion comes from the CLP government or the Labor opposition. I just want to tease out debate and resolve what is best for the Northern Territory.
I emphasise to both sides of this Chamber that there is more than one Independent now, there are five. In respect to us all, it is worth keeping that in mind.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Operation of an Anti-Corruption, Integrity and Misconduct Commission
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
1. supports the establishment of an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission
2. that this parliament resolves, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act, to appoint a person qualified to be a judge in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to inquire into and report to the Administrator on the following matter: the establishment of an independent anti-corruption body in the Northern Territory, including but not limited to the following considerations:
- (a) the principles and provisions of ICAC and like legislation in other Australian jurisdictions and their applicability to the Northern Territory
- (b) the appropriate powers such a body should have, including but not limited to:
- 1. the power to investigate allegations of corruption, including against ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly and other public officials
2. the power to conduct investigations and inquiries into corrupt activities and system-wide anti-corruption reforms as it sees fit
3. the appropriate trigger for an NT ICAC’s jurisdiction and the relationship between this body and other Northern Territory bodies such as the Ombudsman
4. models from any other jurisdictions
5. the use of existing NT legislation or NT statutory authorities
6. the report will include indicative costs of establishing the various models they put forward
3. that the qualified person referred to above be selected for recommendation to the Administrator of the Northern Territory based on the process outlined for the appointment of a Supreme Court judge in Appendix A of the Review of the Processes for the appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory, with the exception that the panel outlined in the process recommends one instead of two for consideration
4. notes that the qualified person appointed will consult with relevant stakeholders including, but not limited to, the NT Police, the NT Law Society and the Criminal Lawyers Association
5. the qualified person appointed provide advice and report back to the parliament in a timely manner.
I want us all to work together. That does not mean we have to agree with one another all the time, but where we can work together that would be the process we should go through. This happened quicker than I thought, but it is not new in the sense that we have seen these versions. We now have a combined motion that has been agreed to by the Labor Party and the government.
The changes that have been incorporated should be supported. One of the main changes here is:
- … that the qualified person referred to above be selected for recommendation to the Administrator of the Northern Territory based on the process outlined for the appointment of a Supreme Court judge in Appendix A of the Review of the Processes for the appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory, with the exception that the panel outlined in the process recommends one instead of two for consideration.
There was a lot of discussion earlier about trying to make sure the process was not only independent but seen to be independent. I know the opposition was putting forward a motion, as was the government. The motion from the opposition in relation to this appointment is a good one. It means the public will know this appointment has nothing to do with members of parliament. That is a real improvement on both motions and is something we should support.
The motion is broad enough to allow the person conducting the inquiry to not have their hands tied when it comes to looking at models, various options and all the issues related to having an ICAC in the Northern Territory. One thing we also agree on is that we do not want a multimillion-dollar ICAC. We are calling it an ICAC but it could be something like an ICAC. We have allowed for the possibility of it using existing legislation or statutory authorities.
Whoever is doing this will have the freedom to come up with the best model for the Northern Territory. I have some concern about the last clause, which is that the qualified person appointed provide advice and report back to the parliament in a timely manner. I would have preferred a date, but as part of working through this to reach an agreement you sometimes have to give and take. I will be asking the minister to keep us updated. The government would be in contact with the person doing the report, and it would be sensible to ask for a report so it does not end up going on and on.
It needs to be up and running before the next election so it is not used as an election tool or a bit of advertising. We need to have this up and running so it cannot be used inappropriately before an election.
The good thing is there is a statement at the top, which is the reason I felt we had an opportunity to get together. We say this Assembly supports the establishment of an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission. The name, in itself, covers everything. We are ensuring we do not just talk about criminal matters. We are talking about matters which might be inappropriate but not criminal. There could be matters of governance or a range of issues a commission like this can discuss, look at and investigate, and that is important.
The words ‘not limited to’ are important. They allow flexibility for the person running the inquiry to look at a whole range of things, including models in other jurisdictions. It may not just be in Australia, it could be overseas, because we need to get the best model for a small constituency like the Northern Territory. We need to make sure that not only does it serve the purpose for which it has been set up, but does so in a financially sustainable way. We do not want a big bureaucracy, but at the same time we do not want something that is hamstrung by not having sufficient financial resources to make sure it operates properly. We will be looking for a balance between hamstringing the commission by not giving it enough financial support and not setting it up to turn into a bloated bureaucracy. That is the danger.
The member for Drysdale and I were at the South Australian Public Accounts Committee and that was a question I asked of the PAC chairman. They have a large bureaucracy but are a much larger population than the Northern Territory.
I hope everyone supports this. That does not mean people will not have different opinions about it. Obviously that is part of debating it in the Chamber. I hope it is supported, and unanimous support would be great.
Although I am putting this motion forward I do not want it to be seen as the Gerry Wood motion. I would rather it be seen as a motion of this House going forward in a unified way to do something Territorians have been looking forward to for a long time.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson spoke about how we go down this path in the earlier motion brought forward by the government. He said it is really important we reach consensus today. I have a slightly different opinion and think the most important thing today is to find a way to allow independence and for it be separate from this Chamber. If we find consensus on that path it is a bonus, and we have. That is good, but I wanted to make sure the process today had clear independence in and around it. We have found that, and I thank the member for Nelson and the Leader of Government Business for the conversation that will see something passed today.
We should stop for a moment and recognise that. Today we have started on the journey of the Northern Territory having an independent commission against corruption, or a misconduct commission, or a Northern Territory version of one. We, as a House, acknowledge this should be established and acknowledge its importance. That is the first line of the motion, and it is a really big moment in the House. As a Chamber we say we should establishing an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission, but one suitable to the Northern Territory and Territory conditions. That is the first step and we have agreed to the threshold.
It is also good it is under the Inquiries Act as there will be certain powers and authority for the person involved. The independent person will have the capacity to look at many things. The terms and conditions show a certain guiding of the independent person, but they are not limited to those considerations. There is a capacity for the independent person to explore things.
It is important that we, as a parliament, have created this. We accept the threshold principle, but we are allowing an independent person, separate to this parliament, to look at these things. It is about creating an independent vehicle to provide oversight for us as well as others. We must be clear that establishment of this body not only is, but appears to be, separate from us. We have to be careful so the public has confidence in the process we are following and there is independence.
The selection method we have now settled on – I thank the Leader of Government Business and the member for Nelson for their support. The selection process is essentially how we appoint a judge or a magistrate in the Northern Territory, and that is a good process to go through. There will be an independent person and a lot of work involved in this. We have given that independent person the time and capacity to come back to us in a timely manner, and that is important. We do not want this to hang around forever. I agree with the member for Nelson on that, and am sure the Leader of Government Business would say something similar. It is not about this hanging around forever, but it is important to give this person the capacity to be independent in what they are doing.
We have had the conversations and are at the first step in the establishment of an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission.
I apologise to the member for Araluen. Many conversations were had around this motion, and we probably did not get to everyone during the luncheon break. This motion covers all the things asked for in previous negotiations. We had many conversations on Monday and Tuesday about things we wanted to look at and how much it might cost.
I pick up on something the member for Nelson mentioned before. It is important to have a model that is suitable to Territory conditions, and I guess an independent person looking at this will endorse that. In my opinion we need something on an as-demands basis not a standing committee, and they will be tested by an independent person. We are a small place with a small population. I could be wrong, but I do not think we will have the same demand as New South Wales or as other entities might have.
I have said in discussions – I have had plenty of consultation around this – if it meets on an as-demands basis and there is a constant demand it will always be meeting. It is not as if you are denying the existence of the body; it can meet if it needs to and that is important.
We can consider a standing committee versus an as-demands committee. What would the trigger be? How cases come to the ICAC needs to be carefully considered. It is important that people know they can submit something and there is an open door where people can say, ‘Look at this’. We need a strong clearinghouse and trigger mechanism for an ICAC to start; it does not start on a whim. People should know they have a place to go to express their concerns and those concerns are looked at.
It is important for us to examine – the independent person can examine this, we are a small jurisdiction. People with the skills in this investigative area often know each other, have worked together and sometimes have a relationship with each other. There is a small pool. We saw that come into play with recent investigations, especially in the McRoberts case. People have stood aside for the right reasons. This independent person will have to examine how we approach being in a small jurisdiction, how we work with people from interstate, co-opt, second or have a relationship with people interstate. In Tasmania, for example, the commissioner comes from Victoria. They are bigger than us but recognise this as a problem too. There are solutions, and the independent person will have to investigate how we deal with those conflicts and the Territory being a small place.
Many of these issues were examined at Labor’s town hall forum on Monday. We had a good conversation with the panel, made up of Tass Liveris, president of the Law Society; Richard Coates, who many people would know as former Director of Public Prosecutions, formerly from Legal Aid, and former CEO of the Department of Justice; Priscilla Collins from NAAJA; and David Morris from the Environmental Defenders Office. Tass ran it more like a Tony Jones’ Q&A style panel, which worked quite well with the public. Many of these questions were examined.
A lot of detail needs to go in and questions asked about how to establish an ICAC. It is not as simple as setting one up and there it is tomorrow. There are different models from state to state: the New South Wales very public committee model versus the South Australian one, where you do not know what is going on until the police knock on your door and you are arrested. There is a balance between the two, and different models you can pursue to make sure one is established.
What is really important – and I have tried to emphasise it as I have gone through this – is that we want to consult with and hear what people are saying, understand what people want, and have a clear understanding of it all. At some stage, it has to leave us; it has to leave parliamentarians and this Chamber. It has to be independently created so people have confidence that this vehicle is not something cooked up in a compromise between political parties to satisfy political demand, but it has independent rigour to it.
The Attorney-General mentioned in debate that he and I had a brief conversation yesterday about whether I would work with him on a motion. I was quite honest with the member for Port Darwin, as I always am. At the moment the CLP is toxic when it comes to these matters, and I do not want to be seen to be cooking something up with the CLP. I also believe it is important that people do not think political parties are getting together to knock up a convenient model.
What is good about today’s motion is we are creating an independent vehicle to examine these issues, which is an important step. It is good that the CLP has given this the nod and we have reached a consensus today. As I said, the most important thing I was looking for today was a vehicle that gave us unlimited independence.
I had concerns about the earlier motion the CLP proposed. Through good conversation and consultation this model is independent and – not by happy accident because we worked together to get this – has reached consensus, which is important.
An ICAC is only one of the things we need in the Northern Territory to restore trust and integrity to government. It is good that we have done this today, but the workload remains. A number of things need to be done when it comes to trust and restoring integrity to the government.
We have released the discussion paper that goes to quite a number of issues we think need to be canvassed and discussed to restore integrity to government. ICAC is just one element of that. It is an important element and probably the one with the most attention. It has to happen, and it is good that we have done this today. However, a number of other things need to be done in the Northern Territory to handle the trust deficit between the current CLP government and Territorians.
It goes beyond whether we have an independent commission against corruption, against misconduct, or other things it may explore when looking at the powers this body may have. One element is that there is an oversight body on us as parliamentarians, as well as other public officials. There are other things we need to do.
One problem the CLP has is it has not engaged in genuine conversation with Territorians over the last three years. If you want Territorians to trust you, you have to trust them. You have to talk to them, which is what we are doing around this trust paper we have. It is quite important to have proper engagement.
I thank the member for Nelson and the Leader of Government Business. As a parliament we have supported the principle to establish an independent anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory. That is significant. We have also created an independent process for investigation of the powers and shape that committee should have. That is also important to acknowledge.
We have adopted the same process you would use to select a judge, making sure we have an independent person of the right quality with the right experience and skills to examine the power and shape of an ICAC. We have given them the capacity to look at whatever they need to and the workload that will involve. They will report back to this Chamber in a timely manner but in such time as they get this right. It is important we get this right.
I thank the House for this historic moment. We are, as a House, accepting the principle that the Northern Territory needs an independent commission against corruption.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion. It is important to say, in support of our Police Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures, the DPP, even parliamentary inquiries and committees that have been set up in the past, that this parliament has faith in them. I do not want what we are doing today to undermine the good work they have done and will continue to do.
I wanted to put that on the record because I, as minister for Police, have faith in our Police Commissioner, the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures, the DPP and all those people I mentioned earlier.
What has occurred is unfortunate but real, because the perception in the community is that the processes of government have been damaged. It reminds me that if you throw enough mud it sticks. Unfortunately, with so much mud thrown at different areas of government – not just this government but perhaps even the former government – people lose faith in our system. If today’s motion goes some way to restoring faith in government processes then I welcome it.
Anything raised recently has been investigated. Action has and will be taken on anything that has been brought forward. Again, there have been allegations about things that may or may not have happened, but I can assure you, as a minister of the Crown, I take my job seriously.
During the last three years, as Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I have been involved in many meetings with developers. I have had people in the street ask me, ‘How many blocks of land or how many units did you score out of the last development you approved?’ It does not and cannot happen. It may have happened in some other states; it may have even happened in the past. I do not know; I was not there and not part of it.
I can assure you, as a minister you cannot get tied up in that type of discussion with developers and investors because you will be caught out whether it is today, tomorrow, 12 months from now or years from now.
Also, every government minister knows that the moment you bend for a developer or an investor and do something you should not, something extra, it will come back to haunt you. The other thing is that developer or investor has you over a barrel for the rest of your life. Do not do it; do not go there. Play this game with a straight bat. I do not believe ministers in the previous government played that game; however, there is evidence that some things were done.
The role of a minister is extremely serious and ministers need the confidence of Territorians. A lot of mud has been thrown yet there is not a lot of substance behind it. Any serious allegations have been or are currently being investigated, and action has and will be taken now and into the future.
There is a perception in the community that some government processes have broken down. I assure you I have seen no evidence of that occurring. If that is the perception in the community because of the mud continually thrown then we need to work hard as a parliament to restore the faith of the community. I do not want to take anything away from our Police Commissioner, our Ombudsman or the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures. The work of this parliament is not to undermine what they have done because it has been admirable and they have done their job extremely well.
I support this motion. If it does anything to help restore faith in our parliamentary process you have to welcome it. At the same time, make sure it is not used to undermine the good work of our public service and the people who work for us such as the Police Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. Part of the problem I see – and I hope it is only a perception that there is corruption – is everyone in this Chamber needs to look at themselves and their involvement in creating that perception.
Over the last three years there have been a lot of accusations of misconduct at whatever level by various people in this Chamber. I tried to pride myself in not getting involved, and will not do that today. I hope it is just a perception. That is what has worried me in this process and why I have been a strong supporter of ICAC.
We need to ensure the perception in the public arena, in the community, is addressed properly. Part of the problem is because there is a misconception of how corrupt people in politics are, they do not trust us to set up an ICAC properly.
I am happy this motion allows the perception of total independence from people in this House to be conveyed to the public. I am happy with what we have ended up with today, and I hope it addresses those perceptions I have seen and that people have raised with me. They have a perception of corruption, and they also have a perception that we cannot appoint someone to look into it properly because we are getting them to look at ourselves. Hopefully people will be happy with this. I do not think we should pat each other on the back saying what a great job we have done. I hope people can one day pat us on the back and say what a great job we did.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support from both sides and thank all speakers for their support. This is an important day. We have now set the parameters for an inquiry which will set up an independent anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission. It is certainly an important day in the Northern Territory’s maturity because the parliament is saying it will set up a process to investigate itself as well as others.
I appreciate the comments from the members for Brennan and Daly, as well as the Opposition Leader, and comments made in the previous debate. Yes, unfortunately, we are part of what could be regarded as the rumour world. Things are said and people can be hurt when the facts are not true. At least with a commission like this, if people believe there is corruption and have the evidence to put before the commission it can be tested in an independent environment.
If people have heard something they think is wrong, improper or illegal, even if they only have some evidence, it can go to the commission for investigation without being spread around. It will be up to the commission to decide if there is a case.
I hope I am not wrong, but in South Australia there is a body which filters complaints to make sure they are legitimate and the commissioner is not tied up checking that. I do not think we would have that many complaints here to warrant that, but the process in South Australia allows the commissioner to focus on the role he is meant to.
Motion agreed to.
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
Establishment of an Independent
Anti-Corruption Body
Establishment of an Independent
Anti-Corruption Body
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in accordance with the agreement and commitment I gave to this House previously I seek leave, pursuant to Standing Order 128, to withdraw Government Business Notice No 1 standing in my name.
Leave granted.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS’ SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 133)
(Serial 133)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This is a minor technical adjustment to the superannuation act for members of parliament which will bring the superannuation arrangements for members in line with Northern Territory Public Sector employees, who have had the ability to nominate a self-managed superannuation fund since 2004 under the Superannuation Act.
This bill will allow members of the Legislative Assembly to nominate complying self-managed superannuation funds for employer and employee contributions. Complying self-managed superannuation funds comprise a significant majority of the superannuation industry. They are highly regulated under the Commonwealth legislation to ensure compliance and safeguard beneficiaries. The bill will allow members of the Legislative Assembly the flexibility to choose a product suitable to their circumstances.
This bill will also bring parliamentary self-managed superannuation fund arrangements in line with most other Australian jurisdictions. Currently only the Northern Territory, South Australia and Commonwealth jurisdictions exclude the nomination of complying self-managed super funds for members of Australian parliaments. This is despite the bill’s digest of the relevant Commonwealth act, commenting that the exclusion of self-managed superannuation funds – I quote from that digest:
- This restriction goes against the [Commonwealth] government’s proposal for choice of superannuation fund for the general community …
- … there is no obvious reason for preventing new members or Senators from choosing such funds.
It is important to note that a self-managed super fund will continue to be excluded as a declared default fund under section 13, as the default fund must be open to contributions for all eligible superannuation recipients.
Under the Legislative Assembly (Disclosure of Interests) Act 2008 members of this parliament are already under an obligation to declare any self-managed superannuation fund of which the member is a trustee and/or beneficiary, and must disclose any relevant interest in such a fund of which a member is a trustee or a beneficiary.
The proposed amendments will not increase the risk of an undisclosed conflict of interest, but rather bring members of the Legislative Assembly in line with the broader Territory and Australian community and its superannuation arrangements.
All members of the Legislative Assembly are obliged to update records of their registrable interests. The registry is kept by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and inspections can occur subject to conditions set by the Committee of Members’ Interests.
I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 132)
(Serial 132)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill proposes amendments to the Superannuation Act and the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme (NTGPASS) Rules in order to provide authority to the Commissioner of Superannuation to transfer adherent or retained NTGPASS accounts to a chosen successor fund by way of a successor fund transfer.
NTGPASS adherents or retained members have largely retired or resigned from the Territory public service, and crystallised the Territory-funded defined benefit. Two-thirds of this group no longer reside or work in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Superannuation Office is not able to offer the suite of member services available from many other superannuation funds. For example, adherent or retained NTGPASS accounts are not able to receive compulsory employer contributions or salary sacrifice contributions. In addition, there are many other services widely available in the superannuation industry that are not offered to NTGPASS members, including retirement income products, financial advice, insurance products such as income protection and life insurance, as well as online access to accounts and account services.
Once the adherent accounts have been transferred to the successor fund, the transferred members will have access to this full range of superior services and will be in a more contemporary superannuation environment.
In choosing a successor fund, protections are in place for the transferring members. The trustees of both the NTGPASS fund and the receiving fund need to be satisfied and form the view that the transfer is in members’ best interest and that the fund they are transferring to offers members’ rights at least equivalent to those enjoyed within the NTGPASS.
Following a due diligence process, adherent NTGPASS accounts will be transferred into a contemporary superannuation fund with the full suite of member services now expected by consumers. Importantly, while adherent members will not be able to choose to stay with NTGPASS, it is not compulsory for them to participate in the successor fund transfer. If they are not satisfied with the chosen successor fund they are able to nominate an alternative superannuation fund to which their account will be transferred. This option will be available to adherents until just prior to the successor fund transfer occurring. Members may take this opportunity to consolidate superannuation accounts if they have more than one. Importantly, the transfer will occur at no cost to the transferring members.
The bill also removes the future ability of active NTGPASS members still employed in the Northern Territory public service to become adherents. Instead, on retirement or resignation, members will be advised that at the time they crystallise their defined benefit they are required to nominate a superannuation fund to which their superannuation will be rolled over. This prevents the creation of future adherent accounts. Similarly, the spouses of NTGPASS members will no longer be able to open NTGPASS spouse accounts.
The bill also contains provisions enabling the transfer of adherent accounts to an eligible rollover fund chosen by the Commissioner of Superannuation. Eligible rollover funds are specialised funds that accept transfers of lost member accounts and the accounts of members no longer eligible for scheme membership. The bill gives the Commissioner of Superannuation the ability to pay a member’s NTGPASS benefit to an eligible rollover fund where the member has failed to nominate a superannuation fund following their retirement or resignation. Importantly, the bill is not seeking to close the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme for active members.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT (DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY) BILL
(Serial 128)
(Serial 128)
Continued from 18 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice for the briefing they provided me last week. We indicated our support on Monday evening when we received the update of what business would be before the House the following day. We anticipated debate yesterday. This had been listed for Tuesday’s Government Business, but of course yesterday did not go quite as planned for the government. I do not think today has either, but we are still getting to the important business of the House, which is legislation.
This bill is based on COAG-approved reforms for nationally consisted directors’ liability provisions across the various Australian jurisdictions. Reforms were approved as far back as 2008 or 2009, so it has certainly been on COAG’s agenda for some time. Obviously an enormous body of work goes with it, and following the briefing I understand it has not been an easy task. Clearly a huge body of work has been instigated by a review across the jurisdictions, including the Northern Territory.
I note an audit has been undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice of the Northern Territory’s statute book to identify which acts contain offences that impose a personal criminal liability on directors. There are, as it turns out, 58 acts – I think that was the figure the minister used in his second reading speech – which contain offences and impose criminal liability on directors. As a result, 40 of those acts have had existing directors’ liability repealed, with the COAG default position of direct or accessorial liability to apply through the general application of criminal law. It is also my understanding that through the process of reviewing legislation this bill determines which of the three types of provisions should apply to relevant Territory offences.
To be honest, it is difficult to resist the guiding principle that directors are not liable for corporate fault unless they have personally assisted in commission of an offence or been negligent or reckless in relation to the corporation’s offending. COAG has developed three types of provisions that determine the extent to which the onus of establishing whether a director took reasonable steps to prevent the corporation’s offending falls on the defence or the prosecution.
I will go to the explanatory statement which clearly outlines these provisions. Quoting from the explanatory statement:
- Under COAG’s Type 1 provision, the failure of the director to take reasonable steps to prevent the corporation’s offending must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, the director is presumed to be innocent. This is the standard directors’ liability provision.
In a Type 2 provision, a director is deemed to be liable unless they can produce enough evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable possibility that a defence applies. It is then up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defence does not apply. In this type of provision, a director bears an evidential burden of proof while the more substantial legal burden of proof is retained by the prosecution.
In a Type 3 provision, the director is deemed to be liable for a corporate breach unless they can produce enough evidence to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities. In this type of provision, the director bears a legal burden to establish their defence which reverses the usual onus of proof in criminal law.
Each amended provision contains a subsection that lists the declared provisions relevant to that section and defines executive officer. In each provision, an executive officer of a body corporate is defined to mean a director or other person who is concerned with, or takes part in, the management of the body corporate. It is intended that the term body corporate, used in this bill, have the same meaning as the term corporation as defined in section 57A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Adoption of the agreed COAG reform principles is designed to achieve a nationally consistent approach in relation to director liability provisions under the three types I outlined from the explanatory statement.
Obviously some acts have higher levels of exposure and subsequent responsibility than others, and with that there will be differing levels of risks or offences. At the briefing I mentioned that I was not sure what the worst offence was that the director of a corporation could commit under the Flag and Emblem Act. However, the Public and Environmental Health Act, as an example, demands very high levels of responsibility and, therefore, a need for corporations and directors to have correspondingly high level of accountability and, depending on the nature of an offence or the level of harm under that act, sees the level of liability at Type 3, the most serious.
The approach adopted by the government to implement these changes under COAG principles, through a coordinated audit of the relevant legislation instruments, is a reasonable one to take. I imagine it is the only way you can do it.
I ask the minister to advise what plans are afoot to communicate changes to the Territory community, to every corporate body or director under Territory law, what these changes mean. Obviously it is important for that to be communicated to people who have changed responsibilities and liabilities under this bill.
At the briefing it was offered that the red tape production team may have some role in that. I would have thought the Chamber of Commerce would, in all likelihood, have a role. I was advised that the Australian Institute of Company Directors SA/NT branch would have a role. These are very important changes that people need to be aware of. There is always the question of how we best communicate with people so they are aware these changes have come through.
We will follow with interest how the implementation process goes. If there are such major reforms does the legislation need reviewing within 12 months or two years to ensure that the principles under the COAG agreement are captured within the bill today?
On the basis I have outlined this afternoon we support the bill and commend it to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, we all know this has come from COAG to try to get some consistency across the country where corporations cross over and work in multiple jurisdictions. I thank the minister’s office and the staff of the Attorney-General’s office for the briefing. It is reasonably complex, and I have attempted to get across the issues and potential impact on corporations and individuals in the Territory. I sought other advice and held meetings with people who know more about this than I do. It is important that if someone is responsible they should be held to account. That includes directors being responsible for the actions of a corporate entity.
The challenge for directors of associations or corporations is that the vast array of laws imposes additional liability on them for public policy reasons, where they want to encourage certain conduct on the part of the corporations. This bill is about getting a standard regime of similar language and removing additional requirements that no longer need to be there. The question is: has it struck the right balance? I have gone through the background and consultation process, and the one question I ask of the minister regarding information I received through his office is about consultation with the public and stakeholders. Some people I spoke to said they were not consulted much, if at all.
Given the list of acts and regulations this impacts, does the government intend to consult with, for example, the Chamber of Commerce about the impact on long service leave, public holidays, the Annual Leave Act, the Energy Pipelines Act and reform? Will they talk to the APPEA, the petroleum and exploration association, which has an office in Darwin? It will impact on the Firearms Act. Will government be talking with the NT Firearms Council Inc or the NT Cattlemen’s Association? Will that be subsequent to the passing of the legislation? Although it might not be a major amendment to those 50 pieces of legislation, it is important to get the various industry groups and people in the private sector to understand where it has come from.
The Electoral Act and the Ombudsman Act are listed to remove liability of executive officer of government departments and other statutory bodies. I would like some advice from the minister about how and what that means for those acts, given they are important acts and work with the community. What is the impact on those pieces of legislation and the executive staff in those organisations?
The government said it consulted with the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Was that through Darwin or a national group? I know they have been lobbying the federal government and state jurisdiction ministers and that is why it has come to COAG. They are keen, and they do not want Type 3 offences in because they believe it is contrary to the rule of law. I would like the minister’s comments on why there are Type 3 offences at all, and is there any other way to go about it?
Mr Deputy Speaker, everyone knows the intent of this and the benefits it can bring with harmonisation and consistency. However, I want a bit more clarity and transparency about the impact on the industry.
One final matter is in regard to companies and company law. Is there a subsequent impact on volunteer directors? That is mostly through the Associations Act, and I see it is not listed. Is there any potential for directors within an incorporated association or some other structure to be pulled into this? I have a firm view that it does not matter whether the person commits an offence way out of their control, the bucks still stops at the top. I can see where they are coming from with this, but I am concerned there might be some flow-on effect to associations law. Some clarity around that would be useful because there are about 1700 associations in the Northern Territory, many of them large. I welcome those views from the minister.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this bill; it hits the right mark. This bill is in response to COAG’s recommended reforms, which the Territory government signed up to. It meets our commitment in agreeing to those COAG reforms.
I understand there has been general consultation with the public and stakeholders as part of COAG’s development of the reform program. COAG looked to a range of stakeholders, from directors of corporations, courts, lawyers and experts in this area, as part of its consultation process. The reforms will be widely welcomed by directors of corporations, courts, lawyers and the community and will create clearer rules and principles for attributing liability to directors for corporate offending.
Some of the laws surrounding directors are onerous. Many of those onerous laws are justified and completely welcome. However, some laws applying to directors of companies have gone too far. Quite frankly it is time to look at doing this because there is less interest from good people to be company directors because the law may well impact on them for matters which are no fault of theirs.
I recently undertook a trip, from 27 to 31 July, to Sydney. It was part of the parliamentary travel entitlement available to members. The reason for the trip was to participate in the Australian Institute of Company Directors course run over one week at their office in Sydney. The course was of immense value and, as the shareholding minister of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy, T-Gen, the Waterfront Corporation and possibly others, it was extraordinarily worthwhile.
The course lecturers were esteemed Australians who had deep knowledge of directorships. Most of those presenters were themselves directors of listed public companies, charitable organisations or other areas. They were highly-educated people. The class was made up of an interesting group. Six of the class were from the Department of Defence. The member for Nelson would be interested to know that four of the class were from local government, taking an interest in the principles of company directorship. A number were obviously directors of companies. One was even the director of a large multinational company, very well known to pretty well everybody. To see him there was quite interesting.
Some people in the class were experts in insolvency and marketing. It was a very diverse class. The course is run in a formal manner, in groups but with individuals having various inputs. They broke into several groups and looked at case studies.
The objectives of the course were:
to improve the understanding of compliance issues for boards and directors
The company directors course comprised of 10 modules. I will go through each of them: the role of the board and the practice of directorship; decision-making; directors’ duties and responsibilities; the board’s legal environment; risk and issues around risks for boards; strategy and the board’s role in setting company strategy; financial literacy for directors; how to drive financial performance; how to achieve board effectiveness; and how to put learning into practice.
My study in this course is continuing, but it has already proved extremely useful to me in the course of fulfilling the roles I have already referred to. I have previously urged senior public servants in the Northern Territory government to do this course and will continue to do so following the benefit I have derived from it.
When I introduced myself people asked me why I was doing the course. Since I have been an elected member, going back to 2001, I have been encouraging people to do the Australian Institute of Company Directors course. I have literally encouraged hundreds of people to get involved in that course. I have particularly tried to get Indigenous corporations and their directors involved in the course. Governance of companies and organisations is important. I was somewhat embarrassed to say that I had been promoting that people to do the course for more than a decade yet had not done it myself, so I was grateful for the opportunity to do it.
I encourage politicians to do the course. It gives a deep understanding of what it means to be director of a company or a not-for-profit organisation in Australia, and it is not just people who have a desire to be company directors who should do the course. Clearly there are people in organisations who deal with companies who need to understand how companies operate, and it is important to encourage public servants, people in local government, and people in leadership positions as members of parliament to gain an understanding of the requirements of a director.
It is hard. I imagine it would be hard for people who have had no connection to boards, companies or not-for-profit organisations to really understand what is proposed in the bill before us if they had not undertaken this course.
I note a number of people in this parliament have done the course, probably most notably my good friend the member for Sanderson and Minister for Business. He did this course probably more than a decade ago and is a past master of it. I congratulate him for doing the course, and I understand the deep insight the course has given him. As Minister for Business he will find completion of that course has stood him in good stead. I encourage all members of parliament to consider undertaking the course.
Naturally, with study entitlements, people can choose to travel overseas to further their learning, and I do not discourage anybody from doing that. I remember when I was first elected into the federal parliament we had an induction for members and senators, and it was a damn good one. We had existing members of parliament, the father of the House, and others give us briefings on how we should act and things we should look out for as members of parliament. I understand a similar induction is done in the Assembly for people elected to parliament.
One thing that stood out at my first induction was when a minister said, ‘On the matter of parliamentary travel, every time you step on an aeroplane you will be criticised probably by people in the opposition and the media, but my advice is to undertake the travel. It is almost impossible to broaden your horizons or understand ways of life in different countries, understand businesses or different complex issues without travelling.’
Whilst I understand that people are at times reluctant to travel, it was quite surprising when I was elected locally to hear the Speaker say, ‘We have a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting happening somewhere in Africa, who wants to go?’ You would see almost 24 members of parliament look to the floor and pray they were not picked to travel, because no one wanted to cop the flak for getting on an aeroplane and going overseas. To me, that is a sad state for politics to reach. Ultimately, getting out, seeing the world and understanding how it operates broadens your knowledge and makes you a better member of parliament.
At times we have to lap up the pain and humiliation that comes from doing study trips because there is greater benefit in making the trip than not. I encourage my colleagues, people from the other side of the Chamber, Independents and everybody that if you get the opportunity to travel, see other parts of the world or study on these trips then do it. I am not advocating that these things should be a whale of a time or a taxpayer-funded holiday, far from it. These trips are about broadening your knowledge and deepening your understanding.
Similarly, if there is an opportunity to study the Australia Institute of Company Directors course in lieu of overseas travel, consider it. It is a worthwhile course which broadens your knowledge and gives you a greater understanding of how the world works, how corporations and not-for-profit organisations work, how to make organisations sustainable into the future and financially solvent. For that, it is a fantastic course. It shows you where the red flags are when you start to read company financial statements and how to understand when you may be facing insolvency issues. These things are highly important. If a director does not want to rub shoulders with the law, it is vital to have this knowledge. Talking about rubbing shoulders with the law, that is what this bill is about.
There is a range of changes to director liability provisions that will be repealed and, in every regard, they do not reduce the accountability or responsibility of directors in a range of areas. In fact, they just remove onerous and often irrelevant pieces of guiding material.
For that reason I hope this bill is passed. It is a commitment from the Northern Territory to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, that we will make these reforms to provide for nationally consistent provisions in legislation, and that directors will still remain responsible for the way the strategy and risk management processes are set. Ultimately they will be responsible to shareholders and the courts for a range of decisions they make.
I commend the bill to the House and encourage people to get involved with companies. If you do not want to do the company directors course there is a local division of the AICD which often runs workshops. I know they will allow people to turn up there, and would be thrilled to see members of parliament turn up to a workshop and take an interest in what they do.
The more interest parliamentarians have in the way directors operate the better the system operates. The better the system operates, the better it is for people across the board.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the bill and thank the minister for affording me a briefing. Obviously I have not done the same course as the member for Fong Lim.
This bill implements the Council of Australian Governments’ approved reforms and consists of provisions in legislation imposing criminal liability on directors for breaches of laws by corporations.
Any way to harmonise laws between the states is worth supporting. As the second reading speech said, the COAG guidelines set out a number of criteria that can be used to determine whether a directors’ liability provision is justified. Those criteria also refer to three types of directors’ liability provisions. In a Type 1 provision, the failure of the director to take reasonable steps to prevent corporations offending must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a Type 2 provision a director is deemed to be liable unless they can produce enough evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that a defence applies. In a Type 3 provision the director is deemed to be liable for a corporate breach unless they can produce enough evidence to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities.
Of course, those provisions encompass more than I have said. Any reforms that can clarify directors’ responsibilities are really important. There are cases where you do not want a person charged with negligence if they have directed a certain thing happen but what occurs is beyond their control. We do not want people punished for something they had no control over.
I thank the minister for this legislation and I support the bill.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Fong Lim’s statement in relation to further studies. As a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, I wholeheartedly endorse the member for Fong Lim’s comments about his experience with the program.
I too am a great believer in members of this House continuing their studies. I note the member for Blain is currently undertaking a Master of Business Administration, and I commend him for that. I encourage all members of this House to continue studies. As a fellow of a number of organisations, such as the Australian Institute of Management, I encourage people to get on board with the programs they offer. As a Fellow of the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation, having been very fortunate to win a scholarship to that organisation in 2008-09, I am grateful I had that opportunity.
As a former director I went through the program and not only did I learn more, but I gained a deep insight into how the people most qualified in this country to teach pass their experience on. In this House it is so important that we hand on and gain experience. I encourage members to undertake courses, get involved with organisations and find out what is happening in the real world. I concur with the member Fong Lim. If you understand how business, companies, corporations and NGOs work you have a far better understanding of how the economy works.
I especially encourage those opposite, because the previous ALP government got us into serious financial trouble. One can only imagine why that occurred. How did you get yourself into so much trouble and a projected debt to income ratio of 98%? Is it a lack of understanding of how the economy works? My great graph about the debt levels in this country shows that debt always skyrocketed under Labor and it is left to the conservatives to reduce it. You need to understand how it works so you do not get into trouble.
One of the saving graces for Labor in this country is a guaranteed income through taxation. If private enterprise ran the government you would probably be in serious trouble with insolvency and not taking sufficient steps to stem the tide of debt and deficit.
On this side of the House about half the people have business experience, which is why we lead the country in so many of the factors that indicate if a government is performing well. Economic growth in the Territory is 6.5%. If you do not understand business or how it works, it is difficult to get yourself out of financial trouble. You have to know what you are doing. I again encourage those opposite to get some experience, undertake some courses and understand what it takes to run a vibrant economy.
When the current law was introduced it was a little onerous. It had blanket covers on everything. If you want to attract people to Australia, foreign investment, people from overseas bringing money, one has to have a corporate structure that gives directors peace of mind. There are requirements for companies from Europe, North America or Asia wanting to invest billions of dollars in a joint venture in the Northern Territory. Currently the law says if you do not live here and somebody fills out a form incorrectly you will be charged.
It is right to change the legislation because deemed director liability provisions should only be applied where there are compelling public policy reasons to do so. An example would be the potential for significant public harm caused by a particular form of corporate offending. It should only be applied where liability of the corporation is not likely, on its own, to significantly promote compliance. Also, it is reasonable that all circumstances for a director being liable, having regard to factors which could include the obligations on a corporation, and in turn a director, are clear. Another example would be the director having the capacity to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to the offending, and there are steps that a reasonable director can take to ensure a corporation’s compliance with the company’s legislative obligation.
I am all for ensuring people do the right thing. Many years ago people hid behind being director of a company and did not fulfil their obligations. This legislation is about correcting those inconsistencies and the blanket cover.
A director will now only be held liable for offending by a body corporate where the director was either personally responsible for the offending or assisted the body corporate to commit the offence – that is the default position of direct or accessorial liability which applies under the Criminal Code Act – or a director will now only be held responsible for certain cases where the body corporate offending has been identified as significantly impacting on the effect of a particular regulatory regime, and the director is negligent or reckless as to the prospect of failing to exercise an appropriate level of due diligence that would otherwise prevent the offending. An example would be failing to ensure that the body corporate had sufficient safeguards in place to prevent significant environmental harm.
There are three types of directors’ liability provisions in this bill. The first is a Type 1 provision prescribed for offences deemed to be central to the regulatory regime but not of a level of severity that requires shifting the onus of proof to the director. Type 1 provisions retain the onus on the prosecution to prove that a director failed to take the necessary steps to prevent a breach of law. That is fair. If it is not major the prosecution should prove the director was negligent in some way, shape or form.
Type 2 and Type 3 provisions are prescribed for offences that are not only central to the operation of the regulatory regime, but are also of a level of severity that justifies the automatic deeming of liability on a director for corporate offences, shifting the onus to the director to establish the defence against the deemed liability. I will reiterate that for those who may read the Hansard and foreign investors who may be following this debate: a director will not be liable where the director establishes that the necessary steps to prevent a breach of the law were undertaken.
This is common throughout the Northern Territory. If you are deemed guilty and have to prove you are innocent, if you can demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that you took the necessary steps then, rightly so, a person should not be found guilty when they demonstrate that defence.
COAG, in 2009-10, agreed to the set of principles as the basis for the reform of directors’ liabilities across Australia. COAG was obviously concerned that some directors’ liabilities laws unfairly imposed criminal liability on directors where the director had no personal responsibility for the circumstances in which the breach occurred. It is important for our foreign investors to know that if they sit on a board – there are numerous boards in this country with people from overseas sitting on them – if, in their absence, provided they keep tabs on what is going on, read their board meeting papers and contribute to board meetings to ensure the company and the chief executive officers are doing the right thing, and make sure they direct them to do things if they believe they are not, then those defences are built in.
In developing this bill the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice undertook an audit of the Northern Territory statute books and identified 58 acts containing offences that impose personal criminal liability on directors. These acts were identified as part of the national regulatory regime, such as Work Health and Safety, and were excluded by COAG for further consideration at a national level. Most government departments were consulted in relation to this process.
In drafting the director liability provisions I am aware, through questions I asked in my capacity as a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, that care be taken to ensure that the obligations of the director were clear having regard to things like the director’s capacity to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to the offending.
What is the role of a director? If you are a director, it is recorded in the minutes and you make notes at the time that you opposed something vigorously and tried to persuade the board. You need to record that and bring it to your defence in a case where members or directors of the board face prosecution for a breach.
They need to also regard other factors, including steps that a reasonable director might take to ensure a corporation’s compliance with a legislative obligation, for instance, if a director has made a reporting condition and other directors have done something else that should be used in the director’s defence.
If these provisions are not built in, people will be reluctant to conduct business in the Territory or Australia or invest in this country. There is a lot of interest in Australia at the moment, especially northern Australia. With the burgeoning middle class in Asia and the tsunami of middle-class people expected in the next few years, the demand for product in Australia is coming under increasing pressure.
You have a blank canvas across the top of Australia, and the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia clearly indicates that. We paint what we want to paint. This government is talking to people about direct foreign investment. We want people to feel comfortable about investing in Australia and that they can have joint ventures with existing businesses to promote economic development, growth and jobs for our kids. When they participate in that, it is important they know these defences are built in. Hopefully, when this bill passes they will be built into the requirements of company directors.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors continues to press the government to make further changes to significantly reduce the number of direct liability provisions, and to remove Type 3 and change Type 2 to Type 1. While changes were made during the drafting of the bill to address many of the Australian Institute of Company Directors issues, not all the Australian Institute of Company Directors requests could be accommodated.
Some offences are so serious, and the consequences of breaching those offences so severe, that there is a public expectation that if the offences are committed by a body corporate those responsible for the body corporate’s conduct will be held accountable. As a result, the COAG principles acknowledge that Type 2 and Type 3 provisions may be necessary.
Consistent with those COAG principles, the bill only retains Type 3 liability in two acts in the Territory. The first is the Criminal Code Act in relation to child pornography offences, and secondly the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act in relation to significant pollution. This is against the setting of a bill which will remove or reduce automatic director liability for hundreds of offences that presently attract a director liability similar to that of Type 3, including trifling offences such as incorrectly filling out a form.
Previously a foreign company could say, ‘This is terrible. I will be prosecuted if I am overseas and fail to fill in a form.’ That was an automatic prosecution. If I was a director going to a foreign country to invest in a joint venture I would be horrified to think I could not have the defence of being overseas or I had instructed the chief executive officer to do it. If I had e-mails saying, ‘You need to fill this form out’, and somebody did not do it I would be responsible and charged under the current blanket legislation. That is an appalling state of affairs. Rightly so, legislation has been brought before this House to ensure that is changed.
What is the situation in the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions? There is a lot of information in relation to this, but the Territory sits roughly in the middle of jurisdictions in the application of director liability for corporate offending. Some jurisdictions apply director liability to more offences and at a higher level. Some jurisdictions have also retained the old blanket liability in some instances. For example, Victoria applied Type 3 provisions to 55 offences across five acts when implementing the COAG reform. Under the Victorian Taxation Administration Act there are 15 offences, 19 offences under the Duties Act, the Livestock Diseases Control and the Food Act have 25 offences, and there are six offences under the Dairy Act. I hope that some of those companies investing in Victoria might say, ‘Let’s go to the Northern Territory’.
Looking at the food requirements in agriculture alone – this deals with taxation and agriculture – livestock diseases. What can we offer in the Territory? We change our legislation with this bill before the House and hopefully people will say, ‘Here is a blank canvas; develop in northern Australia. We can go there. We know the requirement for protein and beef cattle will skyrocket.’ I believe we have to increase our cattle production. There will be room for many people to move to the Territory.
As Minister for Business I might, for instance, write to some of these people. Perhaps we should invite them to a seminar and say, ‘Move to the Northern Territory and reduce your liability as a director. You can come here provided you do the right thing. If someone does not do the right thing under your control you will not end up in gaol as a result of onerous legislation.’
The Western Australian Directors’ Liability Reform Bill, which recently passed through both the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council, applies Type 3 liability in six acts, comprising a total of 90 separate offences. Again we go to the Food Act 2008, Taxation Administration Act 2003, Tobacco Products Control Act 2006, Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014.
The Northern Territory is in a pretty good state. Queensland is perhaps at the other end of the spectrum. When implementing directors’ liability amendments, Queensland did not apply Type 2 or Type 3 liability. While the Queensland approach has been held out by some as the best, there is some concern that this may send the wrong message to directors and bodies corporate that due and proper diligence is not important. I believe a director on a board should strive for excellence. However, such an approach does not necessarily accommodate the concern about serious offences that may significantly and widely impact on the public and may lead to difficulties with enforcement.
The approach in Queensland also differs insofar as while restricting its amendments to Type 1 liability, it continues to retain blanket liability in relation to matters not covered by those amendments. For example, the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 retains blanket director liability where the Territory proposes to replace blanket liability under its equivalent, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, with selected applications of director liability on more significant offences.
That is wise, and I commend those who have put this together. The Australian Capital Territory is the only other state or territory that has a model criminal code. Our offences are similar to those of the ACT; however, changes were made to the drafting structure to take into account difficulties experienced in the Australian Capital Territory.
It should be noted that Tasmania introduced the bill to implement the COAG reform in 2013. That bill lapsed when the Tasmanian parliament was dissolved for a general election. Tasmania presently retains the status quo of deemed liability for all offences that may be committed by a body corporate. I am sure Tasmania will be doing something in that area shortly; however, I believe they have a fairly busy legislative program and this is probably further down the list.
They too have taken seriously what COAG is trying to implement to get rid of blanket covers. People have asked me, ‘What will this bill achieve?’ I answer that currently, when a body corporate breaks the law, a director is automatically deemed to have committed the same offence. If a director wishes to avoid liability for the offence, the onus is on the director to prove that the necessary steps to prevent the breach were undertaken. That goes back to the heart of filling out the form. ‘Did we fill out the right form? If we did not, will we be in serious trouble?’
The bill implements COAG’s commitment to reform director liability provisions by applying principles which recognise that bodies corporate are legal entities in their own right and directors are simply part of the management structure. The bill achieves this by repealing the existing blanket director liability in 40 Territory acts which automatically deem a director to be liable for any offence that a body corporate may commit, regardless of the nature of the offending.
These are important things to note because the bill also recognises that under certain circumstances it may be necessary to go behind the corporate veil and place additional accountability requirements on those who, in effect, have control over the manner in which a body corporate conducts its affairs. The bill will achieve this by applying the COAG principles to provide guidance to directors on the standards of due diligence expected in relation to preventing the body corporate breaking the law.
What are the three types of liability? Recognising the default position of accessorial or direct liability may not be sufficient to adequately enforce a regulatory regime, COAG developed three levels of liability to reflect the severity of the body corporate’s offending and the required level of diligence expected of a director to ensure the body corporate’s compliance with the law.
During review of the Territory’s statutory books a number of offences were identified as being central to the enforcement of the regulatory regime, thus necessitating retention of director liability provisions. Other offences were identified as matters that, although serious enough to warrant prosecution of the body corporate if it broke the law, were not of such significance that warranted imposing additional liability on the director.
The review also assessed the appropriate level of liability that should be applied to specific offences, resulting in a reduction of the evidentiary burden on directors for the majority of offences. The evidentiary burden on a director has only been retained in specific circumstances where a high degree of accountability was identified to ensure integrity of the regulatory regime. So much of this has been thought through to make sure we sit in the middle of the road on these types of offences.
I reiterate that Type 1 offence liability provisions are prescribed for offences deemed to be central to the regulatory regime but not of a level of severity that requires the shifting of the onus of the director. A Type 1 provision retains the onus on the prosecution to establish the liability of a director.
That is important for foreign investors. As Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade I do a lot of work in the investment area. If this bill passes it will allow me to say to these people, ‘You can invest in Australia with confidence. There are defences in place.’
It may not be a lot, but in my recent travels I had two major companies ask me about this issue. It has also been an enduring issue of discussion with the Australian Institute of Company Directors. The organisation had ongoing discussions for many years in relation to this and is concerned for its members. It is also concerned about the possibility of further economic development and partnerships with people who come to Australia to invest and generate wealth.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to standing order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member for Sanderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for indulging me in this debate.
Type 2 liability provisions are prescribed for offences that are not only central to the operation of the regulatory regime, but are also of a level of severity that justifies the automatic deeming of liability on a director for a corporate offence.
These provisions shift the onus to the director to establish a defence against the deemed liability but the more substantial burden of proof is retained by the prosecution. While the director will have to establish a defence, the prosecution will still need to prove that the director did not take the necessary steps to prevent the corporate offending.
This clarifies what is expected of a director, and if you are not doing the right thing this is what will happen. It also takes away the blanket result that irrespective of what you do you will be convicted. It is hardly worth turning up to court at the moment because you can say, ‘I did this, I did that’, and the court will say, ‘That’s all good, but we have to convict you because that is the law’.
Type 3 liability provisions deem the director to be liable for a corporate breach unless they can produce enough evidence to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities. For Type 3 provisions the director bears a legal burden to establish their defence, which reverses the usual onus of proof in criminal law.
Directors have the opportunity to defend themselves, and this is where the defence I spoke about earlier is built in. We must have these defences because if a director is charged and has sufficient evidence and has kept good minutes of board meetings, e-mail trails and correspondence – which we all should do, not just company directors – they have the appropriate material to act in their defence.
Type 3 provisions are inconsistent with the general presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Reversing the onus of proof is only legislated for in exceptional circumstances. Those few circumstances where Type 3 provisions are applied include where the offence is of a serious nature, such as where it endangers public safety, and where the nature of the offence makes it difficult for the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt. For example, where one party – the director – is the only party able to possess the specific knowledge required to either prove or disprove the offending.
So many matters should be taken into account when drafting this type of legislation. I believe all departments were consulted, and the Australian Institute of Company Directors was consulted. Other bodies have been spoken to and we now have a workable bill which, if passed, will attract people from interstate and foreign investment. That it important for our economic development and will enable us to continue building the Territory the way we have over the last three years.
The member for Fong Lim encouraged members to obtain knowledge and experience so when they look at bills that come before this House, or they look at the economic development of the Northern Territory, they understand how things works.
When considering legislation, even opposition members – when we introduce legislation, to have some knowledge makes it easier to understand. It also helps you understand what we are doing and why we are more successful with the economic management of the Northern Territory than members opposite.
That is evidenced by the historical graphs on debt and income. When we had a Labor federal government debt rose dramatically, and when the conservative side of politics governs the debt goes down. It goes up then down. It is like the pyramids I have spoken about on many occasions.
Labor is very good at building pyramids of debt. Sadly, Labor is not very good at understanding how business operates. When you change legislation – not just in relation to directors’ liability – you need to understand how business works when making decisions about legislation that has a serious impact on business people.
When people see those serious impacts they decide not to do business – under a Labor government – or not to expand or generate economic growth. People making these decisions base them on the attitude of the government of the day and the legislation government passes. We are required to take all those things into consideration, which is why we have the highest level of confidence in Australia, at +43. The national average is +31 and we are the highest in the country, a full 12 percentage points above the national average.
That is a really good position to be in. We bring legislation like this forward to ensure people do the right thing but are not prosecuted because of some minor failing of theirs or people they give instructions to.
I congratulate those who have brought this forward. I congratulate the Australian Institute of Company Directors for many years of lobbying COAG as well as the various states and territories to ensure we get a balanced view. Some may say it is not a balanced view and we may need to look at this in the future. That may be the case, but at this stage we ask for support and I commend this bill to the House. We ask that the members opposite and the Independents look at this and say, ‘This is wise legislation’. Obviously as times change we will look at the legislation again and, if necessary, amend it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate those who put this together.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have an Economics degree, postgraduate in Finance (DFS), and have been director of a small business. I have also been director of YMCA of the Top End and Treasurer at the same time.
These issues, responsibilities and duties become very much a part of the way you do business as a professional. It is important to have an understanding of what professionalism is when you come into these roles. Previous speakers have mentioned the importance of educating yourself on the responsibilities, duties, rights and obligations of company directors. Maybe there should be more clarity on what those things are for politicians, because it seems the director of a publicly listed company is expected to act in a certain way but there are often not the same requirements for politicians.
This bill is pretty innocuous. Not too much is amazing or scary. It does not change what is right or wrong, it just changes where the burden of proof is for some things: guilty until proven innocent changes to innocent until proven guilty. This is pretty smart, because where company directors operate firms across borders, jurisdictions have different time lines and licensing requirements, and things expire at different times on different days and require different information. One form cannot do it. It is very easy, as a company director signing off many things, to use the form for the wrong state, in which case you are in breach of the act.
This is smart. It means the Northern Territory comes into line with the other states and removes some inconsistencies. It also means, as has been said to exhaustion, that there is a difference between Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 breaches. Of course, with Type 2 and Type 3 being the more serious ones, the liability still exists.
What are those liabilities and duties? It is good to go through them to understand the liabilities of directors and perhaps reflect on our duties and liabilities: the duty to act in the interests of a company as a whole is the first fiduciary duty of a company director; the duty not to act for an improper purpose; and the duty of care and diligence, which means you exercise due care and diligence when making financial decisions to ensure you are not making a strategic decision that will lead the company up the garden path.
There is, of course, the duty to retain discretion. In retaining discretion I have seen many issues arise, particularly when I was a stockbroker, where individuals would buy and sell their own stocks based on information they had. Of course, ASIC would not be particularly happy about that and would ask some serious questions about what they were doing.
There is a duty to avoid conflict of interest, which we talked about. I would have mentioned that in the ICAC debate because we need to look at the way we disclose those conflicts. It is sad that as a director of the YMCA I had to resign not because I was not declaring an interest, but because neither the YMCA nor I could take the chance the opposition would not try to use the YMCA holding or winning a government contract to create an allegation against me. Even though it would be baseless, it would end up in a receptive media and mean questions would be asked where none would be required. It was very irritating.
I think, ‘Okay, if they are the duties what are the liabilities?’ The liabilities are where directors can be liable for debts and breaches. For example, trading insolvent is a bad one. Trading insolvent means you are unable to pay debts, and liabilities exceed assets. That is interesting when you look at the history of the previous government.
Unreasonable director transactions handles stupid decisions and goes to the fiduciary duty of due diligence. Whenever a director goes through a transaction the test will be what steps were taken to avoid this, and would a reasonable person have taken those steps to avoid it. This goes hand in hand with environmental and work health and safety issues where steps should be taken and, if they are, the risks are generally minimised. These things are all about risk and minimising risks to directors and firms.
The loss of employee entitlements is also where directors are liable. This is interesting because people may remember when asbestos was used as a building product and a firm tried to wind itself up so it would not be liable to pay compensation. They knew the claims would continue because asbestos stays around and is harmful for a long time. An Australian firm tried to relocate to a different country with a new name to avoid that. They were required to set up a trust fund and pay in what an actuary had decided so the expected liabilities could be paid.
Tax and super compensation – directors are not allowed to make decisions for firms where it then absolves them from paying tax and super compensation. They then become personally liable to pay that out.
Any personal guarantee a director makes he is responsible for not the firm.
These things all come down to what steps were taken to avoid this, and which way the court looks at the burden of proof. I look at it either way. Shareholders will be asking what steps were taken to avoid it. An important thing company directors have to understand is risk management – understanding risk, where risk comes from, different methods to avoid risk and implementing strategies to minimize risk.
With regard to fiduciary duties, directors have to know what is required of them. Firms cannot have somebody who just wants to be a director because they can quickly be in breach and find themselves liable for some nasty things.
With regard to politics, I have a big problem reconciling what is required of a company director and what is required of a politician. While we are talking about ICACs, it is important to think about the responsibilities and duties of politicians, perhaps even about what is said in this House. People should be liable for the allegations they make.
This is structured in an intelligent way. The Attorney-General is a thorough person. I commend this bill to the House. It does not do anything contentious or nasty but simplifies things, particularly for people working across borders. It brings the Northern Territory in line with other states and achieves a balance between what lawyers hold dear – people are innocent until proven guilty – and applies it where necessary in this bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear this bill has the support of the House from the quality and depth of understanding displayed by members, particularly the member for Sanderson, whose knowledge of this bill is comprehensive to say the least.
I feel like a candle next to a lighthouse due to the brilliance of his edification to members of this House and his understanding of the bill. I wish I had paid more attention to him because I would have learnt a lot more about it through the process.
The principle is quite simple: directors’ liability will ebb and flow and we have to find a happy medium for what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in the liabilities directors are exposed to.
I do not need to expand on what has already been explained to this House so thoroughly by so many members. To do so would repeat matters that have already been discussed.
However, I want to mention the Type 3 provisions. Under the legislation those liabilities continue to apply to directors, particularly when they are actively engaged in polluting the environment or should know better, or their company is engaged in conveying child sexual abuse material. I understand those are the two limits to the Type 3 provision. That is not a bad thing, and most people would agree. I would hate to see somebody rendered not liable for the conduct of their business when they pump carbon tetrachloride into the last remaining habitat of a blue-throated warbler. Such a thing would be unpalatable and unconscionable in our community and there would not be a director in the world – certainly not in Australia – who would consider that appropriate.
Companies today seek a social licence in the way they have never done before. There were successful court cases in the 1960s where companies, in the process of being wound up, tried to pay out their employees. Shareholders successfully sued those companies so the employees were not paid out and there was money available for the unsecured creditors through the shareholding system.
We have come a long way since that time. If you ran the DSM-5 test over a company in the 1960s and looked at the rules they applied, I would not be surprised if the DSM-5 test produced a diagnosis of some type of sociopathy. That would no longer apply in the current context, and I suspect it will continue to operate into the future.
Companies make a point to engage with the community because a corporate reputation is important. ConocoPhillips supports the Darwin Festival. We also have INPEX, which has been a good and solid corporate citizen and has spent large amounts of money. I remember Mr Kuroda, the head of INPEX, addressing an audience at the Darwin Convention Centre. He was very careful in his short but poignant address when talking about the corporate licence INPEX needed to come to the Northern Territory. It was gracious and understanding, and demonstrated the philosophy that companies have a different way of conducting themselves in the modern world. It shows respect and decorum.
Company director legislation describes where that fulcrum should be at the point of balance. At the moment we have that about right. We understand that the point of balance can change over time, and today we are changing that. We are finessing it.
I thank members opposite for their support, as well as those on this side, particularly the member for Sanderson, of this important legislation before the House. I look forward to this sound and sensible bill becoming a sound and sensible act on the statute book of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee
Annual Report 2014-15
Public Accounts Committee
Annual Report 2014-15
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2014-15. This report outlines the range of activities the committee has undertaken over the past year. This provides an opportunity for the committee to advise the Assembly of the work it has done, which is not otherwise reported to the Assembly.
Throughout the year the committee met with the Department of Housing to discuss remote Indigenous housing, and the Department of Health to discuss management of the aeromedical services contract and the development of its grants management system. The committee also received briefings from the Auditor-General on the findings from agency audits. The Auditor-General also briefed the committee on performance reporting by government agencies and the anticipated introduction of mandated performance reporting under the Australian Accounting Standards.
The committee did not receive any referrals or undertake any inquiries during the reporting period. Committee members welcome the new Auditor-General, Julie Crisp, to the position and thank her for the support she has provided.
The committee also mourned the loss of former Auditor-General, Mr Frank McGuiness PSM. Last year the committee noted the significant contribution Frank had made to the Northern Territory as Auditor-General and is greatly saddened by his untimely death.
I thank committee members for their continued cooperative and bipartisan approach in the conduct of the committee’s activities over the past financial year.
MOTION
Print Paper – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2014-15
Print Paper – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2014-15
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
MOTION
Referral to Public Accounts Committee – Funding of Rugby League Facilities
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the PAC investigates all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin. This would include but not be limited to the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara and the decision to spend $20m to upgrade Richardson Park.
The object of the inquiry would be to ascertain what the original plans for rugby league at Marrara were and to investigate why there was a change to Richardson Park, who made that decision, who else had a say in that decision, what due diligence occurred before that decision was made and was Cabinet involved in the decision.
The hearings would be public and if requested by the PAC would require any ministers, departmental officers, departmental staff, rugby league officials or supporters who have been involved either directly or indirectly, or anyone else, to give evidence in relation to the above matters.
This issue needs investigation. I have put together some history of what has happened so far. There have been some changes, even today. People can comment, but the crux of this debate is to say these are the issues, some money has been allocated for a proposal to upgrade Richardson Park, and there are some issues in relation to that. I will go through this.
Because there are some issues it is appropriate the Public Accounts Committee looks at it. This is a budget allocation and there is some concern about what has happened in relation to the allocation for Richardson Park.
Today we are debating whether the PAC should investigate the spending of $20m on Richardson Park, which was abandoned by Northern Territory Rugby League on 12 February 2015. Originally in 2012 there was a report called A Proposal to relocate the Northern Territory Rugby League from Richardson Park to the Marrara Sports Complex. The Executive Summary said:
- A move to Warren Park …
- … will enable the N.T.R.L. to grow and support Rugby League, provide a safe and efficient facility and become a true centre for the game in the Top End. The A.R.L.C. strongly supports this submission and is encouraging us to push our plans forward.
Therefore the directors and stakeholders of the Northern Territory Rugby League, strongly recommends that the Northern Territory Government, commits to moving Rugby League headquarters from Richardson Park to Warren Park in the Marrara Sporting Precinct.
- Relocation Options
Preliminary discussions have been held with current lessee, the South Darwin Sporting League (SDSL) about a joint venture regarding the shared use of the facility. These discussions have been very favourable ...
There was an attached letter from the South Darwin Sporting League, which is not part of this report.
In its conclusion and recommendation the report stated the following:
- The recent formation of the Australian Rugby League Commission will see the game surge in popularity and financial support and the N.T.R.L. needs and wants to be a part of it. The Board of the N.T.R.L. cannot see any future in the tired, ageing facility at Richardson Park which barely meets minimum standards for our game and is costing the N.T.R.L. over $150 000 a year to run.
In the Estimates Committee of 12 June 2014, the minister for Sport, Mr Conlan, when referring to questions from Mr Vowles said:
- The place is, essentially, past its use-by date.
- … the NTRL is in constant discussions with the NT government for funding and support and construction of a new venue at Warren Park.
… we are in discussions with rugby league as to how we might be able to progress a rugby league stadium – if you like, for lack of a better word – for Marrara.
In the NT News on 2 January 2013 this article appeared:
- The fact that an Australian rules ground is hosting rugby league’s major event of the year remains a bone of contention with some in the game.
The NTRL took steps to address that issue by providing a submission to the government for funding a new $16m home at Warren Park.
The plans include two full-size fields, with the main ground to have a capacity of 10 000, two mini-mod fields, car park, multiple change-rooms, canteen-bar, corporate and media facilities, along with elite level lightning.
The submission remains on the table despite the change in government, but there has been no firm commitment delivered by Chief Minister Terry Mills on the topic.
Until there is, Richardson Park will continue to be as it has been for more than five decades, the home of the Top End rugby league.
On 12 February 2014 NTRL pulled out of Richardson Park. The NT News said that the decision by the NTRL board and the seven club presidents to leave the former Richardson Park in Ludmilla ends a 55-year association with the ground.
In April the budget was introduced, and a media release from the Chief Minister and Mr Tollner was issued but without any mention of the minister for Sport. The media release said there would be a $20m upgrade to Richardson Park.
A letter in the NT News on 12 May had the headline, ‘Bad move as fans overruled’.
- THE recent announcements from on high about the fate of Richardson Park and the state of our game in Darwin have shown us all the muddle-headed thinking that seems to be driving our game.
Despite the protests of all the vocal fans who genuinely love our game, Mr Tollner and his cohort of two anonymous, influential gentlemen friends have ruled the day and rode roughshod over the wishes of everyone else.
The benefits of a move to Warren Park are too many to mention here and can only highlight the deficiencies of a move back to Richardson Park, which over the years has become a total white elephant and a throwback to the past.
Despite the $20 million that is supposedly to be given for the development, it is bound to be a backwards step. It is timely to mention that for the past five years of its existence, Richardson Park never attracted more than 500 people on a game day, including players.
The facilities in general were terrible and only served to discourage people from turning up. There is no way of improving this situation. Despite the pumping in of proposed millions of dollars, the whole thing will become an illconsidered fiasco which Mr Tollner and his two friends will run away from in total denial.
Reconsider this wasteful exercise in futility, Mr Tollner and make sure that the move to Warren Park happens as planned.
The sale of Richardson Park will result in a huge cash bonanza for the NT Government and will easily compensate for any funding of Warren Park. This will earn you heaps of kudos. John Scanlon, Darwin.
There was an article in the NT News on 29 April, after the budget:
- NRLNT General Manager John Mitchell labelled the NT Government’s $20m investment into Richardson Park as ‘the best news for Territory rugby league in many, many years. Mitchell is rapt league in the Territory will return to its spiritual home with the venue to become ‘NRL standard’ after facilities and seating upgrades. ‘It means we can have NRL fixtures played there instead of TIO Stadium, where this year’s (Parramatta Eels against Penrith Panthers Round 22) game is ’, he said.
‘I’ve been working with the NT government in the last two or three years so it’s an absolute positive for the sport. $20m into rugby league in the Territory is outstanding and I am personally delighted. This type of investment in our sport has never really occurred, and I’m very excited about the future of rugby league in the Northern Territory.’
The news comes just over a year after NRLNT moved out of the ground because of continuing maintenance costs and financial issues. Mitchell hopes it can be up and running by next season’s NRL match in the Top End, the Parramatta Eels third for premiership points in the Territory as part of a four-year deal.
…
Mitchell believes more top-class league events will be on their way once Richardson Park upgrades are completed. ‘It would be outstanding if we could have those events at an NRL standard facility’, he said.
The next time this was discussed was at the Estimates Committee. We had a new Sports minister and the shadow minister for sport, the member for Nightcliff, asked the minister:
- Minister, in relation to Richardson Park being awarded $20m, who was consulted about that expenditure and whose advice did you seek?
Hon Gary Higgins, Minister for Sport and Recreation replied:
- Expenditure on Richardson Park is expenditure on a government asset.
Ms Fyles said:
- That is all you have to say on a $20m spend? Surely the Department of Sport and Recreation would have been involved in such a significant spend on a sporting facility?
To which Mr Higgins responded:
- Richardson Park is a fantastic facility. To spend $20m on it and get it back up to standard is what we really want to do. When you talk about consulting with people, I interpret that as being someone who owns it. Government owns it, so within government we had a lot of discussions about Richardson Park and what we would do with it. The design or the concept plans of Richardson Park have been there for a while. When we spoke about Richardson Park, the view was that it should not just be used for rugby league but for as many sports as possible in the rectangular field area.
- When did the strategy change to move away from basing rugby league at Marrara and providing an additional rectangular field at Marrara?
Mr Higgins said:
- No one has ever spoken to me about a rectangular field at Marrara.
Ms Fyles said:
- In estimates last year we talked about walking away from Richardson Park. There were conversations held with South Darwin about upgrading and basing rugby league at Marrara on their space near rugby union.
Mr Higgins responded:
- I interpret that as a discussion that rugby league would have had.
Ms Fyles asked:
- Who will use the $20m stadium, apart from rugby league?
Mr Higgins answered:
- Rugby union, soccer, touch would be the minimum I would see using it.’
Further on in that discussion – and it is important we look at this – Ms Fyles said:
- Obviously $20m is a huge shift in sporting infrastructure moving away from Marrara to Richardson Park. It came out of the blue for many people, probably including rugby league. What advice did the department provide in this shift in thinking?
Mr Higgins responded:
- In making a decision to upgrade Richardson Park – when you talk about other sports having discussions, soccer and rugby union have always made it clear they need a better rectangular facility. The location of that facility was then a decision of government to upgrade Richardson Park, which fell out of the fact that it was an asset we own, that rugby league had walked away from, which was then falling into disrepair.
Richardson Park is an asset we own, and a $20m investment in Richardson Park will create a fantastic facility for all sporting people to use. I am astounded that people might see that as a downer, as opposed to a positive. There will be no facility in the Territory that would match what Richardson Park could offer in the sense that it will have the latest lighting, and everything will be there. It will be fantastic.
Further on in Ms Fyles asked:
- Who did you consult, minister? It is a great idea to spend $20m on a rectangular field but if you can imagine this management board being made up of all these sports, surely you would have had some detailed consultations with sports themselves?’
- In regard to the specifics about Richardson Park, no. In regard to speaking to sporting bodies, yes. All sporting bodies, such as rugby union, soccer and rugby league, have made it quite clear to us that they need a state-of-the-art facility which we have tried to identify for Richardson Park.
Ms Fyles asked:
- So no sports were consulted before the $20m decision was made?
Mr Higgins answered:
- Yes, they were, but not in regard to specifics about where they are. What I am saying is sporting bodies such as rugby league, rugby union and soccer have said they want in Darwin somewhere a national standard facility which currently does not exist in the Territory. They have asked the government to find a facility along those lines.
- But then in allocating $20m to this project, there were no specific conversations or consultations which took place with these sports that would use this facility?
- In regard to which aspect of it?’
Ms Fyles answered:
To Richardson Park; spending $20m.
Mr Higgins said:
- Specifically, there was a lot of discussion with the NRL over the type of facilities they wanted. My CEO has reminded me that I also had discussions with Parramatta in Sydney when I was there in regard to what sort of facilities they required for broadcasting NRL. So, I had discussions in that regard with NRL.
Finally Ms Fyles asked:
- Did the Department of Sport and Recreation support spending $20m on a sporting facility that a sport had walked away from a year ago?
Mr Conlan called a point of order:
- It is the department’s job to advance the government’s agenda. If the government has a clear vision and wants to construct, in this case, a first-class sporting facility, I would expect and hope the department would get right behind the government and help assist and advance the government of the day’s agenda.
What the department has recommended or not recommended in those blues is Cabinet-in-confidence document. Can I ask you minister, following on from that line of questioning …
Can I get an answer to my question?
That is a point of order. To me that question is out of order.
That was more or less the end of that discussion. What would the average person in the street think of that? What is going on? I understand there has been an announcement – I have not heard officially – that this may not happen. I have heard stories from the rugby league fraternity as I am often with the Litchfield Bears and I hear things. I talk to people and many shake their heads about what is going on.
Obviously the government intended to spend $20m at Richardson Park. I am not sure what support it had. Most people I have spoken to expect the money to be spent at Marrara.
The report was interesting. There was a time line for spending the money and it added up. To put in most of the things they were asking for – this was a few years ago – including a grandstand, the figure was around $16m, which is less than that being put into Richardson Park. That included a new $9m grandstand, change rooms and a new NTRL office building.
I believe the rugby league public would like to know why these decisions were made and who made them. What is the background? Did someone conduct a feasibility study of one place over another?
There are questions to be asked about why we would send soccer or football to Richardson Park when Larrakia Park has just been built and includes lighting. We just held a first-class football match between Adelaide United and Melbourne City on a facility that is regarded as first class. I would like to know who, from the Football Federation of the Northern Territory, has said they are happy to go to Richardson Park when they have one of the best sites in Darwin right on McMillan’s Road. You get advertising just by being there. I am not sure where this has come from.
The best way to clear the air is to take this to the PAC. They can investigate from the beginning, question the relevant people involved in the decision-making process, and they can find out if there was a feasibility study. If there was a feasibility study, can the PAC investigate to see if it was done properly? Where did this money come from? All matters arising from this discussion are within the role of the Public Accounts Committee.
I hope the government will support its PAC. The Public Accounts Committee can self-refer. It would make it a lot easier if the PAC knew it had the backing of the government. The government needs to be up front if it wants open and transparent government.
I was on the Council of Territory Cooperation with the member for Port Darwin. He asked for openness and transparency, and raised many issues which might have been uncomfortable for government. He raised those issues for the same reason we are today.
It is important that the government supports the principle of a Public Accounts Committee. Why do we have one? It is to investigate the spending of government. It will look funny if the government says, ‘No, we don’t support this inquiry.’ Umm! A lot of ‘umm’ questions will be asked. Why? If the reasoning behind this is good then there should be no problem getting the PAC to look at it.
This needs to be done on behalf of the rugby league fraternity of the Northern Territory, especially in the Top End. I am no expert on this. I have been to Richardson Park many times for matches and finals, but not so much to Warren Park. I have been to the AFL. Obviously there is an historical connection to Richardson Park.
If the government spends this money on these facilities at Marrara – AFL, rugby union, tennis, football, soccer, netball, hockey, cricket – has a bus facility there, car parking, is on a main road and is the centre of Darwin sporting facilities, it makes sense. There are problems with expanding Richardson Park. It is near the mangroves and there are problems with lighting, neighbours and noise, and it will be very difficult to expand yet there is room at Warren Park. There may be very good reasons I do not know about, but so far it does not make sense.
Again, the PAC will look at the arguments for spending $20m at Richardson Park and we will ask experts what they think. We could ask club presidents for their point of view. If people want to speak to the PAC and are concerned saying something in public might affect funding for the following year, the PAC could hear it in camera. I feel there are people who cannot speak because they are concerned about what might happen if they do. This is why you have a PAC. If people have concerns this is the opportunity. It would be good to hear what people think about rugby league continuing and expanding in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to support this motion. It is no big deal. The big deal is whether the government will give all the answers the PAC wants. If the government does not support it then it will not look good.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments.
This side of the House will not support this motion, especially in its current form. While I do not have a problem with an investigation by the PAC into funding for rugby league, I do have a problem with the PAC investigating Cabinet decisions.
Cabinet decisions have always been held in confidence. That is the comment I made at the Estimates Committee. These conventions underpin the operation of the Australian Constitution and executive government. The Northern Territory adheres to these conventions, which are underwritten rules around which the Westminster parliamentary system is built. A vital convention in a Westminster-based parliamentary system is that Cabinet meets in secret and speaks with one voice. It is the collective ministerial responsibility. As is appropriate, Cabinet decisions and discussions are confidential.
As I explained at estimates, the department has a role in the Cabinet decision. The department will provide advice on a range of avenues, and quite often will put up various options. It is then up to Cabinet to consider the options. I do not support the full wording of this motion. While I have no problem in the PAC investigating funding into rugby league, I have a concern in regard to investigations into the processes of this Cabinet decision. It is a process of Cabinet which the Public Accounts Committee should not be looking into.
There is $20m currently available to rugby league to upgrade facilities. As recently as three weeks ago I held my last meeting with the rugby league clubs. Government is still looking at the feedback received from sporting stakeholders regarding the project. I made that quite clear in radio interviews as far back as when the announcement was made. I made it quite clear there were options in how we structure this and what sports would be involved. There were no concrete plans.
In summary, I will not enter into a debate about rugby league tonight. I am quite happy for the Public Accounts Committee to look into the funding to rugby league, but I am not happy with, and will not support, a reference to the Public Accounts Committee to look into the Cabinet decision process.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for this motion. He is so interested in understanding the process of government that he forgets what the processes are.
The Public Accounts Committee is there to investigate government expenditure. In this case there has been no expenditure by government. There has been a budget allocation but the money has not yet been spent. My first word of advice, member for Nelson, is get your facts right. The Public Accounts Committee generally investigates expenditure and no expenditure has occurred. This is simply a budget allocation. It was announced in the budget to much fanfare.
We have not funded any rugby league facilities in Darwin yet and that is another point in your motion. I would like the Public Accounts Committee to get on board with this as there is indeed a good story to tell. This is fantastic news for rugby league.
Members might not be aware, but I have been involved in the rugby league community since arriving in the Northern Territory. I came from Queensland so I grew up with rugby league. The sport is a passion of mine. I have been up front in telling people about supporting the Parramatta Eels since I was 10 years old. I am a proud supporter of Queensland during the State of Origin and love seeing the Maroons belt those Cockroaches from New South Wales.
I loved heading out to Richardson Park to watch Brothers thrash the daylights out of the other teams in the Northern Territory. I know the member for Nelson is a big supporter of the Bears and good on him. The Litchfield mob needs supporters as well. It is only appropriate that I tell the member for Nelson I would happily spend money at Freds Pass to support the Litchfield Bears, such is my passion for rugby league ...
Mr Wood: I have that in writing.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, I encourage you to get your Litchfield rugby league mates together, put together a submission and send it to the minister for Sport. Copy me into it as well please because I would love to get involved and be seen to be supporting rugby league in the rural area.
My father is German and he supports soccer. I am originally from Queensland – a country boy – and I support rugby league. I played a fair bit of union. I was never particularly good at league as I am too tall and cannot run to save myself.
Why we put money into Richardson Park as opposed to Warren Park is a no-brainer. Richardson Park, as the name suggests, is the home of rugby league. There is an existing facility there.
Over the years a lot of money has been spent on Richardson Park. It is a fantastic location to play rugby league. Money was allocated some years ago by the former government to NTRL to investigate how the facilities could be improved. From memory, it was around $60 000; it may have been $90 000.
At that time the NTRL commissioned some concepts to be drawn up. I recall they employed the late Hans Voss, who designed Cullen Bay and a range of things. He was a credit to the Territory and a wonderful man as well.
He put together designs for Richardson Park to see how it could be improved – extra grandstands, paving the car park and access through Ludmilla Primary School from Bagot Road. All those things were in the plan he developed for rugby league.
The NTRL took it to the Labor government, said it was their plan, and the Labor government said, ‘That’s all very good. We’ll put it in the bottom drawer’, and that was the end of it.
They spent all that money and nothing occurred. I remember it because management at rugby league said, ‘This is ridiculous. Why would government fund us to develop a plan for the future of rugby league and when we give them the plan they turn their back and walk away?’
My understanding is that plan has been pulled out and dusted off. At the time it was costed at around $9m or $12m, which, allowing for inflation, brings you to a figure of $18m in today’s dollars. If you add a few million for cost overruns you quickly find where the $20m figure came from. It is simple and you do not have to be Einstein to work it out.
‘Why not go to Warren Park?’ is the question. Warren Park is owned by South Darwin. I played rugby union for Souths and know Warren Park well. I had plenty of training sessions there.
Warren Park is a bit of a mess because the previous Labor government, when they excavated for TIO stadium, dumped the rubble on Warren Park and never did anything about it. It still stands there today, untouched ...
Mr Wood: Have an inquiry into that.
Mr TOLLNER: We should have an inquiry into that. We will have an inquiry into that as well.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I am giving you some history here so sit tight, relax and listen. Kenny is smiling because he knows what I am saying is right. He has been around and understands these things.
Warren Park is pretty well unplayable. It belongs to Souths. Souths are interested in rugby league going out there because it solves a big problem for them. It is a no-brainer. You could build something there.
The problem with Warren Park is it is too small to put the same sized facility you have at Richardson Park, and for the budgeted cost – $42m was the suggested cost ...
Mr Wood: $16m.
Mr TOLLNER: $16m?
Mr Wood: That is what is in here.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know what you are talking about, but the suggestion was that we would spend in excess of $40m at Warren Park to build a large rectangular sporting field. One look at that will tell you that you would not come close to replicating what exists at Richardson Park. To replicate that would cost you in excess of $100m, and that is not exaggerating ...
Mr Wood: The PAC can investigate that claim.
Mr TOLLNER: You can investigate that. The PAC can investigate anything because it can self-reference. Generally the PAC investigates expenditure, but if you want to chart off on a completely new course with the PAC that is fine, do it. It is not my committee and you can investigate anything you like.
Member for Nelson, I am suggesting that a man who is so focused on process seems to throw process out the window when he wants to look at something he thinks there are problems with.
Warren Park is unsuitable for that type of investment unless we had $100m to throw at it. You might say more or you might say less – whatever. It is a big figure.
By spending $20m, or a fraction of that, at Richardson Park not only do we satisfy the rugby league fraternity – the member for Nelson readily admits they have a love for Richardson Park as that is where they come from. It is called the home of rugby league and they want to be there. I understand the NRL was pretty excited about going to a new facility. The NRL is a recent addition to Darwin and does not have the same heritage or roots the rugby league fraternity has …
Ms Fyles: You never cared so much about heritage before, Dave. Where has this newfound love for heritage come from?
Mr TOLLNER: Funnily enough, I have been here since the late 1980s. I arrived in 1987 or 1988. At the time I shared a house with a bunch of blokes who played for Brothers Rugby League. I was there most Fridays and Saturdays. Kenny knows who they were.
I moved to Beatrice Hill with a bloke called Bobby Hanna, who was the legend of rugby league in the 1980s. We lived out there for about five years. I know a bit about what happens with rugby league. Graeme Gow was one of my best mates, member for Nelson, and a good friend of yours as well. Everybody knew Gowie. He was a good man for the Bears amongst other clubs. There is a bit of history.
I understand a few of the players and the people involved in rugby league in the Territory. I understand their passion for Richardson Park and why they want to be there. Games have always been played there.
Mr Wood: It was unanimous to go to Warren Park.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know about that decision or who supported it. I know the amount of people who are ringing me saying, ‘Holy hell, Dave, none of us want to move to Marrara. Our home has always been at Richardson Park. We want to be there.’
This facility is not being built for ownership by any one sport. As the minister for Sport said, this facility will be owned by the Northern Territory government and will be available for rugby league, soccer, touch football and rugby union ...
Ms Fyles: Soccer does not need it and touch football does not want it.
Mr TOLLNER: You say soccer clubs do not need it, but they want a facility where they can get 7000 to 10 000 people to attend. The member for Nightcliff says that soccer clubs do not want a first-class facility with first-class lighting where they can televise. They are happy to play under inferior lights at Marrara. The suggestion is that rugby union and touch football are the same. Member for Nightcliff, get in touch with your local community.
Ms Fyles: I am.
Mr TOLLNER: I beg to differ. You are clearly not in touch with your local community. We want a first-class facility in the Northern Territory. Rugby league wanted to vacate the place because they could not afford the maintenance. These facilities cost a lot of money ...
Ms Fyles: How will they afford it on $20m?
Mr TOLLNER: They will not afford it on $20m because they will not own it. The Northern Territory government will own and maintain it. We will maintain it for the benefit of those sports so they will never have the problem of trying to maintain huge facilities and expensive grounds again. That facility will be available not just for rugby league but for rugby union, soccer, touch football and any other major event that wants seating for a lot of people under very bright lights that are capable of televising the event ...
Mr Wood: It will never be the home of rugby league again then.
Mr TOLLNER: I put to you, member for Nelson, once that facility is built and completed rugby league might come to government to ask to lease some space. I suggest that is a distinct possibility. I do not think rugby league is too enamoured about playing on fields at Palmerston. They are struggling to keep that going. Not too many people are keen to go to TIO Stadium to watch the Parramatta Eels because they are so far away from the game. Those big games will want to come into Richardson Park, a purpose-built facility that can accommodate large crowds. I strongly suggest …
Mr Wood: In a residential area?
Mr TOLLNER: They have played rugby league there for decades. Ludmilla is in my electorate. The whole community in Ludmilla is aware that is where rugby league is played ...
Mr Wood: Those poor people.
Mr TOLLNER: There is no pleasing the member for Nelson. You cannot have a small block in the rural area and you cannot have rugby league in the city! Goodness me! Trying to interpret the direction the member for Nelson is taking us – most people understand that rugby league is played at Richardson Park and always has been. That is where I went on Fridays, Saturdays or whenever they were playing. I watched it, watched my children participate and watched my mates. Great stuff! That is where it has always happened.
I was saddened when rugby league decided to leave there because they could not afford the maintenance and upkeep. It was a sad day for ruby league. I talk to people all over the Territory involved in rugby league – people who are the heart of rugby league – and they feel guttered that games are no longer played at Richardson Park.
Telephone Stem and Jackie Edwards and see what they think about moving rugby league to Warren Park at the back of Marrara. Talk to people involved in rugby league – John Adams at Brothers. Ricki Finn probably wants it at South Darwin being a Souths man. Talk to the Carbones and those fellows. They are in your electorate, member for Nelson, and they understand the game. Do you not think they want to be back at Richardson Park? Of course they do.
Mr Wood: They are in the masters now.
Mr TOLLNER: They may well be, but they have been around for a while and love the sport. Are we not trying to encourage people who love the sport to get involved in the sport? One of the most popular announcements this government has made in relation to a sporting group is now being denigrated.
Mr Wood: No, it is not. We are asking you to show us …
Mr TOLLNER: You are asking us about process. We are focused on outcomes. You wonder how we manage to balance the budget. It is because we focus on outcomes and costs. There is a range of areas. Should we spend $100m at Warren Park when we could spend $20m renovating Richardson Park? As Treasurer, as much as I love rugby league I do not want to spend $100m at Warren Park on an environmental cleanup after Labor. Crazy stuff! Someone said, ‘Let’s merge rugby league and rugby union’. You have not been around very long if you think that will work! It is like they said a few years ago, ‘We will merge netball and basketball and put them in the same stadium’. Hang on, that did not work. Basketball ended up with the stadium; netball ended up across the road. It is only due to this government’s funding that we have better netball facilities. It is difficult to combine two sports into one location.
If you want to send this to the PAC, go for it. It is no skin off my nose one way or the other. To me it is a great announcement, a great thing for rugby league. We want to see it happen and it will. Government will get this facility fixed and I hope to see it happen for next year’s Parramatta game.
What a wonderful way of launching a renovated Richardson Park. There could be 10 000 screaming fans at Richardson Park to launch it. How good would that be? Kenny, you might even get a run. However, it would be a fantastic thing for the Territory.
Ms Fyles: Who does the Chief Minister go for?
Mr TOLLNER: The Chief Minister goes for Parramatta Eels as well.
Ms Fyles: Convenient.
Mr TOLLNER: How convenient is that? I will tell you a secret: Mr Deputy Speaker supports Parramatta Eels as well. Do you want to know another secret? The Transport minister loves the Parramatta Eels. Guess who else loves the Parramatta Eels? The member for Arafura. Guess who else? The member for Stuart loves the Parramatta Eels. A few of us do.
Ms Fyles: Who made the Cabinet decision to bring Parramatta Eels to the Territory?
Mr TOLLNER: Unfortunately, I am too close to the Parramatta Eels and had to excuse myself from the room. All the others are Johnnies-come-lately, of course. They are all great supporters of the Parramatta Eels now, which is great. It is one of the greatest clubs in the country.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. The Parramatta Eels are not the greatest.
Mr TOLLNER: What team do you think is the greatest?
Ms Fyles: You will have to listen to my speech.
Mr TOLLNER: Nightcliff Dragons? They love the Dragons – love Nightcliff. Those boys know how to have a good time. It is one of the great clubs. They are great rivals of Brothers and the rivalry goes back decades. A lot of blokes support Nightcliff. Along with the Bears, it is a great club.
Ms Fyles: Is Adam coming in to give us a history lesson too?
Mr TOLLNER: The Chief Minister is a supporter of Parramatta Eels.
Ms Fyles: We are wondering who made the Cabinet decision around Parramatta. Apparently everyone goes for Parra.
Mr TOLLNER: He is a member. He excused himself from the Cabinet room.
Mr TOLLNER: Let us not get carried away. The decision to support the redevelopment of Richardson Park is a fantastic one, and one of the great decisions made by government to support the rugby league community. Too often rugby league has been the poor cousin of the AFL.
I heard a groan from the member for Arafura, who loves the AFL, and I know the member for Nelson loves his game of aerial ping-pong. I am not a great fan although I go to the odd game. I am more of a rugby league man myself, but this decision rights the balance and injects cash into a facility that will see a revitalisation of rugby league in the Northern Territory.
Whilst the NRL has no real understanding of Territory rugby league in the past, it is wonderful that the NRL is now operating in the Territory and that relationship should be built on. When the AFL took over from the NT – pardon me member for Nelson, what was it?
Mr Wood: Darwin Rugby League?
Mr TOLLNER: No, the AFL took over from the NT?
Mr Wood: The AFL NT?
Mr TOLLNER: AFL NT? No, they took over from the NTFL. I played one quarter of NTFL for Buffalos. A coach or member said, ‘You know you are playing on Saturday?’ I said, ‘What position am I playing?’ He said, ‘Full forward’, and I said, ‘Where is that?’ He laughed and said …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113. I like hearing about the Treasurer’s sporting past, but could we bring him back to the motion before the House to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please get to the point of the discussion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, of course. I had to say to this fellow, ‘Mate, I’ve never played this game before’. At the end of the first game he said, ‘Mate, you weren’t lying, were you? You have not played this game?’ That was the last time I set foot on an AFL field, apart from the Masters Games, which the member for Nelson might have attended.
Rugby league has always been the poor cousin of AFL, and it is great that the Territory government is now recognising other codes. More can be done, and I love to talk to the South Darwin Rabbitohs about what could be done with Warren Park. Perhaps we could rehabilitate the place, fix Labor’s mess – that pile of dirt, although I understand it is full of asbestos.
At the time I do not think Mr Ah Kit cared about South Darwin; his heart was in getting the AFL oval completed.
There is a pile of rubble at Warren Park and it is difficult to utilise the land with that rubble sitting there. Maybe that is something government can look at down the track. Being a former South Darwin rugby union player, I should probably excuse myself from any Cabinet decision in relation to that as well.
I will encourage my colleagues to look after Warren Park, clean up Labor’s mess, sort out that pile of rubble and do something with it, because at the moment it is not nice. I can understand why the South Darwin Rugby League Club wants to move to Warren Park because it is one way of cleaning up the mess Labor left.
The member for Nelson walked out of here shaking his head. He hates me talking facts.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment about the member leaving the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, sorry, withdrawn. He is shaking his head walking around the Chamber, but I believe it irritates him that I know my history and the facts.
The member for Nightcliff would not have a clue about that. I do not know how many games she has been to at Richardson Park cheering on the Dragons. I do not know if she could name anyone who has played for the Dragons. We will see. She is about to talk about her love for Nightcliff Dragons.
Ms Fyles: Pauly Seden would be upset with you.
Mr TOLLNER: Pauly Seden? What about his brother Daniel? They both love Brothers?
Ms Fyles: I know them all very well.
Mr TOLLNER: They both played for Brothers. They had a run for the Dragons and good on them. They were both good players, great blokes and have done the Territory proud in a range of areas.
I am thrilled that the government has put $20m into Richardson Park. It needs revitalising and the rugby league community will be thrilled when they see the job done. I hope it is completed by this time next year because we want to see a Parramatta Eels game there. It would be wonderful to see them beat Penrith. We do not have the draw yet, but it will be lovely to see them win. As an Eels supporter, I am keen to see them win every time. It has not been a good decade for me in that regard, but I love to watch them play.
It has been great to see Jarryd Hayne carve up the NFL. He has really kicked goals. We have claimed him; he is one of ours. Good on him; he is doing the Territory proud.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition will support this motion and it is important to explain why. To set the record straight, I will let the Treasurer know that I do understand rugby league and probably attended a game at Richardson Park before he was in the Territory.
Our support of this motion today has nothing to do with being against rugby league. On this side of the House we may not all be Parramatta Eels fans, unlike the entire Cabinet. I remember watching my team, the Manly Sea Eagles, play in the 1980s when we had delayed broadcasts. I remember the 1987 grand final, when my father knew the score but did not tell me because I was watching it and kept giving him updates.
I also remember attending the Bulldogs/Manly game in the early 1990s at Richardson Park, and I understand the history and importance of that ground. The facts are clear and this motion outlines them today: for a number of reasons we need to refer this $20m spend to the Public Accounts Committee.
It has to do with good governance. This huge expenditure came out of the blue with no warning, but with a public outcry. Reading the NT News articles from May this year, when the $20m was first announced, NT Rugby League boss, John Mitchell, was quite surprised to receive such a huge amount of money. Any sport club would be surprised to receive $20m. Normally sport clubs lobby long and hard for upgrades to their facilities, but they must have thought all their wishes had come true when they were told they would get $20m.
They had concerns, even when the decision was first announced and the NT News reported:
The NRLNT will see concept plans for Richardson Park for the first time on Monday since the controversial decision was made to spend $20 million on rejuvenating the run down ground.
Until now the NRLNT has remained largely in the dark over what will become of Richardson Park in Ludmilla ...
The article went on to say:
- With their own plans to develop a new rugby league facility and headquarters at Warren Park at Marrara now scrapped, NRLNT boss John Mitchell says above all else, he wants conditions improved ...
- … access is a major issue facing the area, particularly if the government wants the ground to be of NRL standard and capable of hosting next year’s NRL game with the Parramatta Eels.
There are many questions. We have been, almost in a light-hearted manner, talking about who we support and our history with rugby league. No one can doubt a member’s support and passion for NRL, but we have serious questions.
An amount of $20m of government funds has been allocated to one sport, which appeared to be in the dark until the announcement was made. I raised a number of questions during estimates about what consultation took place for the $20m spend. The member for Nelson’s motion before the House to let the Public Accounts Committee investigate all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin outlined a couple of points, including the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara and the decision to spend $20m to upgrade Richardson Park.
His motion says the objective of an inquiry would be to ascertain if there were original plans for rugby league at Marrara and to investigate why there was a sudden change to Richardson Park. Who made that decision? Who else had a say in that decision. What due diligence occurred before the decision was made? Was Cabinet involved in the decision? The hearings could be public, but if requested, there could be a closed hearing.
Since the decision was made by the NT government in early May there have been a number of questions. The Public Accounts Committee would be the perfect place to investigate those questions and allegations.
During the estimates hearings I asked the Sport minister a number of questions. I feel the minister was left somewhat in the dark. With all due respect to the position he holds, there were a number of unanswered questions. When I asked about the $20m, who was consulted about the expenditure and whose advice he sought, the answer was:
- Expenditure on Richardson Park is expenditure on a government asset.
That is it! There was no detail about the consultations to date, why the money was needed, who had been consulted, what the sports thought of it or any ongoing plans. Those estimates answers – or lack of – left the opposition and the member for Nelson thinking we needed to delve deeper into the matter.
When I questioned the minister about the strategy change to move away from basing rugby league at Marrara and providing an additional rectangular field at Marrara, which had been the plan, it seemed the strategy might have changed after the $20m was announced. The Public Accounts Committee could get to the bottom of these things.
At the time the minister was unable to provide any real detail about conversations and consultation with different sports. The poor minister, literally on his feet, suddenly named sports that could be played on a rectangular field. He said rugby union, soccer, and touch would be the minimum using it. When I questioned if conversations had been held with those sports the answer was, ‘Yes and no’. From that estimates process we had a number of unanswered questions and more questions have been forthcoming.
Obviously to shift from a strategy that had been in the public eye – the year before the shadow sport minister had talked about the plans to upgrade Warren Park. We are talking about that today with the Treasurer. It is important to read the NT News article from February 2014 into Hansard because it sets the scene for the opposition to question the $20m spend.
We believe there should be investment in sport and in rugby league in particular, but it is a huge amount of money. Many sporting groups have approached me since then concerned that they missed out on an opportunity by not realising $20m was up for grabs.
On 12 February 2014 the NT News reported:
- NT Rugby League is looking for a new home after spiralling costs forced them out of Harvey Norman Stadium.
The decision by the NTRL board and the seven club presidents last night to leave the former Richardson Park in Ludmilla ends the sport’s 55-year association with the ground.
A $250 000 bill for council rates and ongoing maintenance costs in the last financial year was the final nail in the coffin for the spiritual home for Territory rugby league.
‘We just cannot afford to stay here any longer’, NT Rugby League General Manager John Mitchell told the NT News last night.
‘Gone are the heady days of hosting 2000-3000 league fans for a home-and-away round and now, so are we’.
‘It was costing us $5000 a week in terms of power and water, council rates and maintenance of utilities and the playing arena and that is in excess of $250 000’.
‘And the rates are more than $18 000 a year when for six months of the year the facility is not utilised’.
- ‘Those costs, especially when you talk about maintenance, are going to grow and grow because it’s an aged facility out here. We’re taking about a ground with a dirt carpark and no public transport access at all.’
The decision to quit Richardson Park after 55 years means the 2014 NTRL season will be a makeshift affair.
Matches will be scheduled at Palmerston and Freds Pass where NTRL clubs, Palmerston Raiders and Litchfield Bears are based.
Alternative venues, such as picturesque Anula Oval will also be looked at, though the absence of fencing around the ground will make it difficult for the league to charge entrance fees.
- Mitchell said rugby league wanted to build a new headquarters at Marrara’s Warren Park, the home of its member club South Darwin.
‘But that’s a three- or four-year plan. Right now we have to find temporary offices in the northern suburbs, probably for the next year.’
‘We’re in constant talks with the government on that issue and several others, and I must say, they have been quite supportive of us’.
‘I haven’t got any information on those talks at the moment, but I can say they are assisting where it is possible’.
It is interesting that in early 2014 NT Rugby League was in discussions with the Northern Territory government on the shift away from Warren Park. They raised a number of reasons why: extensive maintenance costs; council rates; and the location of the facility. It was surprising to hear, in May this year, an announcement from the government that $20m was going to rugby league and there were no details about conversations or consultations. Even those close to the sport were taken aback with the announcement because of the history and passion of Richardson Park.
As cities evolve sport changes, as do the needs of those playing sport and the spectators. Around the world we have seen sporting venues move. It was interesting that rugby league decided to move to Warren Park at Marrara. They said Richardson Park was past its use-by date for them. They had to shift before the start of the 2014 season and were looking at options. MOUs had been signed to move to Warren Park. It was therefore surprising when the Giles government, early this year, announced the $20m spend. The sport wanted to be careful. Any sport offered $20m will not give it back, but in acknowledging the $20m they raised concerns.
A number of people close to rugby league have spoken to the member for Nelson. I have had people approach me as the shadow minister for sport and a local member. I will read some of an e-mail copied to me to give people a sense of how rugby league fans felt about the decision to shift the sport from Richardson Park, which had become outdated and no longer met the needs of the sport, to Warren Park, which is within the Marrara Sporting Complex and has fantastic facilities built by the Labor government. The Marrara complex is a premier precinct nationally, and both CLP and Labor governments have invested in it.
I remember when it was first opened in the early 1980s, and gymnastics shifted from the old Sports House in Fannie Bay to a wonderful new facility at Marrara. Basketball courts, netball courts, soccer and squash facilities have been added, and rugby union has been there for many years.
There is space where Warren Park and South Darwin are located to accommodate rugby league. It would make sense to have the home of rugby league in the Northern Territory based there. Not only rugby league was looking forward to it, but other sports felt they could work together.
The minister’s comments about soccer needing a new $20m rectangular stadium are incorrect. Only a few weeks ago an Australian premier league match was played at that facility. The facility catered for the game well. Rugby union holds a number of premier Australian matches. They have hosted the Australian Rugby Union or super 16 matches and regularly host the Hottest 7s. They felt, with rugby league going there, the sports could work together to provide the best opportunities.
That is the heart of this discussion – the need to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee, because $20m could go a long way for sport in the Territory.
Imagine if we had a smaller infrastructure investment at Warren Park? As for the Treasurer’s quote of $100m, I am not sure what he had for afternoon tea but that is ridiculous.
If we could have an investment at Warren Park that would allow for rugby league and rugby union to be located near each other they could share facilities and host national junior championships. It would also provide an opportunity for infrastructure development in rural and remote areas. We saw nothing in this year’s budget for sport in the rural area, which is an area of growth, particularly if this government gets its way and urbanises the rural area.
My recent travels to Maningrida and Ramingining highlight we could have had a fairer spend across the Territory, ensuring we did not have a Taj Mahal for rugby league for a once or twice a year televised match, and that we did what was best for Territorians.
After this decision was made there was shock and surprise in the community, particularly the rugby league community. I will quote from an e-mail I was copied into from a passionate rugby league supporter in the Territory:
The recent announcements from high about the fate of our Richardson Park on the state of our game in Darwin has shown to us all the muddle-headed thinking that seems to be driving our game. Despite the protests of all the vocal fans who genuinely love our game ...
The e-mail goes on to say the government has rode roughshod over the wishes of everyone else.
- … the benefits of a move to Warren Park are too many to mention here and can only highlight the deficiencies of a move back to Richardson Park, which over the years has become a total white elephant, a throwback to the past.
Despite the $20m that is supposedly given for the development, it is bound to be a backward step. It is timely to mention for the last five years of its existence Richardson Park has never attracted more than 500 people on game day, including players. The facilities in general were terrible and only served to discourage people from turning up. There is no way of improving this situation despite the pumping in of all the proposed millions. The whole thing has become an ill-considered fiasco.
The e-mail was from someone who is part of the game in the Territory and who was upset. This parliament has the right to ask questions when the government is proposing to spend $20m on a sport and diehard fans and members send an e-mail like that. If that does not raise concern, I am not sure what will.
It is important the Public Accounts Committee is provided the opportunity to review this decision. I was not impressed with the responses I received during the estimates hearing. With all due respect to the minister, I felt he was made to sit there and answer questions when the decision was out of his hands.
We had a public outcry. We had years of hard work – my colleague, the member for Johnston, will speak about the plans to shift rugby league to Marrara – and in the stroke of a pen the Treasurer has destroyed all that good work.
There are questions about why the government would support spending $20m in precious sporting infrastructure money nobody asked for. No one has been consulted. It is one of the most bizarre announcements the government has made, and the community outcry should have made the government realise it may not be doing the right thing.
The questions I asked during estimates have largely been unanswered. When we asked about the department’s involvement – most people familiar with government and the Cabinet process know if a Cabinet submission is put through the proper channels to Cabinet …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES: During the process of budget Cabinet submissions being considered various departments provide advice. The Sport department or the Education department might want to put up a proposal, but other departments provide advice to their ministers and that is quite a common process. However, during estimates my colleague, Mr Vowles, asked the minister for Sport, Mr Higgins, who sponsored it into Cabinet. He said he took it to Cabinet; he sponsored it. There were no warnings against funding this project, and one role of the PAC would be to hear the advice from the department. I question other departments. I cannot imagine Treasury would say, ‘Sure, have $20m to pump into a white elephant’.
A number of questions were not asked during estimates and it would be good to refer them to the PAC. The minister, during estimates, said:
- The ongoing use of that facility will be by any sport that has the need of a rectangular stadium.
They would be soccer, rugby union, and potentially touch football. I asked the minister if there had been any conversations with those sports and he was unable to provide detail at the time. We could ask those sports the questions because I had conversations – I do not want to name sports as they may feel uncomfortable or receive a bad response. The facility proposed at Richardson Park does not do much for a number of other sports.
We need to see, going back to the Marrara precinct, a number of high-standard fields together to allow the Territory to hold national competitions or junior competitions. Generally you need warm-up fields and multiple fields to be used at one time. For example, the touch football competition in Darwin needs a minimum of six fields to be viable. If we were to play touch football at Richardson Park, we would only have four touch fields.
These are the questions we need to ask of departments. We need to look into the $20m announcement that took many people by surprise. There are many unanswered questions. The Treasurer has not answered any questions. The minister simply said it was Cabinet-in-confidence.
The member for Nelson is willing to amend this motion so it can go to the Public Accounts Committee without impacting on Cabinet confidentiality. We have also suggested the Public Accounts Committee could hear this in a closed session so there would be no issue with information being divulged. The PAC needs to look into it.
Apart from the one-off $20m spend there are ongoing issues. We had information from Northern Territory Rugby League about council rates and power and water tariffs, which have increased under this government. A number of sports are struggling to pay their water bills to keep their fields green and a number around town are not as green and luscious as they used to be.
Territory rugby league being able to meet the ongoing costs associated with this – I find it strange that we were not provided with any details from government departments on this decision because, normally, if you have an infrastructure spend they also look at maintenance.
It will cost $20m to build this facility, which is questionable to start with, but what was provided for the ongoing maintenance? It is a significant amount of money with a number of unanswered questions. As we heard, the NTRL felt the move to Warren Park would benefit the game and help it grow. The previous minister, Mr Conlan, agreed with that during the 2014 estimates.
This decision highlights how out of touch this CLP government is to get a $20m sport investment wrong. You could have spent $20m in sport infrastructure investments and made a positive difference. Instead, you managed to spend it and there are many unanswered questions.
I have mentioned the different sports, the capability of this facility and what it would mean, but the Public Accounts Committee could look at the Football Federation Northern Territory – would they play at Richardson Park? Would touch football play there? It was suggested in the estimates process that would happen. The Public Accounts Committee could conduct a longer-term feasibility study. Territorians have $20m spent on one venue but what are the long-term costs and impacts.
The government should be supporting this motion in the interests of open and accountable government, something this government promised. We have seen nothing, in fact the opposite. The Treasurer’s speech tonight raised questions. He has a passion for rugby league – I do not doubt that – but his talking about the heydays of rugby league is of concern. I did not know he cared about heritage so much. Some organisations in the Territory would be quite surprised, possibly pleased. It is surprising that we have $20m and the Treasurer’s response was about his passion for the old days of Brothers and Souths and when he lived in a house. The response was not worthy of $20m.
The move to Warren Park is not too difficult. Memoranda were in place. Marrara has many advantages in that it is a sporting precinct, traffic management plans can be easily enacted and other facilities can be utilised. One response I received to a question on this was, ‘No, you can’t have Marrara because there might be an AFL game on the same night’. That is ridiculous! We will not have AFLNT and rugby league on the same night. That was the response when we questioned the detail.
For the government to hide behind Cabinet decisions is appalling. I felt for minister Higgins when we questioned him in estimates and felt it was not him making the decision. Maybe his colleagues, the member for Fong Lim and possibly the Chief Minister, could have provided us with more detail. I felt it was not minister Higgins’ pet project.
The government is now looking at feedback post this decision, which is odd. Hand the carrot out then consult. I guess that is what we get from this government.
The Treasurer told us tonight there has been no expenditure, which is a little unusual. People will review the Hansard and have other questions.
We did not mind the Treasurer’s history lesson, but there are many unanswered questions. According to NRL NT …
______________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students participating in the Adult Migrant English Program accompanied by Deb Lamb and Jennifer Lopes. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to parliament tonight.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________________
Ms FYLES: Welcome.
This motion should be passed tonight and the opposition supports it. Some of my colleagues want to make comments as they have been involved over time.
In summarising, the Treasurer said it would cost $100m to bring Warren Park up to date. Perhaps the Public Accounts Committee can look at that as I find that hard to believe. NRL NT wanted to move to Warren Park. It is well reported that was where rugby league in the Territory was heading, and this sudden change means we need to review this in more detail.
When the decision was announced NT Rugby League head, John Mitchell, was quoted in the NT News as saying he was keen to finally learn the government’s plan for the $20m injection. I doubt any sport has been offered $20m then learnt the details. He listed a number of reasons why it was doubtful the $20m would bring Richardson Park up to standard.
We need to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House and allowing us to ask questions. The Treasurer indicated he would support this motion going to the Public Accounts Committee, so it will be interesting to see if he comes through on his word.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. As somebody who has been involved in sport all his life and continues to be, when a government offers you money you take it to improve your sport. For somebody like John Mitchell, NT Rugby League, who works extremely hard and who I have a lot of respect for, when given government funds – he has done his job to best represent his board to get facilities, money or recurrent funding and keep the sport alive. NT Rugby League had to make a really tough decision to leave Richardson Park because they could not do upgrades or continue to pay for power and especially water. This tariff increases introduced by this government put those costs through the roof and it took a toll on Richardson Park.
Like the member for Fong Lim, I spent a bit of time at Richardson Park and have fond memories of going there with my old man when I played cricket as a young fellow. I was pretty lucky to do a few things through cricket, but I did not start cricket until I was 13 or 14. Rugby league and hockey were my passion. My dad loves rugby league, and as a kid you want your dad to be proud of you so I would get beat up at rugby league. I played for South Darwin. I was fortunate enough to move out of Kurringal to Freshwater Road, in the Johnston electorate, when I was a little fellow and the Nightcliff Dragons moved across the road to train. I had no choice and it was a fantastic time for me.
I spent most of my weekends at Richardson Park watching Bobo Dowie, Steve Larder and Joel Romelo, the legends of the game. I would watch the under 18s, the reserve grade and then the A grade.
I had a strong connection with my family on my mother’s side. They all played for Nightcliff Dragons. Sometimes it was beneficial because people can get quite passionate about sport. I remember a time when my father, who is a very quiet man, and I were sitting in a corner at the back of the grandstand and he said, ‘What a great try that was’, and started clapping a Brother’s try. Half the grandstand wanted to beat him up because we were playing Nightcliff Dragons. My uncle said, ‘Hang on, he’s a family member’, so it was good. There are many memories and much passion there.
I understand accepting money for upgrades to your sport because that is what you try to do. I understand what the government is trying to do with Richardson Park. As has been mentioned many times by the government, I am a former sports adviser so I worked in this field for several years. When NT Rugby League brought that concept to minister Karl Hampton I attended those meetings and had many discussions regarding the proposal. It is one of the most professional and thorough proposals I have seen for a sport to grow in the Territory.
At that time the project was around $16m to go to Marrara. I had many meetings with others in the rugby league community and I know Stem and Jackie Edwards through my connections with Nightcliff Dragons, important people who know the history, and had meetings with many different people. There were many opinions about not leaving the home of rugby league.
I support this motion. Open and accountable government is great. We had bipartisan support for the ICAC motion, and this is another opportunity for the government to be open and accountable with a decision they should be proud to own.
During estimates we had some time with the sports minister. We did not have enough time, but we got some information.
Referral to the Public Accounts Committee will enable discussion of the decision and the reason for it. It will show an open and accountable government, which you promised when you were elected, and you voted for with the ICAC today. This will be another opportunity for government to say why it needed to do this.
I will give a brief rundown of rugby league. There are seven clubs in Darwin, four in Alice and three in Katherine. I am not sure, member for Barkly, if there are any in Tennant Creek?
Mr McCarthy: None left.
Mr VOWLES: None in Tennant Creek? The rugby league clubs, including the juniors and the women’s, have worked very hard. NT Rugby League encourages women to play football. I have seen a few of those games and some are tougher than the lower grades of male matches.
NT Rugby League is trying to move forward. In order to increase the volunteer base and the number of players, it needs to approach government for more money. It is difficult to keep a sport running in the Northern Territory and it cannot survive without government funding. The majority of Territorians do not understand how important government funds are to allow sports to continue and impact on a healthier lifestyle and an opportunity to be active.
We have amazing sporting facilities in the Northern Territory. Down south you could watch a game in a suburban park. In the Territory we have first-class netball facilities with an amazing facility at Traeger Park in Alice Springs. We have international hockey fields in Darwin and we have TIO Stadium.
The former government spent millions of dollars so Palmerston Raiders Rugby League could play in their own facility. We spent $10m on the Palmerston Magpies facility.
We have the soccer stadium at Larrakia Park and world-class athletics. I mentioned hockey, and of course my passion is the world-class cricket ground at Marrara. I have been fortunate to play on a number of these grounds in my career. It reinforces the amazing standard of sporting facilities that we should be proud of.
We continue to invest in sport. As a sports adviser I would say, ‘Okay, we will build these facilities for Palmerston Raiders and the Magpies and we will hand them over to those clubs, but what recurrent funding will be allocated to those sports so we do not set them up to fail?’
Many sporting clubs want their own facility without discussing how much it will cost to run it once it is built – recurrent funding. It is a serious issue, because you do not want to build a facility or spend millions upgrading one only to hand it over to a club that does not know how to fund it.
No amount of chook raffles or dollar clubs will pay the power and the water bills. In the Territory you go to training after work and get there about 6.30 pm so you need lighting facilities. The cost of running a facility is crippling. It is rarely spoken about when a sporting organisation comes to the government, and I can only speak from my experience as an adviser to the minister – what recurrent funding will be provided? We do not want sports to take money from funds allocated to increase grassroots participation and grow their sport. There always has to be consideration.
We flushed this out a bit at estimates. I understand the concept of what the government is trying to do at Richardson Park. You have a facility – I think there is a misconception that it will be NT Rugby League’s. I hope somebody will correct me if I am wrong – the Sport minister might give me a nod – but I understand NT Rugby League handed in its lease when it vacated the premises.
Mr Higgins: They were asked to but then names changed.
Mr VOWLES: I understand the concept of a stand-alone facility, but there is a misconception that this facility will belong to NT Rugby League. I understand it will be more like Marrara Indoor Stadium, where you have different sports. The NT government will manage the facility and plan and book sporting events such as the Parramatta game the Treasurer mentioned. It will be upgraded to include office space for different sports that may use it, such as NT Rugby League.
A little known fact in the Territory regarding sports – we have great sporting facilities – is the cost of lights. You need 1400 or 1500 lux lights to broadcast TV. The government is saying we have this facility and to build is expensive, but you need 1400 or 1500 lux lights.
The lights at TIO are not ideal and the broadcasters put up with them just to get through, but it is a real concern because you have to invest money if you want games to be broadcast.
The issue for the government is it has not told the story to the public. It should be saying, ‘This is what we will do, this is why we allocated the money, and these are the pros and cons’.
I support this motion, but I see the positives in facilities that can be utilised by different sports. The main reason behind upgrading the Magpies at Palmerston was at the time there were cricket games at Marrara or TIO Stadium. When that happened there was a drop in pitch, so you have four to six weeks where the ground is out while they are digging the pitch out. They spent $8m or $10m at the Palmerston footy ground so when that happened the Thunder games, or any other major event, could go to that oval without any hiccups or change in schedule. There was a cricket game last year and it did not work out well with the drop in pitch, but that was the reason to upgrade the facilities at Palmerston.
We used TIO for an Elton John concert, an AC/DC concert, cricket, football and the Crusty Demons. TIO is our main facility for major events. The previous government invested heavily at Palmerston to do that.
I was concerned when I was told NT Rugby League had to move out of Richardson Park. I understand the emotions about leaving and the history of such an iconic facility. John Mitchell is a good operator. As the CEO he has weathered the storm. His phone would have been blocked and his door knocked down. People would have chased him down to ask if he understood the history of the facility. He is there to represent the board and to do the best for his sport.
No sport in the Northern Territory or this country would knock back government money to build a facility. There is a misconception that NT Rugby League will take the facility over. It will be a government-managed facility.
I support the motion because it is about being open and accountable for such a large chunk of money. The government has not told us about the benefits and what it means for the future of sports. We all had concerned people from different sports talk to us. There are different sports, but touch footy might have thought you would force a move from Fannie Bay ...
Mr Wood: They had to go far.
Mr VOWLES: Out to Freds Pass, you reckon?
It is about telling a story when you have something to give and the government has not done that.
As a former sports adviser then coming into parliament and being shadow sports minister, I believe this is important. In my electorate there is a connection to rugby league because the Nightcliff Dragons train at Moil Oval. I pop down there every now and then to see how they are going. These are old clubs; it is an old sport.
When I became adviser in the last government people said, ‘You have a great job. You have Jack Ah Kit, the minister for fun.’ After a week I thought, ‘Yes, this is great. I’m going to the AFL, I have cricket going and I’m getting paid for this. This is great.’
The reality kicked in when everybody rang me because they were not happy about their sport. There were issues with the committee, funding, recurrent funding, their facilities and the grass was dying. ‘You are supposed to be looking after it. Who is mowing the grass? Who is fixing the grass?’ All these issues came up. The one thing about being a sports adviser – I am sure you have …
Mr Higgins: Nothing has changed.
Mr VOWLES: It is emotive because people volunteer to be on committees. They go to work, finish and then go to meetings. They are passionate about it and want to see their sport grow not die. They want more participation, better facilities, more funding and government to listen.
I spoke to a few other advisers who said, ‘Mate, yours is the greatest job until you do it, because it is tough’. It is tough because people are passionate when they volunteer their time. I respect and applaud that, and thank everybody who does that. It is a monumental task ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VOWLES: I applaud and thank everybody who volunteers for sports and gives up their time. We know the commitment. Many of us have families and other issues we have to deal with. I was president of the Palmerston Cricket Club for a while and it is a tough gig. I am proud of that, but it reinforced what I thought about volunteering. I thought I would be sworn in, make a few decisions, have a beer and be out of there. Three or four hours later I was still talking about how we would improve the club, where we would get the money for the new uniforms, the match fees and how we would pay umpires who we never rate. They always made the wrong decisions in cricket. We were always looking for that dollar and it is really tough.
When a government decides to give money I will not be the person who says not to it. However, I would like to see how you reached that decision.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this pragmatic motion to the House which I support. I will declare my conflict of interest straight up: I support Canterbury Bankstown. My father played for North Sydney, and my big brother played rugby league and ended up playing for Alexander Mackie Teachers College. I played junior rugby league in Sydney and played for Canterbury Bankstown SG ball competition in 1973. My boys all play rugby league: Robert for the Cobar Roosters; Thomas McCarthy did an apprenticeship in Tennant Creek as a plumber and upon travelling to Darwin for his trade school was recruited by the University Sharks; and Joseph McCarthy was an interesting case, a burns survivor who when we moved to Tennant Creek came home from school, not having a good time at school, and said, ‘Dad, I want to follow in my grandfather’s footsteps, my father’s footsteps and my brother’s footsteps and play rugby league’.
Having had rather a tough day myself at school I just wanted to rest. I said, ‘Son, rugby league is a team game. If you can get a team together come and see me.’ The following afternoon I had 10 children from Tennant Creek playing full contact rugby league on my front lawn. That led to a development project I started, and we proudly ran the Tennant Creek Junior Rugby League development project for eight years. Joseph McCarthy played his first game of rugby league in that project at the under 12 level when he was 10. He went on to represent the Northern Territory in both rugby league and rugby union. He represented the Australian states and territories in rugby league at the under 18 level. He had a scholarship with NTIS Rugby Union. Joseph McCarthy played first grade for Nightcliff at the age of 17, and played for Owls Rugby Union at Canberra University and the Cows – the rugby league team. This year he played with his two brothers for the Cobar Roosters. Three brothers all strapped on their boots at the same time. Two travelled to Cobar to join Robert and play for the Cobar Roosters, and Joseph has just completed a season playing for the Byron Bay Red Devils.
Joseph McCarthy is an interesting story. I thank the member for Katherine because when we put the junior rugby league development project together we used families and personal cars. We took our first team on tour. We went to Katherine and were flogged 68 to nil. That was a great learning curve for the boys and the parents.
Two years later the Tennant Creek Junior Rugby League team won Pool B in the Northern Territory, which is commendable. I thank the member for Katherine and the good Katherine folk who gave our boys a touch up that day and sent them home sick, sore and sorry, but they bounced back and won the Territory Pool B two years later. That is about it for my conflict of interest. I support Canterbury Bankstown.
The minister for Sport gave a brief contribution and outlined the sacrosanct nature of the Cabinet process, an age-old Westminster process. He advised the House he could not support this motion because it would investigate Cabinet decisions and look into Cabinet affairs which are, as I said, an age-old Westminster tradition.
I remind members on that side that convention has been broken by the CLP in the Northern Territory. It was broken through the Stella Maris inquiry, where Cabinet documents were trawled through by senior public servants and exposed left, right and centre in quite a number of portfolios, and it was decided that Stella Maris would be investigated by an inquiry.
Today is a monumental occasion in the Northern Territory parliament because we are now taking the next steps to forming an independent commission against corruption.
I advise all members of this House, including the CLP government, that an inquiry could be conducted into any affairs of government and all members of parliament. Cabinet documents will be unearthed and opened, and these matters will be looked at succinctly and members will be called as witnesses.
That is something to remember as we move down this road. The convention has been broken. Independent commissions against corruption will conduct those processes and members involved will be called as witnesses and held to account.
I went through that process. I appeared twice at the Stella Maris inquiry, and the second time was requested by the commissioner to supply all my personal financial records, credit cards and transactions I made as an individual. I was also asked to supply all my phone, communication and travel records. I was also asked to supply my parliamentary travel records and my parliamentary security codes, which I did willingly. I fully participated in that inquiry.
In stark contrast to the complete mistruths put on the public record – I am glad CLP members put their mistruths on the public record. I completed that inquiry in good faith and with full commitment. That inquiry found nothing unlawful – no corruption and no personal interest.
The Stella Maris inquiry brought some important information to this parliament, mainly around Cabinet processes. As the Sport minister said, Cabinet processes and decisions are sacrosanct and shall remain in the archives for 30 years.
However, the CLP has broken that age-old Westminster convention. As we move down the road to setting up an ICAC in the Territory, I will look carefully at all matters referred. I will remember the members I have served with in this parliament who could possibly be called as witnesses. I will take a great interest in how those cases are heard and the outcomes of each and every one of them.
The issue with the Treasurer was interesting. It was a twist on semantics. The member for Nelson is using a parliamentary committee of scrutiny. What a great idea, because this is a parliament and this government needs to be scrutinised. Public expectations demand it and the PAC is an esteemed committee of scrutiny.
I remind the member for Fong Lim and the member for Port Darwin that in 2008 I was appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and they were extremely aggressive members of the opposition. They were both experienced politicians and had a serious agenda to take me out and embarrass me. It was a great time for me because I had to learn fast and they were great candidates to learn from.
They drove a powerful agenda of delivering efficiencies within government. The member for Port Darwin was quite manic. His agenda was to walk the floors of the public sector and kick the tyres of the vehicles in the car park. It was amazing where he wanted to take the PAC, but tonight the Treasurer is trying to play clever semantics and ridicule the member for Nelson, saying the PAC does not look at anything until it has been expended, only looks at number crunching and is an accounting exercise. What a lot of rot.
The member for Fong Lim taught me a lot about the PAC, and the member for Port Darwin, his colleague at the time, showed how the PAC has a wide brief and can be used to look at all aspects of government, and now self-referring, a great committee of scrutiny with the opportunity to investigate government efficiencies in regard to the appropriation.
Member for Fong Lim, what you said was not quite true. The member for Nelson’s motion stands because it is logical for the PAC to look at the efficiencies in spending $20m on retrofitting an old asset that has been abandoned.
Do not get me wrong, Dave, I love Richo too. When I brought teams of kids from Tennant Creek – the under 15 and under 12 level – we played at Richardson Park. You could have sworn blind they were running onto the Sydney Cricket Ground, which was my dream when I was their age, and the ground was sensational. I experienced some wonderful carnivals over those eight years when we came to the Top End. We would go to Katherine and Alice Springs and we would organise social games.
It is a legend that Tennant Creek kids and their parents would travel 600 km to play a game of rugby league because we had no competition and nobody came our way. That is legendary stuff and it shows the spirit of Tennant Creek. When we ran onto Richo those kids rose to the occasion. When we won Pool B in the Territory two years after forming that development project, those kids went home riding on cloud nine. It is a real enhancement for any community when you have a powerful youth group working through something that is so focused and dedicated. There are great sporting outcomes for fitness and working with serious community enhancement, involvement and discipline.
Richo, for me, was the jewel in the crown. When I came into government and learnt more about the asset I became aware of the constraints. On a national perspective the asset was completely aged and outdated. Government looked at it carefully and it was constrained. You then have the debate of whether you retrofit the old Holden, trade it in and buy the new model. That is what this debate is about tonight.
The member for Nelson is pragmatic in suggesting that we look at the efficiencies around this appropriation. Let us take it to the PAC and do it professionally. It will save the parliament a great deal of money because it is an existing committee of scrutiny. We can look at the efficiencies of a significant appropriation of $20m.
Talking about appropriations is interesting now it is starting to unfold in the CLP’s Budget 2015-16. We discovered in estimates that an appropriation listed as a record budget number of $20m towards an Aboriginal cultural centre in Central Australia is not planned to be looked at until 2018-19, so that number is fudged. Then we have $20m for the revamp of Richardson Park, which in the media the Chief Minister has already done a backflip on and said, ‘We have not really spent anything’.
Tonight the Treasurer confirmed that nothing has been spent on it. It seems $40m is a paper exercise alone. The $18.3m to retrofit the Chan Building, another government asset with major constraints and limited floor area, and create a state-of-the-art art space to exhibit our incredible Territory treasures and attract travelling exhibitions – let us round the figure up. An amount of $50m in a budget paper has not been spent. We debate efficiencies. Is it good value for money? Wind out $20m for the Aboriginal cultural centre, $20m for Richo and $18.3m to retrofit a building with major constraints. That debate is running hot in the arts community.
Member for Nelson, it might be necessary to revisit that expenditure, using the PAC as well, to tell Territorians the government has it right or that we should revisit this.
We are seeing some pragmatic elements of the parliament process tonight. My colleague, the member for Johnston, said it has been a wonderful day for bipartisanship and scrutiny of government across the board. I do not see the joy celebrated on the other side. That is tough and you will get used to it. Welcome to minority government! It is hard work, ladies and gentlemen, but stick with it. You are the elected government and people expect you to do your best.
There have been some serious concerns from this side, and a pragmatic motion to address the issue. The member for Nelson hopes government members will consider that. It is a real, pragmatic, low-cost initiative which will deliver a good result. It is our responsibility to follow up on this. We need to examine a $20m appropriation for an ageing asset.
We can also talk about land use. Looking at the Darwin peninsula and the constraints around development, the principles of modern urbanism and intensification and value for money, is $20m to revamp ageing infrastructure with major constraints appropriate in the good planning processes for significant population increase in Darwin and the greater Darwin area? It is about looking over the horizon, good planning principles and, specific to this motion, the proper and efficient appropriation of taxpayer dollars. This is a comprehensive argument which should be considered carefully.
There is no doubt Richardson Park holds a lot of sentiment. People do not accept change well, and some never accept it. The member for Fong Lim gave a resounding speech full of passion and history reflecting great Territorians, which is what we are about. We have legendary characters and love to celebrate and hear about them. However, in challenging fiscal times it is our responsibility to deliver the best results with taxpayers’ money.
At the end of the day you have to ask the CLP government: what do you have to hide? Unfortunately, your time in government has not engendered public trust. You guys do not need to go far to run that poll on the street and be given a very clear answer by Territorians.
With the great bipartisanship shown, the serious investigation into land use and planning principles, and the formation of an independent commission against corruption that could possibly see important matters referred to it, we now have a pragmatic motion to look at government efficiencies, appropriations and value for money for taxpayers. We are moving together.
Regarding some of the comments thrown across the Chamber today, I conclude with what I went through during the Stella Maris inquiry. It does not matter where you go or what you have done, face the music. If there are issues your summons will arrive in the mail and you will be held to account.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. There were some colourful contributions and ones that gave depth to this debate. I thank the members for Barkly, Johnston, Nightcliff, Daly and Fong Lim for their contributions. I should declare a conflict of interest. I follow Melbourne Storm. It gives me great pleasure to not support a team from New South Wales or Queensland because I come from Victoria. The only reason I follow Queensland is because Slater and Smith come from Queensland and play for a mighty good team.
I concur with the member for Johnston’s comments about John Mitchell, CEO of rugby league in the Northern Territory. I have met him at numerous functions, and he is a hard-working CEO who has done a lot of work for rugby league. As he said, he has gone through some tough times.
I played rugby league for a bit of fun. I played a little rugby union, but Aussie rules, tennis, cricket and indoor cricket were mainly my sports. This is not about whether we should choose Richardson Park or Warren Park but whether this is the right decision.
The government decided to spend $20m on Richardson Park, and there were some concerns about that. I have heard the debate on whether it is the right place to expand. Rugby league people are passionate about it. I have been to many grand finals there sitting on the Bears’ hill with passionate Bears supporters. I know how much they love Richardson Park. However, things change.
Gardens Oval was the home of Aussie rules but is not anymore. They still play games there but not the main one. I know there was a lot of sadness because when I first came to Darwin I played a few games with Saint Mary’s reserves. I lived at Daly River then and it was a long way for a Saturday game. We played at Gardens Oval and it was, and still is, a great ground. It is now a cricket ground, although I do not think it was in the early days. There were some big football matches at Gardens Oval. The VFL, as it was then, played some great matches. For a Darwin versus Saint Mary’s game the old people came from miles around and the oval was packed. There is a lot of tradition and many memories.
I was at the Vietnam Veterans Day celebration at the Cenotaph and three blokes were there kicking an Aussie rules football. I said, ‘You know you are playing on the original Darwin football ground’. That was Darwin oval. They did not realise, and I suppose when they moved from Darwin oval to Gardens Oval some people were probably sad that happened. I have seen pictures of football matches on that ground.
It is the same with hockey. Hockey was played at Alawa when I first arrived. It might not have been as hard for them to move because there are first-class facilities at Marrara.
For soccer Bagot Park has always been the main area, but not the only area. There was also Gardens Oval 2. There were other grounds, and the member for Johnston might remember better than me where soccer was played in Darwin. Games were played on Gardens Oval 2 and are still played there. They have beautiful grounds now.
There has been discussion about whether soccer should go to Richardson Park. We just built Larrakia Park! I was there for a match recently. It might not have been up to TV standards, but why not upgrade the lighting on that ground because everything else is there. People are talking about huge numbers of people coming.
That was a good match, Adelaide City versus Melbourne United, and it attracted 1600 people. That is a good crowd but not one you would spend a fortune on. Before you can show that you need a facility upgraded to accommodate 10 000 people you need to do your homework.
This debate is about doing the homework. I moved this motion because we have a PAC and we have a budget allocation. The PAC’s job is to look at the government’s intention when it allocates $20m to a project at Richardson Park. It is simple questions like, ‘What due diligence occurred before you made the announcement?’ That is not unreasonable. Have you looked at the future of Richardson Park? We know there are issues. You will have to expand the car park into the mangroves. I heard recently you cannot expand it too far into the mangroves because there is an endangered fish, crustacean or something nearby. The Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group is working in that area and people are living next door.
Sensible decisions have to be made. I know some people will support Richardson Park and some people will support Warren Park. We want to know the background behind the government’s decision.
Does it make sense? Is it a fair use of taxpayers’ money? Will this money be a wise move by the government considering other issues have to be taken into account?
When you read the NTRL’s documents from a few years ago saying they had unanimous support for a move to Warren Park, it is beholden on this parliament and the PAC to understand the decision. When the top body in the Northern Territory says it wants to go to Warren Park and the government says it wants to spend $20m here I would like to ask the question.
I agree with the member for Johnston, it is great if you can use ovals for a number of sports. Cricket and Australian rules have been doing it for years. It does not always help the cricket pitch, but those grounds are shared.
Gardens Oval 2 is used for soccer at this time of the year and football in the Wet Season. Little Athletics at Freds Pass use the same ground as the Bears. It causes friction from time to time but is multiple use of grounds.
We could look at using more government school facilities when it comes to sporting facilities.
I listened to the member for Daly, the Sport minister, who was concerned the object of the inquiry would be to ascertain what the original plans for rugby league at Marrara were, investigate why there was a change to Richardson Park, who made that decision, who else had a say in the decision and what due diligence occurred before that decision was made. The last part of the motion asked if Cabinet was involved in the decision. It was not intended to ask what happened in Cabinet; it was meant to find out whether the decision to spend $20m on Richardson Park was a Cabinet decision or a ministerial decision.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion to delete the words, ‘and was Cabinet involved in the decision?’
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I am now speaking to the amended motion, in summation. That appeared to be the sticking point with the government. If that is removed and the government is happy to support this it will be a good motion for the Public Accounts Committee. The PAC has not done much of this type of work this year, and this is what the Council of Territory Cooperation used to do. It looked at some of these issues in detail.
People will have different opinions. I am happy to hear those, but, in the end, we are not overly emphasising one ground against the other. We might investigate the reasons why people want to go to one place versus the other. It is to make sure we understand why there was an allocation of $20m to Richardson Park, and why the proposal by Northern Territory Rugby League to go to Warren Park was a reversed decision. If it was not a decision, why was a unanimous recommendation rejected?
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Chaos in the Territory Government
Chaos in the Territory Government
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. The last time I eagerly waited to speak to this motion was one year ago and quite late in the evening. Unfortunately the member for Greatorex got the call and I was upset about that. He had me yelling a bit and about six hours later I went into labour. He really upset me.
One year on and we have not seen any evidence of that chaos in the government ceasing. It is timely that one year later we are experiencing the first week of a CLP minority government. It is the second day into sittings and we can see how this has operated so far. Many people were waiting to see the outcome of the sittings – whether this government could control its agenda. There has been more opportunity to debate issues I doubt we would have if the government was not a minority.
One only has to reflect on the comments from many government members over the last few months about the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. Then, lo and behold, today some very significant steps were taken and processes agreed to in this parliament for the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. If you asked me if that would happen during the last sittings I would have said it would be difficult due to the numbers. However, today, in the first week of a CLP minority government, we have seen real changes to the lie of the land in this Chamber.
One thing this government has been consistent in from day one of the CLP taking over in August 2012 has been chaos. We have seen three years of chaos. It pretty much started …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are currently experiencing some technical difficulties. Given that those microphones are the only ones recording okay, I would like everyone else to not make a sound so the poor people who are …
Ms MANISON: Would you like me to move to another desk with a microphone that works? I am quite happy to do that if it makes everyone’s life easier.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apparently you can use that if everyone is quiet while you are speaking.
Mr Elferink: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if it suits the purposes of the House the member for Wanguri could continue her remarks from the desk of the member for Nelson.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have offered that. Would you like to go there?
Ms MANISON: We were talking about chaos before, but just then we saw some team work in the Chamber again. It has been a very strange day in parliament.
Going back to my point, from the first week of this government we saw significant moves which led to everybody seeing the start of a very chaotic period.
From the get-go and the appointment of the Renewal Management Board we saw lots of chief executives sacked. People throughout the public sector lost their jobs. Of course, we saw the massive power and water tariff increases. The government told Territorians they had a mandate to reduce the cost of living, but their first significant action as a government was to increase the cost of living by about $2000 a year for an average Territory family. That did not sit very well with people and there was a long period of instability.
At that time we saw signs of infighting in the CLP government. Ultimately, it cost the former member for Blain his job as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The member for Braitling was appointed and has reigned over undoubtedly the most chaotic government in the history of the Northern Territory.
Look at the amount of government reshuffles and how they have gone from a commanding majority to a minority government. People in the CLP, some stalwarts of the party, have left citing their frustrations with the current CLP leadership. That shows how damaging this period has been for the government, the parliamentary team and what has happened in the party.
Unfortunately, such chaos and disunity in government flows through to the public sector. With all the reshuffles public servants are frustrated with the changes at the top, particularly their ministers. They are frustrated that decisions suddenly change. We have some hard-working public servants who are extremely committed to their jobs and the Northern Territory, but it is frustrating and hard for them to do their jobs when the goalposts keep shifting and ministers keep changing. The government keeps jumping from one crisis to another and, therefore, policy decisions on projects tend to change because they are in a constant state of chaotic infighting and negotiation amongst themselves. That has led to significant chaos in the past three years.
We have seen several reshuffles. Earlier this year there was an attempted leadership change in the CLP government. However, the member for Braitling dug in and still sits in the top job. Since then more members of the CLP government have resigned, leaving them in a minority government position. It makes you wonder how things will go leading up to the election in August next year and how they will function as a team. There still appears to be deep division on that side of parliament.
Through this chaotic time in the Territory decisions and consequences have flown through which impact some important areas. I am talking about areas like education and health. Look at the trend in the education budget in the three years of this CLP government. There has been a significant decline in investment in public education. In this year’s budget alone there is about $12m less for government education. In real terms, that is about $80m stripped out of public education since 2012.
At estimates, when asking how many staff were cut from the Department of Education – teachers, support staff in schools, and departmental staff, who also do an important job supporting schools – we were told it was around 516. That is 516 full-time equivalent jobs gone from the Department of Education, which is alarming and worrying. Schools are saying they have to do much more with much less and are finding it difficult.
Teachers are amazing and do a wonderful job. We want to do everything we can to support public education. The government has been slashing and burning the education budget and slashing jobs in an area which has the biggest issues in the nation. The government’s answer is to cut funding and jobs thinking that will deliver better education outcomes. It does not stack up.
The roll-out of global school budgets was a debacle. Schools are still struggling to make ends meet with their budgets. Many are operating in deficit, and many had to make significant cuts. Schools are trying to do the best job they can despite the frustrations they feel as a result of that.
In the last three years several issues have occurred within health. From the get-go we had a brand new medi-hotel at Royal Darwin Hospital with a bed capacity in the vicinity of 100. This was built to alleviate pressure on Royal Darwin Hospital. At the time the government, in driving its mandatory alcohol rehabilitation policy, took those beds to dedicate them to that program. The facility had been delivered for a specific purpose, because everybody knows RDH is always under incredible strain and operates pretty much at capacity all the time.
Bed blocking at RDH became a significant issue as a consequence of that move by the government. There were real issues with demand and wait times in emergency department, and it took this government some time to figure out that the medi-hotel was built for a much-needed purpose. I am glad that facility is now being used for its intended purpose.
Another gripe about RDH which infuriated people was the implementation of paid parking, a terrible system. Paying for parking is one thing, but to put in a system that is so difficult to use has been problematic and caused people quite a bit of stress.
Many people using the hospital are elderly or have English as a second language, and a pay-as-you-leave system would have been far less complex. While people are waiting at the hospital for their loved ones or waiting for an appointment the last thing they need to be thinking about is parking, whether they will get a fine, or if they need to run downstairs and put more money in.
It was poorly implemented and we are still trying to figure out where the money goes. Ideally you would like the money collected from parking to go straight back into RDH. It is difficult to get a clear understanding of where that money has gone.
We also had issues with Palmerston hospital, something people have been waiting for. The CLP government decided to change the site for the hospital to an un-serviced site. This meant the headworks had to go in – roads, power and water, sewerage, all of which cost a significant amount of money, and we know hospitals are not cheap to build.
Changes in procurement models have been made to deliver that project. There have also been significant delays, and people desperately want that hospital up and running. They want pressure on RDH eased, but that seems to be an ongoing saga with this government.
Something the government pushed through in the fastest possible time was the structural separation of Power and Water. Again, when it came to numbers and the CLP, that was the only way parliament was able to achieve fast scrutiny of the bills through the PAC. The government was determined to ram it through without producing much evidence or work around cost benefit analysis. There was not much planning work and the structural separation has cost millions of dollars.
Water licences have been a highly contentious issue for this government, as has Foundation 51. There are still many questions about donations.
The member for Nhulunbuy will say she has seen a huge change in her electorate, with a wonderful township in the Northern Territory suffering the strain of huge job losses and the issues related to the refinery. It has been very sad to watch that happen over the last three years. It has probably been one of the saddest things I have seen in this period of government. From the stories you hear and the things you see when you go to Nhulunbuy, it has been a really tough time.
Who could forget the sale of TIO this government rammed through with no mandate from Territorians, despite the fact that TIO was owned by Territorians? I remind parliament that government rammed that through in one day.
When we first asked questions about the future of TIO we were told, ‘Nothing is on the table, nothing is off the table’. Suddenly the government announced what we all suspected. It would sell TIO to bankroll some commitments.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I request an extension for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MANISON: The TIO sale was rammed through parliament with no mandate from Territorians despite huge opposition from Territorians. They were vocal about that. The government failed to listen and people will not forget that.
I forgot to mention earlier the scrapping of the Arafura Games. Initially we were told that would come back bigger and better than before but it failed to happen. The Arafura Games was a wonderful community event that Territorians enjoyed. It was great for building ties with our Asian neighbours in great sporting events.
I liked seeing young Territorians exposed to and competing at higher levels and focused on training and preparation for the Arafura Games. Also, many people loved volunteering at the games. People miss that and were very disappointed. The government scrapped the games and said they would come back bigger and better but has not delivered on that. The Arafura Games is dead and buried under this government and that is a shame. People loved the games. They were a great part of the Territory and people would love to see the games return.
Today we have seen a positive from the minority situation. Today, after much pressure on this chaotic government, we have commenced establishment of an independent commission against corruption, supported by this parliament. That is much needed as a result of the last three years of a chaotic and dysfunctional government which people have lost trust in. They do not have faith in some of the decisions made and want to see more scrutiny and accountability in government. That has been a real issue for this government.
People have had to deal with a chaotic government full of infighting. It has been a public affair – the go to whoa, the leaking played out in the public domain for everyone to see. People have lost trust in this government, and the establishment of an ICAC will go some way in restoring a bit of integrity and trust to government in the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this motion about chaos in the CLP government, which should be condemned. Territorians want to see a strong, stable, united government and the last three years have proved to be nothing like that. People are frustrated and would like to see a Territory government with a hell of a lot less chaos.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, who would have thought that a General Business Day motion introduced on 16 October 2013 would still have such currency? In fact, the self-realisation that comes with this motion about condemning the CLP government for the deepening and ongoing chaos in the Northern Territory government – not a thing has changed other than the government remains in denial about the chaos, is dysfunctional, has hurt Territorians and even hurt its own colleagues.
That chaos has descended to the point where we have a minority government with only 12 seats in this parliament and, until yesterday at about 10 am, the government had failed to realise the ramifications of being a chaotic government, and more importantly, what it means to be a minority government.
It means that you do not have the numbers on the floor of the House to govern in the Northern Territory, to defeat motions or pass laws. It is staggering that something introduced nearly two years ago remains so current. Point six, about dodgy deals and jobs for mates, brought the House to where it is today, with an historic motion passed creating an independent commission against corruption.
The Territory has finally moved forward because the government had no choice. As a minority government they did not have the numbers and we are now developing and establishing an ICAC so the dodgy deals that have occurred under this dysfunctional government, the worse government in the history of the Territory, will be disclosed. Three weeks ago they were not interested in supporting this and completely denied there was any need for an ICAC.
An opinion piece in the Northern Territory News of 2 August 2015 from the Territory’s first law officer, Attorney-General John Elferink, was headed, ‘Calls for a Territory ICAC imply a failure in law enforcement, but no failure exists’. Has that not been turned on its head, member for Port Darwin? Clearly the failure does exist and has been identified. It is not just the opposition and crossbenchers who have been saying this; we represent Territorians who have been saying this for months. The lack of transparency, accountability, honesty and integrity is what has brought the House to where it is today.
On 2 August the Attorney-General said it was not necessary and there was no need for such an entity. On 14 August the Attorney-General started to realise there was something they needed to respond to because the outcry from Territorians could not go unheard any longer. He issued a media release on 14 August announcing the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures would have expanded powers to tackle corruption and misconduct under the plan he had outlined.
There is nothing wrong with the excellent work done by the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures; she does a brilliant job. However, it is still not, in expanding those powers, meeting community expectations about independence – to have an independent entity entirely separate from the government that can self-refer and can investigate ministers, members of parliament and people in public office.
That was not part of the proposal announced on 14 August 2015. The closing comment in that media release is worth noting. The Attorney-General said:
- This is about confirming the Territory’s commitment to root out corruption and misconduct in all its forms, while at the same time being financially responsible with taxpayers’ dollars and avoiding new, bloated inefficient bureaucracies.
Even at the time he announced expanding the powers of existing officers, he said he did not believe there was a need for an ICAC but was responding to community concerns.
We have gone from 2 August, in complete denial, to 14 August saying, ‘Okay, maybe we need to do something here, but I am blowed if it will be an independent body’. Then, 12 days later, on 26 August, we finally have a motion of this House to establish an ICAC.
It was interesting to hear the government’s motion this morning and the half-hearted efforts of members of the government speaking to it. They did not speak to the motion, but spoke at length about the first thing that came into their heads.
The first thing that came into the Treasurer’s head was he supported the motion but did not support an ICAC in the Northern Territory. Like his colleagues, he was in complete denial about the fact there were problems with government, real or otherwise, or perceptions about the way they were behaving and governing the Northern Territory. On 26 June he had a complete meltdown on a Darwin radio station denying there was anything wrong and bizarrely claiming the NT ICAC calls were corruption allegations in themselves. He said an ICAC undermines the supremacy of your parliament.
‘Supremacy of your parliament’ speaks volumes. To think the parliament and the people who sit here are beyond reproach, beyond question and beyond accountability shows the government and the Treasurer are so out of touch with reality, Territorians, community expectations and the need for integrity, trust, honesty, openness and accountability within government. It is small wonder they are where they are today.
We have our ICAC. The dysfunction, the serious allegations about how decisions have been made in government, where money has been allocated, accountability for how money is spent, ministerial travel, particular overseas travel – nobody is denying that members of parliament need to travel. We are not doing our jobs if we are not travelling, but it seems to have reached a point where ministerial travel within the government, particularly overseas travel, has no accountability or feedback to parliament or Territorians regarding what the travel was about and what was being delivered for Territorians as a result of this investment.
I single out the minister for Primary Industry, who has delivered good results with his travel to our Asian neighbours to build the cattle industry. That is one example. The highlight of how unacceptable travel has been, quite apart from the fact we know a senior ministerial adviser has been charged due to serious allegations of travel rorting, was the Chief Minister’s performance at estimates in June.
The buck stops with him. He is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and when asked the most obvious question about ministerial travel – how much was spent on which trip, who travelled and what the benefits were – he behaved like a schoolboy. He was very reluctant to provide an answer even though estimates is all about scrutinising the budget and government being open and accountable about where taxpayers’ money is being spent. The Chief Minister sat at the estimates table, behaved like a schoolboy, read the travel report as slowly as he possibly could, refused to table it then reached a point where he said, ‘I don’t have confidence in the accuracy of this report’, or words to that effect, and then said, ‘I’ll have to go back and revise this’.
Something is clearly rotten in ministerial travel and, as we suspect, other things about this government are rotten, which is why an ICAC is so important. We will be the last jurisdiction in the country to implement an ICAC.
In regard to the level of dysfunction and disunity within the CLP government and the chaos that has culminated to the point they are a minority government, you only have to look at the disunity and instability. Shortly I will mention how that impacts on the Territory, but given they were a majority government in August 2012 – we saw the exodus of CLP members of parliament, starting with former Chief Minister Terry Mills, who was unceremoniously stabbed in the back by the very ambitious member for Braitling while Mr Mills was representing the Territory on important business in Japan. Eventually, after sitting on the backbench for a number of months, he announced his retirement.
We next saw the departure of a trio of MLAs from the government benches who collectively announced their resignations from the CLP, all Indigenous members of the CLP: the members for Arafura, Arnhem and Namatjira. Admittedly, a deal was done over a period of time to coax the member for Arafura back to the CLP, but the members for Namatjira and Arnhem have stood their ground and been vocal about the many faults of the CLP government. They have certainly done their bit as Independents to continue holding the government to account and asking questions of the government about how it is operating.
We knew things were getting pretty bad when in February this year we watched a soap opera unfold before our eyes, a major meltdown within the ranks of the CLP. We saw the midnight coup, which involved nine members of the CLP decide it was time for a leadership change. Nine members, the majority of the CLP, decided it was time for the member for Braitling to step down as Chief Minister. It was nine versus five and there was, bizarrely, a media conference held at 1 am on Tuesday 3 February 2015. Stepping out to that conference was the member for Katherine, flanked by the member for Port Darwin as the would-be Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister. The member for Katherine, at that 1 am media conference, said, ‘I have been elected Chief Minister apparent. A majority of my colleagues and I met and voted in favour of me as the Chief Minister over Adam Giles. I will be running in a fashion that is far more consultative with the people of the Northern Territory. Discontent with the government led to the challenge.’
They are pretty firm words and there was no doubt the member for Katherine was claiming the leadership, supported by eight of his colleagues, nine of them in total. Despite that, at 2.30 pm the member for Braitling called a media conference. Here is a snippet of what he had said at that media conference:
- I am sworn in as the Chief Minister.
He went on:
- … I don’t believe that Willem Westra van Holthe has the capacity, capability, or the tenacity or the professionalism to be Chief Minister.
He further said:
- … I think today he has made quite a tactical error. If you do want to be Chief Minister, surely you get your numbers right and get government right.
We were all gobsmacked when we watched that live broadcast on national television. As if Territory politics was not already looking bizarre enough, this happened at 2.30 pm. At that same media conference the member for Braitling went on to say:
- What we have seen as a result of last night is a party completely disintegrate in terms of different factions, warring factions … it’s not good for stability.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: In this rather erratic and bizarre media conference at 2.30 pm on 3 February, the member for Braitling, the deposed, not supported Chief Minister but not stepping down Chief Minister, talked really tough about some serious allegations about police and the resignation of the Police Commissioner a couple of months earlier. This is what he said:
- The circumstances around the undermining process, spreading rumours about myself by one parliamentary member in particular in the upper echelons of the police, I think is very bad and signifies a significant problem within police, hence the judicial inquiry that I’ve just announced.
He also said:
- The allegations that have been coming out about senior members of the police force actively running a campaign in cahoots with some alleged politicians is a significant problem. That is spreading to the point of the Police Commissioner being removed albeit under a cloud of allegations and also this challenge today.
The next rather bizarre event was the day the CLP went into lockdown, nothing happened and appointments were cancelled. I was in Darwin for briefings that day and anything I had lined up on the fifth floor was canned. At a 7 pm media conference following a four hour parliamentary wing meeting, who stepped out to front the media on the steps of Parliament House? None other than the member for Katherine, and the member for Braitling, brothers in arms with all their issues resolved. This is what the member for Braitling had to say:
- The team has agreed to resolve those differences, a large part done today, resolve those differences and I’ll be staying on as Chief Minister; Willem Westra van Holthe will be the Deputy Chief Minister.
- What I can assure Territorians is that I’m 100%, in fact 110% behind the Chief Minister. And I am sure that all of my colleagues share the same view.
The member for Braitling is still the Chief Minister. Yes, the member for Katherine is still the Deputy Chief Minister, but clearly not all colleagues shared the view it was worth backing the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who basically said, ‘I’m not resigning. You can’t make me.’ Goodness knows what threats he made to his colleagues about why he would not step down.
The next part in this melodrama was to see the member for Araluen, one of the better performing Cabinet ministers in the CLP government, sacked from Cabinet. The Chief Minister spoke at meetings which were recorded about the member for Araluen and how he would, ‘Never work with that woman again’.
The member for Araluen, to her credit, sucked it up and tried to remain loyal and part of the team, but clearly it all became too much for her. On 17 June 2015, on the floor of this House, it came as a surprise to all of us, not the least of which was her colleagues, when she announced she was quitting the CLP, labelling it a boys’ club. These are some of the words she said on that day:
- This is the Chief Minister whose modus operandi is to eliminate, execute, annihilate and assassinate and who ,of course, has no use for the truth.
She went on to say:
We have had almost three years of the politics of hate, discord and lies. The air is heavy with the weight of misinformation and fantasies spewed out by the Chief Minister and his propaganda machine.
It is small wonder this government has limped along since these very public stoushes. The disunity that must border on hatred between some of the government members cannot deliver a stable or functional government. For the member for Araluen to describe it as a boys’ club highlights the fact that with her and her colleagues’ departure from the Country Liberal government benches there was a 20% reduction in the team and a 50% reduction in female representation. It beggars belief that the government has limped along as long as it has.
Following the resignation of the member for Araluen, a few weeks ago we had the resignation of the member for Goyder. That was the tipping point. I am sure that decision was not made lightly, a weighty decision knowing that walking away from the government left it in a vulnerable minority position. That was a courageous decision by the member for Goyder. In her media conference she spoke about the serious soul-searching she had to do. She highlighted how the CLP was disconnected with Territorians.
That was not enough to make the Chief Minister stop and think, ‘Gosh, this is really serious. I really need to do some soul-searching. We cannot possibly be functional, how on earth can we govern as a minority?’ Completely out of touch as he has always been and in complete denial about the ramifications of minority governments, he said it would be business as usual. He also said, upon the departure of the member for Goyder:
- Anyone who moves to a position of independence, it lowers their level of ability to have a say within government.
Frankly, the words have become stronger now members have left the CLP government and combined with the Independents and members of the opposition to represent the views of Territorians who have had a gutful of the most dysfunctional government in the history of the Northern Territory.
The message is loud and clear to government that it is not in control of the numbers in this House and will be held to account.
This government has trashed the Territory and trashed business confidence. It has paralysed a public service which has seen its numbers and resources reduced, despite the public servants working across so many important areas of government service delivery.
The disruption to service delivery can be demonstrated in so many areas, but one of the biggest and most obvious is the serious delays. I hear noises coming from the government lobby room. I do not know if they are laughing or fighting. It is probably the latter, but it is certainly very loud in there.
Palmerston Regional Hospital has been delayed, there is no denying that. It has been delayed as a direct result of the dysfunction and infighting in the CLP government. We know there was a major blue between the Treasurer and the former Chief Minister where he threw a heavy Cabinet book across the table at Terry Mills. There was disagreement about the future of a new hospital in the Territory.
The member for Araluen mentioned delays to Palmerston Regional Hospital. That would have been open by the end of this year had plans established under Labor continued. Now the people of Palmerston and the rural area will be waiting until 2018, and they still cannot agree on which month it will be.
This government is woeful. The chaos within the ranks, the hurt inflicted on Territorians across the board, and the damage done to business confidence is shameful. For a motion nearly two years old this is still incredibly current.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge this statement was introduced to the House 12 months ago, before I was even a member of parliament, and remains as relevant now as it was then. Hopefully we do not have anyone else in the Chamber going into labour this evening after being stressed.
Most members of this House are on Facebook. A feature on Facebook shows your memories on this day from a few years earlier. It has shown news articles I have shared over the last few years, and brought back memories of what has happened in the Territory in the last three years. Many of these memories map the CLP lurching from crisis to crisis, so let us talk about some of those.
The CLP government promised to bring the Arafura Games back bigger and better but has failed to do so. I worked at the games in 2007. It was a fantastic opportunity to see the number of people the Arafura Games brought to the Northern Territory from across the seas, and to see the way our community got involved as spectators, at the opening, at the closing, to chaperone international teams, work as referees and a raft of other roles they performed as volunteers.
It was a brilliant event for the Northern Territory and it brought the community together. It was also a fantastic opportunity for athletes from across the seas to compete, and for our Northern Territory athletes to compete internationally, including those who wanted to qualify for the Paralympics.
The member for Wanguri outlined the $12m decrease in public education and the impact that has had on our schools. After all, cuts mean resources have to come from somewhere. For schools this has meant teachers, support staff and programs.
One of the first debates I contributed to in this House was in relation to alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory, which we all know is an incredibly expensive area of public policy. I asked the CLP government that day what the measure of success for this was? That question was not answered, which was a surprise to me given the huge investment in the policy.
Some other memories – Thursday last week, a year on from when the member for Fong Lim resigned from the Cabinet after making inappropriate and offensive comments to a staff member on the fifth floor. Shortly after that he called those opposite a nest of vipers. That was amongst other uncomplimentary comments made in an interview on Territory radio.
That same month parliament agreed to establish an inquiry into political donations. It was a surprise it was successful with the CLP government having the numbers in the House. It was overturned, but not before the Casuarina by-election. I assume the CLP government did not want to be up front with Territorians during that period about having no intention to see the inquiry proceed.
At the time the CLP government was also being vague about its plans and intentions regarding the sale of TIO. It was a plan and an intention that Territorians spoke very loudly about because they did not want to see their TIO sold, and the CLP government knew that. The government did not front Territorians at a public forum held in my electorate which was attended by many families and business owners. They chose to communicate through one page advertisements in the NT News. Even then, I am sure it was pretty much a done deal.
I am sure many of us can still hear the horns of cars rallying around Parliament House on the day that legislation was rammed through this House. Again, that was one of my first experiences of being a member of parliament and I found it appalling.
In February this year we saw the midnight coup, the 1 am media conference. The member for Araluen has left to become an Independent, and prominent members of the CLP have resigned and publicly had a lot to say about the conduct of this government. As recently as the last few weeks the member for Goyder acted on her frustration with the inner workings of the CLP government by joining the cross benches too.
Fast forward to the present – today we have listened to some bizarre debate from the members of the CLP government which, speaking on their own motion to establish an ICAC, seemed to pull out every argument against one known to man. We are all pleased that we are now working towards an ICAC in the Northern Territory. That is a real win for Territorians and I am glad we could do that. However, it is unfortunate that we needed to debate establishing an ICAC.
This is now a minority government, yet the Chief Minister continues to say it is business as usual. It is not business as usual. Members of government think they are the Rolling Stones when they are more like Nickelback. Let us face it, it is only because we have a minority government that Territorians will get the ICAC they want and deserve.
We have heard many interesting comments from this government about the chaos. The minister for Police shared this evaluation of the government:
- … we are the most effective dysfunctional government the Territory has ever seen.
This week he shared his views on instability at the Northern Territory Police Association Conference:
- I think that some people look at it as instability at the top. I could argue that it’s open and accountable government. We do air our laundry in public. We are very opinionated people. We stand up for what we believe in. It’s not a closed shop. It’s a very open shop.
That was the same day the minister for Police and the Chief Minister contradicted each other about the promise to see an extra 120 police officers in the Northern Territory.
Tonight the member for Daly referred to Cabinet talking with one voice. In an ideal world, yes, that would happen, but that is not what Territorians are getting. Territorians have individuals pushing forward their own interests rather than working together to push forward the best interests of the Northern Territory. They seem to spend their days and their energy undermining each other.
In my community, day in, day out, people tell me they are sick of watching what happens with this government. They are sick of seeing the NT make national news because someone has said or done something outrageous. Territorians want to see professionalism not dirty laundry. As my colleague the member for Wanguri stated earlier, Territorians want faith in the government to get on with the core business of government. That faith is well and truly fading and it is not hard to see why.
Let us revisit some of the changes. We have had 15 reshuffles, two Chief Ministers, plus one Chief Minister apparent, five Deputy Chief Ministers plus one Deputy Chief Minister apparent, three Police ministers, five Health ministers, five Treasurers, six Education ministers, six Housing ministers, six Business ministers and six Sports ministers. Each reshuffle required time to get across their portfolio areas, be briefed and set their agenda. It works out at about six months of a new minister, although some ministers did not last that long in their new portfolios.
In estimates earlier this year the Chief Minister made a complete mockery of the public’s concerns about ministerial travel, and the Attorney-General made inflammatory disrespectful comments about our most vulnerable. At the core of politics is people, and this government continues to forget that. Every time the Chief Minister says this is business as usual he ignores the frustrations and concerns of everyday Territorians who know it is not.
A year ago the former Health minister admitted that car parking at Royal Darwin Hospital was a mistake that needed fixing. This is continually raised with me when doorknocking in my electorate and continues to be a mess. The more we raise it in parliament the more it seems to be ignored. It is causing frustration and distress for Territorians. Many people in my electorate work at the hospital or visit regularly, and this issue is raised with me week in, week out. The CLP government does not seem to think it is important.
Madam Speaker, it is time government members acknowledge the instability is undermining the confidence of Territorians and focus on the job rather than themselves. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Funding and Resourcing Territory Schools
Funding and Resourcing Territory Schools
Continued from 29 October 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, this motion was before parliament in October last year. It is now August 2015 and, sadly, there is not much positive change to report. This motion went to the issue of significant cuts to the education budget and global school budgets and the impact that was having on our schools.
The budget handed down by the Giles CLP government this year and the stories around the debacle that is the implementation of global school budgets means not much has changed.
The budget this year was a continuation of this government cutting public education. An amount of $12m was cut from government education in the budget papers. The continual cuts to government education, if you compare budgets from 2012 to today in real terms, is about $80m
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 51. There is a lot of noise in the House interrupting the member speaking.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, If you wish to talk could you go to the back of the gallery or into your lobby room.
Ms MANISON: We have seen some big cuts to education, particularly public education. This has resulted in cuts to teacher numbers, support staff, programs and subject selection. Schools are under increasing pressure because of decisions of the CLP government.
Under the CLP watch 516 jobs have gone from education. Some 516 full-time equivalent jobs were slashed from the Department of Education, including teachers and support staff. Sadly, a huge number of those were in our middle and senior schools. Those are critical years in the education of our kids. We have seen it happen in Darwin, Palmerston, Central Australia and Tennant Creek. There were very big cuts to teacher numbers and students now have less subject selection and bigger class sizes.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Report for Member for Karama and
Members of the Legislative Assembly Quarterly Fuel Report
Travel Report for Member for Karama and
Members of the Legislative Assembly Quarterly Fuel Report
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports from the member for Karama pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the RTD.
I also table the Members of the Legislative Assembly Quarterly Fuel Report.
ADJOURMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to contribute to the adjournment debate tonight. I would like to begin with a fantastic effort from the Nhulunbuy community at a Relay for Life event over the weekend of 15-16 August.
It would never have happened without the tireless work and outstanding organisational skills of the community members led by Fiona Pearce. This is the third, possibly fourth, Relay for Life that Fiona has coordinated, along with Leanne and Pino Parise, Robyn Pellenat, Tiffany Wilks, Fiona Stimpson, Marcia Barnett and Susan Stiff. Wendy Troe was also a member of that committee. I was a part of the committee but make no claim to have been amongst the tireless or those with outstanding organisation skills. I missed a number of meetings, but I was pleased to do my bit and be there when the event was on.
The Nhulunbuy community came together and organised 19 teams, including three school teams. Each team fundraised intensively for weeks prior to the event. The massive efforts of the community managed to raise over $69 000 for the Cancer Council of the Northern Territory, funds that will stay in the Northern Territory. What particularly amazed me about this fundraising effort is that two years ago, prior to the downturn in Nhulunbuy, prior to the closure of the alumina refinery and more than 2000 leaving our community, the amount raised was $70 000.
Fiona Pearce had set a target for this Relay for Life, taking into consideration the downturn in our community – fewer people – and set a target of $30 000. We thought if we hit $30 000 it would be great. To not only go beyond double $30 000 but to raise nearly $69 000 within our community was outstanding.
It puts paid to comments Nhulunbuy has copped over the last few years with its downturn and the closure of the refinery after the government, amongst other things, reneged on the gas deal. People said Nhulunbuy was full of rich miners, its time was coming anyway, and all those unhelpful comments. I saw a number of Rio Tinto workers at Relay for Life, but I also saw kids, hairdressers, retail workers and doctors and nurses. I saw community people doing their bit and fundraising, and it was an incredible effort.
There are other people who deserve a special mention for their efforts in helping to put the Relay for Life event together, and particularly for assisting throughout the night. Those thanks go to Brendan Marchesi and Alan Naughton, who did a great job in restoring power at one stage when we had issues there; Chris Putland and Mita Dargaville from Nhulunbuy Corporation, who went above and beyond; Anthony (Tree) Pearce; Nhulunbuy Rotary Club, which did a number of things including cooking breakfast with the participants on the Sunday morning; and the ever reliable Michael Stimpson and Rob Stewart from Gove FM, along with Jezza, who kept everyone entertained throughout the afternoon and the night with radio and fantastic music.
I acknowledge the incredible efforts of Caroline Elliott from the Outback Marathoners team, who in the course of the Relay for Life event ran the equivalent of two marathons, starting at just after 2 pm and going through to 8 am the next day.
The success of this event really demonstrates what an amazing community Nhulunbuy is. I will place on the record the team names of all the community members who participated.
In the team called Away for Relay we had Wendy Troe, Andy Odell, Sarah Pearce and Robyn Pellenat.
In the team Cure Le Cancer we had Tegan Stiff, Lacey Asplin, Cooper Bartlett, Cheyenne Reynolds, Mahlia Snowden, Susan Stiff and Wanetta Willis.
In the team Djapana – Sunset Dreaming we had Zoe Shepherd, Robyn Atkinson, Sharai Haddock, Natasha Jackson, Kerryl McIntosh, Bruni Randall, Jason Randall and Casey Stanley.
In the massive team that was Fishing for a Cure we had – this team combined raised $18 000 alone – Poss Thompson, Gary Barnes, Tania Barnes, Julie Clements, Sarah Clements, Brayden Graham, James Graham, Shanae Graham, Beau Kirkby, Chad Kirkby, Kirra Kirkby, Tia Kirkby, Jo Smith, Dave Thompson, Katie Thompson, Mouse Thompson, Lou Cottle, Jeb Clements, Rob Spivey, Kerrin Bartlett, Annette Cotterill, Adam Dobson, Katie Dobson, Tracey McCarthy, Sarah Mitchell, Chris Putland and Gemma Porteous.
In the team Gove’s Dedicated Heroes and Gove’s Medicated Heroes from Gove District Hospital, we had Kirrilee McLennan, Jordynne Boyd, Kim Bryant, Clare Campbell, Kay Campbell, Chantal Drummond, Nari Fairbanks, Cambel Girle, Charlie Girle, Greg Girle, Lana Girle, Riza Gunn, Kimberly Inkster Kochaporn Parsons, Lisa Pullen, Myla Reardon, Heather Warr, Laura Garland, Sharon Winderlich, Carol Koffsovitz, Gina Bonita, Kaysie Dawson, Stuart Drake, Marie Gilmore, Joy Pascall, Bree Smith and Kathy Smith. The team, I think, won the best dressed and best decorated tent.
In Hakuna My Tatas we had Tiffany Wilks, Natalie Atkinson, Kristy Bazevski, Phoebe Burnham, Jade Dean, Kylie Field, Jamie Gordon, Frances Gurruwiwi, Murphy Gurruwiwi, Kirsten Jurd, Renee McConnell and Judy Miegel.
In one of the high school teams called the Jail House Rockers we had Cameron Stiff, Mollie Graham, Ashleigh Ogg, Lucille Patullo, Angus Ross, Jamie Ross, Koby Snowden, Patrick Walker and Josh Winderlich.
In the team Minions For Life, which was mainly Nhulunbuy Corporation staff, we had Angela McMillan, Damien Bellero, Sarah Bentley, Louise Deutsher, Tom Hughes, Gavin Law, Louise Law, Damien Messina, Brendan Moore and Charmaine Rungan.
In the team Outback Marathoners we had Rhoda Shine, Caroline Elliott, Debbie Lines, Kasey Lloyd, Wendy Northcott, Kelly Nottle, Kim O’Brien, Sabina Smith and Heather Waugh.
In the team with a brilliantly decorated tent, Pirates of the CURE-ibbean, we had Tess Hutchinson, Carrieann Arnold, Antonia Axiak, Alix Betts, Christin Burke, Trinity Geddes, Courtney Hodgson, Kerry Inkster, Lakota Johnson, Rebecca Johnston, Litia Katonivere, Carlene Tawhi and Courtney Warr.
I am not sure if the team Smokin Bacon made it – our local police – but I have Joanne Muchow’s name alongside that team.
The team Smurf n Turf was Sophie Grambeau, Cameron Adams, Juran Adams, Cara Baines, Stuart Bramston, Tessa Ezergailis, April Sage, Travis Schwennesen, Eddi Seni and Eliza Skinner.
The team The 80s had Erin Mossley, Tamara Bajraktari, Crystal Barry, Melinda Birrell, Riley Cross, Aaron Davidson, Codie Hill, Penny Page, Jamie Parry, Jonathan Piper-Green, Carleen Reibelt, Karen Rose, Natasha Schloss, Simon Strickett and Yvette Unwin.
In the team called The Leopard Lounge, which is the name of our local hairdressing salon, we had Trudy Aston, Hollie Allington, Saraya Aston, Beth Downes, Michelle Evans, Lisa Mann, Beth Regan, Eva Simpson, Mary Sinclair, Elvie Vearncombe, Nikki Watson and Barbara Zalunardo.
In the team from Nhulunbuy Christian College School we had Lara Stimpson, Isabel Blundell, Leila Dunn, Hannah Fourie, Remi Grieve, Aloisia Kemp, Pauline Lamboa, Phoebe Lamboa, Louis O’Callaghan, Serina O’Connor, Hayden Pickford, Tahli Stimpson, Michael Vos and Tailah Whitmore.
The last team is the Sidekicks 1 & 2 from Nhulunbuy High School. We had Taylah Edwards, Sam Baulch, Danielle Botha, Savanne Canobie, Liam Cottrell, Danielle Even, Jordina Grieve, Emily Hughes, Joshua King, Jack Kokles-Ridgeway, Connor Lobenwein, Matthew McLean, Megan Morris, Riley Neenan, Alex Parfitt, Teneka Solar, Nathan Thomson-Finn, Maea Tongamoa, Abbey-Rose Vaggs, Jack Zalunardo and Luke Winmar-Briggs.
There were close to 100 sponsors and, whilst I have mentioned all those names, I do not have time to mention all the sponsors. There is no doubt that Nhulunbuy folk, be they business or local residents, dug deeply into their pockets to support this event and reach that fundraising target of $69 000.
It was a great honour for me to lead the candle ceremony, a sad ceremony where we remembered everybody in our community lost to cancer. I lit candles that evening for two incredible women whom I have seen pass to cancer this year, Campbel Giles in February, and the beautiful and wonderfully smart Pippa Rudd, who passed away in July. We will never forget those women; we will never forget people we have lost to cancer. We hug close to us those who have survived, we mourn those we have lost, and we work hard to find a cure for cancer so that we may one day have a world free of this this terrible disease.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this year the Minister for Transport, Hon Peter Chandler MLA, approved the creation of a Road Safety Community Grants Program. The program offers funding to Territory community groups and local governments, supporting the development and delivery of road safety projects at a local level.
The first round of funding opened for applications on 1 June 2015 and closed on 1 July 2015. A total of 22 applications were received from various schools, local government organisations and community groups. Five of the projects received were from outside the greater Darwin and Palmerston municipalities, one of which was from Alice Springs and four were received from our regional areas.
The projects put forward in the applications were wide ranging and included areas such as variable speed signs, signage, television advertisements, art competitions, banners and school bicycle programs. Sixteen projects representing a total funding allocation of over $74 000 have been approved for grants, and I extend my congratulations to the applicants.
A great example of a successful applicant’s project is Gray Primary School in my electorate. Their project titled ‘Bikes, Scooters and Safety Video’ is aimed at educating students, drivers and the community on road safety by creating a documentary showcasing road safety when riding a bike or scooter to school. This documentary will be shown to students throughout the school via assemblies and to parents via information sessions. Gray Primary School will receive $3524 for this project, and I congratulate them on this excellent achievement.
I also give special mention and congratulations to Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre and Ark Aid Incorporated, which both fall within my electorate and have both been named as successful applicants.
Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre’s project, titled ‘Riding Adaptive Bicycles and Tricycles in the Community’, will help to educate children with special needs about road safety. The students will learn the skills involved to ride adaptive bicycles and tricycles safely in the community and will have roadside road safety training.
Ark Aid Incorporated’s project titled ‘Wildlife on Our Roads’ aims to increase motorists’ awareness and change driver behaviour around wildlife to decrease wildlife fatalities. This will be achieved through online advertisements, bumper stickers and an A-frame poster.
A second round of grants will open on 1 November 2015 and many organisations have indicated their interest in submitting an application. I encourage all our local organisations to submit an application for the next round of grants for this great road safety initiative.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to talk about the amazing efforts of a man at the heart of what it is to be a true Territorian. Bob White, a well-known Katherine identity, has worked tirelessly to protect the people of the Northern Territory from wildfires. In July, after many years of hard work and dedication, Bob retired from his position as Bushfires NT’s Regional Fire Control Officer of the savannah region.
Bob started working with the Northern Territory public service in 1995 at the NT Rural College. In 2001 he joined the Bushfires Council as a Fire Control Officer in the Katherine region. Bob has been a committed and enthusiastic Bushfires NT officer with a focus on always helping others. He was particularly interested in the design and supply of equipment best suited to fire management across the savannah region, and he took a lead role in proving the safety and welfare of volunteers and volunteer brigades. Indeed, Bob had been a passionate supporter of Katherine’s Volunteer Bushfire Brigade, dedicating much of his time helping to train local volunteers.
He also supported the Waanyi Garawa Rangers’ fire management programs and was instrumental in helping traditional owners improve their fire management capacity. This program continues to achieve strong fire management outcomes across the gulf region, which is benefiting all landholders in the area.
I was honoured to attend Bob’s farewell in Katherine recently. As Minister for Land Resource Management I presented Bob with a Long and Meritorious Service Medal in recognition of his contribution to fire management in savannah regions.
On behalf of Territorians, I say thank you to Bob for his valued service and commitment to the Northern Territory, particularly for his passion in improving firefighting strategy and techniques. Bob, I wish you well in your retirement.
This year the Katherine Show celebrated its 50th anniversary in style with several fun-filled days of competition and challenges. The Katherine Show is one of the most popular events on our annual calendar and is loved by both locals and visitors alike. The half-century birthday of this wonderful event did not disappoint, with a show that was bigger and better than ever before.
Entries for the campdraft filled early and nominations for the general, cattle and prenominated equestrian also reached capacity. Also back by popular demand at the 50th Katherine Show were the dog novelty events and jumping. The crowd favourites included weave pools, tunnels and mini jumps. Once again my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries had a very strong presence at the Katherine Show with its pavilion open on both the main days of Friday and Saturday.
Primary Industry and Fisheries staff were on hand to present key information about the department’s work with cattle, rangelands, cropping and horticulture. The display also featured promotions on animal welfare, plant quarantine, animal biosecurity and information on the new reef fishing control laws. New fish-measuring stickers were given away to boat owners and were undoubtedly a huge success.
Visitors to the 50th Katherine Show also had the opportunity to try their hand at home agriculture by planting parsley, basil and thyme available free from the department’s stand. An interactive map illustrating the wide variety of commercial horticultural crops that are grown in the Northern Territory attracted a lot of interest from the crowd.
The Katherine Show certainly did not disappoint. It had something for everyone, and its huge success is testament to many months of planning and the hard work put in by Katherine and District Show Society members.
In particular I want to congratulate the President of the Katherine Show Society, Terry Avenell, and also all the committee members for the hard work they put into making the 50th Katherine Show such a huge success.
I also want to pay special mention to a show stalwart, Anna Kerwin. Anna has been around the Katherine Show circuit for a very long time and the work she does is instrumental in making sure the show in Katherine is a success every year, as it was for its 50th this year.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention one other person, and that is Bronwyn Chandler. Bronwyn is one of Katherine’s renowned cake makers. This year she made a cake that was in keeping with the theme of the show. It was a moving clown where you pop the ping pong ball into the mouth and, as it moves, it pops the ball down into a score. Of course it was not mechanical in any way, but the head moved. It really was a great effort by Bronwyn. That was the main cake cut at the opening ceremony of the show this year by Chief Minister Adam Giles, who came down on Friday. It was very special. Thank you to Bronwyn, Anna, Terry and all the volunteers. There are way too many to name, but all the volunteers made the show such an enormous success.
This year four Katherine residents were made honorary life members of the Katherine and District Show Society in recognition of the many years they have dedicated to ensuring its success. Well done and congratulations to Peter Farnden, Henry Higgins, Roger Pate and Kim Pate for receiving these wonderful acknowledgements.
The 50th Katherine and District Show was attended by over 17 000 people. It is hard to imagine that 17 000 people, over the course of a couple of days, poured through the Katherine Show. It is a testament to the hard work that goes in to make it a place people want to go. It was a pleasure to attend this remarkable community event. I look forward to support the Katherine Show at its 51st birthday next year.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I have some wonderful sports news. Members would have read in the NT News about the appointment of the Northern Territory Institute of Sport hockey coach Nick Lenoir, who is assistant coach with the Australian under 21 men’s hockey team. It is a great honour and is testament to Nick’s work with the NTIS hockey program and Hockey NT’s academy program.
Nick will join the team on its overseas tour from 4 to 19 October 2015. This tour will include a four nation tournament in Singapore followed by a junior Sultan Azlan Shah Cup in Malaysia. This opportunity is a result of Nick’s success with NTIS athletics, his coaching skill set, previous involvement with national junior teams and good knowledge of the players involved.
He is not the only NTIS coach doing us proud. Rugby league coach, Duncan MacGillivray, will be an assistant coach to the Australian Senior Combined Affiliated States Team for their overseas tour this year from 21 to 28 September. This tour will include two test matches against the Tongan international team over the course of the week. This CAS team is selected from the best players from South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory who played in the CAS senior men’s competition in June. I think that was in Palmerston.
I know all members will wish Nick and Duncan well and thank them for being great ambassadors for Territory sport and the NTIS.
While we are talking about hockey, honourable members may be aware that Darwin has been selected as the location for both the 2015 Men’s Australian Hockey League and the under 13 boys national championship.
These are top tier national events and the Northern Territory government is proudly supporting them with $10 000 in funding under our Quick Response Program. Eight teams will compete in the men’s competition and 12 teams in the under 13 boy’s competition. Hockey NT anticipates there will be more than 420 participants at the event and many more spectators.
In other great news, congratulations to Mitch Purcell and Jarred Perry, who are the youngest referees to officiate at the National Under 12s Rugby League Competition held at Goodline Park, Palmerston recently. Both 14-year olds are deserving of recognition. They have been refereeing less than two years and their achievement is a result of being part of the Mackillop Catholic College rugby league program.
They were chosen from more than 30 referees to officiate at the national carnival, after representing the NT at the Laurie Spina Shield under 11s carnival in Townsville. Mitch’s proud sister, Jess Hyde, brought their achievements to my attention.
Jess says they went really well and were given good reports and feedback. They are very dedicated to their sport. This is a wonderful story. These two young men are demonstrating skills, maturity and commitment. They are a credit to their families, their school and their sport.
From my electorate, I would like to give a shout out to Steve McWilliam from the Coomalie Scout group, who this month received an adult recognition award from Scouts Australia. The awards are presented to volunteer leaders who have given valuable service above and beyond what is normally expected. Scout leaders not only deliver programs with youth around camping, learning and exploring, but are also required to undertake VET level courses up to diploma level.
Scouts NT says scouting continues to grow in the Northern Territory, with the recent opening of a new crew in the Litchfield area. This is a great initiative for the area. Thank you, Scouts Australia, and congratulations again to Steve McWilliam.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, today in Question Time I asked the Treasurer to provide me with statistics on the take up of the First Home Owner Grant in Alice Springs since the guidelines were changed on 1 January 2015.
I asked the Treasurer to provide statistics for the past seven months – 1 January 2015 to 31 July 2015 – on how many homeowners have received grants in Alice Springs, and only those who have received the grant in their bank account, and how this compares to the same seven months of the previous year before the guidelines were changed, that is from 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2014.
The Treasurer refused to take the question on notice, but said he would provide the information. He refused to give a time line of when he would provide this information when asked by Madam Speaker.
The Treasurer has failed to provide me with those statistics I requested over six hours ago. These figures would not, or should not, have been difficult to source. The Treasurer has deliberately not provided me with these figures and I suspect that is due to the fact these stats are probably not very good for government. I suspect these statistics that reflect there have been next to no First Home Owner Grant payments in Alice Springs since 1 January 2015. I suspect at the very minimum there has been a significant drop in First Home Owner Grant payments in Alice Springs.
The impact of changing the First Home Owner Grant to only new homes in Alice Springs has been profound and, overall, very negative.
The Treasurer told parliament today that restricting the First Home Owner Grant to just new homes has been a great thing for the Territory. He said it has increased downward pressure on the market and has made housing cheaper. He also implied these changes in guidelines had been a great success and led to more new homes being built and other housing becoming affordable. I believe this to be a very narrow and misleading analysis.
Treasurer, it may be the case in Darwin that this has been a successful strategy, where the population is growing and new homes are being built, but this is not the case in Alice Springs. Restricting the First Home Owner Grant in Alice Springs has been an economic and social mistake. In Alice Springs we have a shrinking population and very few homes are being built. Alice Springs is not a boom town. It went through a boom phase in the 1980s. Since then Alice Springs has remained stable, but by no means have we enjoyed the same level of economic and population growth as the greater Darwin region.
In Alice Springs the change to the First Home Owner Grant to apply to only new homes has not had the positive effect the Treasurer claims. There are very few new houses in Alice Springs to buy. The newly built homes in Alice Springs are generally too expensive for most first homeowners. All the changes to the First Home Owner Grant guidelines have achieved is to keep people out of the real estate market, which is a disaster for the town.
In the electorate of Araluen only five homes are being built, and the purchasers of these houses may or may not be entitled to the First Home Owner Grant. These five half-built homes are in the new Kilgariff subdivision. There is an old home unit complex, formerly the old police quarters in Allchurch Street, in the electorate of Araluen. These units may qualify as new homes, but this is yet to be tested.
In my electorate of Araluen there are only five half-built homes, potentially for only five people who may or may not be able to claim the First Home Owner Grant. It would not surprise me if there have been no First Home Owner Grant payments in the electorate of Araluen since these changes because there have been no homes completely built since 1 January 2015 that I am aware of. I could be wrong, but I suspect I am right.
The other side of the story is that the lower-priced homes in Alice Springs previously purchased through the First Home Owner Grant are not selling. Cheap homes in Alice Springs are now not selling but sitting on the market for very long periods.
Young people, those with families, new residents to Alice Springs, new Australians coming to Alice Springs and people who previously qualified for the First Home Owner Grant to purchase existing homes are no longer entering the housing market. Affordable homes in Alice Springs are not selling and this is a huge problem. The market for these lower-priced homes is stagnant. Sales have dropped significantly, and the town is littered with for sale signs for this bracket of low cost homes.
The mean price of home sales in Alice Springs has risen because the lower-cost homes are not selling. Buyers are buying more expensive homes. The traditional buyers of less expensive homes cannot afford to get into the market. Investors of these lower priced homes wanting to turn over their properties cannot sell; they are finding themselves stuck with their low cost homes worrying about their declining investment. I have spoken to several Alice Springs real estate agents who can confirm this. Confidence in the town as a good place to invest in rental accommodation has plummeted according to local real estate agents.
Investors cannot sell their low cost homes, and because of the drop in demand their investments have significantly dropped in value. A gap has emerged in the real estate market, low-cost housing in Alice Springs is not selling, the demand has dropped and people cannot enter the housing market and people are leaving town prematurely.
Contrary to what the Treasurer said today, the changes made to the First Home Owner Grant to restrict it to just new homes are damaging the local economy of Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a small, contained community and every job loss, business closure or business downsize has a reverberating effect across the whole community.
The sale of residential properties in Alice Springs has plummeted during the last seven months. This has impacted on the whole community in regard to jobs, businesses, families leaving town and investors losing out. More than ever, it means that people cannot buy a home in Alice Springs. This downturn in the local real estate industry is reverberating across the whole economy of Alice Springs, and this is not good. Alice Springs is doing it tough economically; there has been a definite slowing in the Alice Springs economy. Despite what some will have you believe, overall businesses are doing it tough in Alice. We need to have that extra assistance in place to encourage our kids to stay in Alice Springs to help our newcomers stay and help stabilise our workforce.
I ask the Treasurer to seriously consider changing the requirements for the First Home Owner Grant to include existing homes in Alice Springs. I suspect this is also a problem for other regional towns in the Northern Territory. The Treasurer needs to make sure that restricting the First Home Owner Grant is not having a detrimental effect on all regional centres’ economies across the Northern Territory.
When I first came to Alice Springs in the early 1990s I bought a home with the assistance of the First Home Owner Grant. I paid around $100 000 for my property and the First Home Owner Grant was $7000. This was a huge help for me buying my first home. In hindsight, it was the greatest financial move I have made in my life. It gave me a place to call home, committed me to Alice Springs; it meant I put down roots and became a part of the community, and precipitated my love for the town and the people. I am almost a local. I have not lived in Alice Springs for 25 years, but if it was not for the First Home Owner Grant and committing financially to Alice Springs, I probably would have left years ago.
The social and economic power of the First Home Owner Grant cannot be underestimated. If people invest financially in the town they are more likely to stay. I did, and I suspect many others have done the same over the many decades the First Home Owner Grant has assisted people to buy into the local area. Up until recently, the First Home Owner Grant was the most generous one in Australia.
This change to the First Home Owner Grant, affecting Alice Springs from 1 January 2015, must be reversed by the government. The town is suffering. We need to give people a chance to buy a home in Alice Springs and discover what an amazing place Alice Springs is to live and raise a family.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, several things were said in the House tonight by the member for Wanguri and I cannot resist the temptation to correct them.
She stated a number of CLP stalwarts had left the party. Yes, there has been a small number, but hundreds of strong women have stayed. The opposition may not want to look at that fact. They say five good, strong CLP women have left. Member for Wanguri, hundreds have stayed to support the CLP and have rigorous and awesome debates about policy issues.
The member for Wanguri also mentioned chaos and infighting. In the House today I went through the economic achievements of the Giles government. Given we are leading the country I will not go through those again, but I refer the member for Wanguri to those statements and ask her to read Hansard to see the awesome achievements the Giles government has made.
Unfortunately she may not know the history of the ALP, but members who have been in this House longer than her might like to tell her about the knifing of Clare Martin by Paul Henderson, the former member for Wanguri. That coup occurred on a Sunday afternoon. She might like to talk to the member for Karama, who was part of that. She might ask the member for Karama about the deal between the then member for Wanguri, Mr Paul Henderson, and the then member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour.
It is not for me to say what happened, but she might like to talk to those people about the knifing of Clare Martin. One ought to be careful about throwing stones, and should get their history lessons right first.
The member for Wanguri also mentioned the Arafura Games. She might like to look at the last set of Labor budget papers to see how much was allocated to the Arafura Games. She could bring that back to the House and debate if her side intended to do anything because given the amount of money they did not put into it, nothing was happening.
The Country Liberal government is working to create a prosperous economy. We have demonstrated today in this House that we have achieved that and we will continue to improve it.
Tonight I want to tell members and Territorians what role the China free trade agreement will play in delivering this prosperity. Before I do, it would be remiss of me if I did not restate the harm the Territory Labor Party, and its union colleagues, will cause to our international relations with their campaign of fear and hatred towards Chinese workers.
Today I updated members on the progress and discussions I am having with Chinese investors wanting to establish a Northern Territory-themed section in a planned multimillion-dollar eco safari park in China. This project is great news for the tourism industry. Millions of Chinese tourists visit Chimelong facilities annually, and we are working with Chimelong to increase the relatively low percentage of Chinese tourists visiting the Northern Territory.
Chimelong sees around 80 000 people a day through its parks and is now working with us to design and build a unique Australian Northern Territory’s own safari park which will carry distinctive regional animals, vegetation and an exhibition education centre which showcases the Northern Territory’s natural environment and culture. From that park we can promote visitation to the Northern Territory. It is an exciting proposition from a tourism market that is expected to explode in coming years.
Talks have been ongoing with the Chinese proponents and have now reached the point where Mr Zhigang has instructed a team of senior staff to visit the Northern Territory as soon as possible for further meetings with me and government to progress this proposed development. This represents a huge opportunity for Territory tourism; however, all the work being done on the Territory’s international relationship with China is at risk because of the fear and loathing campaign aimed at the Chinese by Territory Labor and the unions. Their message to Australians is to not let the Chinese take our kids’ jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Free trade agreements can also lift local capability and engage with a particular market through the range of awareness-raising and upskilling activities they generate.
As China’s economy continues to shift away from investment-led growth towards private consumption, we can expect increased Chinese demand for premium and high-quality Australian food products, including meats and fruits.
The free trade agreement will see a gradual reduction of tariffs leading to the opening up of new market opportunities with further benefits being achieved over time. We can expect increased Chinese interest in direct investment opportunities in Australia in sectors such as agriculture, real estate, resources and infrastructure.
An additional component of this agreement is provision for the conclusion of investment facilitation arrangements. Chinese companies making significant investments in Australia of more than $150m in specific infrastructure development projects can bring in skilled workers from overseas. I emphasise this is when suitable local workers cannot be found. I do not know what part the Labor Party and unions do not understand in ‘when suitable local workers cannot be found’.
The investment facilitation arrangements will not allow unskilled or underpaid Chinese workers to staff major projects. Australian workers will continue to be given first priority.
The investment facilitation agreements are similar to existing arrangements, such as the Designated Area Migration and Enterprise Migration Agreements. Under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement employment and training opportunities for Australian workers remain the first priority, and the entry of overseas workers under a project agreement must be demonstrably in Australia’s national interest.
Labor’s campaign of fear and hatred is causing ill-informed hostility towards the Chinese. This is evident from some of the responses broadcast by local radio. I do not know what Labor wants to achieve with this campaign. Almost 5000 Chinese people live here, our Lord Mayor is of Chinese origin, and they say we do not want Chinese people here.
This year 120 million Chinese people were tourists. About 15 000 to 16 000 came to the Territory, with about one million into Australia. We want a bigger slice of that tourism market, but what the Labor Party is doing in conjunction with its Labor friends is jeopardising that.
People will not come to the Northern Territory if they do not feel welcome. What is happening on local radio, in newspapers and through electronic media is a campaign to say they are not welcome here and to go away.
I do not know what part the Labor Party and unions do not understand. These people make the investment. If they do not, there are no jobs. They do not understand what ‘when suitable local workers cannot be found’ means.
It is astounding that these people cannot grasp some of the words in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It almost beggars belief – can they read? Do they understand English words? They do not seem to understand what is written in the agreement.
I ask all government members to encourage the opposition to desist from what is almost racism and hatred towards Chinese workers.
I also ask them to read Mark Latham’s book. A former Labor leader, Mark Latham commented on what we need to get this country moving. This country was built on foreign investment and joint ventures. That continues and will into the future.
With such a huge land mass and small population we need to ensure overseas investors are prepared to invest in our economy to generate wealth for our future, our kids’ future and that of our grandchildren. This will also generate the taxes which enable us to make the Northern Territory a great place to live.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to pick up a couple of comments from my parliamentary colleague. I do not think anybody in this Chamber is racist against Chinese. Members of the government have said that today but I do not accept it. It is more about tradespeople coming in with skill sets different to Australians’. I have constituents in occupations similar to those that will be allowed into the country and I have no issue with that, but they will not have to undergo any further qualifications.
The one that scares me is electricity. You never muck around with electricity. Carpentry and joinery I can get away with. Those two will not have to be reassessed, but electricity and electricians? I will not employ someone unless they have been qualified, reassessed and accredited with Australian training and Australian skills.
I respect your views, member for Sanderson, and I will leave it at that.
I will not talk about anyone in my constituency today, which I usually like to do because there are so many good stories. However, I want to pick up on some comments from the Minister for Lands and Planning, David Tollner, in the member for Nelson’s motion regarding the rural area and the current challenges and issues we have had. The minister was strident in telling the House that he had written to me, the member for Goyder, as well as the members for Daly and Nelson in regard to setting up a committee and that would solve all the problems. However, he failed to tell members what he put in his letter. He also failed to tell the Chamber that I replied to and countered his offer, which I think was a far more cohesive letter and had a sound basis for going forward with challenges in the rural area.
I want to read it to honourable members this evening. This is from the Minister for Lands and Planning:
- Dear Ms Purick
I would like to invite you to become a member of the Rural Development Review Committee which will consider Planning Scheme Amendments relevant to the rural area and in particular the Litchfield Division of the Development Consent Authority.
So far so good.
- With the increasing desire for people to live a rural lifestyle …
Where is the evidence? Of course everyone wants to live in the rural area; that is why we live there and we like it. It is safe, secure and nice, but where is his evidence that is what a lot of people want to do?
I will go back to the letter:
- … there is a need for a strengthened process for consideration of Planning Scheme Amendments in the rural area …
Where from? Next paragraph:
- Currently, the Development Consent Authority is responsible to conduct a Reporting Body Hearing, consider any submissions received, and provide a report to me as Minister for Lands and Planning on Planning Scheme Amendments.
Those points are correct.
- This written report includes issues raised in the submissions, issues raised at the hearing and during any consultation, and any other matters the Reporting Body considers I should take into account when considering the proposal.
Correct.
- There has been considerable disquiet in the Litchfield rural area about Planning Scheme Amendments …
Well, that is an understatement.
- … and discussions about having an independent body to examine rezoning approvals.
I have had no discussions with anyone, least of all the minister or any of my rural colleagues about an independent body to examine rezoning proposals. If there was evidence of this, where was it? When did it happen? Show us the evidence. It is not the scheme itself that is the problem, it is the fact the minister and the government are doing ad hoc rezonings outside the Litchfield land use objectives and not considering the current zoning, the amenity and all the other issues that go with rezoning and subdividing chunks of land in the rural area.
Next paragraph in the letter:
- The Planning Act, section 24(3) provides that the Minister may request any other person or body to give the Minister a written report about matters relevant to the proposal or to anything referred to in the Reporting Body’s report.
That is quite correct. The minister has that right and, in the past, ministers have done that.
- In order to provide for additional advice, I intend to establish a Rural Development Review Committee to provide me with a written report about matters relevant to rural Planning Scheme Amendments and matters relating to the Litchfield Division of the Development Consent Authority.
Basically, the Litchfield Council boundaries.
- The Rural Development Review Committee will consider the Reporting Body report …
That is, the report that comes out of the Development Consent Authority.
- … and provide its findings to me in a written report prior to my consideration of the proposal.
I have also extended an invitation to join the Review Committee to the member for Daly, Gary Higgins MLA, and the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood MLA.
I hope you are able to join this important Review Committee to ensure appropriate development in the rural area.
That is good, appropriate development in the rural area.
What the minister was proposing was basically a subcommittee of the Development Consent Authority. I appreciate the minister was extending an olive branch. On the face of it the letter and proposal seem reasonable; however, it was light on detail, the committee does not represent the mix of the parliament – in other words it should have been tripartisan – there is no mention of who would have been chairman, no scope of works, would it be everything that goes before the Development Consent Authority or just rezoning? There is no terms of reference and no information on what would happen when this subcommittee put a report to the minister. Was the report to be made public?
Currently a report from the Development Consent Authority to the minister is not made public. The rural area has no right of appeal, there is no comfort in how the minister makes his decision, and, quite frankly, I think it was just setting up a committee for committee’s sake. I did not come down in the last shower of rain, which was last week in Coolalinga, so I know exactly where the minister was coming from: set up a committee for the sake of setting up a committee and keep my rural colleagues and me on board or quiet.
There was nothing about a time frame and the minister said we did not take up his offer. He was disappointed – I forget what he was, but it does not matter. I wrote to the minister. I legitimately took what he said on board. I discussed it with my rural colleagues and sent a copy of this letter to my parliamentary colleagues, Gary Higgins and Gerry Wood, and they appreciated and accepted my letter. I said:
Dear Minister
- Thank you for your letter 24th July 2015 in respect to the offer to establish effectively a sub-committee of the Development Consent Authority (DCA) to review rural development issues under consideration by the DCA. Although belated, I welcome the consideration of the impacts on the rural areas of development decisions either through the DCA or the Planning Commission.
I quote from my letter:
- In respect to participating in such a group I do have some reservations. It is important to make clear at the outset that the most significant issue for me about the approval or rejection of applications is the clear lack of transparency and accountability of the process.
I am concerned that the review committee process that you are suggesting will do nothing to address the shortcomings in the decisional process, in particular when a recommendation is provided to your office. Instead of there being a privately appointed sub-committee that has no authority in the decisional process, it might be more appropriate for you to consider a more publicly accountable entity, such as a parliamentary committee.
- There is no reason why a parliamentary committee cannot be established as either a sessional or standing committee to review significant and controversial applications and report publicly ahead of a decision by the Minister.
If the government wants to be accountable and transparent, and if the minister was truly honest about his offer to the rural members he should have considered this seriously.
I am mindful of the effect of having either, in fact or perception, an additional layer of bureaucracy in the decisional process and therefore would limit the review to being those developments that are significant or controversial and are seeking to change current zoning arrangements.
Referrals to the committee could be through the Parliament, the DCA, Planning Commission or yourself as Minister.
I would like also to make the point that the need for independent, transparent and accountable reviews of applications is not limited to the rural areas and I am concerned that establishment of only such a committee for the rural areas does injustice to the concerns of residents and others of developments in non-rural areas …
Back to the letter:
- The importance of capturing significant and controversial applications from anywhere in the Territory is further support for my reasoning to seek that you consider a parliamentary committee.
I have a number of other matters I need to consider and I will be consulting with both my electorate and with other Members of the Legislative Assembly before I can respond definitively to your offer.
Yours sincerely
I sent that on 14 August and I have yet to receive a reply from the minister. Quite honestly, I doubt I will get a reply because I do not think the Minister for Lands and Planning is truly genuine in his efforts to meet the challenges of planning, development and growth in the rural area.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, today, alongside the Chief Minister, I was proud to announce that six more Territory government schools will be given a greater say in how they run when they become independent public schools next year, taking the total to 12 schools across the Territory. The independent public schools, or IPS, program was introduced in the Northern Territory this year to provide public schools with more flexibility and/or autonomy. Increasing school autonomy is a key element of our strategic plan, creating success together, and is a key priority for the Northern Territory.
The IPS initiative has been one of the most significant education reforms in decades and is transforming public schooling in the Northern Territory. Independent status gives schools and communities more say, flexibility and opportunity to innovate the way they offer education to improve outcomes for students.
I am happy to inform the House that the following schools will be independent public schools in 2016: Bakewell Primary School; Casuarina Street Primary School; Casuarina Senior College; Durack Primary School; Taminmin College; and Gunbalanya School, our first remote school.
The IPS status for Gunbalanya School demonstrates its strong commitment to improving outcomes for young children and students in the community. Co-Principal of Gunbalanya School, Sue Trimble, was quoted as saying that becoming an independent public school was an opportunity for the school to lead community decision making. Ms Trimble went on to say being an independent public school will assist in generational change for students and families in closing the gap for a better future.
It is fantastic to see a very remote school go from strength to strength and determine to work hard for years to come. When a school receives IPS status leadership from the principal, parents, teacher body, local community – all those things brought together help give a school and students the opportunity to achieve everything possible. The school principals and local school communities are empowered with more authority to manage their schools and tailor teaching and learning in the best interests of their students. Independent public schools have a one-line budget to direct funds where it deems appropriate, whether it be for additional pastoral care, specialist teachers or leadership support.
Significantly, an IPS school will have oversight from a school board comprising members of the local community and teaching fraternity. Next year we will have 12 independent public schools across the Territory, and I foresee this figure rising dramatically over the coming years because I know how many schools are interested and how many people are putting in applications.
Darwin High School is a shining example of what can be achieved under the IPS initiative. Darwin High School developed a new business plan outlining key priorities for the next four years and targets for improved school performance. It has formed stronger partnerships with its alumni community and industry to promote and invest in the future of the school. The school has developed a master plan in consultation with staff, students and the school community with a focus on the Bullocky Point Precinct and working together with Darwin Middle School and the NT Open Education Centre to provide world-class facilities and programs for students.
Principal of Darwin High, Trevor Read, said it is fantastic to be one of the first independent public schools in the Northern Territory and he should be congratulated. Mr Read said:
- It has allowed principals and board members to work together with the Chief Executive to share ideas about delivery of best practice education for the future.
- Independent Public Schooling has allowed the entire school community to come together and innovate, share best practice, and really focus on the long-term vision for our school and the Bullocky Point Educational Precinct.
I commend Darwin High School as well as Braitling Primary School, Larrakeyah Primary School, Palmerston Senior College and Wulagi Primary School on a successful first year under the initiative. In particular, Darwin High School has had some of the best results of all schools across the Northern Territory, including the private sector.
These six schools are leading the way and are shining examples of the merits of independent public schooling.
It is important to note that 2016 will see senior secondary schools in the greater Darwin area as IPS. Casuarina Senior College and Taminmin College will join Darwin High School and Darwin Palmerston Senior College. This will significantly lift the educational opportunities for our senior secondary students and will make these schools highly competitive with non-government schools in the greater Darwin area.
Before the Country Liberals came to office, principals and school communities were shackled with red tape and regulation. Policy decisions were dictated to schools by centralised bureaucracy with parents and teachers given little say on teaching methods and programs. Now parents and school communities have a real say in what is best for their local school. With government, the department and relevant schools working together, we have made real progress, but there is more to be done to achieve better results and we are kicking goals there too.
The six schools will receive $50 000 in grant funding from the Commonwealth and will share in the Northern Territory government’s $2m investment in independent public schooling to support innovation, greater community involvement and improved student outcomes.
I was disappointed to see the comments from the Australian Education Union’s Jarvis Ryan today. Mr Ryan’s only ammunition is to attack me, the CLP or to undermine education in the Territory. IPS is an opt-in model, not mandatory. Why do we have 12 schools signed up, with many more applying or showing a real interest in the model, if it was not wanted by our school community?
Jarvis Ryan needs to get out into the community and talk to parents, teachers and principals and, like me, focus on improving schools rather than sitting behind a desk and using the old chestnut of attacking Pete or undermining the Northern Territory education sector. It is no secret that the Country Liberal government has the clear vision to give Territory kids the best education possible. IPS is a great opportunity for parents, principals and teachers to work together and have a greater say in how their schools are run.
The Country Liberals government is focused on achieving better results and creating job opportunities for Territory students by enhancing teaching quality, increasing school autonomy and investing in student learning.
We want to ensure Territory students get the best possible education so they can reach their potential and increase their job prospects when they finish school.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to speak about the first very remote school becoming an independent public school.
Today we heard that six more Territory government schools will be given a greater say in how they are run and will become independent public schools next year. The independent public school initiative is one of the most significant education reforms in decades and is transforming public schooling in the Northern Territory.
I was happy to learn that Gunbalanya School was successful in its application to transition to an independent public school. This marks the first very remote school to become an independent public school in the Territory. This is a very exciting announcement for the community and one I have no doubt they will pick up and run with.
Gunbalanya School is located in Gunbalanya community, approximately 320 km east of Darwin and east of the border of Kakadu National Park in north Arnhem Land. Gunbalanya School provides education from preschool to middle and senior years, and currently has 286 students.
Gunbalanya School has expanded rapidly in recent years, with the construction and establishment of the child and family centre and the trade training centre as part of the school. Gunbalanya School has journeyed towards increasing school autonomy and a great example of this is the flexible school calendar already in place.
I will outline to the House a few key IPS initiatives to be undertaken by Gunbalanya next year. The school will accelerate the current initiative of embracing families and the learning process and creating lifelong learning, with an emphasis on providing new employment pathways for students. It will further develop the child and family centre and trade training centre to become an interagency and community focus point.
Service delivery and growing the child and family centre will provide best practice for families in the area, and also ensure Gunbalanya students and their families are school-ready and involved in decision-making to create culturally appropriate learning.
Involving the trade training centre to become a community trading centre and epicentre of community development projects, including delivering and upgrading skills for adults learners, will expose students to role models. It will also reaffirm that learning is a lifelong process, facilitating a school to job pathway map as a learning journey for secondary students.
The school will also be increasing the numbers of graduates from the centre and consolidating the relationship between industry partners to prepare students for the workforce. Working with Njanjma Rangers, the school will run culture camps for local and interstate visitors by providing tourism training for students and families in homelands. This will keep the purpose of education and employment pathways in context, where English is only spoken when teachers are visiting. The school is building capacity both ways by providing intercultural learning for Indigenous people and educating students to have a global identity. This will prepare them for the world of living beyond the Gunbalanya community while maintaining a strong cultural identity.
Being an IPS will help with the generational change for children and families, and with closing the gap for a better future.
Gunbalanya School has co-principalship in place, which is an innovative way of working with the community. There is a strong traditional culture as well as skills in western culture. IPS will allow the whole Gunbalanya community to come together, be innovative, share best practice and focus on a long-term vision for the school.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I put a call out to the Chief Minister and the Treasurer for some support for the constituents of Tennant Creek, the Barkly and Central Australia. I draw the Chief Minister’s attention to the comments made about the price of fuel in the Northern Territory.
I quote from a Hansard rush of Question Time on 25 August 2015. Mr Conlan asked a question of the Chief Minister about reducing the cost of living: In his response the Chief Minister said:
- We hear a lot about the price of petrol in Darwin. Today it is 134.9c, which is, roughly speaking, around 17c per litre less than what it is in Brisbane. That is the lowest in the country. We do not hear people talking about the cost of fuel in other parts of the Northern Territory. I know in Alice Springs it is about $1.38 at the Shell service station on Larapinta Drive. Maybe the member for Katherine and others could tell us about other parts of the country.
Chief Minister, I will tell you about Tennant Creek, the Barkly and Central Australia on behalf of our constituents. The Chief Minister talked about fuel prices again today. In Question Time today he quoted fuel prices in the Territory as being the lowest in the nation, the cheapest in the country.
Chief Minister, I made contact with you in June through the Barkly electorate office seeking your support on behalf of constituents of Tennant Creek, Barkly and Central Australia. I received no reply. However, you passed on our concern to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has not replied, but I have had a reply from a fantastic Treasury official. I thank that Treasury official for their diligence in getting back to me on behalf of Barkly, Tennant Creek and Central Australian constituents yesterday. Chief Minister, I put the call out to continue working together in a bipartisan way on this issue.
It was a good when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced the first regional petrol market study in Darwin. They defined it as a regional study. I put a call out then. I believe, Chief Minister, you endorsed the call that we should be looking at the wider Northern Territory and the regional areas.
The ACCC is conducting the petrol market study and has focused on Darwin as a regional centre. We are looking forward to the outcomes because they will supply important information we need to make sure these savings are passed on to consumers across the Territory wherever possible.
It is good timing to advertise that the cheapest world oil prices in several decades are occurring. There has been an active campaign by the Northern Territory media based in Darwin. A big shout out to Pete Davies – get well soon, Pete – for all the work he did on Mix 104.9, and the AANT, that great road association, for the work it did. Also, a little shout out to the United Petroleum chain for the work it does.
That work culminated in some serious downward pressure on prices in Darwin and Palmerston. We now need to make sure that Territorians living in regional and remote areas can also share in that success.
I once again thank the Treasury official for the information. I will pass it on to one very special constituent who is driving this debate in Tennant Creek. The Treasury official outlined a couple of important issues for me to take home about higher petrol prices in Tennant Creek – no shift, no downward pressure relating to higher transport costs, lower volume of fuel sales and the lower levels of competition. The Treasury official outlined several interesting points I am sure the constituency will be interested in, and has provided a couple of references to follow up.
Chief Minister, it is about Tennant Creek, the Barkly and Central Australia, and we need to come in on the back of the ACCC report and look at the basket of costs that can be manipulated, so to speak. We need to discover the real cost to get fuel into the regional and remote areas, and see if some areas can move to deliver cost-of-living improvement.
I do not have time to go into the increases in the cost of living in the last three years relevant in those regional areas. Chief Minister, you would be well advised to come down to Tennant Creek and you are welcome any time. Let us identify this issue and get constituents talking to you. We would like you and the Treasurer to champion our case and see the next downward pressure on fuel prices occur in the regional and remote areas. Let us start in Tennant Creek with a strong constituency that is very keen to work on this issue with the CLP government.
Tonight I also comment on a disgraceful couple of days in parliament with senior CLP ministers, including the Chief Minister, politicising Chinese people. It has now stooped to a level where a senior government minister accused Labor members of being racist. It is a downright disgrace. I am personally offended, having many Chinese friends. I am personally offended for the great folk of Tennant Creek, who have been encouraging our multicultural community development, including a dynamic enclave of Chinese residents. The last couple are personal friends who purchased their home in Tennant Creek last week, and are great contributors to our community.
I ask the Chief Minister to get his ministers in order and reflect on the attack he is using on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement to see what is playing out. That includes senior ministers in the government, including the first minister. You should acknowledge how important diplomacy is to Chinese people, particularly Chinese government officials. They would not appreciate having their name bandied around in a cheap attack in this parliament. They would not appreciate mistruths being spread. They do not like that culturally, and do not appreciate it as a people.
This is not working. This is destructive politics and will replay on the CLP. This will be a discussion point in my work with the Chinese community, what it means as a political strategy and how it is denigrating Chinese people and our relationship with them. It is a disgrace and it should stop.
This is a desperate bid by the CLP government in complete free fall. The Labor-led government was actively engaged in Southeast Asia, particularly China. Winning government in 2001, Labor turned the focus of the NT towards closer engagement with China. Federally, Labor has been responsible for creating the regional architecture such as APEC. Labor has a strong history of supporting trade relationships and partnerships, including investment in Australia from foreign nations. With respect, I remind members of this House of the groundbreaking diplomatic work conducted by Hon Gough Whitlam as Labor Prime Minister of Australia. Labor supports the rights of Australian workers and Australian industrial relations.
We refuse to play politics with a free trade agreement between Australia and China which allows major Chinese investors to bring their own workers to the country, including skilled workers such as electrical tradespeople. This is a bone of contention between the two sides of politics. This should be debated at a proper and appropriate diplomatic level, not the cheap shots we have heard over the past two days which denigrate all in this House and Australians, and sends messages of negatively, mistrust and chaos to the Chinese government.
If we want to get on together and work on the benefits of our relationship with China, we will take an appropriate diplomatic stance and properly debate and promote the opportunities we offer. Some good news is coming from the Country Liberal Party government about relationships with China. Let us focus on the positives not the negatives.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I intended to speak about the important work being done by the Office of Women’s Policy, but while collecting my thoughts I decided I needed to get a few things off my chest. They are certainly about women’s policy.
I have tolerated the taunts and innuendoes sadly but cleverly served towards me by women and men from across the floor. There has been offensive rhetoric about my strengths, crafted omission of my presence and disrespect of my language and background, but today I will no longer tolerate it. I do not claim to be perfect or not have my own challenges. I am calling out the behaviour and the poisonous tactics of the opposition and some Independents who continue to attack me personally and ignore what we are here for: policy.
To the young female member of the opposition who asked me a question, I encourage you to be cautious about who feeds your questions and encourage you to listen to the following words. A famous African-American poet, Maya Angelou, in 1978 wrote:
- Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.
…
You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I’ll rise.
Maya wrote that in 1978, the year the Territory gained self-government. How haunting it is that? In 2015, these words resonate so truly in the Northern Territory parliament as I stand here as the only female Aboriginal minister, not understood and calculatedly disrespected, the underdog, being the voice for the most vulnerable of our society, Aboriginal women and children, victims of violence be it physical, emotional or mental.
The question asked so inappropriately this morning was a clear demonstration of the personality tactics too often played out in this Chamber. Once again we are here for policy. The Labor Party is out of touch with its constituents. Members speak of something they know nothing about. They are out of touch. This particular situation they know nothing about, and it should not be used for political point scoring.
On the other hand, the Giles government is on track in delivering quality integrated responses for the prevention of domestic and family violence. I was honoured to be appointed by the Prime Minister of Australia to represent the Northern Territory to provide advice to the COAG agenda on violence against women and children, including domestic and family violence and sexual assault. Through this appointment I have taken to COAG our needs and initiatives, and compared with other jurisdictions how we are on track.
Aboriginal women are 31 times more likely to be injured from domestic violence than non-Aboriginal women, so my representation on this board is something personal. Being so far removed from the subject, for eleven years the opposition led an out of touch government.
I am not removed from the experiences as much as others may be. I live it every day. I understand the widespread impacts, the silence, the pain and tolerance that are common practice around these subjects. Changing these practices requires a collective impact from a government that is in touch.
COAG agreed to take urgent action in 2015 to address the unacceptable level of violence against women. Recommendations from the advisory group were put before COAG and have been endorsed. This is real action from an on-track government. We are focusing on innovative, practical, deliverable proposals to make lasting differences, and complementing and building on existing efforts of jurisdictions and the framework of The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.
The second action plan, The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is now being implemented, with my Office of Women’s Policy implementing the whole-of-government Northern Territory Domestic and Family Violence Reduction Strategy 2014-17.
Safety is everyone’s right. Through my Office of Women’s Policy we are represented on the board of Our Watch, an independent not-for-profit organisation aimed at raising awareness to prevent domestic violence. It is another measure that keeps us on track to make sure a collaborative approach is taken in tackling this issue.
We are leading the way through our Policy Framework for Northern Territory Women 2015-2020 with four key focus actions to improve gender equality outcomes in the Northern Territory. The Giles government is on track to achieve gender equality inclusive practices.
We already have in place collective input and are working to ensure an effective impact through innovative measures. I was listening to Elizabeth Broderick, Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, speak last week. She mentioned that gender equality and women’s rights is the unfinished business of the 21st century in Australia.
I challenge that further and say the rights of Aboriginal women in Australia are the unfinished business of Australia.
I attended a meeting in Sydney a few weeks ago where I listened to migrant women talk about coming to Australia and the challenges they face with domestic violence and the Australian culture. I watched as the eyes of the privileged teared up in disbelief at some of the stories these women shared. I sat with a heavy heart knowing that my story, the Aboriginal women’s story, is not being heard. It is not as welcome as other stories. It is like a convenient blanket of silence that lays over society providing no warmth. It is about silent attacks such as I witnessed from across the floor. It is a blanket to form sections in society for personal agendas to suppress women like me.
I stand before you because I refuse to be silenced. I am a Warlpiri woman and will fight this fight to pave the way for the voices to be heard and welcomed. I am the Minister for Women’s Policy because I am not out of touch; I am on track. Still, I rise.
I realise today, from my personal experiences, that this government is on track because we are about changing the broad agenda for women, including Aboriginal women. This is about changing the silence of shame. No more will I tolerate violence against women or suppression of Aboriginal woman. As Maya wrote:
- Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise
I rise
I rise.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to reflect on comments made by the minister in her adjournment speech. It is very poignant this evening that most of the speeches, on what has been described as a bipartisan day, have been about the quality of debate and attacks levelled at all sides of the House.
I appreciate the minister quoted Maya Angelou, a poet I highly respect and whose words I love as well. We are here to talk about policies which impact on the lives of vulnerable Territorians. Today I asked a question – I acknowledge the minister and what she has said this evening. I also acknowledge that one of her family members was impacted by a question I asked today.
I pay my respects and condolences to the family. It is an awful thing for any family to go through, and I am sorry that question had to be asked in parliament and that it has impacted on somebody in this Chamber. It proves to all of us how close the Territory is. We are constantly reminded of that.
However, I cannot apologise for the comments the Attorney-General makes about his portfolio areas and vulnerable Territorians. I also cannot let them slip by the by when he makes them so often, and when he says highly offensive things about people with families.
I sincerely hope a conversation occurs between government ministers over the next few days about the comments made. Those comments were highly inappropriate and we have to stand up for Territorians.
I also want to address the comments made by the member for Sanderson and the Chief Minister over the last two days about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Members of this House have seriously lowered the tone of debate. It was disappointing that the member for Sanderson used his adjournment to further try to strengthen his argument as opposed to retracting statements he made which implied Territory Labor is against Chinese people. This was backed up by the Chief Minister and it is utterly appalling and offensive.
This is the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. He is not just the Minister for Business or Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade. I quote from a media release from minister Styles on 25 August 2015:
- The Labor Party and union’s attack smacks of racism … it’s a fear the yellow peril campaign.
In Question Time today and yesterday the Chief Minister accused Labor of being anti-Chinese. These are significant allegations and totally untrue, unfounded and offensive not only to us, but the Territory’s Chinese and multicultural communities. Whatever the motives of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs are, there is no excuse for this level of offensive conduct.
We have had a long and proud relationship with the Chinese community in the Northern Territory. Over many years we have undertaken important work in China which has been mutually beneficial for the Territory and Chinese communities. We have a proud record of engagement with and respect for our Chinese community.
Having grown up in the Territory I have many Chinese friends. Our Chinese community is known for its hard work, respect for family, generosity and commitment to the Northern Territory and Australia. We formed long-lasting relationships with Chinese organisations and families.
The Chief Minister is obviously out of touch with the mutual respect we share. I had the opportunity to reflect on and celebrate, as the member for Sanderson well knows, our multicultural community. We are often at the same functions, sharing similar sentiments about how proud we are to be living in such a beautiful and harmonious community, and that the Northern Territory is an example to so many other jurisdictions.
We are one community and proud of it. They are an integral part of our identity. I am appalled that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and the Chief Minister would stoop to flippantly calling people racist rather than acknowledging and addressing their concerns.
As the member for Goyder rightly pointed out, there are concerns over miscommunication between the Prime Minister and his Minister for Trade and Investment about skills assessment and a range of other legitimate concerns being voiced by those acting in the best interests of workers across a range of industries. Nobody wants to address those concerns as it is much easier to throw around racist remarks.
When I was a child I dealt with racism and know what it feels like. The Minister for Multicultural Affairs needs to look up racism in the dictionary and recognise that every time he does what he did yesterday and today, he makes a mockery of the experiences of people who, day in, day out, live with racism and know what it feels like.
Current and former members of Labor have built valuable relationships that have seen ongoing benefits for Territorians. It would be false to claim otherwise. Nationally, Labor’s relationships with those across the seas have been equally strong and beneficial. We fully understand and embrace opportunities to further those relationships.
I believe many in our community will be very upset with the Chief Minister and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs for their comments, because they know we value our relationships with them. They know they have our support and our friendship, in opposition and in government, and we have proven it with action.
It is easy to make allegations of racism in this House. However, it not only lowers the tone of debate but it makes a mockery of those who experience it every day. It is a cheap political move and the government should know better. Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016